Bane
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2009
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
How the CIAs use of attack drones against civilian populations in FATA constitutes a gross violation of both international and US law.
PKKH Exclusive | Hasan Qureshi
I wonder if the citizens of Alamogordo, New Mexico know that as they drive on the roads near the local Holloman Air Force Base, unknown to them, a fully armed USAF drone may be locking on to their car and tracking them. Although it may only be a training exercise for the trainee desk-pilots who operate the USAFs fleets of drones, I do not think that they would be too happy to learn that they are only a push of a button away from being wholly obliterated by an MQ-9 Reaper.
Although the good citizens of Alamogordo may be oblivious to their being used as target practice, the people of FATA -12000 kms away- are all too well aware of the dangers of these flying robots. Hardly a day passes when a drone is not seen circling above and there is a strike roughly every ten days. For the past eight years, these drones have kept the entire populace of FATA in a state of constant fear.
Since the first such strike on the 18th of June, 2004 conservative estimates taken from a variety of different sources indicate that there have been around 3,202 overall casualties with 2,136 injured in more than 350 drone attacks of whom only 300-400 personnel killed were militants. These numbers include more than 600 civilians killed in follow-up strikes when civilians went to the aid of the victims of the first strike. The overwhelming majority of these strikes (70%) have taken place in the past three years under Obamas low-intensity strategy which involves more use of unmanned aircraft as opposed to sending in ground troops. In 2009-10 the Americans purchased more unmanned aircrafts than manned aircrafts, and trained more video game pilots than actual pilots.
This is a new, cold way to wage war, not by trained soldiers, but by teens trained on a healthy diet of video games, sitting in the safety of a control centre in New Mexico, nonchalantly making decisions of life and death for people thousands of miles away, and then going home and enjoying dinner with their families. It is strange how these teenagers in front of the screens at the USAF base in Alamogordo wear pilot jumpsuits even though they never had training in real aircraft and are only desk-pilots.
However, in these eight years, no US official has been able to justify these strikes either on moral or legal grounds. And coupled with a strange silence from Islamabad -even tacit approval- the legality and viability of the use of drones within Pakistani sovereign territory has been in constant doubt. Disinformation from mainstream media outlets has only added to the confusion.
Let there be no doubt though USAF/CIA drone strikes within Pakistani territory are illegal both under international and national law. Here are just some of the violations which occur every time a US drone violates Pakistani airspace and commits targeted murder:
The Drone Strikes violate Security Council resolution 748, U.N Doc S/RES/508 (1992) on the definition and protection of a states sovereignty.
The Drone Strikes violate Article 51 of the U.N Charter by making a mockery of the rules of self-defense.
The US has shown Pakistan no evidence of attacks being mounted on ISAF forces from Pakistani soil, therefore their plea of self-defense is without grounds. And even if it does hold true, then under the same principle, Pakistan has a right to launch missiles against these very bases from which drones are flown from.
The Drone strikes violate the international law principles of necessity and proportionality. Drone strikes are not necessary because the US has a cornucopia of options before resorting to illegal unilateral strikes and they do not satisfy the principle of proportionality because more civilians are killed in every strike than the targeted fighters, a 3:1 ratio skewed in favor of civilians.
The Drone Strikes violate Article 2 of the Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War by disregarding the human rights of the innocent civilians killed in the strikes.
The Drone Strikes violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Here, the United States is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits arbitrary killing even during an armed conflict. That prohibition is non-derogable, and the ICCPR even forbids the punitive or deterrent killing of terrorists.
Drone operators at the CIA are civilians directly engaged in unlawful armed conflict. This makes them unlawful combatants and subject to prosecution.
The Drone Strikes violate US law as by carrying out these extrajudicial murders against individuals who have not been charged, who have not had due process, and who are not members of the armed forces of a state the US is officially at war with, it is violating the very principles of a fair trial that every individual should enjoy under the US Constitution. It is akin to a drone firing a hellfire missile at an unarmed drug peddler in the streets of New York. True, he may be a criminal, but would the American people condone this?
Furthermore these actions are against a non-state actor, for which there is no framework. Remember that most international law revolves around the pillar that states are rational and that they are the foremost and principal actors in the international system, therefore the reference at every turn High contracting parties; the US cannot deal with a non-state actor breaching the sovereignty of the state itself. US legal experts are merely attempting to fit the law around their illegitimate actions.
Finally, there is no regard for the parameters of collateral damage. Obama, who has a kill list akin to a deranged Mafioso drug lord, has adopted a policy which states that anyone near or within the vicinity of a target is to be taken as a combatant who is an aider and abettor of the target, regardless of whether or not they are women or children, or whether they are merely passers-by who are simply caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The US is setting a dangerous precedent. One that may lead to a breakdown of civilizational norms and a total disregard for sovereignty rights an international system of chaos. What happens when China, Russia or even Pakistan one day claim the authority to use drones against US citizens who have wronged them?
Now the question remains, why is the CIA being allowed to so blatantly defy international conventions and the laws of humanity? Are there no lawmakers in Congress who actually know the meaning of the law?
The answer once again can be found in the huge lobbying power of the firms who build these drones. The Unmanned Systems Caucus a Congressional network dedicated to the promotion of drones is drawing in big lobbying bucks. The caucus is chaired by Congressman Howard Buck McKeon, R-Calif., who also chairs the House Armed Services Committee. Its fifty-eight drone caucus members received a total of $2.3 million in contributions from political action committees affiliated with drone manufacturers since 2011.
The top five donors to the drone caucus members from 2010 to 2012 were Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and General Dynamics.
The pressure exerted by big industry coupled with Obamas continued complete disregard of the principles of international law and norms ensures that the US will continue to use drones in Pakistans territory. And we cannot of course expect countries to adhere to international law as citizens must adhere to domestic law. The US is acting as any superpower would; after all, the US track record of abiding by international law is not exactly blemish free. Therefore Pakistan must act in its own interests. If the US does not play by the rules, Pakistan cannot afford to either.
The only way to counter this is a combination of military and legal pressure:
(i) Pakistan needs to make a cohesive policy not to allow any foreign element to violate its sovereignty.
(ii) Pakistan needs to open cases against the US in the ICJ and with the Security Council.
Above all, Pakistan needs to invest in the research of and develop its own robotic capabilities with the help of its partners on a war footing to keep up with the enemy. The US will not unilaterally halt the use of drones on Pakistani soil. It has no incentive to do so. A lax Pakistani administration is partly to blame for this. If Pakistan is to regain its pride and sovereignty, whilst asserting itself in the region, it must act soon, and act decisively.
Hasan Qureshi is a contributor at pkkh and is currently reading Law & Politics at Essex. He can be reached at hzulfi@essex.ac.uk and tweets at @Hasan_QureshiPK
PKKH Exclusive | Hasan Qureshi
I wonder if the citizens of Alamogordo, New Mexico know that as they drive on the roads near the local Holloman Air Force Base, unknown to them, a fully armed USAF drone may be locking on to their car and tracking them. Although it may only be a training exercise for the trainee desk-pilots who operate the USAFs fleets of drones, I do not think that they would be too happy to learn that they are only a push of a button away from being wholly obliterated by an MQ-9 Reaper.
Although the good citizens of Alamogordo may be oblivious to their being used as target practice, the people of FATA -12000 kms away- are all too well aware of the dangers of these flying robots. Hardly a day passes when a drone is not seen circling above and there is a strike roughly every ten days. For the past eight years, these drones have kept the entire populace of FATA in a state of constant fear.
Since the first such strike on the 18th of June, 2004 conservative estimates taken from a variety of different sources indicate that there have been around 3,202 overall casualties with 2,136 injured in more than 350 drone attacks of whom only 300-400 personnel killed were militants. These numbers include more than 600 civilians killed in follow-up strikes when civilians went to the aid of the victims of the first strike. The overwhelming majority of these strikes (70%) have taken place in the past three years under Obamas low-intensity strategy which involves more use of unmanned aircraft as opposed to sending in ground troops. In 2009-10 the Americans purchased more unmanned aircrafts than manned aircrafts, and trained more video game pilots than actual pilots.
This is a new, cold way to wage war, not by trained soldiers, but by teens trained on a healthy diet of video games, sitting in the safety of a control centre in New Mexico, nonchalantly making decisions of life and death for people thousands of miles away, and then going home and enjoying dinner with their families. It is strange how these teenagers in front of the screens at the USAF base in Alamogordo wear pilot jumpsuits even though they never had training in real aircraft and are only desk-pilots.
However, in these eight years, no US official has been able to justify these strikes either on moral or legal grounds. And coupled with a strange silence from Islamabad -even tacit approval- the legality and viability of the use of drones within Pakistani sovereign territory has been in constant doubt. Disinformation from mainstream media outlets has only added to the confusion.
Let there be no doubt though USAF/CIA drone strikes within Pakistani territory are illegal both under international and national law. Here are just some of the violations which occur every time a US drone violates Pakistani airspace and commits targeted murder:
The Drone Strikes violate Security Council resolution 748, U.N Doc S/RES/508 (1992) on the definition and protection of a states sovereignty.
The Drone Strikes violate Article 51 of the U.N Charter by making a mockery of the rules of self-defense.
The US has shown Pakistan no evidence of attacks being mounted on ISAF forces from Pakistani soil, therefore their plea of self-defense is without grounds. And even if it does hold true, then under the same principle, Pakistan has a right to launch missiles against these very bases from which drones are flown from.
The Drone strikes violate the international law principles of necessity and proportionality. Drone strikes are not necessary because the US has a cornucopia of options before resorting to illegal unilateral strikes and they do not satisfy the principle of proportionality because more civilians are killed in every strike than the targeted fighters, a 3:1 ratio skewed in favor of civilians.
The Drone Strikes violate Article 2 of the Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War by disregarding the human rights of the innocent civilians killed in the strikes.
The Drone Strikes violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Here, the United States is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits arbitrary killing even during an armed conflict. That prohibition is non-derogable, and the ICCPR even forbids the punitive or deterrent killing of terrorists.
Drone operators at the CIA are civilians directly engaged in unlawful armed conflict. This makes them unlawful combatants and subject to prosecution.
The Drone Strikes violate US law as by carrying out these extrajudicial murders against individuals who have not been charged, who have not had due process, and who are not members of the armed forces of a state the US is officially at war with, it is violating the very principles of a fair trial that every individual should enjoy under the US Constitution. It is akin to a drone firing a hellfire missile at an unarmed drug peddler in the streets of New York. True, he may be a criminal, but would the American people condone this?
Furthermore these actions are against a non-state actor, for which there is no framework. Remember that most international law revolves around the pillar that states are rational and that they are the foremost and principal actors in the international system, therefore the reference at every turn High contracting parties; the US cannot deal with a non-state actor breaching the sovereignty of the state itself. US legal experts are merely attempting to fit the law around their illegitimate actions.
Finally, there is no regard for the parameters of collateral damage. Obama, who has a kill list akin to a deranged Mafioso drug lord, has adopted a policy which states that anyone near or within the vicinity of a target is to be taken as a combatant who is an aider and abettor of the target, regardless of whether or not they are women or children, or whether they are merely passers-by who are simply caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The US is setting a dangerous precedent. One that may lead to a breakdown of civilizational norms and a total disregard for sovereignty rights an international system of chaos. What happens when China, Russia or even Pakistan one day claim the authority to use drones against US citizens who have wronged them?
Now the question remains, why is the CIA being allowed to so blatantly defy international conventions and the laws of humanity? Are there no lawmakers in Congress who actually know the meaning of the law?
The answer once again can be found in the huge lobbying power of the firms who build these drones. The Unmanned Systems Caucus a Congressional network dedicated to the promotion of drones is drawing in big lobbying bucks. The caucus is chaired by Congressman Howard Buck McKeon, R-Calif., who also chairs the House Armed Services Committee. Its fifty-eight drone caucus members received a total of $2.3 million in contributions from political action committees affiliated with drone manufacturers since 2011.
The top five donors to the drone caucus members from 2010 to 2012 were Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and General Dynamics.
The pressure exerted by big industry coupled with Obamas continued complete disregard of the principles of international law and norms ensures that the US will continue to use drones in Pakistans territory. And we cannot of course expect countries to adhere to international law as citizens must adhere to domestic law. The US is acting as any superpower would; after all, the US track record of abiding by international law is not exactly blemish free. Therefore Pakistan must act in its own interests. If the US does not play by the rules, Pakistan cannot afford to either.
The only way to counter this is a combination of military and legal pressure:
(i) Pakistan needs to make a cohesive policy not to allow any foreign element to violate its sovereignty.
(ii) Pakistan needs to open cases against the US in the ICJ and with the Security Council.
Above all, Pakistan needs to invest in the research of and develop its own robotic capabilities with the help of its partners on a war footing to keep up with the enemy. The US will not unilaterally halt the use of drones on Pakistani soil. It has no incentive to do so. A lax Pakistani administration is partly to blame for this. If Pakistan is to regain its pride and sovereignty, whilst asserting itself in the region, it must act soon, and act decisively.
Hasan Qureshi is a contributor at pkkh and is currently reading Law & Politics at Essex. He can be reached at hzulfi@essex.ac.uk and tweets at @Hasan_QureshiPK
