Ban White Phosphorus: Gaza’s Agony - and the Thai Border Flashpoint
Ban White Phosphorus: Gaza’s Agony and the Thai Border Flashpoint
In Gaza, white phosphorus has become a symbol of indiscriminate suffering. But it’s not just the Middle East where this incendiary substance is raising alarms. Along the Thai-Cambodian border, recent clashes have reignited debate over its legality, deployment, and humanitarian impact.
Gaza: A Humanitarian Catastrophe
According to over 61,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023, with starvation deaths now exceeding 260. Amid this devastation, reports of white phosphorus use in civilian zones have drawn condemnation from rights groups. Its effects—deep burns, toxic smoke, and environmental contamination—are incompatible with international humanitarian law, especially in urban warfare.
Thai-Cambodian Border War: A Legal Grey Zone
In August 2025, the Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC) accused Thai forces of firing white phosphorus shells into Oddar Meanchey province during a five-day border conflict.
A 155mm shell allegedly recovered by Cambodian experts prompted claims of chemical weapon use.
The Royal Thai Army (RTA) swiftly denied the allegations, stating that white phosphorus is used for smoke and illumination—not as a chemical weapon. According to Maj Gen Winthai Suvaree, the munitions are not banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) or Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW).
He emphasised that Thailand maintains strict controls and targets only military objectives - and surely the armoury doors will be opened? Thai UN HCR lead on reclassifying WP?
Yet the incident exposes a troubling loophole: no treaty currently prohibits the stockpiling or use of white phosphorus, even in volatile border zones where civilian harm is plausible.
While in Gaza WP shells were not used as markers but as weapons themselves: a cheap napalm. And WP wounds are so severe and horrific as to be almost untreatable.
Why This Matters
Cross-Regional Risk: From Gaza to Southeast Asia, white phosphorus is deployed in contested zones with limited oversight.
Legal Ambiguity: Its classification as a non-chemical weapon allows states to sidestep accountability.
Civilian Impact: Whether in refugee camps or border villages, the human toll is severe and often underreported.
What Must Change
Expand Treaty Definitions: Reclassify white phosphorus under CWC when used in populated areas. Tear Gas is already banned as a military chemical weapon.
Mandate Stockpile Transparency: Require UN member states to disclose holdings and deployment protocols. Why would hundreds of shells be needed?
Independent Monitoring: Empower neutral bodies to investigate use in border conflicts and urban warfare.
Regional Accountability: ASEAN and Commonwealth nations must adopt stricter controls and public reporting.
Final Thoughts
White phosphorus too is not just a weapon—it’s a test of international resolve. If we allow its continued use in Gaza, on the Thai-Cambodian frontier, or anywhere civilians live under threat, we erode the very principles of humanitarian law. The time for reform is now.
Comments