The Paradox of Chemical Warfare Agreements
The top story on Google News today criticizes Israel’s usage of White Phosphorus (WP) shells over populated areas in Gaza. Like most non-military civilians of internationally powerhouse governments, I have little clue as to what WP shells really are. Beyond the fact that they kill innocent people and that my government has been criticized for using them in our most recent embarrassment (or insert any other word of disgust here), the Iraq war, I know little about their chemical makeup and what causes the “incendiary smoke” that turns normal innocent city blocks into raging infernos of death and destruction.
Regardless of their composition, they are supposed to be restricted by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). According to everybody’s favorite online encyclopedia, the CWC is “an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.” Only nine countries are not part of the agreement, the most influential of which being Israel, North Korea, Somalia and Syria. According to the CWC, there are five countries with declared stockpiles, one of which is the US. The US is also the top financial contributor, donating in excess of twenty billion dollars to the cause.
Despite our involvement in the peace keeping effort, the US was using WP in Iraq. And Israel was using it in Gaza. Everybody knows about our relationship with Israel. Any ignorant civilian like myself can make the connection.
So what is the point of the CWC if the top contributor to the cause does not even follow it? What motivation do other nations have to join the cause?
The point seems incredibly hypocritical and greedy. The US government does not want anyone but themselves to have stockpiles of chemical weapons. That is how you hold power. Most leaders believe if their government was to destroy their weapons and “lead by example,” another country would take their place. Unfortunately, it seems that all of the world’s most powerful government are greedy for weapons and power, so maybe we’re right in that assumption. Also, banning them does little but keep the weapons in the hands of the most powerful, who are free to use them as they please.
This is not to say that we use them lightly. I do not read WP headlines daily in the news. But any usage is bad enough. Unfortunately, arms agreements do little for the problem, because who has the right to serve justice except the most powerful? The US disobeyed the UN by invading Iraq, and what justice has been served? We’re not about to hang our leaders; after all, that would be catastrophic for our morale.
It’s the way of the world for an innocent civilian like myself to have no say in international politics. I do not possess the knowledge or cut-throat political savvy of a political leader, I’m too busy trying to pay the bills and the rent, and I lack the charisma required to learn the art. I just sit back, wish the world wasn’t so cruel and pray that things will change.