The Poor Man’s WMD

On March 20, 1995, around 8 a.m., Japanese cult leader Aum Shinrikyo assaulted early-morning subway commuters at the Kasumigaseki Station (Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo Metro), killing 13 and injuring more than 6,000 more. His weapon of choice was a deadly neurotoxin, sarin gas. Hardly the impact of the 1,400+ or 400 deaths – depending on whose numbers you believe – that are being charged against Syria’s Assad regime for using the same chemical agent, but Aum hardly had the delivery systems – primarily heavy artillery – available to the Syrian dictator. But Aum had little trouble getting his hands on sarin.

Sarin is colorless, odorless and exceptionally potent even in small quantities. It is an organophosphate neurotoxin, a category of nerve agents that also includes some pesticides. Sarin is heavier than air, and sinking low, sticking to skin or ingested/inhaled by hapless victims. While the toxin is relatively short-lived, for those exposed, the pain and symptoms, often resulting in death, can be horrific. “[S]arin can be fatal within one minute after direct ingestion of a lethal dose, due to suffocation from lung muscle paralysis… Production and stockpiling of sarin was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 where it is classified as a Schedule 1 substance.” Wikipedia. Even short-term suffocation, for survivors, can cause brain damage and other nasty consequences. And lesser amounts of sarin often just prolong the agony.

Despite Assad’s use of this weapon against his own people, clearly a crime under international law, persons ranging from U.N. chief Ban Ki Moon to the Pope himself, have pleaded for moderation, telling the U.S. not to attack. Moon even suggested that a retaliatory attack by the United States or others, not constituting a defensive response to an attack and not being authorized by a recognized international body, would itself be a prosecutable war crime. France has said that if the U.S. attacks Syria, it would join the cause but it would not go it alone. Rumors have also surfaced that the United States is asking Saudi Arabia to help underwrite the costs.

Despite some pretty strong gains in the Senate for President Obama’s campaign to secure Congressional approval for an attack, current signs are suggesting a defeat for this quest is increasingly likely in the House. Why: Fear of getting embroiled in another Middle Eastern conflict, inevitably leading to a greater involvement no matter how limited the initial strike may be.Or That a fundamentalist, al Qaeda-influenced successor could easily be the next government of this vulnerable nation, inflicting “blowback” against those who might help topple the incumbents. Or Retaliatory attacks, military and cyber, by Syrian agents (including Iran and its de facto foreign legion, Hezbollah) against American or even Israeli targets wherever they may be.  Or The rebels have their own nasty forms of brutality. Or This will further destabilize a volatile region. Or We can’t afford the cost. Or It’s just not our business.

Nobody feels particularly good about Assad’s indiscriminate use of this gas, which apparently killed hundreds of children along the way. And nobody seriously believes that rebel forces were responsible. Not only did the delivery of the levels of this toxic necessary to inflict the measured death and destruction require military technology only available to Assad’s forces, but there is evidence that Syria’s armed forces in the region were outfitted with anti-chemical agent masks and clothing in advance of the attacks. Basically, it is hard to refute that the Assad regime “did it.”

China – wary of the obvious risks of supporting external enforcement in local issues being turned on itself – and Russia – facing pressure from the Russian Orthodox Church fearing for the Christian minority in Syria currently protected by Assad and Russia’s deep business and military connection to Assad’s Syria – are very likely to prevent any United Nations sanctioned attack because of the use of banned neurotoxins. Expect their continued vetoes at the Security Council. England’s parliament has taken that country out of the mix as well.

So it this a war crime that simply will go unpunished? Will this result in the rise of sarin stockpiles and the deployment of the agent in all forms of conflict? Is storing sarin that much different from storing nuclear warheads? Will Congress show a change of heart? What are your thoughts? What should we do?

I’m Peter Dekom, and genocide most certainly did not end with the post-WWII prosecution of military criminals for this heinous crime.