Investigations Of Alleged Use Of Chemical Weapons

A BRIEF SUMMARY OF UN INVESTIGATIONS OF ALLEGED USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS 1980 - 1992

1. Southeast Asia and Afghanistan 1980-1982

Against strong protests from the Soviet-led block, the General Assembly decided in the autumn of 1980 to request the Secretary-General to conduct an investigations of various allegations of use of chemical weapons. Four technical experts were nominated (from Egypt, Kenya, Peru and the Philippines) and made, together with technical consultants and some UN personnel, visits to Thailand (twice) and Pakistan.

The team was denied access to the areas of the alleged use (in Afghanistan, Laos and Cambodia) and had therefore to rely on interviews with eyewitnesses to the alleged attacks who had fled into neighbouring countries, examination of victims, and analysis of samples said to have come from the areas.

Most of the alleged use was said to have taken place months or even years before the arrival of the investigation team. This, in combination with the lack of access to affected areas seriously hampered the investigation. The final conclusion was inconclusive: no proofs of the use of chemical weapons had been obtained but there was circumstantial evidence suggestive of the military use of toxic chemicals.

2. Iran 1984-1988

After Iran had dispatched a number of victims of alleged use of chemical weapons to various hospitals outside Iran for medical treatment, the Secretary-General of the UN decided to initiate an investigation of the allegations. A team of four technical experts and a UN coordinator was dispatched and conducted a field investigation in March 1994. The team had access to affected areas and could take samples from unexploded munitions. It could also medically examine victims. It concluded that chemical weapons had been used but did not identify the aggressor.

In 1985 victims of alleged CW use were examined in Iran, and in 1986 a new field investigation took place. More samples could be taken, including samples of contaminated soil. Witnesses were interviewed, including Iraqi personnel said to have been involved in the actual use. This time the team concluded that Iraq was the state responsible for the use of chemical weapons against Iran. Further field investigations took place in 1987 (once) and in 1988 (twice), all arriving at the same conclusions.

3. Iraq 1988

In the summer of 1988 Iraq made a counterclaim that Iran had been using chemical weapons against Iraqi troops. A UN investigation team made one visit, was shown some samples of alleged Iranian chemical munitions, but did not arrive at any firm conclusions. However, it hints at the possibility that the evidence, which was presented to the team, could have been fabricated.

A sample from an unexploded shell turned out to contain hydrochloric acid with traces of thiodiglycol. If mustard agent is prepared by chlorination of thiodiglycol by hydrochloric acid, the reaction mixture is expected to separate into two phases, the upper one having the encountered composition and the lower one being mustard agent.

4. Mozambique 1992

It was alleged by the Mozambican Government that, on one occasion in January 1992, Renamo guerrilla had used an unspecified, probably mainly incapacitating type of chemical weapons against its military troops. The allegations were first independently investigated by investigators from United Kingdom, the Republic of South Africa and Sweden. The UK investigator did not completely rule out the possible use of the incapacitating substance BZ, whereas the South African and Swedish investigators did not find any evidence of the use of chemical weapons.

Ten weeks after the alleged use, a UN team of experts was despatched to Mozambique to give an independent opinion. After an investigation, the team concluded that they had not been shown any evidence that would support the allegations of use of chemical weapons in the reported incident.

5. Azerbaijan 1992

During May and June 1992 officials of the Azerbaijani government on a number of occasions claimed that Armenian military forces had made use of chemical weapons against Azerbaijan. Armenia denied any CW use and requested the UN to investigate the allegations.

A small team arrived in Azerbaijan in early July 1992. After having visited sites where use was alleged to have taken place, the team concluded that they had not been shown even any circumstantial evidence of CW use, and that the allegations were due to a mistake made in good faith. "Cyanide" traces had been found in soil and shrapnel samples and officials had drawn the conclusion that, since "cyanide" is known to be toxic, this was a case of use of chemical weapons. However, cyanide salts can arise from the burning of explosives and gunpowder; furthermore it is unlikely that the two cyanide-based CW agents hydrogen cyanide and cyanogen chloride would leave cyanide salt residues in the soil or on shrapnel.

[Defence Link Glossary]