|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings & Torture |
|
November 17th,
2005 - Incendiary Weapons: The Big White Lie |
|
Incendiary Weapons: The Big White
Lie US finally admits using white phosphorus in Fallujah - and beyond.
Iraqis investigate if civilians were targeted with deadly chemical By Andrew Buncombe, Kim Sengupta, Colin Brown, Anne Penketh &
Robert Verkai The Independent November 17, 2005 The Iraqi government is to
investigate the United States military's use of white phosphorus shells
during the battle of Fallujah - an inquiry that could reveal whether American
forces breached a fundamental international weapons treaty. Iraq's acting Human Rights
minister, Narmin Othman, said last night that a team would be dispatched to
Fallujah to try to ascertain conclusively whether civilians had been killed
or injured by the incendiary weapon. The use of white phosphorus (WP) and other
incendiary weapons such as napalm against civilians is prohibited. The announcement came as
John Reid, the Secretary of State for Defence, faced mounting calls for an
inquiry into the use of WP by British forces as well as what Britain knew
about its deployment by American troops. Mr Reid said that he would look into
the matter. The move by the Iraqi
government and the growing concern at Westminster follows the Pentagon's
confirmation to The Independent earlier this week that WP had been used
during the battle of Fallujah last November and the presentation of
persuasive evidence that civilians had been among the victims. The fresh controversy over
Fallujah, which has raged for a full 12 months, was initially sparked last
week by a documentary by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, which claimed
there were numerous civilian casualties. A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday
he would "not be surprised" if WP had been used by US forces
elsewhere in Iraq. Lt-Col Barry Venable said
the incendiary shells were a regular part of the troops' munitions. "I
would not rule out the possibility that it has been used in other
locations." The Pentagon's admission of WP's use - it can burn a person
down to the bone - has proved to be a huge embarrassment to some elements of
the US government. In a letter to this
newspaper, the American ambassador to London, Robert Tuttle, claimed that US
forces "do not use napalm or WP as weapons" . Confronted with the
Pentagon's admission, an embassy spokesperson said Mr Tuttle would not be
commenting further and "all questions on WP" should be referred to
the Pentagon. The US embassy in Rome had issued a similar denial. The size or scale of the
inquiry to be undertaken by the Iraqi government is unclear, and it is not
known when its investigators will arrive in Fallujah. An official with the
human rights ministry said that while it was also not known how long the
inquiry would take, "the people of Fallujah will be fully
consulted". The Pentagon says the use of incendiary weapons against military
targets is not prohibited. But the article two,
protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Weapons bans their use
against civilians. Perhaps of crucial
importance to the Iraqi investigators, the treaty also restricts their use
against military targets "inside a concentration of civilians except
when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of
civilians". Mr Reid confirmed yesterday
that British troops had used WP in Iraq, though he said the shells had only
been used to make smoke to obscure troops movements, which experts say is
their primary function. "Neither it nor any
other munitions are used against civilians. It is not a chemical
weapon," he said. Speaking at a Nato training exercise in Germany, where
he was visiting British troops bound for Afghanistan, Mr Reid said the US's
use of WP was a "matter for the US". However, last week Mr Reid
indicated that he would raise the issues contained within the RAI documentary
if presented with evidence. But last night MPs were
openly dismissive of Mr Reid's comments and called for an inquiry, saying
they had previously been misled about the US's use of napalm in Iraq. The US
had drawn a distinction between conventional napalm and updated Mk 77
firebombs, which experts say are virtually identical. Mike Gapes, the Labour
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said: "I think there
is an issue here about whether the chemical weapons convention should be
strengthened to include this particular substance because it is defined as an
incendiary not a chemical weapon, therefore it is excluded from certain
definitions." Sir Menzies Campbell, the
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: "The use of this
weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will
hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency. The denial of use followed by
the admission will simply convince the doubters that there was something to
hide." So far, the fall-out in the US over the revelation has been
minimal. But the former president Bill Clinton yesterday told students at the
American University of Dubai that he did not agree with invasion of Iraq. The battle of Fallujah, an
insurgent stronghold, took place over two weeks last November. It led to the
displacement of 300,000 people. Reports from refugee camps and from an Iraqi
doctor who stayed in the city during the fighting suggest numerous civilians
suffered burns and "melting skin". Photographs show rows of bodies
charred almost beyond recognition. Chemical legitimately used or a WMD? What is white phosphorus? White phosphorus is a highly
flammable incendiary material which ignites when exposed to oxygen, and will
burn human skin until all the oxygen is used up. A doctor from Fallujah
described victims in the US siege "who had their skin melted". White phosphorus, known as
WP or Willy Pete in the military, flares in spectacular bursts with a yellow
flame when fired from artillery shells and produces dense white smoke. It is
used as a smokescreen for troop movements and to illuminate a battlefield. Is it a chemical weapon? No. White phosphorus has
thermal properties which burn by heating everything around it, rather than
chemical properties which attack the body's life systems. It therefore does
not fall under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. But protocol III of the
1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons bans its use as an incendiary weapon
against civilian populations. So what is all the fuss about? The US ambassador to London,
Robert Tuttle, said in a letter to The Independent that "US forces do
not use napalm or phosphorus as a weapon. " The US position was that
white phosphorus used as a smokescreen was legitimate - a position outlined
by John Reid, the Defence Secretary, yesterday. But a Pentagon statement on
Tuesday appears to have shifted the argument. It said that US troops had used
the white phosphorus as a weapon against insurgents. The State Department
meanwhile corrected a statement, according to which white phosphorus was
"fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy
fighters". Now the argument focuses on whether those being targeted were
insurgents or civilians, and, of course, in a place like Fallujah, this grey
area gives the US more of a get-out clause. Humanitarian law
distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants. If the white phosphorus
was used against insurgents they qualify as combatants and there has been no
protocol breach. Both the US and the UK have
signed the convention, but Washington declared at the time of the signing of
protocol III in 1995 that its military doctrine would abide by the protocol's
provisions. These stipulate that the military distinguishes between military
and civilian targets. If it turns out that civilians were killed, what legal recourse is
there? If an Iraqi investigation
provides evidence that civilians were killed by white phosphorus as a weapon,
there is no recourse under the Conventional Weapons Convention. However, the 1977 first
protocol to the Geneva Conventions could be invoked. The United States has
signed but not ratified the protocol which relates to the 4th Convention
which considers the treatment of civilians. Article 35 of the protocol
makes it clear that the use and methods of use of "weapons of warfare
are not unlimited." Any weapon or use of weapon that causes
"superfluous or unnecessary suffering" is outlawed. The
indiscriminate use of phosphorus on a civilian population would be covered. Breaches of the Geneva
Conventions are brought by individual countries and are usually heard by the
United Nations at Security Council level, or in the International Court of
Justice. Peter Carter QC, an expert
in international law and chairman of the Bar's human rights committee, said
the latest US admissions raised serious concerns about whether white
phosphorus was indiscriminately used against civilians. He called for an
independent inquiry, possibly through the United Nations, into the use of
white phosphorus in Iraq. Why has all this come out so long after the Fallujah siege? An Italian television
documentary last week, accused the US of using white phosphorus in a
"massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians at Fallujah. This was denied by the
Pentagon, but witnesses in the US military's Field Artillery magazine
described firing '"shake and bake" missions at insurgents and high
explosive shells to "take them out". The Independent's coverage of
the RAI documentary and fallout prompted a letter from Ambassador Tuttle. What does the US ambassador say now? No comment. He referred all questions
to the Pentagon. Bush’s Arsenal The allegation Napalm/Mark 77s Widespread reports during
the initial US-led invasion in March 2003 suggested marines had dropped
incendiary bombs over the Tigris river and the Saddam canal on the way to
Baghdad. Cluster bombs 33 civilians, including many
children, were reportedly killed in a US cluster bomb attack on Hilla, south
of Baghdad. Reports of attacks on Basra were also widespread. White Phosphorus Coalition troops were
reported to have used WP indiscriminately against civilians and insurgents
during the Fallujah offensive of November 2004. What the US said Napalm/Mark 77s The Pentagon denied reports
it had used napalm, saying it had last used the weapon in 1993 and destroyed
its last batch in 2001. "We don't even have that in our arsenal." Cluster bombs General Richard Myers, head
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said coalition forces dropped nearly 1,500
cluster bombs during the war and only 26 fell within 1,500ft of civilian
areas. White Phosphorus "[WP was used] very
sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination. They were fired into the air to
illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters." US State
Department How the UK backed them up Napalm/Mark 77s "The US have confirmed
to us they have not used Mk 77 firebombs, essentially napalm canisters, in
Iraq at any time." Adam Ingram, Armed Forces minister, January 2004 Cluster bombs The MoD said it supported
the use of cluster bombs against legitimate military targets to protect
British troops and civilians, insisting care was taken to avoid populated
areas. White Phosphorus "Use of phosphorus by
the US is a matter for the US," Tony Blair's spokesman said yesterday. How the US came clean Napalm/Mark 77s It took five months for the
US to admit its marines had used Mk 77 firebombs (a close relative of napalm)
in the invasion. The Pentagon said their functions were "remarkably
similar". Cluster bombs General Myers admitted:
"In some cases, we hit those targets knowing there would be a chance of
collateral damage." It was "unfortunate" that "we had to
make these choices". White Phosphorus Pentagon spokesman Lt-Col
Barry Venable said this week that WP had been used, "to fire at the
enemy" in Iraq. "It burns... it's an incendiary weapon. That is
what it does." How the UK came clean Napalm/Mark 77s "First of all they
didn't use napalm. They used a firebomb. It doesn't stick to your skin like
napalm, it doesn't have the horrible effects of that. " John Reid,
Defence Secretary Cluster bombs Adam Ingram, Armed Forces
minister, said: "There were troops [and] equipment in and around
built-up areas, therefore bombs were used to take out the threat to our
troops." White Phosphorus The Government maintains it
used WP in Iraq only to lay smoke screens. " We do not use white
phosphorus against civilians," the Defence Secretary John Reid said. © 2005 Independent News and
Media. External link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/incendiary-weapons-the-big-white-lie-515664.html |