Strong criticisms have emerged against the use of drones for killing people in several countries.
THE
use of drones by one state to kill people in other countries is fast
emerging as an international human rights issue of serious public
concern.
This was evident in the recent session (June 18-July 6)
of the
Human Rights Council in Geneva, both in the official meetings and
in NGO seminars.
The use of drones, or pilotless aircraft
operated by remote control, by the government in one country to strike
at persons and other targets in other countries, has been increasingly
used by the
United States in
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia.
Instead
of following clear legal standards, the practice of drone attacks has
become a vaguely defined and unaccountable “licence to kill”, according
to a 2010 report of a UN human rights special rapporteur.
According to an article in
The Guardian,
the American Civil Liberties Union estimates that as many as 4,000
people have been killed in US drone strikes since 2002. Of those, a
significant proportion were civilians.
The numbers killed have escalated significantly since Barack Obama became president.
Recent
criticisms and concerns raised by officials, experts and governments
about the use of drones include the high numbers of deaths and
casualties of innocent civilians; possible violation of sovereignty and
international human rights laws; lack of information, transparency and
accountability; their being counter-productive; and the indirect
encouragement to other countries to similarly use drone attacks.
The
UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Navi Pillay in her overall report
to the Human Rights Council on June 18 said that during her recent visit
to Pakistan she expressed serious concern over the continuing use of
armed drones for targeted attacks particularly because it was unclear
that all persons targeted were combatants or directly participating in
hostilities.
She added that the “UN secretary-general has
expressed concern about the lack of transparency on the circumstances in
which drones are used, noting that these attacks raise questions about
compliance with distinction and proportionality.”
She reminded
the US of their international obligation to take all necessary
precautions to ensure that attacks comply with international law and
urged them to conduct investigations that are transparent, credible and
independent, and provide victims with effective remedies.
On June
26, Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram told the council that his country
was directly affected by the indiscriminate use of drones, and at least
a thousand civilians, including women and children, have been killed in
drone attacks.
“The government of Pakistan has maintained
consistently that drone attacks are not only counter-productive but a
violation of international law and Pakistan’s sovereignty,” said Akram,
adding that Pakistan’s Parliament has called for an immediate end to
these attacks.
“Regrettably this call has not been heeded. The
drone attacks continue in violation of the UN Charter, international
human rights and international humanitarian law. The international human
rights machinery must clearly reject attempts to justify these
actions.”
At the council on June 16,
Christof Heyns, the
UN
special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions,
called for more transparency and accountability from the US, according
to a
IPS news report.
He urged that a framework be developed and
adhered to, and pressed for accurate records of civilian deaths. “I
think we’re in for very dangerous precedents that can be used by
countries on all sides,” he said.
At an event organised by the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Heyns said the US drone attacks
would encourage other states to flout human rights standards and
suggested that some drone strikes may even be war crimes, according to a
report in the London-based
Guardian.
Criticisms are also
coming from US groups and a former president. “The US has cobbled
together its own legal framework for targeted killing, with standards
that are far less stringent than the law allows,” Hina Shamsi, a
director of the ACLU told the council on June 20, according to IPS.
Shamsi
also took issue with the lack of transparency of military programmes
based on what she called “a secret legal criteria, entirely secret
evidence, and a secret process”.
“The international community’s
concern about the US targeted killing programme is continuing to grow
because of the unlawfully broad authority our government asserts to kill
‘suspected terrorists’ far from any battlefield, without meaningful
transparency or accountability,” Shamsi told IPS.
The lack of a
legal framework allows for drone strikes to be implemented at will, in
non-conflict zones and on the basis of loosely defined terrorist
threats, without permission from the host nation, added the IPS article.
“In essence, drones cancel out national sovereignty,” Tom Engelhardt, co-author of
Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050, told IPS. “The rules of the game are one country’s sovereignty trumps that of another.”
Former US President,
Jimmy Carter, writing in the
New York Times (June
24), noted that the use of US drone attacks “continues in areas of
Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen that are not in any war zone. We don’t know
how many hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed in these
attacks, each one approved by the highest authorities in Washington.
This would have been unthinkable in previous times.
“These
policies clearly affect American foreign policy. Top intelligence and
military officials as well as rights defenders in targeted areas affirm
that the great escalation in drone attacks has turned aggrieved families
toward terrorist organisations, aroused civilian populations against us
... As concerned citizens we must persuade Washington to reverse course
and regain moral leadership according to international human rights
norms.”
Drones were originally developed to gather intelligence.
More
than 40 countries have this technology and some have or are seeking
drones that can shoot laser-guided missiles, according to a pioneering
2010 report by the then UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary
or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston.
They enable targeted
killings with no risk to the personnel of the state carrying them out
and can be operated remotely from the home state.
GLOBAL TRENDS By MARTIN KHOR
Related posts:
Drones, computers new weapons of US waging shadow ...
American drone wars and state secrecy!
US apologizes for Chinese Exclusion Act