The BBC website has quite a good round-up on the WP issue. It was originally posted on November 16, and updated November 22. Crucially, the writer there quotes Peter Kaiser, the spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, as saying this:
- “If … the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons.”
The OPCW is the international body charged with implementing the 1994 Chemical Weapons Convention. You can find the relevant Article from the CWC’s text, Art. II, here. It reads in part:
- For the purposes of this Convention:
1. “Chemical Weapons” means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
2. “Toxic Chemical” means:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
Clearly, Peter Kaiser had been telling the Beeb that the caustic quality of WP does constitute such a “chemical action.”
Para 9 of Article II of the CWC includes this clarification of para 1 (a) above:
- 9. “Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention” means:
(a) …
(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;
So that would mean that use of WP for “indirect” military applications like battlefield illumination or the generation of a “smokescreen” are permitted under the CWC. Use of WP as a caustic agent on the bodies of any person, whether combatant or noncombatant, would not be.
Thanks, Helena. Perhaps this will put a cap on the rather Orwellian debate on this blog about what constitutes a chemical weapon.
Sort of like arguing that waterboarding isn’t really torture.
Headline of the article: Weapon On The Edge. The BBC denied the use of white phosphorus as long as the Pentagon did. Reason: their embedded journalist, Paul Wood, hadn’t seen anything. End of story. When even the Pentagon couldn’t deny the use of White phosphorus any longer, the BBC changed course. And changing course meant nothing more than saying that the episode was “a public relations disaster” for the Americans.
And even now they don’t dare to call a spade a spade. It’s still not a chemical weapon. It’s a “Weapon On The Edge”.
Despicable cowards, that’s what they are, the BBC.
Um, Menno, I think sometimes we have to be thankful for even small mercies from a big MSM organization like the BBC? In the present case, their solicitation and use of the Peter Kaiser quote. (Even if the portion of his longer quote that they chose to highlight in a box there was the “on the other hand” portion of it.)
Also, the description of WP as “on the edge” is in a sense not inaccurate… I would prefer the term “cross-over weapon”, or “dual-use weapon”, myself, since it is clear to me that WP can be used in ways that the CWC allows (i.e. in ways that do not depend on its direct toxic effects on persons)– or it can be used in ways that are prohibited (i.e. that rely on its directly caustic/toxic effect on the human body.)
As Art. II, 1 makes clear, the intention of the commander using a suspect chemical agent in warfare is a crucial aspect of whether this use is prohibited or allowed. I.e. if the unit commander intends to use WP only for illumination or as a smoescreen, but some of it happens to fall on humans (or animals) then that would not necessarily be forbidden. (Though commanders also do have a positive duty to avoid “collateral” damage associated with their warfighting operations.)
If the intention has nothing to do with such presumably permitted uses, but depends on the direct effects of the WP on human persons, than that is prohibited. The Field Artillery mag’s description of what these units did in Fallujah last year– “using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out”– would seem to be in that category…. Also, the comment that they could have “saved our WP for lethal missions” indicates that they felt quite free to use it in a lethal way.
Darrin Mortenson’s account, cited in the Beeb piece, is also important: “they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call ‘shake ‘n bake’ into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.”
In other words, this seemed to him to be like a practised “drill” that was repeated over and over, and they were firing the WP + HE mixture directly INTO buildings where they knew there were people (combatants).
CWC prohibitions apply to the nature of the chemical agent used and the intent with which it is used. They notably do NOT depend on whether those harmed by it are combatants or noncombatants. The point is a blanket prohibition on weapons that cause unnecessary suffering to persons. So the whole question of whether those harmed by WP in Fallujah were combatants or noncombatants is, under the CWC prohibitions, quite irrelevant.
I should add here that the CWC came into force in 1997, and the US was a founding signatory.
As part of the US’s obligations under the CWC, the US Congress had to enact legislation that embedded the provisions of the CWC into the US legal code, which it did through the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. All the definitions spelled out in Art. II of the CWC were incorporated as a body into Sec. 3 of this Act….
Uh-oh, this likes a whole new post coming up here…
But isn’t all this true of napalm too? Only when it is used against people it becomes a chemical weapon. If the American army was catched using napalm against people no one would hesitate to call it a chemical weapon (because of its Vietnam fame). White phosphorus, used against people, seems to have more or less the same effect as napalm. Therefore it is as immoral to use White Phosphorus against people as it would be to use Napalm. And concerning the legal status of White Phosphorus: as far as I understand it (which isn’t very far, to be honest), the legal differences between Napalm and White Phosphorus are minor. Neither Napalm nor White Phosphorus as such is a chemical weapon.
About the BBC: they follow, as much as they can, the ‘official line’. This Media Alert from the good folks of Media Lens (a media watch group) is quite revealing.
The soldiers referred to WP as a psychological weapon, and said that after they used the WP, they had to use regular artillery on the same targets to take them out. This argues against either an incendiary or a caustic mode of operation for WP, but rather to using WP as smoke generator.
Smoke, blocking vision, while you are being pounded by artillery that otherwise doesn’t get to you, could be a potent psychological weapon.
Well, WarrenW, I believe the operative phrase here is “what a crock!”.
Shirin
See my post on the other WP page Helena created. More detail.
But really, why a “Crock?”