Author: Edoardo Magnone Date: Subject: [NuovoLaboratorio] articolo "Critics slam US over plans to use
riot-control chemicals in the Gulf" da Nature 422, 363 (2003).
Nature 422, 363 (2003); doi:10.1038/422363a
Critics slam US over plans to use riot-control chemicals in the Gulf
JONATHAN KNIGHT
[SAN FRANCISCO] As thousands of US troops poured into Iraq last week, an
argument was breaking out back home about their possible readiness to use
tear-gas or even chemical calming agents during the conflict.
Some military experts argue that riot-control agents could help to reduce
enemy and civilian casualties, particularly if urban warfare breaks out in
the streets of Baghdad. But others contend that the use of chemical agents
would violate the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
These objections were delivered to President George W. Bush and British
Prime Minister Tony Blair in a 20 March letter from interest groups
including the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Physicians for Social
Responsibility. The letter urged the two leaders to outlaw the use of
riot-control agents or calmatives in Iraq.
The topic first surfaced on 5 February, when US defence secretary Donald
Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee that he was looking for
ways to allow commanders in the field to use riot-control agents, and
implied he would seek presidential approval for such measures.
The United States has a legal framework that could permit such action.
After the Vietnam War, the then President, Gerald Ford, ruled that chemical
riot-control agents, such as tear-gas, could be used in certain
circumstances but only with permission from the White House. One such
situation would be to disperse civilians that enemy troops were using as a
human shield.
The White House has not said whether such permission has been sought for
the current conflict. The Pentagon confirms that chemical smoke and pepper
spray have been used in previous conflicts, but declines to say what has
been supplied to units in Iraq.
Some observers contend that US forces are carrying more dangerous calmative
agents, comparable to the gas used to end a siege in a Moscow theatre last
October that resulted in the deaths of over 120 hostages and 41
hostage-takers. "We can document Pentagon research on these agents," says
Edward Hammond of the Sunshine Project, a pressure group based in Austin,
Texas, that opposes the development of chemical weapons. "I think they are
chomping at the bit to use these things," he says.
But the Pentagon denies that such a research programme exists. The
Department of Defense "is not pursuing any chemically or biologically based
incapacitating agents", says a Pentagon spokesman.
Experts also disagree on whether the use of riot-control agents would
violate the CWC. The document's wording covers chemicals that cause
"temporary incapacitation", but its real targets are strongly toxic
substances such as nerve gases, says Jim Lewis, a senior fellow at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC. "It was
poor drafting," he says. "As it stands, it includes the mace on your key
chain."
Furthermore, proponents of calmative agents argue that non-lethal gases
save lives. If enemy soldiers are hiding in a building with civilians, for
example, it is safer to drive everyone out than to go charging in, they
point out.
Objectors counter that the Moscow incident showed that calmatives can be
lethal (see Nature 420, 7; 2002). And some take exception to the use of
milder agents such as tear-gas. Mark Wheelis, a microbiologist at the
University of California, Davis, says that many countries would see the use
of tear-gas to disarm Iraq of chemical weapons as hypocritical. "If the
United States uses riot-control agents, most of the world would consider it
a violation of the CWC," he says.
<html>
<font face="times"><i><br>
Nature</i> <b>422</b>, 363 (2003); doi:10.1038/422363a <br>
</font><font face="times" size=5><b>Critics slam US over plans to use
riot-control chemicals in the Gulf</b></font><font face="times"> <br>
</font><font face="helvetica">JONATHAN KNIGHT <br><br>
</font><font face="times">[SAN FRANCISCO] As thousands of US troops
poured into Iraq last week, an argument was breaking out back home about
their possible readiness to use tear-gas or even chemical calming agents
during the conflict.<br>
Some military experts argue that riot-control agents could help to reduce
enemy and civilian casualties, particularly if urban warfare breaks out
in the streets of Baghdad. But others contend that the use of chemical
agents would violate the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).<br>
These objections were delivered to President George W. Bush and British
Prime Minister Tony Blair in a 20 March letter from interest groups
including the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Physicians for Social
Responsibility. The letter urged the two leaders to outlaw the use of
riot-control agents or calmatives in Iraq.<br>
The topic first surfaced on 5 February, when US defence secretary Donald
Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee that he was looking for
ways to allow commanders in the field to use riot-control agents, and
implied he would seek presidential approval for such measures.<br>
The United States has a legal framework that could permit such action.
After the Vietnam War, the then President, Gerald Ford, ruled that
chemical riot-control agents, such as tear-gas, could be used in certain
circumstances but only with permission from the White House. One such
situation would be to disperse civilians that enemy troops were using as
a human shield.<br>
The White House has not said whether such permission has been sought for
the current conflict. The Pentagon confirms that chemical smoke and
pepper spray have been used in previous conflicts, but declines to say
what has been supplied to units in Iraq.<br>
Some observers contend that US forces are carrying more dangerous
calmative agents, comparable to the gas used to end a siege in a Moscow
theatre last October that resulted in the deaths of over 120 hostages and
41 hostage-takers. "We can document Pentagon research on these
agents," says Edward Hammond of the Sunshine Project, a pressure
group based in Austin, Texas, that opposes the development of chemical
weapons. "I think they are chomping at the bit to use these
things," he says.<br>
But the Pentagon denies that such a research programme exists. The
Department of Defense "is not pursuing any chemically or
biologically based incapacitating agents", says a Pentagon
spokesman.<br>
Experts also disagree on whether the use of riot-control agents would
violate the CWC. The document's wording covers chemicals that cause
"temporary incapacitation", but its real targets are strongly
toxic substances such as nerve gases, says Jim Lewis, a senior fellow at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC.
"It was poor drafting," he says. "As it stands, it
includes the mace on your key chain."<br>
Furthermore, proponents of calmative agents argue that non-lethal gases
save lives. If enemy soldiers are hiding in a building with civilians,
for example, it is safer to drive everyone out than to go charging in,
they point out.<br>
Objectors counter that the Moscow incident showed that calmatives can be
lethal (see Nature 420, 7; 2002). And some take exception to the use of
milder agents such as tear-gas. Mark Wheelis, a microbiologist at the
University of California, Davis, says that many countries would see the
use of tear-gas to disarm Iraq of chemical weapons as hypocritical.
"If the United States uses riot-control agents, most of the world
would consider it a violation of the CWC," he says.<br><br>
</font></html>
