|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Chemical Incapacitants Must Be Kept From War, Experts Say By Chris Schneidmiller
Such weapons could also add complications to an already critical situation, said Peter Herby, head of the Mines-Arms Unit at the International Committee of the Red Cross. Herby and other panelists also questioned the safety of the incapacitating agents themselves, pointing to the deaths of 117 civilians exposed to a gas in 2002 as Russian authorities tried to end the standoff at a Moscow theater (see GSN, Sept. 29, 2003). “The term ‘nonlethal’ is misleading, since all of these gases can be lethal if the concentration is sufficiently high and the time of exposure sufficiently long,” said Patricia Lewis, director of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, quoting the June 2006 report.issued by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission on which she served (see GSN, June 2). Incapacitating agents were among dozens of WMD issues considered by the commission. “There is an increasing interest among some governments to adopt a more flexible interpretation of the CWC rules in the use of incapacitating chemical weapons, even as a method of warfare, in order to be able to use them in diverse situations,” the report states (see GSN, Nov. 11, 2005). “Such an interpretation, in the view of the commission, would constitute a dangerous erosion of the fundamental ban on chemical weapons that the authors of the convention intended.” Panelists said that a number of countries are considering developing this capacity, though they declined to identify specific states. This interest has risen alongside research into new forms of incapacitating agents designed to cause loss of consciousness, nausea, pain, confusion or other debilitating effects, according to the Scientists Working Group on CBW at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, which organized the discussion. The Chemical Weapons Convention allows for use of riot control agents — chemicals such as tear gas that “can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure” — by law enforcement. It allows for military use of chemical agents only for “purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare.” The commission, led by former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix addressed the seeming contradiction in allowing the use of tear gas against civilians but not in warfare. Tear gas is designed to prevent use of guns in riot situations, while on the battlefield gases have been used to drive soldiers into the path of gunfire or explosives. Using riot control agents in warfare also could lead to a response involving use of more dangerous chemicals, the report said. Herby labeled incapacitating agents as toxic chemicals and posed several questions regarding their use. There is no assurance that their use would not cause significant numbers of deaths, he said. People exposed to a gas might also suffer long-term health effects. It remains unknown whether soldiers would be able to recognize that their target has been rendered harmless, or determine if that person is wounded or attempting to surrender, Herby said. “If it’s not clear that a person is completely incapacitated they will also be subject to the means of conventional warfare,” he said. The danger also encompasses the people using the gas. It might take several minutes for the agent to take effect, allowing time for the target to respond violently, Herby said. The Blix commission called on member nations to the Chemical Weapons Convention to ban the use of toxic chemicals in warfare. Possession of such materials must be declared under Article 3 of the treaty, it said. Herby urged CWC states parties to clarify which chemicals, other than riot control agents, are allowed under the treaty’s exception for law enforcement. They should require that all chemicals maintained under that exception be publicly declared, he said. Former CWC negotiator Walter Krutzsch argued that the treaty forbids law enforcement agencies from using any incapacitating materials beyond riot control agents. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the treaty’s monitoring body, would follow the guidelines set by states parties on this issue, said spokesman Peter Kaiser. There was no immediate response from delegates to the convention regarding the issue.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
