League of Nations
The League of Nations established obligations of member countries concerning disarmament. One of the purposes of the League was to advocate for a reduction in military armaments for all members. Due to the perceived worldwide revulsion over the effects of chemical weapons in World War I, gas warfare became a popular topic early in League negotiations. In 1920, during the fifth session of the First League of Nations Assembly, a proposal was presented by the British representative to the Council of the League to study the “problem of the use of poisonous gas in warfare.”
After considerable investigation, the Permanent Advisory Commission for Military, Naval and Air Questions reported five months later that although the use of gas in war was “fundamentally cruel,” it was no crueler than conventional warfare techniques providing it was only employed against combatants. The committee did state that the use of chemical weapons against civilians was “barbarous and inexcusable.” One member of the committee stated that any prohibition on chemical warfare research and stockpiling in peacetime would be detrimental to those who abided by the regulation because it would put them at a disadvantage against the inevitable use of chemical weapons by other nations. Despite the study, the findings of the committee were rejected by the Council of the League who categorically denounced gas warfare. After further debate and investigation by the Permanent Advisory Commission, little consensus was found on the problem of chemical weapons, and the topic was tabled for the time being.
Controversy over chemical weapons continued over the next two years. Advocates and adversaries of gas warfare squared off in print, writing editorials and articles defending their positions. While the propaganda battle waged on in the popular media, many of the major world powers called a meeting to discuss the potential reduction of each nation’s army and navy. When it became known that possible restrictions on chemical weapons would be discussed at the upcoming conference, many commentators began urging the American delegation to ignore calls for chemical warfare restrictions.
Arguments for and against international limitations on chemical weapons took various forms. One critic of potential limitations argued that the key to abolishing war was to make its effects increasingly horrifying. Gas warfare being the newest and deadliest form of inflicting mass casualties, the United States with its superior offensive and defensive chemical warfare capabilities was uniquely positioned to make existing armaments obsolete by ensuring the effectiveness and lethality of its chemical weapons, or so the critic believed. Far from urging a reduction in the stockpiling and researching of gas due to its ghastly effects, this commentator argued that the very horrific nature of chemical warfare made it the strongest possible deterrent against future conflict.
Still others believed that the use of chemical weapons, although now a fact of military life, could be controlled by an effective international organization. Victor Lefebure, the aforementioned First World War British chemical officer and renowned chemist, summed up the controversy over chemical warfare when he addressed the Grotius Society in 1921. In his speech, Lefebure outlined the duality of the problem: patriotism and national security demanded research and development of chemical weapons, while humanity and peace required abolition.
Lefebure, a known proponent of chemical warfare, argued that if an international organization could control the development and production of chemical weapons, scientists would happily stop their deadly work, which is only conducted to ensure that other nations do not gain an unfair military advantage. Lefebure went on to argue that addressing chemical warfare in an international setting was useful. He believed an international organization could suppress research into “poison gas” through the use of penalties and international condemnation. However he did not believe the League of Nations currently possessed that capability.
These competing theories: (1) increasing chemical warfare capabilities based on national security concerns and military effectiveness; (2) outlawing chemical weapons based on humanitarian concerns, and (3) regulating chemical warfare through international treaty, outlined armament discussions for the next 20 years. Consensus was difficult to accomplish, and various organizations pressured political and military leaders. In this volatile environment, the Conference on the Limitation of Armaments, more commonly known as the Washington Naval Conference, was held in Washington, DC, from November 1921 to February 1922.