Combatting Words of Mass Destruction

In his article “Words of Mass Destruction in the Syria Debate,” Ty Solomon discusses the significance of rhetoric in international politics. He identifies that an arbitrary categorization of an issue in one State greatly affects the attention this issue receives from another State.

Specifically, Solomon addresses the influence of the term “chemical weapons” in the (in)decision of the United States and the United Kingdom to intervene in the Syria Crisis. He notes that neither the United States nor the United Kingdom were interested in intervening in Syria until the engagement of the term “chemical weapons” –in contrast to “conventional” weapon, like guns and explosives. In addition to merely noting this reality, Solomon persistently asks why this was the case. Why didn’t either the US or the UK care to intervene in Syria until “chemical weapons” defined the issue?

This issue can be considered more broadly: why does certain verbiage elicit a stronger response or more concern from some States than other verbiage? A major focus of Solomon’s argument is the arbitrariness of categories that have such a crucial affect on the world’s response to these issues. He identifies the consequences of arbitrariness when noting that issues of so called “chemical weapons” and “weapons of mass destruction” receive more attention than issues of “conventional weapons” --even though “conventional” weapons “illicit much more mass destruction and human pain.” That is, the use of “regular” guns and explosives is more widespread than other weapons and consequently results in just as many, if not more, lost lives. So how is one category considered more distinct from another? Or, more threatening than another? Or, worth more attention that another?

Clearly there is a strong degree of power in identifying such categories and assigning to which category a State belongs. One category will receive aid or intervention while another category remains neglected. An important question is: who governs the rhetoric, which governs international politics? More candidly, who governs the rhetoric that decides who lives and dies?

The influence of rhetoric is an example of power, thereby relating to sovereignty. Walter Opello and Stephen Rosow discuss sovereignty at length in their book The Nation-State and Global Order. Specifically, in Chapter 10, “The Postcolonial State: Reflexive Sovereignty,” they discuss sovereignty’s historical significance. They explain that sovereignty has been used historically to establish and enforce dichotomies. One dichotomy is the distinction between traditional societies and modern societies.  They note that modern societies were viewed more favorably than traditional societies.

When one understands rhetoric as an exhibit of sovereignty, one can understand how Solomon & Opello and Rosow’s arguments relate. The concept of traditional versus modern still persists today. Sovereign states dictate what is traditional and what is modern. In this discussion, conventional warfare is traditional, and weapons of mass destruction or chemical warfare are modern. Modern issues receive more attention than traditional issues –just as they have historically.

Therefore, states who are not sovereign (or of lesser sovereignty) must make active attempts to be regarded as modern. They must recognize the lessons of history despite the moral concerns associated with it. States who are not sovereign must develop rhetoric that brings attention to their need. They must intentionally redefine what is traditional or modern, never allowing themselves the misfortune of being being categorized as the former.  If that means coining their issues as more concerning than another issue, then that is what must be done. If that means exaggerating an issue, then so be it. In reference to Syria, if that means coining the term “chemical weapons,” then this is a life-saving solution. As Opello and Rosow state, State sovereignty is a modal feature of the modern world, that is, a model that migrates and is taken up an reworked by indigenous peoples according to particular circumstances and conditions.”