Thread by @alexghionis

Fascinating discussion yesterday at @cwccoalition with @JPZanders + Alastair Hay on #whitephosphorus and its ambiguous place in arms control architectures (something i know very little about) 1/6 #opcw #cwc

Although not explicitly covered by the #CWC #OPCW, and inadequately covered within the #CCW, the inhalation of its white smoke (phosphorous pentoxide) can cause asphyxiation and permanent harm to the respiratory tract through its toxic, irritant properties. 2/6

If #whitephosphorus smoke is used intentionally as an irritant, how does that relate to the #OPCW #CWC General Purpose Criterion? It is remarkably hard to ascertain 'intent' especially given that the 'exceptions' under #CCW Protocol III provide scope 'accidental' exposure 3/6

The way forward appears to be continuing to raise the profile of the issue by engaging both #CCW #CWC Conventions on the issue and working with states who have concerns about this 4/6 #opcw #whitephosporus

Another route forward is to support efforts to replace #whitephosphorus with other obscurants with less toxic smokes: i.e. think of the smoke used at concerts or other events. The ambiguity around legality and intent can be overcome by replacing it entirely. 5/6

This is what I "think" I have learnt about #whitephosphorus and why we need to control, and the challenges we face in doing so. Any experts please do weigh in to correct or agree! 6/6 #OPCW #CWC #CCW