Historian discusses the longstanding 'taboo' against chemical weapons, and international attempts to eliminate them

September 11, 2013 by Peter Dizikes, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Historian discusses the longstanding ‘taboo’ against chemical weapons, and international attempts to eliminate them
Christopher Capozzola.

The ongoing civil war in Syria has focused global attention on the use of chemical weapons—and the long-running efforts by the international community to ban them. Christopher Capozzola, an associate professor of history at MIT, has written extensively about the relationship between military policies and civilian politics. MIT News recently discussed the ongoing chemical-weapons controversy with Capozzola.

Q. For how long have chemical weapons been considered an especially egregious type of warfare, and in what form have we seen these objections raised?

A. The taboo against in battle is very old, and can really be traced back to ancient history, when the use of poisons was considered a treacherous and dishonorable form of warfare. The international community first attempted to pass a systematic ban in the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Asphyxiating Gases. But that was evaded or violated during World War I—first by the Germans at Ypres in April 1915, and then by all the major powers.

After 1918, poison gas became the key symbol of the war's brutality and devastation. And so there were efforts to restrict the development or use of chemical weapons, a movement that included not only diplomats but nongovernmental organizations, church groups, journalists and ordinary citizens.

What we have seen in the last 30 years is a push for the restriction on battlefield use to be widened, with the recognition that civilian populations are particularly vulnerable to chemical attacks. Currently, the international community is governed by the Chemical Weapons Convention, which went into force in 1997—although Syria is not a signatory to the convention.

Q. In military history, to what extent have countries tended to adhere to bans on chemical weapons?

A. Over the course of the 20th century, countries have often chosen not to use chemical weapons, for three main reasons. First, they were afraid that the weapons would be used against their soldiers in retaliation. Second, they calculated that chemical weapons wouldn't yield a tactical advantage on the battlefield: You might gas your own soldiers, or make a terrain uninhabitable, or if your enemies have gas masks or other defensive capabilities, that would minimize the weapons' impact.

But the third main reason why countries have chosen not to use chemical weapons is, for me, the most important one: that they fear condemnation and sanction from their enemies or even their own populations. Leaders have typically ordered their use only in desperation—or in situations when they think the world isn't watching. War is a battle for hearts and minds as much as a conflict of arms, and the use of chemical weapons means ceding a great deal of moral territory for modest gains on the battlefield. That's a point that could apply to nonstate actors and terrorist organizations as well as to governments.

So have chemical-weapons bans worked? No and yes. The conventional wisdom holds that "treaties don't work, but chemical weapons don't work either." But I think that overlooks the importance of public opinion and activism around shared values. True, treaties and protocols have been unsigned, unratified or violated by some countries. But they have succeeded in expressing a clear international norm against forms of warfare that have devastating effects on soldiers, civilians and natural environments. And if people had not spoken up to insist that chemical weapons were wrong, then these global norms would not exist.

Q. What does history tell us about the kinds of responses countries make to violations of chemical weapons bans? Do these responses tend to be military in nature, diplomatic, economic—or some combination of these things?

A. When President Obama talks of Syrian chemical-weapons development as a "red line," and Secretary of State John Kerry refers to a line "which has been in place since the horrors of World War I," they are making historical claims. They are correct to say that international norms view the use of chemical weapons—whether against soldiers or civilians—as unacceptable, and that some kind of response is necessary. But while the world must respond in some fashion to recent events in Syria, history does not show that the use of chemical weapons has always—or even often—generated a military response. Diplomatic initiatives and economic sanctions remain on the table.

Explore further: Explainer: What are chemical weapons?

Related Stories

Explainer: What are chemical weapons?

May 24, 2013

There was chaos on the streets of Halajba in March 1988. In this corner of Iraq, at the time Iraqi Kurdistan, people had suddenly started experiencing cold-like symptoms – tight chest and nasal congestion. Within a few ...

Pharmacists crucial in plan for terrorist chemical weapons

December 10, 2011

Terrorist attacks with chemical weapons are a real possibility, according to a study that appears in the online open access journal, Journal of Pharmacy Practice, published by SAGE. Thanks to their extensive knowledge of ...

New weapons detail reveals true depth of Cuban Missile Crisis

October 12, 2012

The Cuban Missile Crisis took place 50 years ago this October, when US and Soviet leaders pulled back from the very brink of nuclear war. This was the closest the world has come to nuclear war, but exactly how close has been ...

Clarity needed on use of chemical weapons, says UK report

February 7, 2012

A report examining the role of neuroscience research in military and civilian law enforcement contexts, led by a Queen Mary, University of London academic, has called on the government to provide clarity on the use of chemical ...

Recommended for you

Unprecedented study of Picasso's bronzes uncovers new details

February 17, 2018

Musee national Picasso-Paris and the Northwestern University/Art Institute of Chicago Center for Scientific Studies in the Arts (NU-ACCESS) have completed the first major material survey and study of the Musee national Picasso-Paris' ...

Humans will actually react pretty well to news of alien life

February 16, 2018

As humans reach out technologically to see if there are other life forms in the universe, one important question needs to be answered: When we make contact, how are we going to handle it? Will we feel threatened and react ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Sep 11, 2013
The examples of history are guidelines to reflect upon but not meant to govern all future action. The ability to evaluate each situation for it's pro's and con's is the hallmark and responsibility of every administration. It isn't enough to fall back and site statues that are 100 years old. The disgust with the use of chemical weapons needs to have a current and strong voice that stands on it's own.
1 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2013
be super to see accountability of the recent chem attack in Syria - looks like it was the rebels - so tracking their allies and their support for this crime would seem to be prudent.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.