The Drone Arms Race in the 21st Century - Unmanned Airborne Vessel - Essay Example

DRONE ATTACK REPORT INTRODUCTION Unmanned Airborne Vessel (UAV) or drone has become one of the weapons of choice in the 21st century by the US. The US military used drones for the first time in Kosovo and Bosnia for surveillance. Drones have also been used for targeted killing and surveillance of the enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan war1. It is argued that indiscriminate killing of suspected terrorists by drone attacks cannot be justified in any way on the basis of moral grounds since these attacks do not discriminate between terrorists elderly, innocent children, and women2. The idea of using the drones has helped in the recruitment process of the terrorist which has resulted to the killing of innocent people more than the targeted terrorists. For US international counterterrorism efforts to deal with terrorists to be successful, there is a need to adopt transparent and legitimate procedures in consultation with Pakistan in order to apprehend the terrorists and essentially end up with achieving a long-term result for both countries3. Drones use is the responsibility of the US government to its citizens, to use all possible methods including use of lethal force to defend the nation including the world known Al-Qaeda leaders behind the planning of attacks. The US policy in both Iraq and Afghanistan has not raised any questions since US has been at war with the latter state and their military presence is still there, unlike in Pakistan where the drone attacks happened. In addition, US has used unmanned drones severally for killing targeted people in most countries that have been at war with it. One of them took place in 2002 in Yemen, where there was suspicision that Salim Sinan an AlQaeda operative was hiding. He was attacked and killed in a drone attack when travelling in a vehicle with six other suspects.4. Legal justifications in the light of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) were offered. US argued that al-Qaeda had been at war with the US since September 11, 2001. Salim Sinan therefore qualified to be a military target and that the US had right to exercise self defense. US also tried killing Saddam Hussein using drones during its war with Iraq but they were unsuccessful. Other nations that have acquired drone technology include, iran, Russia, Israel, Pakistan among others and therefore an exploration of its legality is of core concern. STATISTICS Statistics compiled by Pakistan authorities in the year 2009 show that the US drone attack in Afghanistan killed 708 people in the 44 attacks targeted at the tribal areas. The statistics show that for every Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorist killed during the US drone attacks, 140 innocent Pakistanis died in the process. Above 90 per cent of the people killed in the lethal missile strikes were innocent civilians5. This is likely to be the reason why the drone attacks are so unpopular among Pakistanis. These sentiments are essentially anchored on the legal basis in that it violates the sovereignty of informed people. Many people in Pakistan fears that drone strike lead to targeting of civilian by Taliban in Pakistan. On political and moral grounds, killing of the innocent civilians by the drones has generated an anti- US feeling. US authorities do not acknowledge drone attacks, nor do they share publicly the results of these attacks. Privately they trumpet the success of these attacks in eliminating key Al-Qaeda and Taliban figures. At the heart of the problem are not just the drones and their illegality, but the chronic mistrust that pervades the US-Pakistan relationship, which has deeper historical origins. The drones are simply a reflection of that clash. Pakistan’s official position indicates opposition to the attacks, which are seen as an infringement on Pakistan’s sovereignty. There have been cases, however, such as the 2009 attack that killed the TTP leader Baitullah Mehsud, in which the Pakistan government openly praised such operations. LEGALITY OF DRONE ATTACKS First is the issue of crossing the international boundary that was inherited from the British and agreed upon by Pakistan and Afghanistan. Despite Afghanistan’s objections to the permanence of the Durand Line, its lack of recourse in addition to its actions since 1947 to any international court to settle the issue of the line, make FATA a foreign territory for both Afghans and for foreign forces using Afghanistan as a base. If this were not the case, there would be no need for rules and regulations for residents of FATA to cross into Afghanistan at will. A common argument is that FATA is an ‘Ungoverned territory’ and therefore open to intrusion from neighbouring territories6. There is a big critique to this position. We can highlight the issue of collateral damage, the weapons lack of precision and the uncertain intelligence on which the attacks are based. The use of drones against targets that may or may not be genuine enemies of the United Sates is always a possibility. The unreliability of the on-the-ground informants leads to a large proportion of a non-combatant civilians being killed in drone strikes7. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter provides countries the right of self defense against other countries, not against militants or non-state actors. Opponents of the drone warfare have advanced this point, asserting that the use of drones is in contravention of international laws that govern the conduct of armed forces. They claim that the US has not limited its attacks to situations of armed conflict and note that the UN Security Council has not given authorization for the attacks. The US government has never officially admitted its role in the strikes and why the attacks are often referred to ‘covert’ actions of the CIA. A legal stalemate appears to have emerged in a fog of conflicting statements from the authorities of the United States and Pakistan. The former does not admit to conducting warfare via drones, even as it celebrates the success of this weapon of war. The latter is unwilling to take responsibility for the strikes, but at times has been seen to clamor for co-ownership of the drone attacks and technology. This is the complicated paradox that these two reluctant allies face as the Afghan war enters its tenth year8. Meanwhile, most people in Pakistan continue to oppose the drone attacks inside their territory and see them as an infringement of the Pakistan’s Sovereignty. The government acquiescence to these attacks has led to the fall rating opinion polls of President Asif Ali Zardari. 2010 is seen as the most deadly year, with one hundred thirty two attacks killing nine hundred thirty eight people. All leading political parties in Pakistan declared their opposition to these attacks on the 28th day of the month. Phillip Aston (2010), argues that the drone attacks legality problems, stems from the armed conflict that US asserts it is involved, the methods used in deciding who is to be targeted and killed, presence of any technical or elaborate safeguards to guarantee precision, accountability and legality of killings9. The flaws in this mechanism has far reaching implications for the legality of the American involvement. It portrays a very sad picture about peace candidate and those backing it up. The US continues to justify its actions arguing that it is entitled to self-defense on believe that war knows not any border 10. The understanding of the right to self-defense is seen to be so flexible and extensive that it endangers the ban on the use of armed forces restricted in the UN Charter. American presence in Pakistan is not therefore justified since it is based on inconvenient legalities. It is important that the drone program if subjected to some basic obligations as required cannot pass11. Even if the US was allowed by FATA to engage in war on basis of self defence, there are many other international laws that imposes on belligerents. The US government has not clearly shown the criteria for the assassinations, therefore showing no interest in clearing the drone attack hurdles. This program too and its victim are usually covered in unfathomable secrecy and more often than not there is no accountability violations actually take place. For example, Obama authorized his first drone attack in South Waziristan just after three days as the president of US. An investigation carried out by Campain for Innocent Victims in Conflicts revealed that the drone attack killed Malik Khan a member of pro government peace committee together with four members of his family three of whom were his sons. International statutes prohibit use of lethal force and hence the US president ought to have been prosecuted for war crimes. Unfortunately, this did not happen but instead the president got a Nobel Peace Prize nine months later. Farhat, 2010 does not share the same sentiments regarding the same. Taj’s defend the program using reversed elementary legal principles. She has argued that drone victims can be declared terrorists. Taj argues that the militants are innocent until proven guilty12. INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS Domestic laws in addition to international law, also tend to make the drones operations legal. Based on Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) law, the US Congress allowed the use of any appropriate force which still continue to date. Drone attacks are illegal since they contravene the sovereignty of the Pakistan. Article 2(4) of the UN charter prohibits every member from using force as a method of protecting the integrity of a State in any of their international dealings. Based on this the drone attacks in Pakistan therefore contravenes Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter and hence the need for more justification.13. Article 51 however allows limited use of force under certain circumstances but this is an exception to what is prescribed by Article 2(4). The language in Article 51 however, prohibits against pre-emptive attacks. Acts of self-defense are in a matter of fact legitimate only if they meet certain conditions. Consequently, for self-defence, the use of force is permitted only in: 1. In the cases of necessity, where there is an attack and the use of force is necessary to repel it and is defensive in nature. 2. If the use of defensive force is not punitive in nature and is of the same magnitude to the attack.14. The UN security Council never authorized the use of force while reaffirming the natural right of an individual after the 9/11 attacks as stipulated in the UN Charter in resolutions 1368 and 1375. Drone attacks do not meet the test of necessity. USA if allowed to use this pretext, it can invade all other nations in the name of eliminating terrorists ignoring all other set laws. Pakistan also has a responsibility of reassuring the international community that there is no armed conflict there. Consequently the International Law of the Armed Conflict couldn’t apply in Pakistan. In addition, Pakistan never asked for any assistance from the US and hence the use of force by the US is unlawful. Bombing, houses belonging to civilians, schools and other social gatherings cannot be justified since they are not in any way places to be targeted by the military. Killing of innocent people is a violation of article 3 of Geneva Convection states that any individual who is not involved actively in hostility cannot be killed or subjected to cruel treatment15. According to Article 20 of the UN’s ‘Responsibility of States For Internationally Wrongful Acts, a valid approval by a state to the commission of an act by another state precludes the wrongfulness of the act in relation to the former state to the level that the act remains within the limits of that consent. US stance in the absence of a valid consent having justification and jurisdictional limits, make the drone attacks a breach of public international law. Drone attacks too bring to the fore the issue of infringement of international human rights law. International human rights law offers essential guarantees of suitable process, humane treatment and equal protection. The ‘right to life’ is deeply held principle that is protected in times of both peace and war. The use of deadly force is strictly limited by the requirement that a person should not be ‘arbitrarily’ deprived life. Any arbitrary killings for example through the drone attacks fall under the extrajudicial killings. Drone attacks are not only arbitrarily ringing death knell for hundreds but they are also torturing, maiming and disabling many for the rest of their life16. To conclude, it is clear that there are different interpretations of laws of intervention but the US drone attacks fail on all counts. Even NATO allies of US do not see eye to eye with US on the issue of drone attacks. They are seen as not carried out to repel an imminent armed attack. Instead, these strikes use disproportionate, unnecessary and deceptive force with the help of “unlawful” combatants of CIA against suspected militants and innocent civilians in the Pakistan. The international community should intervene, drone attacks amounts to and equal crimes like genocide, the US presidents involved in the drone attacks should be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court. All partisan need to face the law, since drone attacks are not justified from whichever angle that an objective person may look into it. BIBLIOGRAPHY Derek Jinks, International Human Rights Law and the War on Terrorism, 31 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 58, 65 (2002). Kenneth Watkin, Controlling the Use of Force: A Role for Human Rights Norms in Contemporary Armed Conflict “The American Journal of International Law”, Vol. 98, No. 1 (Jan., 2004). Mary Ellen O’Connell, “Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones: A Case Study of Pakistan, 2004-2009,” Notre Dame Law School, Legal Studies Research Paper no. 09-43. Nasir Khan, Akbar, ‘Analyzing the US’ policy of Target Killings by Drones in Pakistan”, Islamabad Institute of Policy Research Journal XI. Paul Hoffman, “Human Rights and Terrorism” Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 4 ` (Nov., 2004), pp. 932-955 Philip Alston, “UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings, Philip Alston: Record AfPak Drone Attacks under Obama May Violate International Law,” Democracy Now, June 4, 2009. Rosa Ehrenreich, “War Everywhere: Rights, National Security Law, and the Law of Armed Conflict in the Age of Terror” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 153, No. 2 (2004). Thomas Haidon, The CIA's Yemen Operation: A Legal Critique, Counterpunch, (2002). Read More