This is a case study on the use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. It addresses the issues of who and where the support came from as well as the world's response and how Iran was able to deal with the attacks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This case study is a very well done summation of the consequences arising from the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. The main concern is about the use of nerve agents in war, and the lack of international concern or supervision. Iraq's use of chemical weapons buttressed Iran's development of destructive weapons, as well as their use in the cold war. Clearly, an interesting point of this article is the skepticism surrounding European and American audiences, and their gradual concern as it reached the international audience. The United States, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom have all been guilty of placing arms control priorities on the back burner when dealing with the international community, in part because of their own employment of them. The UN and the Geneva Protocol had no teeth in the matter of nerve agents, which was shown in that Iraq was not punished for their use of them early on even though there were no excuses of miscommunication or ignorance as to the measures of the agreement. The Geneva shortcoming showed a lack of practical response and brought to light the need for a solid control in the international community. Although Iraq was at first very amateurish in their use of such weapons as mustard gas, as it backfired on them in 1983, by 1984 they were the first to use nerve agents on the modern battlefield. However, this was not the erosion of Geneva as the U.S. had already used Herbicides in Vietnam in the 1960s through their Hmong proxy soldiers. Therefore, speculation as to Iraq being the first to obstruct such laws is misplaced. If their is to a moral to this "story" it is to put teeth in the international agreements and to put impartial governments to lead this community (not two Nations who had red hands from the 1953 coup in Iran). If their is some way to nip the use of weapons of mass destruction in the bud, then the developments of such wars would take on more historically contingent traits as opposed to circumstances to dovetail into inevitable outcomes.
I think that these types of protocols are a bit of a double-edged sword. They are good to have because they attempt to regulate countries' uses of such strong, destructive weapons. However, they also, in a way, hurt further diplomatic relations. As Maxwell stated, it IS important to note that many European countries and the U.S. appear to not place much emphasis on regulating the uses of such weapons because they have also used them. Those countries' uses of CW have hurt their legitimacy in their legislations. I also wonder how exactly these legislations can really be effective. What ARE the punishments for using chemical warfare? Are their economic punishments? (As in, do countries create embargoes on goods from the countries who use CW and BW end?) What does the U.N. do about countries caught using those weapons?
I think that one of the things that is bad about these regulations in their current embodiments is that punishing the perpetrators might simply aggravate them more. This is where you have written laws against military groups with such destructive weapons. I find it scary to think about the leaders of a CW-using country getting so mad at their punishment that they do something worse. (example: how Germany was partially influenced to invade Europe during WWII because of the resentment caused by the outcomes of WWI and the Treaty of Versailles)
There is an HBO 4-part series called, The House of Saddam where a good part of the movie takes place during the Iran-Iraq War. http://www.hbo.com/films/houseofsaddam/
In my opinion, it's not a bad idea to see it from the Iraqi Leadership perspective. As would be expected, Saddam claimed that the outcome of the war was a victory for Iraq.
The use of chemical weapons, though effective for killing their enemies, come with more negative aspects than they had thought possible. Much like the American use of the Atom bomb in World War Two, the use of certain large scale weapons is always frowned upon by the world community in its brutality. Decades after it was used, in today's world, people still bring up the use of Chemical weapons because the world simply does not approve. I think the biggest problem is, no one can really do anything to stop a country from using such weapons. For example, the US among other countries participates in the Nuclear Proliferation Act which is supposed to disarm and dismantle all nuclear weapons in every country. (BTW George W. Bush if you are reading this, I'm talking about what you refer to as "Nukular Weapn's") Yet, even though the US constantly pushes others to dismantle their nukes, we refuse to do so. Even so, the US, being the most capable country in the world to do so, has not done much to enforce the NPA. So what are smaller, weaker countries supposed to do to stop another country from using certain weapons? They can bitch and whine and try to sanction them, but in the end, if a country wants to use certain weapons, no one is going to try to stop them until it's too late.
The explanation and the investigation of the 8 year, Iran-Iraq war is one I often heard from my television in America. However, this article puts a different perspective on things. In America, the Iran-Iraq war is often regarded as a sad, but inevitable conflict between between two distant countries that sound exactly the same when pronounced with a twang. This case study shows the Iran-Iraq war much more for what it was: an exposition of chemical weapons as the result of escalation and the conscienceless support of other nations. I agree strongly with Abtin's assertion that the United States leads the leagues in hypocrisy and that the goal of total nuclear disarmament is begotten by example, not by empty words with harsh penalties.
This article is very precise and seems to be fairly objective in terms offavoring neither country. I find it incredibly sad that the United States played the devil’s advocate by working with both sides of the conflict. However, I am not in the least bit surprised. Governments usually due what is most beneficial to them politically without regard to the consequences, especially on a human-to-human level.
On a separate note, I wish to learn more about the lasting psychological effects of the war to both countries, as I am sure it continues to effect the populations today.
Post a Comment