The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
First - and let's remember the narrative of events - Obama last year was really, terribly, awfully worried that Syria's chemical weapons would "fall into the wrong hands". In other words, he was frightened they would fall into the hands of al-Qa'ida or the al-Nusra front. Seemingly they were still, at that moment, in the "right hands" - those of the regime of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. But now Obama and the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, have decided that they are in the wrong hands after all, since they are now accusing the "right hands" of firing sarin gas shells at civilians. And that crosses the infamous "red line". [...] Of course, Putin and Lavrov kept clear of references to the Second World War. Russia suffered too grievously from the real Hitler for that. I've said this before, but I really do suspect that leaders who have no experience of war - I am excepting McCain and the indefatigable UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi here - actually thought they were making a Hollywood movie. Kerry's preposterous "unbelievably small" strike is obviously a low budget film for recession-hit America. Obama promises wide-screen drama. Think Steven Spielberg. And then the Russians, who can spot a dead cat when they see one, zap the whole project. [...] Of course, while the inspectors are battering their way through the front lines - if Assad hasn't got all his weapons in Tartous, Banias and Lattakia on the Mediterranean coast, which I suspect - the Syrians continue to kill each other, the Syrian government goes on trying to break the rebels and the Islamist insurgents go on attacking Christian towns and chopping off the heads of captives. Put bluntly, they can use rifles, shells, knives and swords to slaughter each other - but absolutely no sarin. There is something deeply offensive and deeply cynical about all this. Russia re-enters the Middle East, Obama is off the hook after playing World War 2 - and the Syrians go on dying.
[...]
Of course, Putin and Lavrov kept clear of references to the Second World War. Russia suffered too grievously from the real Hitler for that. I've said this before, but I really do suspect that leaders who have no experience of war - I am excepting McCain and the indefatigable UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi here - actually thought they were making a Hollywood movie. Kerry's preposterous "unbelievably small" strike is obviously a low budget film for recession-hit America. Obama promises wide-screen drama. Think Steven Spielberg. And then the Russians, who can spot a dead cat when they see one, zap the whole project.
Of course, while the inspectors are battering their way through the front lines - if Assad hasn't got all his weapons in Tartous, Banias and Lattakia on the Mediterranean coast, which I suspect - the Syrians continue to kill each other, the Syrian government goes on trying to break the rebels and the Islamist insurgents go on attacking Christian towns and chopping off the heads of captives. Put bluntly, they can use rifles, shells, knives and swords to slaughter each other - but absolutely no sarin. There is something deeply offensive and deeply cynical about all this. Russia re-enters the Middle East, Obama is off the hook after playing World War 2 - and the Syrians go on dying.
Put bluntly, they can use rifles, shells, knives and swords to slaughter each other - but absolutely no sarin.
I think this is called The Logic of War. Or something.
It's perfectly fine to kill enemies, as long as you do it with sharp metal, projectiles, and high explosives.
Chemicals, bio-weapons, and nukes are the wrong side of the red line.
Presumably this makes sense to someone out there.
I suppose there's an Argument from Escalation, which is that once someone uses them everyone will and really, really bad things will happen.
Which makes a kind of sense, and is probably true, up to a point.
But still - maybe it's the killing that's the real problem, not the weapons it's being done with.
For nukes, the argument is a little weaker, but not by very much. True, you can make a city go away by firebombing it... but you can't smuggle in a full-scale air raid in a standard twenty-foot shipping container.
But chemical weapons really don't belong in that club. I still haven't heard a convincing argument that choking on sarin is worse than bleeding out from shrapnel, or stepping on a cluster bomb sub-munition, or being shredded by machine gun fire.
I guess I can see how chemical weapons are more indiscriminate than machine guns (as long as you don't sell the machine guns to street gangs pretending to be rebel forces)... but you'd have a really hard time arguing that they're more indiscriminate than air raids. And sarin, unlike cluster bombing, doesn't leave unexploded munitions around for people to enjoy after the cessation of hostilities.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
WWI 1914-1917 Churchill Iraq 1920 WWII Nuremburg Trials Rotterdam-London-Coventry bombing, but Dresden? Israel 1948 - BW typhoid Hanoi 1972 - carpet bombing / agent orange South Africa 1980s - Project Coast Iraq-Iran War 1980s Halabja 1988 Japan - sarin US - anthrax Fallujah 2004 Damascus 2013 'Sapere aude'
Looking at the 1899 and the 1907 Hague Conventions at Wikipedia my overall impression is that they are about the limitation of the destructiveness of wars between major powers. Given that at the time a handful of European powers dominated much of the world and there is no bans on treatment of powers that have not signed the conventions, or civilian natives around the world, it is easy to see these conventions in great part as an attempt to avoid upsetting the colonial world order by the wars between the major powers. Of course, that failed.
Post WWI and its horrors, the chemical ban was reinforced and biological weapons were banned too in 1925. This I think should be seen in relation to the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 to end wars overall. I would say in part keeping the world order, in part genuine horror over the trench warfare.
But today the great powers show great reluctance towards giving up any of their nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Wasn't the 2001 anthrax of US origin?
So I guess the function is to seperate the great powers from the not so great. Sort of like how Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons or by Other New Analogous Methods is now very much allowed for great powers, but not for Khaddafi. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
Frank B. Kellogg - Secretary of State of the United States of America Aristide Briand - Minister for Foreign Affairs of the French Republic
Kellogg-Briand Pact (or Pact of Paris, officially General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy.
So as a result, the Secretary of War changed to Secretary of Defense but the horror of wars and the humiliation of peoples became more refined. Today, after a decade of NeoCon policy a reinvention by "humanitarian hawks" in the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. It's because Barack Obama decided to get his thoughts straight on Middle-East policy during a walk in the White House gardens with close adviser Terry McDonough, he stepped away from the brink of war.
So, today nations don't declare a war on an other nation and an undeclared war cannot end. The battlefield prisoners at Guantanamo Bay can't go free because "hostilities" haven't ended. The military strike on Syria was declared by Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama as not an act of war. After Chechnya (Grozny), Iraq (Fallujah), Israel (Jenin and Gaza) and Syria (Aleppo and Damascus) the global community need to agree to a pact how to approach civil war, terrorists or freedom fighters and a lawful desire for independence by a people. The atrocities in Afghanistan/Pakistan, Iraq and Syria lead to failed states and immense suffering. Terror needs to be stamped out. 'Sapere aude'
Nation-states don't like chemical warfare because a small number of semi-trained or trained chemical weapons technicians and experts can cause a huge amount of disruption and death.
same with nukes, come to think about it...
for wars to be profitable they can't be won too easily. lots of blood and rubble the 'geneva conventions' way, as long as there's an angry young man to sell guns to there's money to be made, same with arming besieged dictators. you don't want these profit machines wars to be 'over', unless you are looking for those fat 'rebuilding' contracts.
oh yes, war is the inevitable result of too much money in too few hands, there's no payoff to peace comparable.
that's why they are so against a green economy, it decentralises power, literally as well as metaphorically. any monopolist's nemesis!
cook the planet for quick profits... when people can't afford to pay the rentier class for the privilege of staying alive, then war is what happens, by hook and by crook. consume what and as we wish, or die!
nice planet, pity about most of the gulled inhabitants. 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 14 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 56 comments
by Oui - Aug 18 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 12 25 comments
by Oui - Sep 8
by Oui - Sep 7
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 41 comment
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 314 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 114 comments
by Oui - Sep 176 comments
by Oui - Sep 11 comment
by gmoke - Aug 29
by Oui - Aug 2818 comments
by Oui - Aug 271 comment
by Oui - Aug 262 comments
by Oui - Aug 2626 comments