News
 International
   Global Views
   Asia-Pacific
   America
   Europe
   Middle East & Africa
 National
 Embassy News
 Arts & Living
 Business
 Travel & Hotel
 Medical Tourism New
 Taekwondo
 Media
 Letters to Editor
 Photo Gallery
 News Media Link
 TV Schedule Link
 News English
 Life
 Hospitals & Clinics
 Flea Market
 Moving & Packaging
 Religious Service
 Korean Classes
 Korean Weather
 Housing
 Real Estate
 Home Stay
 Room Mate
 Job
 English Teaching
 Translation/Writing
 Job Offered/Wanted
 Business
 Hotel Lounge
 Foreign Exchanges
 Korean Stock
 Business Center
 PR & Ads
 Entertainment
 Arts & Performances
 Restaurants & Bars
 Tour & Travel
 Shopping Guide
 Community
 Foreign Missions
 Community Groups
 PenPal/Friendship
 Volunteers
 Foreign Workers
 Useful Services
 ST Banner Exchange
  Global Views
Op-Ed Special
Mariupol: Let's Talk About "Chemical Weapons" Propaganda
Special Contribution
By Thomas L. Knapp
the Ukrainian city of Mariupol attacked by Russia
As I write this, BBC reports that UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss is "urgently" investigating reports of a chemical weapons attack in the Ukrainian city of Mariupol. The US Department of Defense finds the reports "deeply concerning."

Usually when the western governments start quacking about "chemical attacks," it means they're planning to take action of some kind — airstrikes in Syria, sanctions on Russia, what have you — and are looking for an excuse.

This doesn't look like an exception to that rule: Further down in the story, Ukrainian Deputy Defence Minister Hanna Maliar identifies the likely weapon as "phosphorous ammunition."

That would most likely be white phosphorous, an element not classed as a chemical weapon under the Chemical Weapons Convention. It's used as a component in smoke, illumination, incendiary, and tracer rounds for everything from small arms to large artillery, as well as in grenades, by most major militaries on Earth.

In theory, it's illegal to use white phosphorous to attack "personnel," but acceptable to use it on "equipment."

That's a pretty big loophole. As an 81mm mortarman in the US Marine Corps, I often trained on what we called "shake and bake" missions, involving a mix of white phosphorous and high explosive rounds. The justification? We would be firing at the enemy's "equipment." That would include their uniforms, canteens, etc. If they chose to stay with that "equipment," well, that was their problem.

If the weapon in question is indeed white phosphorous, calling the incident a "chemical" attack is neither legally accurate nor novel. It's nasty stuff — it burns incredibly hot and water won't put it out — but it's been in wide use since World War One. Including, probably, by both sides in the Ukrainian conflict.

In truth, chemical weapons aren't especially useful on the modern battlefield. Soldiers of all nations carry, and are trained to use, protective gear. Such weapons have some utility in short-term "territory denial" — making the enemy not want to enter a given space for fear of exposure. They're not a game-changer, though. And, with one exception, most regimes won't use them precisely because the effects aren't worth the negative reactions.

That exception is CS, commonly known as "tear gas."

Unlike white phosphorous, "tear gas" IS banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can't legally be used on the battlefields of international conflicts.

But most regimes, including the US government, freely use it on "their own people" (another phrase often used in pre-escalation propaganda) to break up protests, flush out suspects in standoffs with police, etc.

CS, which is highly flammable, was the agent used in the US government's fiery 1993 massacre of 76 Branch Davidians, including 25 children, near Waco, Texas.

The US also retains stockpiles of deadlier agents, which it agreed by treaty in 1997 to destroy by 2007. What's the holdup?

Given the American government's own retention of several actual chemical weapons and frequent, even casual, use of another, calling a supposed white phosphorous attack in a war zone "deeply concerning" comes off as, at best, insincere and opportunistic.



Related Articles
    Imperial Delusion Is the Enemy of Peace and ...
    Electric Cars: Great Idea, But Not a Panacea
    Circumcision: Pope Francis States the Obvious, ...
    Powell Lied, People Died: Justice Delayed Was ...
    "No First Use": An Empty Gesture That Would ...
    Facebook Gives the Most Dangerous Extremists a ...
    Wuhan Lab Leak: It's Not a "Theory"
    About That "Rules-Based International Order"
    A Biden-Putin Summit: Jaw-Jaw is Better than ...
    Joe Biden Reaffirms Washington's Message to ...
    "Vaccine Passports" and the Holocaust: An ...
    Same as the Old Boss, Julian Assange Edition
    Biden's Iran Dilemma: Serve Obama's Third Term ...
    COVID-19: The Way the Music Died?
    How Joe Biden Can Score a Major Foreign Policy ...
    Trump Regime vs. the ICC: The Wrong Side of ...
    Stop Blaming Russia, China for US Disarmament ...
    NATO is a Brain Dead, Obsolete, Rabid Dog! ...
    North Korea Nuclear Freeze? Finally, a ...
    US War on Iran: Evil, Stupid, Self-Damaging
    US Should Stop Meddling in Spratly Dispute
    John Bolton Vs. International Criminal Court: ...
    Syria: Is Trump Finally Putting America First?
    Some Questions from the Edge of Immortality
    More Korean War Is "Worth It?" To Whom?
    A Korean Spring after the Winter Olympics Is ...
    Microsoft Corp. vs. United States: Jeff ...


The above writer, Thomas L. Knapp, (Twitter: @thomaslknapp), is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

 

back

 

 

 

The Seoul Times, Shinheung-ro 36ga-gil 24-4, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Korea 04337 (ZC)
Office: 82-10-6606-6188 Email:seoultimes@gmail.com
Copyrights 2000 The Seoul Times Company  ST Banner Exchange