The very likely use of Sarin gas by the Syrian military in
an attack on rebel-held territory killed some 1400 people, many of them children
and women who had no active role in the civil war. The targeting of civilian populations,
whether by conventional bombs, atomic bombs, or gas warfare is a crime against
humanity, justified by the user with utilitarian ethics claiming it prevents an
even greater loss of life if such a show of force is not used. The one thing Churchill, Stalin, Hitler, and Roosevelt
agreed on in WWII was the use of utilitarian ethics to justify their bombings
of civilians in cities and rationalizing the losses as collateral damage.
Why was chemical warfare singled out after WWI as a banned
weapon system? Gas attacks are difficult
to target and wind shifts can cause them to shift to civilian sites They are
relatively cheap to manufacture and they do not provide effective defense systems
for civilians. This is particularly true for the nerve gases that have been
stockpiled in violation of international law. Sarin gas is particularly
gruesome in its convulsive effects on the neuromuscular system and many of the
victims stop breathing or slowly strangle to death.
A leading critic of gas warfare, Matthew Meselson, told me several
years ago that chemical weapons would be used by smaller nations if their use
was not made a war crime with surety of arrest and punishment. His prediction has come true. They are easy to
manufacture and their costs are miniscule compared to a nuclear weapons
program. Ironically many of the people, who believe that an iron fist policy is
the only one that their country’s enemy respects, also believe that their own
civilians and soldiers are toughened in their spines if an enemy resorts to the
use of such weapons. This double
standard ["we will make them cry, Uncle" versus "we will fight to the last man"] exists for users of all weapons systems and goes back to antiquity but few
people point out this contradiction in human belief.
If neither the United States nor the United nations responds
to Syria’s use of gas warfare by military response, what other options are
there? One policy is labeling such a
nation as a pariah nation and imposing a blockade to its receiving military weapons
by air, land, or sea. A second policy
would be a diplomatic offensive with sanctions on that nation’s overall economy,
transfer of money in international trade, and freezing of assets around the
world. It would include cutting off landing rights to its commercial aircraft.
It would block travel by their civilians.
War may not be the answer to those who use chemical weapons, but doing
nothing is a terrible response.
No comments:
Post a Comment