An Iraqi human rights team has gone to the city of Falluja to
investigate the use of white phosphorus as a weapon by US forces, a
minister has told the BBC.
Acting Human Rights Minister Narmin Uthman said her staff would examine the possible effects on civilians.
The US has now admitted using white phosphorus as a weapon in Falluja last year, after earlier denying it.
The substance can cause burning of the flesh but is not illegal and is not classified as a chemical weapon.
The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says it will be some time before the human rights team reports back.
The US had previously said that white phosphorus had been used only to light up enemy positions.
BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.
In other developments in Iraq:
* Sunni parties demand an international inquiry into
the alleged abuse of more than 170 detainees by Iraqi forces in Baghdad.
* Three US soldiers are killed in a roadside bomb near Baghdad
* A car bomb kills a US marine in Karmah, 80km (50 miles) west of Baghdad.
A Pentagon spokesman, Lt Col Barry Venable, confirmed to the BBC the US
had used white phosphorus "as an incendiary weapon against enemy
combatants" - though not against civilians, he said.
He said earlier denials had been based on "poor information".
Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance against civilians.
The US-led assault in November 2004 on Falluja - a stronghold of the
Sunni insurgency west of Baghdad - displaced most of the city's 300,000
population and left many of its buildings destroyed.
'Particularly nasty'
San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines
during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he
had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against
insurgents.
WHITE PHOSPHORUS
Spontaneously flammable chemical used for battlefield illumination
Contact with particles causes burning of skin and flesh
Use of incendiary weapons prohibited for attacking civilians (Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons)
Protocol III not signed by US
However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.
White phosphorus is highly flammable and ignites on contact with
oxygen. If the substance hits a person's body, it will burn until
deprived of oxygen.
Globalsecurity.org, a defence website, says: "Phosphorus burns on the
skin are deep and painful... These weapons are particularly nasty
because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears... it
could burn right down to the bone."
A spokesman at the UK Ministry of Defence said the use of white
phosphorus was permitted in battle in cases where there were no
civilians near the target area.
But Professor Paul Rodgers, of the University of Bradford's department
of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical
weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians.
He told PM: "It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in
its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it
probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used
for this kind of purpose directly against people."
An Italian documentary revealing the use of white phosphorus in Iraq
sparked fury among Italian anti-war protesters, who demonstrated
outside the US embassy in Rome earlier this month.
Iraq's human rights minister said the team was sent to Falluja after the documentary was broadcast on Rai TV in Italy.
Story from BBC NEWS:
|
RTO Trainer / Website (16.11.05 17:32) The UN Convention bans the use of incendiary weapons against civilans, not against humans. See for yourself: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/515?OpenDocument Of course any deliberate engagement or targeting of civilians is already a war crime. so that the US has not signed this one is not of especial import except to say that we aren't bound by it expressly. White Phosphorus is not banned. It also isn't a chemical weapon. We are signtory to the Chemical Weapons Convention which defines chemical weapons. See here: http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html So it isn't a chemical weapon and it isn't banned. Indiscriminate use is. The stories circulating do not support that contention. See here: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/04/11/military/iraq/19_30_504_10... Bogert received the coordinates for the targets and recorded them on a map. This is proper procedure. He's receiving coordinates from a Forward Observer, indirect fire weapons never see their targets, the FOs do. The coordinates are plotted so that it is known what was ordered where. There is also a verification that takes place in the call for indirect fire to avoid problems with numerical transposition or other mistakes. |