The "problem" with tear gas is that it certainly was appropriate to ban it in warfare, but riot control has few, if any, equally effective non-lethal alternative methods of implementation. There are problems, still, with futuristic alternatives like "pain rays," and things like "non-lethal" rubber bullets aren't as non-lethal as we'd like them to be.
The real contradiction, at least as far as I see it, is not so much that we ban it in one area and allow it in another, but that we banned it at all. While I can understand us wanting to ban all "chemical weapons" outright, there's a pretty huge difference between tear gas and, say, mustard gas or something like sarin or tabun. I'm left wondering whether our criteria for banning something under the 1997 Convention isn't a little overly broad; is it because tear gas is a "chemical?" (Everything is made of chemicals.) Is it because it's released as a "gas?" Is it because it uses "chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm on human beings?" Lots of weapons "inflict death or harm on human beings," so why are chemicals "worse" than bullets? Why are they worse than bombs that destroy entire buildings?
AND - if we agree that the suffering and lasting harm induced by chemical weapons does make them worse, why is a non-lethal one like tear gas (well, non-lethal for most people) banned under the same convention as the really nasty lethal chemicals like sarin?
I mean, I understand that there are good arguments for the banning. Any gas showing up on the battlefield could potentially be one of the lethal ones, so we might as well ban them all to prevent someone trying to be sneaky in an environment where tear gas is allowed. And a strange form of mutual "chivalry" still does exist; the rules of engagement protect our own side, and perhaps this is simply something we've all agreed that we simply don't want to have to endure while prosecuting armed conflict. But still, it smacks more of "this makes us uncomfortable, and bullets don't" than "tear gas is specifically worse than bullets for X, Y, and Z reasons, and therefore must be banned."
Anyway, this page from Politifact has a pretty good breakdown of the give and take that went into the seemingly strange agreement wherein tear gas is outlawed in warfare, but allowed in law enforcement. If we really look into it, it looks like the signatories all agreed that tear gas is bad, but simply didn't want to give up their most successful crowd control measures, and so the law-enforcement exception was conditional for their agreement to the Convention. Take from that what you will, and see how well that measures up against our conceptions of how modern democracy works.
With regards to our response to this latest provocation? There's a wide range of options available between "ignore this" and "glass the entire Middle East." I'm certain that the U.S. military will pick one somewhere between those two extremes. I'm equally certain that 40% of the country will decry the response as too weak, and another 40% will decry it as too draconian.
The real contradiction, at least as far as I see it, is not so much that we ban it in one area and allow it in another, but that we banned it at all. While I can understand us wanting to ban all "chemical weapons" outright, there's a pretty huge difference between tear gas and, say, mustard gas or something like sarin or tabun. I'm left wondering whether our criteria for banning something under the 1997 Convention isn't a little overly broad; is it because tear gas is a "chemical?" (Everything is made of chemicals.) Is it because it's released as a "gas?" Is it because it uses "chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm on human beings?" Lots of weapons "inflict death or harm on human beings," so why are chemicals "worse" than bullets? Why are they worse than bombs that destroy entire buildings?
AND - if we agree that the suffering and lasting harm induced by chemical weapons does make them worse, why is a non-lethal one like tear gas (well, non-lethal for most people) banned under the same convention as the really nasty lethal chemicals like sarin?
I mean, I understand that there are good arguments for the banning. Any gas showing up on the battlefield could potentially be one of the lethal ones, so we might as well ban them all to prevent someone trying to be sneaky in an environment where tear gas is allowed. And a strange form of mutual "chivalry" still does exist; the rules of engagement protect our own side, and perhaps this is simply something we've all agreed that we simply don't want to have to endure while prosecuting armed conflict. But still, it smacks more of "this makes us uncomfortable, and bullets don't" than "tear gas is specifically worse than bullets for X, Y, and Z reasons, and therefore must be banned."
Anyway, this page from Politifact has a pretty good breakdown of the give and take that went into the seemingly strange agreement wherein tear gas is outlawed in warfare, but allowed in law enforcement. If we really look into it, it looks like the signatories all agreed that tear gas is bad, but simply didn't want to give up their most successful crowd control measures, and so the law-enforcement exception was conditional for their agreement to the Convention. Take from that what you will, and see how well that measures up against our conceptions of how modern democracy works.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/26/facebook-posts/tear-gas-was-banned-warfare-1993-police-1997/
---
With regards to our response to this latest provocation? There's a wide range of options available between "ignore this" and "glass the entire Middle East." I'm certain that the U.S. military will pick one somewhere between those two extremes. I'm equally certain that 40% of the country will decry the response as too weak, and another 40% will decry it as too draconian.
Reply
Leave a comment