White Phosphorus Controversy Rages
In June, 1972, South Vietnamese planes bombed a Vietnamese village with napalm and white phosphorus. A photographer named Nick Ut was nearby. The photograph he took of the burned and panicked young girl fleeing the explosions won him a Pulitzer Prize. It was a turning point in the public perception of the war in Vietnam.
Today, the controversy that started with the release of a documentary by Italian state television station RAI still rages. The video claims that US forces used white phosphorus (WP) to kill indiscriminately in the battle of Fallujah, showing footage of the burning phosphorus raining down on huge areas. It includes graphic photos of Iraqi civilians whose flesh had burned to the bone but whose clothing remained remarkably intact.
Following the release of the video, the US totally denied it had used WP in Iraq for anything besides illumination and for creating smoke screens, two widely-accepted uses of the chemical. The denials came from spokesmen for the military, American ambassadors and even the US State Department itself.
But it was true, and the US finally admitted it. Now they claim its use to kill in Fallujah was legal, because the US has signed but not ratified the most relevant international treaty on the use of WP and napalm in civilian areas.
Much of the media focus, especially in the US, has now moved to examining whether or not that legal argument holds water. But the US has shown that it does not care if its actions are legal or not: the war in Iraq, the endless detention of detainees without trial or charge, the secret prison sites, and the abuse, torture and murder of prisoners are all illegal, under international law and the laws of the US itself.
So the legality of using WP as a weapon, especially in civilian areas, is not the most important issue. The important issue is whether or not its use is right. The American government itself gave a telling clue when it denied using it from the beginning. Why deny doing something that is both legal and moral?
Because they know the facts, which speak for themselves. The American military unleashed an indiscriminate incendiary weapon with particularly brutal effects inside a densely populated city, with appalling consequences for the people living there. Examining what actually happened is more important than dusting off UN conventions or chemical weapons treaties. What actually happened is what’s driving the international outrage.
I think it’s time for a United Nations investigation into exactly what happened in that city.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
Correction: South Vietnamese planes dropped napalm outside Trang Bang (the VNAF was not under American control at the time). Of course, it didn’t really matter that it was widely reported as American work since most US troops had already left or were leaving Vietnam by the time it was published.
Even with the Pentagon admitting the use of white phosphorus (along with the British Defence Secretary), simply running an investigation through the UN isn’t going to be enough. Nor is an Iraqi investigation, which has been initiated by the Health Ministry, a dubious sponsor considering the occupying powers. What’s needed is internal reform. It’s practical to punish war criminals after they’ve been defeated; it’s impossible to punish them when they’re still in charge.
November 18th, 2005 at 9:23 am
Thanks, correction made.
American use of napalm and WP in Vietnam was widespread, but in this case, it was not Americans. My mistake.
I don’t think a UN investigation would be “enough” but I think it would have a good chance of shedding some light on what happened there. The US military was and still is very careful to stifle media reports from Fallujah, which feeds the rumour mill – but perhaps some of the rumours are true. The WP rumour has turned out to be. What about other reports of unconventional weapons being used there?
November 21st, 2005 at 11:20 am
This isn’t the first recorded American use of weapons-of-mass-destruction in its Iraq adventure. In fact, the only WMD discovered or used in Iraq was brought there and used by the country that claimed to be ridding Iraq of such weapons:
* In 2004, observers of the Fallujah collective punishment noticed that many of the melted bodies they found looked just like the victims of napalm from Vietnam. Napalm, a horrible mix of polystyrene and jet fuel, was banned by the UN in 1980. Asked about it, the US government first denied the reports, and then later admitted they had used napalm after all.
* One of the most prominent weapons used during both Gulf wars was depleted uranium. The term “depleted” is a misnomer, as DU is still highly radioactive. It’s used because the dense uranium can puncture armor plating, but the leftover shells cause cancers among soldiers and civilians, and dramatically increase birth defect rates and lieukemia where it is used. The UN has also banned DU.
* Dishonourable mention must be made of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB). Even bigger than the daisy-cutter made infamous during the Vietnam War, the (MOAB) is a 21,000 lb bomb that spreads a flammable, poisonous chemical mist over the air and then ignites it to produce a massive fireball that expands faster than the speed of sound, heats up to 2,700 degrees Celsius, and creates a vacuum-induced mushroom cloud. It hasn’t been banned by the UN, but it’s unquestionably a “weapon of mass destruction”, if only because it is too big to be used against military targets exclusively.
* Another dishonourable mention goes to unexploded cluster bombs, which look like humanitarian food packets but blow up once civilians – usually children – pick them up. The International Society of the Red Cross asked the US not to use them in populated areas of Afghanistan and Iraq, but the US used them anyway.
Bleagh.
November 26th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
White phosphorus debate grows white-hot (EXCELLENT RESOURCE)
“Shake ‘n’ Bake;” it’s not just for dinner anymore. Once known in American suburbs as a convenient method to coat chicken with seasoning in a bag, “Shake ‘n’ Bake” was long ago inducted into the flavorful lexicon of American troops to name a special way to kill.
And in the Iraq war, where the war of words that rages at home and abroad often bears little relation to the real war of blood and tears in the field, “Shake ‘n’ Bake” has found its way to the center of yet another controversy over America’s use of force in Iraq and her moral standing in the world.
For more of this story, go here.