UPDATE: I discussed the issue of destroying all chemical weapons in the aftermath of the Syria crisis with Arnie Arnesen on WNHN. To listen or download, click the MP3 link here. What we did to Summers, we can do again. Thanks.
I’ve written much about using the power of timing and leverage as a force multiplier (for example, here). This is one of those times — the whole world, Obama to Putin to media pundits everywhere, have handed us the lever.
How about we use it? With world public and media hysteria — some of it faux, much of it real — focused on Syria’s stored chemical weapons (CW), why not leverage that timing to broaden the discussion to include destruction of all stored chemical weapons? Including those in the United States, but certainly not those alone.
Wouldn’t that be a worthy goal too? Who would say no if we asked the question publicly enough? After all, it’s almost the definition of low-hanging fruit. Common Dreams (my emphasis):
US Grandstands on Chemical Weapons Treaty While Violating It
Government keeps tons of chemical weapons in Kentucky and Colorado, breaking global commitments to destroy them
– Sarah Lazare, staff writer
As the Obama administration continues to threaten military intervention in Syria unless the government of Bashar al-Assad follows international ‘norms’ on chemical weapons, the U.S. government violates those very norms by storing tons of chemical weapons at facilities in Kentucky and Colorado, breaking its own promises to the international community.
The U.S. government keeps approximately 2,611 tons of mustard gas in a facility in Colorado, and 524 tons of a spectrum of chemical weapons—including deadly nerve agent Sarin—in a facility in Kentucky, despite commitments to have already destroyed its chemical arsenals by now.
As a ratifier of the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty, overseen by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at the Hague, the U.S. agreed in 1997 to destroy its chemical weapons stocks within 10 years, with the possibility of a 5-year extension. Yet, with the latest possible deadline of 2012 now passed, U.S. officials say that they can’t destroy all of their arsenalsuntil 2023.
Furthermore, chemical weapons inspectors have been stymied several times by U.S. politicians since the U.S. ratified the agreement, including President George W. Bush’s 2002 role in successfully pushing for the firing of José Maurício Bustani, the director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons who pushed for thorough inspection of U.S. facilities.
There’s more; the whole thing is worth reading.
It wouldn’t take a genius to point this out, nor geniuses among the public to understand it. Obama hates him some CW. Great; let’s take him at his word — and hold him to his word.
Timing and leverage. They go away as fast as they show up.
Why bring this up?
This is a classic turnkey, handed-to-us opportunity; we just have to act. But lots of us have to act, not just the lone and lonely writers here at La Maison chez nous. With enough voices, this is doable.
Chris Hayes? Rachel Maddow? Editors at The Nation? Bill Moyers? You could all do this, ring this bell, next week.
And what about the mainstream layer around those progressives? Chris Matthews? Rev. Al? Melissa Harris-Perry? You can do this too — I’m certain you all care about the babies, as do we all. (I challenge the last two for a reason, an important one. The public face of the black community should have no qualms about uniting behind a CW storage ban, and their support matters, adds enormous leverage.)
How about an organized throw-down from us the people, aimed at town-hall-challenging the loudest CW-hating House and Senate voices? How about direct questions, cameras rolling, to Obama himself and members of his administration?
Again, this is doable, but we have to do it. As Robert Cruickshank points out via email:
Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals #4: Make the target live up to its own book of rules.
This is a great moment to make Congress and the White House live up to their “book of rules” when it comes to chemical weapons. If Assad can’t have them, and he certainly should not, than neither should the United States. This is a great opportunity to push for total US disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, nukes as well as chemical. Make the hypocrisy work for us.
The bottom-line for everyone involved in this discussion:
If you care, how much do you care?
Will you seek the worldwide destruction of all chemical weapons?
This is one we can win, if we’re willing to act together. The moment will pass, however. No time to dither (see rule 4 at the link).
A second objective — Redefine banned weapons
One way to use this moment is to push the destruction of all chemical weapons, not just ban their use. Another way is to redefine banned weapons.
After all, chemical weapons got a bad name for being prominently used in a “bad” (universally hated) war, WW I. There are now many worse weapons in the world, all of which we use or have used.
Wikipedia (my emphasis and paragraphing):
Agent Orange or Herbicide Orange (HO) is one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971.
Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of the use of contaminated batches [explained here] of the compound. The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that up to 1 million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange. The United States government has challenged these figures as being unreliable and unrealistically high.
As early as 1997, British Army doctors warned the British MoD (Ministry of Defence) that exposure to depleted uranium increased the risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancer, and recommended a series of safety precautions.
According to a report issued summarizing the advice of the doctors, “Inhalation of insoluble uranium dioxide dust will lead to accumulation in the lungs with very slow clearance—if any. … Although chemical toxicity is low, there may be localised radiation damage of the lung leading to cancer.”
The report warns that “All personnel … should be aware that uranium dust inhalation carries a long-term risk … [the dust] has been shown to increase the risks of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers.” …
The chemical toxicity of depleted uranium is about a million times greater in vitro than its radiological hazard, with the kidney considered to be the main target organ. …
White phosphorus is a material made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus that is used in smoke, tracer, illumination and incendiary munitions. Other common names include WP, and the slang term “Willie Pete,” which is dated from its use in Vietnam, and is still sometimes used in military jargon. As an incendiary weapon, white phosphorus burns fiercely and can ignite cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles. …
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon’s initial explosion can produce extensive, deep second and third degree burns. One reason why this occurs is the tendency of the element to stick to the skin. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multiple organ failure.
These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed. In some cases, burns are limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed.
Each of these weapons has been or is being broadly used, including and especially by the West. If the world is serious about, well, the children and other civilian innocents, let’s ban them all, and now. If they really care about acting against CW in Syria now, then now should be a perfect time act on this as well.
What you can do
I think the people listed above — from Hayes to Moyers to Harris-Parry to reporters at press conferences to name writers at, say, Huffington Post — are perfectly placed to ask the chemical weapons question loudly, publicly, often and together.
And I think you’re perfectly placed to ask them to ask it.
See the list of people named above; they’re all reachable. And frankly, sometimes all it takes is for someone to make the suggestion. Operators are waiting for your calls, and I hear Twitter’s been invented. Go for it.
UPDATE: Did you hear that Larry Summers backed down for Fed Chairman? This is how winning this way works.
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius