U.S. Grapples with Use of Nonlethal Agents
Picture yourself commanding U.S. forces entering Baghdad. As you
march through the streets, you encounter Iraqi mobs armed with stones
and two-by-fours exacting revenge against Baath party members or
venting their anger against your troops. There might be combatants
mixed in with civilians. Your orders are to secure the area with
minimum civilian casualties while also protecting your soldiers.
If you could choose between firing bullets into the crowd, charging
with police batons, or temporarily incapacitating them with chemical
agents, what would you do?
To many Pentagon officials, the appeal of such nonlethal chemical
agents is obvious. Yet, the wisdom of using nonlethal chemical weapons
is far from clear. Critics contend that so-called nonlethal chemical
weapons are nearly as lethal as well-known killers, such as grenades
and artillery. They argue that their use would undermine the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC), which bans chemical weapons and requires
their destruction. And they warn that much of the world would see
U.S. use of riot control agents or stronger nonlethal chemical agents
as hypocritical, since the Bush administration cites Iraqi possession
and use of deadly chemical weapons as one of its primary reasons
for overthrowing President Saddam Hussein. Much of the debate revolves
around different legal interpretations of the CWC and U.S. law.
The use of chemical nonlethal weapons is sure to be a subject of
discussion in The Hague, where delegations from around the world
will gather April 28-May 9 for the first CWC review conference.
It is unclear whether any state-party to the treaty will raise the
issue at the conference, but many nongovernmental organizations
are encouraging states to discuss the legality of using riot control
agents and other incapacitating chemicals in military operations.
The Pros and Cons
The basic argument for using nonlethal chemical agents is that
military commanders and soldiers often have only two options in
conflict: kill or be killed. Drawing on the U.S. military experience
in places such as Somalia and the former Yugoslavia, proponents
argue that there are times when the military should have an alternative—something
that temporarily incapacitates hostile forces or civilians without
killing them.
Nonlethal weapons, according to the 1996 Department of Defense
directive that established the department’s policies on nonlethal
weapons, “are explicitly designed and primarily employed so
as to incapacitate personnel or materiel, while minimizing fatalities,
permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property
and the environment.” There are various types of nonlethal
weapons, including rubber bullets, electromagnetic weapons, sticky
foam, and chemical agents. Development and use of chemical agents
designed to incapacitate people is particularly controversial.
One military option is using riot control agents to disperse crowds.
The CWC defines riot control agents as chemicals that “can
produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical
effects which disappear within a short time following termination
of exposure.”
Another nonlethal weapon the military might consider is chemical
incapacitants such as the fentanyl derivative used to rescue hostages
in a Moscow theater last October, which have more severe effects,
such as loss of consciousness, and are longer lasting and more likely
to cause fatalities. A general rule of thumb for understanding the
difference between riot control and other chemical incapacitating
agents is that riot control agents are designed to cause irritation
and disperse a crowd while other chemical incapacitants, such as
calmatives, are designed to incapacitate a person completely so
that they could not run away.
With the need for a military alternative to killing in mind, Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Congress February 5 that he was
working to find ways to allow troops to use riot control agents
without breaking any laws. In addition, the National Research Council,
a private organization that provides services to the government,
issued a report in November 2002 that recommended giving development
of nonlethal weapons, including chemical incapacitants, a higher
priority.
Some experts, however, question the claim that chemical incapacitants
are less lethal than conventional weapons. They note that the gas
Russian forces used to knock out Chechen militants and their hostages
in Moscow defeated the captors but also killed at least 127 of about
750 hostages—nearly 17 percent. (See
ACT, November 2002.) A 2003 Federation of American Scientists
paper concluded that an “exceptionally safe” agent “delivered
under ideal conditions to a uniformly healthy population” would
kill 9 percent of those it sought to incapacitate. Under more realistic
conditions, more people would die, since civilian populations would
include many people in less than perfect health. By contrast, the
FAS paper noted, the lethality of artillery in combat is 20 percent
and is 10 percent for fragmentation grenades.
Debating Legality under the CWC
As the CWC review conference nears, arms control advocates are
hoping to advance another key criticism of using chemical incapacitants
in Iraq or other battlefields: that it would violate the treaty.
The CWC is somewhat murky on the issue of using such agents beyond
domestic law enforcement. One provision bans the possession and
use of chemical weapons but allows the use of “toxic chemicals
and their precursors” in “law enforcement including domestic
riot control purposes.” Another provision allows states-parties
to possess “riot control agents” but bans their use “as
a method of warfare.” (See
ACT, March 2003.)
Therefore, a gray area between using nonlethal chemical agents
for domestic law enforcement and for warfare remains undefined.
U.S. officials argue that overseas peace-support missions fall under
the rubric of law enforcement, therefore allowing the use of riot
control and, possibly, stronger chemical incapacitants. But critics
contend that the United States is the only country that considers
it legal under the CWC to use chemical agents overseas.
Some critics have expressed particular concern that the United
States would use such agents in Iraq. The debate will continue over
the legal, moral, and military aspects of using nonlethal chemical
agents. The issue, however, might be decided on the battlefield.
|
