Skip to footer

Chlorine attacks in Syria: Time to reassert a global ban

As evidence mounts of Syria dropping chlorine gas bombs on civilians, the UN needs to act. On the 100th anniversary of the world’s first major chlorine attack, humanity must reaffirm a standard against such indiscriminate weapons. 

|
AP Photo
Buglers play in Ypres, Belgium, during an April 21 ceremony to mark the 100th anniversary of the first gas attacks of World War I and to honor the memory of victims of chemical warfare, as well as to re-dedicate collective efforts to rid the world of chemical weapons.
  • By the Monitor's Editorial Board

As the United Nations debates what to do about the use of chlorine gas in Syria’s civil war, the world should take note of an important 100th anniversary. On April 22, 1915, Germany launched the world’s first large-scale use of the gas as a chemical weapon. Both sides in World War I ended up killing nearly 100,000 with this indiscriminate tool of war. Thankfully, global reaction led to legal prohibitions against the use or stockpiling of chemical weapons – but not enough to stop chlorine bombs from being dropped by helicopters in Syria.

Only the Assad regime uses helicopters in Syria, a big clue to the perpetrator of the recent attacks. The UN Security Council and the Hague-based Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons do not have hard evidence to assign blame. But the United States now claims the regime did drop chlorine barrel bombs on the town of Sarmin on March 16, killing six people. “The international community cannot turn a blind eye to such barbarism,” says Secretary of State John Kerry.

Will the world once again rise up as it did after World War I and affirm a global norm against this weapon of mass destruction?

Much progress has been made over the decades against this type of warfare, especially with the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention. Under that treaty, most of the world’s stockpiles of chemical weapons have been dismantled. And after Syria used sarin gas on civilians in 2013, killing more than 1,000, the international community reacted swiftly. Syria was forced to agree to join the convention and submit to the removal of its toxic gas and nerve agents. 

Under international law, however, Syria can still possess chlorine gas, a common-enough chemical that it is not a prohibited substance. Syria is just not allowed to use the gas as a weapon.

The US hopes the Security Council will create an “attribution mechanism” to provide proof of culpability for the chlorine attacks – enough proof to override resistance from Russia, a key ally of the Syrian government. In March, the Council was able to muster a consensus to condemn the attacks. But it did not point fingers.

President Obama has cited the barrel bomb attacks as a “core interest” of the US. As with the nuclear talks with Iran, he seeks to reinforce current treaties on the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Such treaties aim to protect innocent civilians from such weapons, a standard now widely shared by much of humanity. Perhaps marking the 100th anniversary of the first major wartime use of chlorine can help raise that standard even higher.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Chlorine attacks in Syria: Time to reassert a global ban
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2015/0421/Chlorine-attacks-in-Syria-Time-to-reassert-a-global-ban
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe