Syria crisis: why chemical gas is warfare’s ‘red line’
Almost 100,000 people have died as a result of Syria’s two year conflict. Why did it take the suspicion of chemical gas for the west to consider intervention? Channel 4 News reports.
As politicians were trading words across debating chambers and airwaves, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) last week put out a release saying that suffering of civilians in Syria had reached “unprecedented levels”.
Over 100,000 people have reportedly been killed, 4.25m people have been internally displaced and 1.6m have fled the country. Those who are left face shortages of medical supplies, food and water.
But it was the 21 August suspected chemical weapon attack that killed an estimated 1,429 people (according to the US) which marked the sea change in foreign policy towards the Middle Eastern country.
After months of condemnation and outrage, why did a chemical weapon attack signal the prospect of military intervention?
Read more from Lindsey Hilsum: Democracy won, now what about Syria?
Legality of warfare
The use of the extremely deadly sarin gas was named as US President Barack Obama’s “red line” almost a year to the day before the footage of the suspected use of sarin emerged.
The impact of poison gas is horrific and fatal. Those exposed to the nerve agent can die within 15 minutes of exposure and there have been suspicions of its use in Syria before the 21 August attack.
And Mr Obama’s absolutist position against it is backed up by international law and the United Nations. The 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in war.
This was reinforced by the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, which aimed to “eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction,” and forced countries involved to destroy all of their production facilities.
Only five of the world’s countries did not sign the pledge: North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan, Angola – and yes, Syria. However it is still bound by the earlier 1925 protocol.
National psyche
Arguably as important as legislation, the use of gas in warfare played a huge role in our psychological response to warfare in WW1: it forms the basis of John Singer Sargent’s Gassed (see image above) and is described by Wilfred Owen in his famous poem, Dulce et Decorum Est:
“In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.”
Even Hitler thought the use of gas in warfare was crossing the line (though he did not see a problem in using it in concentration camps). And it was the British who helped lead the charge against the use of chemical gas after 10,000 British soldiers were gassed in WW1, James Rubin, a former US assistant secretary of state, told Channel 4 News.
Previous punishment?
But the moral – and practical – response to the use of chemical weapons has not always been so clear cut.
It was used by Egypt in the Yemeni civil war in 1967. And Saddam Hussein also used chemical weapons in 1988 during Iraq’s war against Iran – a crime that not only went unpunished, but that the US knew about in advance, according to Foreign Policy magazine. It also says that the US supplied Hussein with intelligence to assist its Iran attacks – and that this helped “tilt the war in Iraq’s favour, and bring Iran to the negotiating table”.
Another allegation which muddies the ethical waters somewhat, is that the UK government allowed a British company to sell materials that can be used to make chemical weapons to Syria. The department for business, innovation and skills said that although permits were approved, the substances were not sent to Syria before permits were revoked in July 2012 as part of EU sanctions. But a report from MPs raised concerns over the sale of sodium flouride, and the approval of export licences.
“The scale of the extant strategic licences to…countries of human rights concern puts into stark relief the inherent conflict between the government’s arms exports and human rights policies,” said Sir John Stanley, chairman of the Commons committee on arms exports controls.
No-one denies the use of poison gas is an horrific abuse of human rights. What has changed is our attitude to intervention and perception of appropriate response.
Those who supported the vote against intervention in Syria say that launching an attack as punishment for its use is not strategically sensible, in that there is no specific, long-term objective. As historian and war correspondent Max Hastings, who agreed with the UK’s vote against intervention, told Channel 4 News: “We cannot just talk in emotional cliches, we have to be realistic.”
So what is the alternative to military intervention in the wake of a chemical weapon attack? That has yet to be realised.