Rasool Mogooei
PhD Student in International Relations, University of Isfahan
On March 16, 1988, one of the most horrific crimes against humanity in modern times took place in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. During this day, Saddam Hussein’s regime, amidst the ongoing war with Iran, launched a chemical attack on the small city of Halabja near the Iran-Iraq border using lethal gases such as mustard gas and VX. This unprecedented and horrific massacre resulted in the deaths of thousands. At the time, Iranian military forces had gained control over the city, and the Kurdish population had allied with them against Saddam Hussein. In retaliation, Saddam decided to exact collective punishment on the city’s residents. Some analysts believe that his aim was to deter the Kurds from aligning with Iran, while others argue that his objective was to push Iran out of the Kurdistan region.
Following the attack, Iraq faced some international reactions, albeit limited due to the political climate of the Cold War. In the long term, however, this atrocity led to a growing rift between the Kurdish community and the central Iraqi government, ultimately contributing to the region’s autonomy. The widespread outrage and condemnation of the attack were not only directed at Saddam Hussein and his military and security advisors but also at the countries that had supplied him with chemical weapons. Western German companies such as Klaus Marine, Chemie Gruna, and Müller & Co., as well as French companies like Thomson and Indra, were among the primary suppliers of chemical weapon components to Iraq during the war against Iran. These weapons were not only used against the people of Halabja but also against the residents of the Iranian border city of Sardasht.
Beyond the political dimensions of this tragedy, its humanitarian and human rights aspects are of paramount importance. The attack claimed the lives of approximately 5,000 people and forced between 60,000 to 70,000 others to flee to other areas. Some victims succumbed to the effects of the toxic gases even hours after escaping. Thousands more suffered injuries, many of whom endured lifelong physical and psychological consequences from chemical exposure. The long-term effects of such weapons, including genetic disorders in newborns, skin diseases, neurological conditions, and cancer, not only afflict survivors for the rest of their lives but can also be passed down to future generations. Due to their devastating and irreversible consequences, chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction. These effects have led to the establishment of several international conventions aimed at prohibiting their use against both military personnel and civilians, including:
- The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC): This treaty aims to eliminate an entire class of weapons of mass destruction by prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling, retention, and use of chemical weapons by state parties. It mandates the destruction of existing chemical stockpiles and production facilities. The CWC also includes a “challenge inspection” mechanism, allowing any member state to request an on-site inspection if there is suspicion of non-compliance by another state.
- The Geneva Protocol (1925): Adopted between the two World Wars, this treaty bans the use of chemical and biological weapons, including asphyxiating and poisonous gases, liquids, and bacterial warfare methods in international armed conflicts.
- The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) and its Protocols: This treaty regulates the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or disproportionate harm to both military personnel and civilians. State parties to the convention commit to prohibiting certain weapons, including laser weapons, undetectable mines, incendiary weapons, and those that cause severe burns, such as mustard gas.
- The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC): Officially titled the “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction,” this treaty prohibits any use of biological, microbial, or toxic weapons, regardless of preventive or protective justifications. It also bans the production and possession of related equipment or delivery systems. Article II of the BWC mandates signatory states to destroy all biological and microbial weapons under their control.
Despite the existence of international protocols, treaties, and conventions banning the use of chemical and biological weapons since the early 20th century, their enforcement remains a challenge in international law. This has allowed states to disregard these regulations, as evidenced by Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons in Halabja and Sardasht, as well as other tragic incidents such as the Syrian government’s chemical attacks on civilians and Spain’s use of such weapons against anti-colonial forces in Africa. It is hoped that with long-term changes in international accountability mechanisms, such atrocities can be permanently eradicated.
References
Geneva Protocol (1925). Retrieved from https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/bio/1925-geneva-protocol/#:~:text=Protocol%20for%20the%20Prohibition%20of,and%20biological%20weapons%20in%20war.
Chemical Weapons Convention (1993). Retrieved from https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention.
The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (1980). Retrieved from https://disarmament.unoda.org/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/.
The Biological Weapons Convention (1972). Retrieved from https://disarmament.unoda.org/biological-weapons/.
