Despite earlier fears, Gaddafi is not believed to have deployed his chemical weapons arsenal at any stage during the conflict – in effect, he observed his 2003 commitment to voluntarily disarm his entire WMD capability in return for improved political and economic relations. This is, in part, because he was said to have dismantled the aerial munitions stocks used to deploy chemical weapons years prior.

As the conflict drew to a close and Gaddafi was executed, it became clear that Gaddafi in fact had a number of undeclared chemical weapons sites in addition to the one frequently inspected at al-Jafra. Whilst Libya had began destroying 25 metric tons of mustard blister agent in 2010, but as the conflict began, it had an estimated 9.5 metric tons intact.

What hasn’t been asked – at least from what I can find – is why Gaddafi didn’t use his chemical weapons. Did he believe he would emerge from the conflict victorious, and therefore needed to retain the support of the international community by not using additional force against his own people? Or was he possibly – and this would be a sensational finding if so – observing the chemical weapons taboo?

I don’t know, but plan to do more reading on this in the coming month.

Postscript: I will also endeavour to post on this if my digging around comes up with anything. My hunch is that Gaddafi was confident of victory, and therefore upheld Libya’s obligations (the taboo). But, that doesn’t explain why he did so after the NATO intervention and the Security Council recognition of the rebels as the ‘transitional national government’…

The same observation must be made in Syria, where Assad has limited the types of engagements that have taken place.

Hmmm.