Opinion The red line of peace

The OPCW is the implementing body of the Chemical Weapons Convention,an instrument of international law which outlaws the development,production,stockpiling and use of chemical weapons,and stands in the vanguard of the world’s defence against chemical weapons of mass destruction. Nearly all states of the world have signed and ratified the treaty,and with the accession of Syria,the world has destroyed 81.71 per cent of all declared chemical weapons stockpiles.

The Nobel prize acknowledges these specific achievements — it is a quantifiable peace,the implementation of security by numbers. The OPCW gives us a model of what our international institutions must look like,with important lessons for the deliberations on nuclear disarmament as well as contemporary debates over how multilateral organisations can collectively manage the planet’s shared problems. The OPCW constitutes a prohibitive regime that does not stop at the mere statement of abhorrence. Structurally,it is a comprehensive gamut of provisions for the destruction of chemical weapons and the monitoring and verification of this destruction by an international inspectorate.

Within living history,we have been witness to the tragedies wrought by chemical agents in warfare and attacks — in the death of 5,000 people in Halabja,Iraq,in an attack on the Tokyo subway on 1995,and most recently,in Damascus,Syria. The existence of these weapons will always present the spectre of their possible use. We live in a world where warfare is no longer confined to states warring against each other. We are increasingly confronted with the threat of non-state actors — individuals and groups,in terrorism,militancy and factions of civil war — who can access these weapons. In their hands,the international community can no longer regulate these weapons. It is therefore important that these poisons of war are not just banned,but destroyed.

The Chemical Weapons Convention has become international law,in the only way one can possibly create law in the international system — through the norm that informs it. This norm against chemical weapons is the “red line” that brings states from polar opposites of the political spectrum together in its defence. Even as states fell out over the question of military intervention in Syria’s civil war,the use of chemical weapons,verified by a UN fact finding mission with OPCW inspectors,was the only thing which became universally acceptable grounds for intervention of some sort — legal,diplomatic or the possibility of enforcement.

What makes chemical weapons so abhorrent that they constitute a red line when a conventionally waged civil war doe not? A weapon which asphyxiates,incapacitates and tortures its victims before they die from it offends our collective humanity. This is not a taboo the international community knew innately. It was brought up at the Hague Peace Conferences,and the Geneva Protocol of 1925 first outlawed chemical weapons. But it is now near universal international law,because it comes bound in international obligation,verification,and governance,and because the OPCW has worked to raise awareness of the horrors of these weapons.

The OPCW has become,through its near universal membership and technical expertise,a repository of international legitimacy. And this has made it strategically crucial to engaging in crises like that in Syria. It has allowed the international community to open up dialogue with Bashar al-Assad. Confrontation may have fuelled more belligerence. It has provided grounds on which to negotiate a temporary ceasefire and allow inspectors to carry out their duties without threat. It has removed,from a dangerous and uncertain civil war,an entire category of weapons of mass destruction which would have multiplied its horrors.

Amid all the inequities of the multilateral system,where all we see are the most dramatic instances of belligerence,of states having their own way,of international organisations and international law have not been able to act to avert crises,the Nobel peace prize draws our attention to the fact that there is a dense worldwide network of multilateral activity that continues to hum in the background. There is successful work in peace and security we don’t hear about because these organisations are doing their job well,and reducing chances of disaster. And successful multilateralism which reduces the possibility of war.

The writer was part of the OPCW. She is currently working for the United Nations

express@expressindia.com