Middle East and Africa
ON AUGUST 21ST almost 1,500 people were killed in a nerve-agent attack in Syria. It was not just the scale of the atrocity which caused international outrage, but the fact that chemical weapons had been used. This crossed a "red line" previously defined by Barack Obama, prompting America to consider intervention against the Syrian regime, which is assumed by most observers to have been responsible for the attack. But then John Kerry, America's secretary of state, suggested on September 9th that military intervention could be avoided if the Syrian regime placed its entire chemical stockpile under international control. Syria's ally Russia backed this suggestion, and on September 11th Bashar al-Assad, Syria's president, announced that he was prepared to go along with it. On September 14th a joint Russian-American framework was agreed to eliminate the weapons. But why is the use of chemical weapons especially taboo?
The first ban on chemical weapons was actually introduced before they had even been used. At the Hague convention in 1899, projectiles “the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gasses” were prohibited from international use. Even so, chemical weapons were deployed in Europe during the first world war by both sides. But they were not turned against civilians, unlike aerial bombardment and submarine torpedoes. When the Geneva protocol was agreed in 1925 the ban on chemical weapons was reiterated. During the second world war the taboo against them became stronger. Political leaders discussed their use at length. America decided not to use gas in its attack on the island of Iwo Jima. Adolf Hitler used Zyklon B poison gas in concentration camps, but refrained from using chemical weapons on the battlefield. Being the weapon that not even Hitler would use increased the stigma.
The taboo against the use of chemical weapons arises, in large part, from the shocking scale on which they can kill and the insidious and indiscriminate way they spread. But it also stems from the infrequency of their use. Because the ban on their deployment has mostly been observed, political leaders are, by and large, even less willing to flout it, thus reinforcing the taboo. The most notorious exception after the second world war was when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and against Kurds and other minorities in Iraq. Then in 1995 Aum Shinrikyo, a cult group, attacked the Tokyo metro system with a home-made nerve-gas, killing dozens of commuters. That attack heightened fears that terrorist groups might employ chemical weapons, further strengthening the taboo. That said, in many respects chemical weapons are no worse than other means of killing people. Mr Assad has shelled, bombed and beheaded his citizens too. Yet it was his use of chemical weapons that was considered intolerable and has prompted international action.
The Syrian armed forces have one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons: around 1,000 tonnes, including the nerve agents Sarin and VX. Getting rid of the weapons, assuming the Russian-American deal can be made to stick, will take considerable time. As Syria's civil war continues, it will be difficult for United Nations inspectors to reach all the sites where the weapons are stored, many of which are in areas where heavy fighting is under way. And despite the deal, Mr Assad may not keep his word. The exceptional taboo that surrounds the use of chemical weapons has contributed to a diplomatic breakthrough, but dismantling Syria's deadly chemical arsenal will be hard, if not impossible, without a wider ceasefire.