Apparently everyone uses social media these days–even poachers. A string of wildlife traffickers based out of Vietnam have been discovered using Facebook to sell large amounts of ivory, rhino horn, and tiger parts. On Monday and Tuesday the results from a yearlong investigation by the Wildlife Justice Commission WJC, will be presented at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

Investigators combed through a small Vietnamese village, Nhi Khe and found illegal goods worth $53.1 million, sold by 51 villagers both online and in person. Sadly, these products come from what are believed to be 907 elephants, 579 rhinos, 225 tigers, and other endangered species such as pangolins, bears, hawksbill turtles, and helmeted hornbills.

WJC tweeted early Monday morning the upsetting insight that people in the village didn’t even know what the animals used to make their products look like.

#WJCVietnam: @ossendryver on visit to VN found people didn’t really know what rhinos or elephants were ‘as animals’ just as products

— WJC (@WJCommission) November 14, 2016

The rise of social media has made it easier to sell products from the safety of your home. These sales happen through auctions in closed Facebook groups, where new visitors need to get approved by an admin before becoming members. Smugglers mainly sell processed products made from ivory or rhino, but there are also whole tusks and horns on the market. Payment is made via WeChat Wallet. They seem to be selling locally in Southeast Asia through Facebook, and use WeChat itself to sell to China.

Olivia Swaak-Goldman, Executive Director at WJC, said in a statement: “Our evidence shows that an amount of rhino horn equivalent to nearly half the rhinos poached annually in South Africa transits this village. Stopping this illegal trade requires urgent action.”

Tune into the #WJCVietnam Hearing by visiting: https://t.co/6QkP25KvfC pic.twitter.com/ymHayrIofW

— Born Free Foundation (@BFFoundation) November 14, 2016

But despite all the evidence, the statement said, in combination with diplomatic efforts, the Vietnamese government has not taken any action to stop the illegal smuggling. The government seems to have taken steps to prevent open trade, but behind closed doors, secret trading is still going on. This inaction is likely due to corruption.

#WJCVietnam: Milliken: we believe corruption is major issue at both ends of #illegaltrade supply chain. VN syndicates at both ends of chain.

— WJC (@WJCommission) November 14, 2016

However, on Monday morning, during the first part of the hearing, environmental reporting agency IISD tweeted that Vietnamese officials had made an arrest in connection to the wildlife traffickers.

#WJCVietnam: Viet Nam has made first arrest based on @WJCommission evidence last weekend. “An important first step.” https://t.co/xffQMd8JJD pic.twitter.com/0Mre9phfn3

— IISDRS (@IISDRS) November 14, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vietnamese Wildlife Traffickers Sell Ivory and Rhino Horn On Facebook appeared first on Law Street.

In the same city where 20,000 tons of explosives rained down from American planes during Christmas 1972–killing more than 1,000 civilians–President Barack Obama stood in front of giant American and Vietnamese flags on Monday to announce the severing of a Cold War-era arms embargo between the U.S. and Vietnam. This is Obama’s first visit to the country, and the first leg of a trip in the Pacific.

At a news conference in Hanoi–the communist country’s northern capital on the banks of the Red River–Obama continued his pattern of deepening ties with longstanding U.S. adversaries, and of thawing relations with largely isolated communist regimes such as Cuba and Myanmar.

“The United States is fully lifting the ban on the sale of military equipment to Vietnam that has been in place for some 50 years,” Obama said to a gaggle of Vietnamese and foreign press as he insisted the ban had nothing to do with China. “It was based on our desire to complete what has been a lengthy process of moving toward normalization with Vietnam.”

Critics of the announcement however, namely human rights organizations that view Vietnam as a brutal regime with a horrendous human rights record, contend the move will cede leverage in negotiating with the Vietnamese to reel back their abuses: including jailing journalists, beating dissidents, and maintaining over 100 known political prisoners (Human Rights Watch counts 104, though it acknowledges there are most likely many more).

“The only people who would be happy [with the lifting of the ban] is the Vietnamese government, because [Obama] didn’t address human rights except in a boiler plate paragraph with no names, places or dates, no people, no sense of urgency,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch (HRW) in an interview with Law Street.

According to Adams, the speech occurred on a day that served as a microcosm of Vietnam’s concerning behavior: parliamentary elections (“a rubber stamp affair,” Adams called them) were held as dissidents were rounded up. Obama did not address either in his announcement.

The full lifting of the embargo–which was partially lifted in 2014–is the final step in normalizing relations with the Southeast Asian nation, and in removing a “lingering vestige of the Cold War,” said Obama. Earlier in the trip, Obama made other moves to strengthen ties between his government and that of Tran Dai Quang, Vietnam’s president. Visa restrictions for travelers to either country will be eased, the Peace Corps will station volunteers in the country to teach English, and both Obama and Quang reiterated their commitment to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, or TPP, which is currently stalled in Congress and has failed to obtain the concrete support of any of the three remaining presidential nominees.

Obama’s stated goal in easing arms sales to Vietnam is to allow the country to defend itself amid increasingly volatile times in the region. Its powerful neighbor to the north–China–has shown signs of aggression in a territorial dispute in the South China Sea, where Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines jostle over who has the right to the Spratly Islands. In recent months, China has intensified its naval force in the region and has been hard at work in building an island in the hopes of legitimizing its claim.

Disputes over territory in the South China Sea has led to increased tension between China and much of Southeast Asia. Image courtesy of [deedavee easyflow via Flickr]

Though China is publicly supportive of the dissolution of the half century old embargo (officials reportedly hope it will lead to “normal and friendly” relations), a commentary published in the state-run Xinhua News Agency on Sunday hinted at what is perhaps its unofficial, internal view of U.S.-Vietnam relations.

“As a habitual wave-maker in the Asia-Pacific, the United States has shown no restraint in meddling in regional situation, which is evidenced by its relentless moves to disturb peace in the South China Sea,” wrote Xinhua contributor Sun Ding. On the potential embargo lift, which at the time of publishing had not been announced: “The calculating move will serve only Washington’s own strategic purposes as the United States seeks a rebalance in the Asia-Pacific.”

The White House and Vietnam’s government released a joint statement Monday afternoon in regards to the partnership between the two countries, with a section highlighting “promoting human rights and legal reform”:

The United States welcomed Vietnam’s ongoing efforts in improving its legal system and undertaking legal reform in order to better guarantee the human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone in accordance with the 2013 Constitution.

But Adams isn’t convinced that Vietnam is doing anything concrete in regards to safeguarding human rights. Even if the Vietnamese government enacts law changes, it does so to benefit those in power, he said, not for the good of the people. He’s seen mixed reactions from the blogosphere in Vietnam–human rights organizations’ window into the country because they are not allowed on the ground–in regards to Obama’s speech.

Nationalist fervor is gripping Vietnam at the moment, Adams said, and so the people who are focused on the alleged threat from China are happy the embargo was lifted, and progressive liberals in the country are happy with the move as well. Others, he said, think it should have been lifted but with concessions. And while he noted this episode as being entirely about the perceived threat from China, Adams was disappointed in what he saw as a blown opportunity.

“When you have leverage, to just throw it away is unacceptable,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Despite Human Rights Disagreements, Obama Lifts Arms Embargo with Vietnam appeared first on Law Street.

In discussions of international politics, we hear a lot of talk about nuclear weapons, but another deadly type of weapon often goes overlooked. Chemical weapons have both proven their deadliness on the battlefield and have been deployed with greater frequency in contemporary times. Nevertheless, just two-and-a-half years since President Obama made his infamous “Red Line” speech against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, this issue has drifted from the public consciousness. While interest has waned publicly, these weapons are still being used on battlefields across the globe, even as legislation and efforts are being made to eliminate them for good. Read on to learn about chemical warfare, the legal framework for using chemical weapons, and how successful efforts to eliminate them have been.

History of Chemical Warfare

While chemical weapons in rudimentary forms have been in use for millennia, it was only relatively recently that they were harnessed in a modern sense. Chemical weapons made their debut on the stage of WWI. During that war, toxic gases such as chlorine and mustard gas were released from canisters on the battlefield. The results were devastating for two reasons. Not only were chemical weapons responsible for over a million causalities on the battlefield, but they also left a strong impression on the public’s consciousness. The video below explains the use of chemical warfare, particularly in WWI.

Nevertheless the use of the weapons continued through the inter-war years, particularly in places such as Russia and Africa. Usage was ramped up again in WWII. In the Far East, the Japanese used a variety of chemical agents in their attempted conquest of China. Meanwhile, in the Atlantic theater, chemical weapons were used by a number of parties, most notoriously by the Nazis in their death camps.

Even after WWII chemical weapons continued to be used. In one of the most glaring instances, the United States used instruments such as Agent Orange in Vietnam. The Americans were not alone, as the Soviets later employed chemical weapons in Afghanistan. Iraq utilized the deadly agents in its war against Iran as well as against its own Kurdish citizens.

Additionally, the usage of chemical weapons by individuals and terrorist groups has become a concern too. The most prominent example came in Japan in 1995, when the Aum Shinrikyo cult used nerve agent Sarin in a Tokyo subway. Chemical weapons were also used by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan during the American occupation. Even ISIS has deployed chemical weapons in its battles against Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers.

The most recent high profile and controversial use occurred in Syria in 2013. In late March it was reported that the use of chemical weapons had been detected. While both the Syrian military and the rebels denied using the weapons, each blaming the other side, the usage of chemicals had crossed what President Obama called a “red line.”

While the episode in Syria was just one in a long line of chemical weapons attacks, it aroused concern over whether the existing framework to prevent the creation and use of chemical weapons was adequate. So, what is that framework?

Legality of Chemical Weapons

The horror of chemical weapon usage in WWI left a lasting image in the minds of many people. Thus in 1925, the first legislation aimed at prohibiting the dissemination of chemical weapons was passed. This was known as the Geneva Protocol and it prohibited the use of chemical weapons in warfare. However, the treaty proved inadequate in several ways as it allowed for the continued production of chemical weapons. Additionally, it also gave countries the right to use chemical weapons against non-signatories and in retaliation if weapons were used against them.

The Chemical Weapons Convention

Although seemingly inadequate, the Protocol nonetheless proved to be the only protection against chemical weapons for the next 65 years. Finally in 1992 however, the Chemical Weapons Convention was adopted. It was subsequently opened for signature beginning in 1993 and put into force in 1997. Unlike the Geneva Protocol, the CWC has a much clearer and all-encompassing goal: eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction.

Namely what the treaty calls for is the prohibition of the “development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by states parties.” The chemicals themselves are divided into three different schedules, which may sound similar to those familiar with the U.S. drug classification regime. In addition, the signatories are responsible for enforcing these protocols within their own countries. Along with stopping the production of chemical weapons, states are required to destroy existing stockpiles and production facilities. Lastly, states are obligated to create a verification system for chemicals and must open themselves to snap inspections by other members. The video below details which chemicals are banned and what the CWC requires of its members.

Chemical Weapons Prohibition Regime: Success or Failure?

So is the current chemical weapons convention (CWC) a success or failure? Different metrics tell different stories.

Arguments for Success 

Membership in the treaty certainly casts a positive glow. As of 1997 when the treaty took effect, 190 countries had joined with only five–Israel, Egypt, North Korea, Angola, and South Sudan–not yet ratifying the treaty. Furthermore, real progress has been made in implementing a number of the treaty’s goals. As of 2007, 100 percent of chemical weapons sites had been “deactivated,” 90 percent of which had either been destroyed or switched to peaceful use. Additionally, over 25 to 30 percent of stockpiles had been destroyed and 2,800 inspections had been carried out. The map below indicates countries’ signing status: light green indicates that the country signed and ratified the CWC, dark green indicates that the CWC is acceded or succeeded, yellow countries have signed but not ratified the CWC, and red countries are not signatories.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia

Arguments For Failure

Conversely, while those metrics point to success, there a number that tell the opposite story. The world has failed to meet the 2012 deadline originally set by the treaty for completely disarming all chemical weapons globally. The two main culprits were also two of the main catalysts behind the treaty in the first place: Russia and the United States. These two countries possess the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons, so their compliance with the treaty carries significant weight. The video below shows the failures of the U.S., Russia, and other nations to uphold the treaty’s protocols.

Along with failure to disarm is the question of favoritism. While the U.S. has been critical of other countries’ efforts to disarm, it has not pressured its close ally Israel to ratify the treaty, let alone destroy its acknowledged stockpile.

Other issues also exist. Several countries, despite having ratified the treaty, have not set up the international policing mechanisms necessary and required by the treaty to give it any actual power. Additionally, the inspection process itself has been described as unfair and inadequate. Because labs are transitioning from large factories to smaller compounds, it’s difficult to inspect and punish individual labs for producing illegal compounds. Furthermore, there are a number of non-lethal compounds used by the police–such as tear gas–that are not covered by the CWC and can be harmful. Lastly, while the treaty covers states, it does nothing to prevent groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda from using the harmful weapons.

Conclusion

As of June 2014, Syria completed the process of either giving up or destroying all of its declared weapons. This was seen as a major coup as most expected Syria to sandbag, especially after it missed prior several deadlines. Although Syria declared its chemical weapons, it is still suspected that other secret caches remain. Additionally, after the first acknowledged use–the event that overstepped the Red Line and led to the agreement between Russia, the U.S., and Syria–there were several more speculated incidents of chemical weapons use in Syria.

This points to the problem with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Like the Non-Proliferation Treaty for nuclear weapons, there is no governing body that can punish a country for violating it. This is because joining the treaty is voluntary and there is no punishment for not joining or even for joining then quitting. Moreover, most of the countries that did join never had chemical weapons to begin with, thus signing a treaty prohibiting them made no difference. The bottom line then is that when it comes to chemical weapons, much like nuclear or biological weapons, the onus is on the individual country to comply.

Resources

Primary

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs: Chemical Weapons Convention

Additional 

Fact Check.org: Obama’s Blurry Red Line

OPCW: Brief History of Chemical Weapons Use

Johnston Archive: Summary of Historical Attacks Using Chemical or Biological Weapons

American Society of International Law: The Chemical Weapons Convention After 10 Years

Arms Control Association: Chemical Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties

Washington Times: U.S. and Russia are Slow to Destroy Their Own Chemical Weapons Amid Syria Smackdown

Think Progress: Nobody Thought Syria Would Give Up Its Chemical Weapons. It Just Did

Military.com: U.S. to Destroy Its Largest Remaining Chemical Weapons Cache

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Forgotten WMDs: Chemical Weapons appeared first on Law Street.