Military Authorized to Use Riot Control Agents in Iraq
President George W. Bush has authorized the use of riot control
agents in Iraq under specific circumstances, such as controlling
rioting civilians, a Pentagon spokesman confirmed April 23. Although
Pentagon officials say that the authorization is legal under U.S.
and international law, many experts say using riot control agents
in a military operation would violate the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC) and offend U.S. allies. (See
ACT, April 2003.)
In 1975, President Gerald Ford signed Executive Order 11850, renouncing
“first use of riot control agents in war except in defensive
military modes to save lives.” (See
ACT, March 2003.) The order calls on the secretary of
defense to ensure the military does not use riot control agents
in war “unless such use has Presidential approval, in advance.”
The order lists four cases in which U.S. troops may use riot control
agents: “in areas under direct and distinct U.S. military control,”
such as to control rioting prisoners of war; in a situation where
hostile forces use civilians “to mask or screen attacks”;
for rescue missions; and “in rear echelon areas outside the
zone of immediate combat to protect convoys from civil disturbances,
terrorists and paramilitary organizations.” The order remains
in effect today.
“There is a very careful process for the decision as to whether
or not riot control agents may be used on the battlefield, requiring
presidential authorization, which may be delegated to the combatant
commander,” W. Hays Parks, special assistant to the Army judge
advocate general, said in a Defense Department briefing April 7.
“But it’s not something that we do lightly,” he added.
Although U.S. troops in Iraq are now operating under rules of engagement
that allow them to use riot control agents under certain circumstances,
those rules do not extend to all coalition forces. British Defense
Secretary Geoffrey Hoon said in a March 27 press conference that
British troops would not use “non-lethal chemical weapons…in
any military operation or on any battlefield.”
The Debate
The British decision not to use riot control agents hints at a significant
difference in interpretation of the CWC between the United States
and many other CWC member states. The treaty, which bans chemical
weapons, allows states-parties to possess riot control agents but
is vague on the legality of their use. The treaty 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.”
The CWC, which entered into force in 1997, bans the use of riot
control agents “as a method of warfare.” However, it allows
the use of “toxic chemicals and their precursors” in “law
enforcement including domestic riot control purposes,” provided
that “the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes.”
The gray area between using riot control agents for domestic law
enforcement and for warfare remains undefined.
The Pentagon argues that using riot control agents in Iraq under
the circumstances allowed by U.S. law would not violate the CWC,
which the United States signed in 1993. In a March 9 written response
to an article in London’s The Independent that criticized
U.S. policy, Victoria Clarke, assistant secretary of defense, said,
“[U]se of these agents for defensive purposes to save lives
would be consistent with the Chemical Weapons Convention, which
prohibits the use of riot control agents as a method of warfare.”
Many arms control experts and, apparently, other CWC member states
disagree. They argue that using riot control agents in Iraq would
undermine the CWC, which is intended to prevent the use of chemical
weapons. Critics say U.S. use of chemical agents would appear hypocritical,
since U.S. leaders cited Iraq’s possession of lethal chemical
agents as a major justification for invading the country. Some experts
also argue that using riot control agents against a military, such
as Iraq’s, that possesses gas masks would only harm civilians
while not affecting enemy soldiers.
In addition to riot control agents, some arms control analysts
had speculated that the United States might use chemical calmatives,
which have a much more serious effect on the body and behavior than
riot control agents. In her response to The Independent,
however, Clarke wrote, “The allegation that the U.S. intends
to use calmative agents in a prospective war with Iraq is absolutely
false.”
|
