|
    
                         Website in Spanish       Website in Portuguese coming soon
Member Area

Nonproliferation for Global Security Foundation - NPSGlobal

Friday
Mar 29th
Home
PDF Print E-mail
Share

The Use of Chemical Weapons and the Conscience of the International Community

O Globo
Ronaldo Sardenberg and Sergio Duarte

September, 2013

A decision by the United States, with the support of France, to carry out a limited “punitive” attack against the Syrian regime of Bashar Al-Assad, accused of using chemical weapons against rebels in his country, seems imminent. The Syrian president, however, denies the allegations and says that such weapons were used by the rebels themselves.

The use of chemical weapons is indeed repugnant to the conscience of humanity. In 1925 an international Convention prohibited the use of asphyxiating gases, which had been employed in World War I. In 1997, a new Convention outlawed the manufacture, stockpiling and use of any kind of chemical weapons and its Parties undertook to destroy their existing stocks. Most stocks are being destroyed under international verification. Syria possesses the largest arsenals among the very few countries that have not yet decided to join the Convention.

According to Presidents Barack Obama and François Hollande there is concluding evidence that the Syrian regime has in fact conducted attacks with chemical weapons against civilian populations, including women and children. Such evidence, however, has not been made public. The two Presidents stated their willingness to initiate military action and have asked the support of their respective Parliaments. The British Parliament, for its part, denied similar permission to Prime Minister David Cameron.

The inspectors appointed by the United Nations have not yet completed the report of the activities they carried out in Damascus last week. All over the world many voices raised moral and humanitarian concerns. To justify the attack, Presidents Obama and Hollande invoked mainly national security considerations as well as the need to prevent such weapons from falling in the hands of terrorists.

The institutional course of action at the disposal of the international community is the United Nations Security Council, the organ charged with determining the existence of threats to international peace and security and deciding the measures to be taken, including military intervention. The Charter of the United Nations only admits unilateral action in the exercise of self-defense against armed aggression. However, Russia and China – which, as well as the United States, France and the United Kingdom are permanent members of the Council and have veto power – expressed doubts about the convenience of military action in Syria and may be inclined to prevent a decision of the organ to that effect. The supporters of “punishment” would be left with recourse to unilateral action, in defiance of international law as enshrined in the Charter and in international customary law.

Lately, several world leaders have recommended caution in dealing with the Syrian crisis. Six Nobel Peace Prize laureates exhorted the United States to make use of the world legal system through the International Criminal Court, headquartered in Rome. Suggestions to reactivate the negotiations for peace in Syrian, also known as Geneva II have been made. Another option could be strong pressure to universalize the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention. Former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan condemned any military solution for the crisis. For his part, current Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon argued that it is necessary to wait for the report of the UN inspectors who went to Syria to verify in loco the truth about the allegations of use of chemical weapons. The Brazilian government had a similar reaction and reiterated the need to follow the norms of international law.

Many commentators warn that the consequences of a military response would be unpredictable and could lead to an escalation of violent confrontations. On the other hand, in the absence of legitimization by the Security Council unilateral armed action would cause loss of prestige of the United Nations and heighten the climate of uncertainty and instability in the world at large.

There is undoubtedly a need for a firm and decisive response by the international community to the use of chemical weapons in any circumstances, particularly against civilians – but not from a single country or group of countries self-appointed as guardians of international morals The response, however, should not take the form of bombs, missiles and unmanned drones since for this purpose we have the institutions that the international community succeeded in building at the cost of great sacrifice, following two devastating world wars. And the path opened to the Security Council leads necessarily to the consideration of the report to be released in the next few days by the United Nations inspectors.


* Ronaldo Sardenberg and Sergio Duarte are Brazilian diplomats and members of the Latin American Network for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation

Back

 
Follow us on