Iraq orders incendiary bomb probe

The Iraqi Government is to investigate the US military's use of white phosphorus shells during the battle of Fallujah - an inquiry that could reveal whether America breached a fundamental weapons treaty.

Iraq's acting Human Rights Minister Narmin Othman said a team would be dispatched to Fallujah to ascertain whether civilians had been killed or injured by the use of WP.

The use of WP against civilians as an incendiary weapon is prohibited.

The announcement came as British Defence Secretary John Reid faced mounting calls for an inquiry into both the use of WP by British forces as well as what Britain knew about its deployment by US troops.

The fresh controversy over last November's battle for Fallujah was sparked last week by the Italian broadcaster RAI, which claimed there were many civilian casualties.

Pentagon spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable said he would "not be surprised" if WP had been used by US forces elsewhere in Iraq.

The size or scale of the inquiry to be undertaken by the Iraqi Government is unclear.

An official with the Human Rights Ministry said that while it was also not known how long the inquiry would take "the people of Fallujah will be fully consulted".

The Pentagon said the use of incendiary weapons against military targets is not prohibited. However, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Weapons bans the use of such arms against civilians.

Perhaps of crucial importance to the investigators, the treaty restricts their use against military targets "inside a concentration of civilians" unless the target is separated.

Reid confirmed that British troops had used WP in Iraq, though he said the shells had only been used as smokescreens - which experts say it is its primary function.

Reid said the US's use of WP was a "matter for the US". However, last week he indicated he would raise the issues highlighted by RAI if presented with evidence.

British MPs called for an inquiry, saying they had previously been misled about the US's use of the napalm in Iraq. The US draws a distinction between traditional napalm and updated firebombs. However, experts say they are virtually identical.

Mike Gapes, Labour chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select committee, said: "There is an issue here about whether the chemical weapons convention should be strengthened to include this particular substance because it is defined as an incendiary not a chemical weapon, therefore it is excluded from certain definitions."

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "A vital part of the effort in Iraq is to win hearts and minds. The use of this weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency."

So far, the fallout in the US over the revelation has been minimal. Should this change, it will add to the pressure on President George W. Bush, who is facing all-time low approval ratings.

Civilians were told to leave Fallujah before the US attacked.

Reports gathered from refugee camps and from an interview with an Iraqi doctor who remained in the city suggest that numerous civilians suffered burns and "melting skin".

Photographs show rows of bodies charred almost beyond recognition.

A LEGITIMATE OR INHUMAN WEAPON?

What is white phosphorus?

WP is a highly flammable incendiary material which ignites when exposed to oxygen, and will burn flesh until all available oxygen is used. WP produces a yellow flame and dense smoke. It is used as a smokescreen to conceal movement and illuminate a battlefield.

Is it a chemical weapon?

WP has thermal properties which burn, rather than chemical properties which attack the body's life systems. It does not fall under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. But Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons bans its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations.

So what happened in Fallujah?

The first US position was that its military used WP as a smokescreen, and was therefore legitimate. The Pentagon said on Tuesday that US troops had used it as a weapon against insurgents. The argument focuses on whether those targeted were insurgents or civilians.

What does this mean in law?

Humanitarian law distinguishes between combatants and non-combatants. If WP was used against insurgents they qualify as combatants. The 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (Protocol III) prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians or military targets located within concentrations of civilians. The US has not signed protocol III.

Is there a legal recourse if civilians died?

If an Iraqi probe provides evidence that WP was used as a weapon on civilians, the 1977 First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions could be invoked. Any use of a weapon that causes "superfluous or unnecessary suffering" is outlawed. Breaches of the Geneva Conventions are handled by the UN.

Why has this taken so long to come out?

An Italian documentary accused the US of using white phosphorus in a "massive and indiscriminate way" against civilians at Fallujah. Witnesses in the US military's Field Artillery magazine described firing WP/high explosive "shake and bake" missions at insurgents.

- INDEPENDENT