The Devil’s Arsenal: the weapons of war

White phosphorus is a napalm like substance that is highly toxic, highly dangerous and highly destructive. Questions have arisen about the use by coalition forces generally, and by the United States in particular, of radioactive material like depleted uranium and chemicals like white phosphorus in theatres of war including Iraq and Afghanistan. It's been virtually impossible to get straight answers out of the puppet masters, but the use of such substances against other human beings is a matter about which concerned citizens of all countries should know and have a right to know.

On 23 October 2009, in answer to a question put by Senator Ludlam, Air Chief Marshal Houston said: I will be quite categorical here. No chemical or radiological weapons are used by the coalition in Afghanistan.

The answer was "clarified" in December 2009 with “…it is understood that some foreign defence forces may use or reserve the right to use, Depleted Uranium ammunition in Afghanistan…”

Five months before Mr Houston’s testimony - as a result of a tragic incident involving an 8 year old Afghan girl named Razia - Colonel Gregory Julian, a spokesman for the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, confirmed that Western forces in the country do use the chemical:

In the case of white phosphorus it is used on the battlefield in certain applications…It is used as an incendiary to destroy bunkers and enemy equipment; it’s used for illumination.

In May this year Danish Daily Information reported that leaked documents for the period 2005-2009 revealed that Danish and foreign coalition forces used white phosphorus not only in eastern Afghanistan along the border with Pakistan, but also in populated areas of Helmand’s Green Zone, an area obviously familiar to our troops.

More recently Pakistani physicians and experts have suggested that U.S. drones are using chemical munitions in attacks on the basis of civilians being afflicted with unusual skin, optic and respiratory diseases.

Isn't it about time the ADF were questioned again, and required to give much more considered and thorough answers, about their knowledge of the use of chemical weapons in Afghanistan?

Depleted uranium

Depleted uranium is thought to cause mutations to DNA and to be carcinogenic. Experts have suggested that when shells made of it strikes solid objects the tremendous impact creates micron sized particles of uranium dioxide that can be inhaled into the lungs, and uranium dioxide not being water soluble, it lodges there and radiates adjacent tissue. Given that it has a half life of about 4½ billion years, ought we not be aware whether or not our country is associated with its use in munitions?

A series of leaked U.S. cables has Belgium’s government assuring the U.S. that the country’s domestic banon depleted uranium weapons would not apply to US shipments through Antwerp:

Also in response to questions about the potential for harm to the interests of the US  or other allies who use depleted uranium, our contacts have pointed to several points.  Noting our concerns about restrictions on the transit of US material, the bill makes “absolutely no mention” of the issue.  The accompanying committee report of the bill notes explicitly that Belgian forces can freely participate, plan, and assist operations with troops using depleted uranium….   

….The 2007 law deserves attention for two reasons. One potential concern is for transit and storage by the United States and other NATO members of depleted uranium weapons on and through Belgian territory.  The port of Antwerp has been an important trans-shipment point for material for operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom and ISAF.  The other is the implications of the law for Belgium’s position on depleted uranium issues in international for a.  On the first point, we have been assured by Werner Bauwens, Director of the Non-Proliferation and Export Controls Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that the law will not impact transit or storage of such weapons  by the United States and NATO…

Earlier this year the Courier Mail reported: Australia does not use depleted uranium. The official line is Australian troops can only come into contact with DU if they serve alongside NATO forces, such as the US, which use it extensively….Tony Halter, a 13 year navy and army veteran, offers chilling insight into his exposure to depleted uranium used in the field.  His proficiency with Arabic, Farsi and Pashtun got him deployed to Afghanistan….”In the Shah-i-Kot Valley where Australians are now, you kneel down to avoid some clown firing at you and say, ‘Oh look, there’s some’,” he said of DU munitions.  Halter said bullets and bombs were marked with a DU sign spray-painted in yellow…

Recently Afghan President Hamid Karzai accused the U.S. led foreign forces of using weapons with nuclear components. The Cyprus Green Party called on its government to investigate the risk of allowing Canadian forces to clean their potentially radioactive vehicles in Cyprus. Significantly, 148 states supported a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling on state users of depleted uranium weapons to reveal where the weapons have been fired when asked to do so by affected countries.

Perhaps the Labor Government may care to explain Australia’s abstention from that vote?

Cluster munitions

A report of the IBA Task Force on Terrorism notes that the U.S. admitted to the use of cluster munitions in ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’. These weapons leave unexploded bomblets over a  wide area, resulting in a lasting risk of civilian casualties both during and long after conflict.  They added that only in extreme theoretical situation where cluster munitions were to be used on combatants only, with all unexploded ordainments cleared post conflict,  would the use of cluster munitions respect the principal of distinction between combatants and civilians.  The U.S. has not yet ratified the convention on cluster munitions which is now in force as regards its state parties.

What is our Labor Government’s response to cables alleging that it secretly worked with the United States to weaken a key international treaty to ban cluster bombs?

Human Terrain System (HTS) & Biometrics

HTS is an U.S. Army-led initiative that includes anthropologists helping U.S. troops better understand local customs to avoid cultural mishaps.

In 2007 the American Anthropological Association expressed its disapproval of the HTS program because:

As members of HTS teams, anthropologists provide information and counsel to US military field commanders.  This poses a risk that information provided by HTS anthropologists could be used to make decisions about identifying and selecting specific populations as targets of US military operations either in the short or long term…. it creates conditions which are likely to place anthropologists in positions in which their work will be in violation of the AAA Code of Ethics and that its use of anthropologists poses a danger to both the anthropologists and persons other anthropologists study. 

I was recently contacted by an American source who suggested that:

The US Army Human Terrain System has largely been a disaster…The Pentagon is pushing a new version of HTS and one way of doing that is convincing allies to join in and perhaps share costs.  This new update to the humanterrainsystem.army.mil shows the push is on with Australia et al.

Biometrics is a counterinsurgency tool. Some argue it’s necessary to sort the goodies from the baddies, which may be fine if the controllers can be trusted, but does experience bear that out?

Late last year it was reported that local and NATO forces are amassing biometric dossiers on Afghans with a plan to issue biometrically backed identification cards to 1.65 million Afghans. Human rights activists are concerned not only about who will ultimately hold the information (finger prints, iris scans etc) but the potential for a database to be used to eliminate political or ethnic rivals.

War is an abomination in any shape or form. Unfortunately it seems to be an inevitable co-relative of human "civilisation", so if it can't be stopped then countries that wage war must be held to account for their conduct by the international community, even countries that are our allies. When it is our country that is waging war then our government must be held to account for its conduct by all of us as citizens.

Holding to account countries that wage war means requiring them to disclose exactly what kinds of weapons they put to use against the people of other countries, particularly where those weapons can have enduring catastrophic personal consequences for their victims.  If the war is just, and the conduct of the country waging it ethically and morally sound, what possible basis is there for concealing exactly what is being done in our names and exactly what weapons are being used to do it?