For english and american readers an interesting article about the battle of Falluja, white phosphorous and the Italian left inside the mainstream media.
Ciao.
Thanks to my friends Wellington and M+ of Two Twins

A FAREWELL TO (CHEMICAL) ARMS

Rainews24 – as many probably remember — announced its reportage “Falluja: the hidden mas­sacre” boasting the unveiling of the use of “chemical weapons” by the U.S. Military in Iraq.

It didn’t take long to the rest of the world to remind Rainews that white phosphorous is not – and it has never been defined – a chemical weapon, it is rather a common kind of military ordnance used by all armies especially in illuminants, smoke or signalling systems, and also as an incendiary (even though the latter use is increasingly sporadic). In particular it has been pointed out that WP is not banned by any international treaty: even the Convention on Prohibition or Restriction on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons does not ban it.

This aspect is particularly important because the III Protocol of the same Convention (that has never been ratified by USA) categorically forbids the use of incendiary weapons against civilians, but recognizes the legitimacy of “munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems”.

Since then, Rainews tried to justify its assertion on the ground of two new elements:

1) a Pentagon’s declas­sified document available on the internet in which the WP used by Saddam Hussein’s Army in 1991 against internal opposition is defined as a “chemical weapon”.
2) and Peter Keiser’s, the spokesman of the International Agency for the Control on the Convention on Chemical Weapons, opinion who declared that a certain use of WP violates the same Convention.

But the declas­sified document does not really define WP a “chemical weapon” as argued by Rainews24. Indeed, the principal role of the whole document was not to “define”, but to literally refer eyewitnes­ses’ reports of refugees from Iraq. It was they who did define (improperly) WP a chemical weapon, not the Pentagon. This is immediately clear to the reader of the report since he is warned in capital letters that “THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE”.

It is then worthy to take notice that on the very same website from which it is pos­sible to download this report, there is another similar document which defines WP an “incendiary”; a glos­sary which drastically excludes incendiary and smoke system from the category of “chemical warfare agents”; a training document of the Iraqi Army (under Saddam rule) that defines WP a smoke system; and a reply of the military intelligence to a request of a US Congress­man that does not include WP in the list of Saddam Hussein’s arsenal of chemical weapons. Strange as it seems, Rainews24 relied only on the first report and forgot to notice all the others.

Now, consider Peter Keiser’s words. He said that:

“if the toxic or caustic properties of white phosphorous are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited. The way the convention is structured, or the way it is in fact applyed, any chemical that is used against humans or against animals that causes harm or that through the toxic properties of the chemical, are considered chemical weapons. So it doesn’t matter what substance we are talking about, as long as the purpose is to cause arm through toxic properties, that is prohibited behaviour”.

Since Keiser works for the OPCW, of course his expertise on the issue is out of question, but in reading his assertion many doubts arise.

First of all it is worthy to remember that, as Keiser states, the Convention does not define WP a chemical weapon. It is sufficient to surf on the web-site of the OPCW and do the following: “Chemical Weapons Protection and Assistance—What is a Chemical Weapon—Types of chemical weapons—Nerve Agents”, then “Mustard Agents”, then “Hydrogen Cynide”, then “Arsines”, then “Psychtromimetic Agents”, then “Toxins”, then “Potential Chemical Weapons” and the last but not the least “History of Chemical weapons”. In none of them the White Phosphorous is cited.

Keiser argues that WP is banned if its “caustic” effects (we assume he means “incendiary effects”) are used as an offensive weapon. But Convention on Chemical Weapons states that:

“Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.”

Is Keiser mistaken?

Concerning smoke effects of WP, in the same page the Convention states that:

“Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not clas­sed as a chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use.”

Definitely the Convention asserts that:

“Chemicals can be used for military purposes, even as weapons, as long as the pre­dominant effect from use of the weapon is not toxicity vis-à-vis humans or animals.”

And we might suppose it is just what Keiser meant. In this case, by using the smoke effect of the WP, which provokes temporary irritation to the eyes, nose or throat and sometimes a convulsive cough, in order to smoke insurgents out of their positions, the U.S. Army did in fact violate the treaty. But honestly, it doesn’t look all that much of a violation. Surely not big enough to justify a title like “the U.S. used chemical weapons in Falluja”.

Furthermore the Convention seems a bit contradictory: it bans the use as a weapon of any chemical with toxic effects, but allows the use of “poisonous” smoke screens and, in contradiction with Keiser’s statement on WP, does not “class” them as chemical weapons. Save that the prohibition of the use of chemicals for offensive goals thinks about, let’s say, throwing a container full of corrosive acid against the enemy, while the part allowing the use of any smoke screens includes WP smoke too.

Again: is Keiser mistaken?

Everything becomes a little a matter of cavilling, it takes a legal expert to say the final word, and I’m not one.

Let alone juridical aspects, the fact is that Rainews24 keeps using Keiser’s words to assert that WP becomes a chemical weapon if it is used to smoke somebody out of his hiding (Sigfrido Ranucci, the author of the reportage, asserted just that last Nov. 23 as a guest of the Italian TV program Otto e Mezzo), which I think is just a crafty play­ing with words.

In the same Convention the use of tear gas is banned, unless (talk about cavilling) you are deploy­ing it against a civilians or war-prisoners’ riot. But who in his right mind would ever argue that the tear gas used by police officers of all nations is a chemical weapon if in violation of the CWC it was used against enemy troops in battle?

Besides, the smoke of WP is likely to be less dangerous then a tear gas such as CN or CS.

To smoke the enemy out of his hidings is not the same as spray­ing blistering agents on him, this is elementary common sense.

If in the “shake&bake” tactic had been used common artillery smoke shells containing hexachloroethane (also slightly toxic), would we be talking about “chemical weapons”? Come on…

My personal feeling is that Rainews24 instead of admitting the initial fallacy of calling the WP a “chemical weapon”, is digging his heels in in order to avoid the accuse of lack of profes­sionality or bias, fearing it would compromise the credibility of the whole reportage.

Funnily enough, in defending the initial assertion that WP is a “chemical weapon” in order to avoid looking silly, Rainews24 is in fact shooting in his feet. If WP is a chemical weapon only when used to “smoke out” someone, as Keiser asserted, then, it cannot be responsible of “mas­sacres” of any sort, just because smoke does not kill.

PS: In the meantime Jeff Englehart, the U.S.Army veteran interviewed by Rainews24 has started to claim he was set up by Rainews and his words were manipulated.

Written by Wellington — The Anti­hero and trans­lated by M+ of Two Twins.