Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are increasingly being used to carry out surveillance and attacks in conflict zones across the world replacing conventional warfare technology that puts human life at risk. More commonly known as drones, this latest technology has become US prime weapon for counter- insurgency missions against militants from the Taliban, al-Qaeda, TTP and Haqaani networks. Surprisingly the case of these drone attacks which started in 2004 in Afghanistan and Pakistan are still enshrouded in mystery. The scope and motives behind drone operations and the involvement of both governments is a source of contention.
John Brennan, President Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, applauds the “ exceptional proficiency [ and] precision… [of the drones]” because of which no collateral damage has been incurred. Although he did back off from this statement later , officials still widely believe this to be true. Findings of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, however, show that out of a total of 312 drone strikes civilian deaths amounted to 391-780 in which 175 victims were children whereas up to 150 militants have been killed. The Brookings Institution has established a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 10:1.
United States has built its case for drone strikes on the basis of the Authorization of Use of Military Force after the September 11th attack in 2001. This law allows
The Government of Pakistan believes drone attacks are illegal and an infringement on its sovereignty. The Parliamentary Committee on National Security has demanded the denial of Pakistani airspace to US and NATO forces. Senators have also urged the government to shoot down any US predators entering Pakistani airspace. American justification for a self-defense attack may not be acceptable to the Pakistanis. An attack carried out in self-defense must be immediate and necessary. A drone war extending seven years hardly attests to an immediate threat.
Pakistan has declared the militants to be an open threat to the nation. It has incurred the loss of thousands of soldiers and civilians in this war. The instability caused by this militancy has inculcated a deep routed fear in the population and stunted economic growth. International Human Rights Law states that under such conflict zones, targeted killing can only be lawful when the target is a “combatant”… or , in the case of a civilian, only for such time as the person “directly participates in hostilities.” [1]The killing must be necessary, the force used must be proportionate and should minimize harm to civilians. The terms in this law are vague and allow much room to bypass it.
US has not revealed the criteria it uses to identify a combatant. For civilians participating in hostilities, the interpretation of being “directly involved” is left to the state’s discretion which can then decide to extend this concept to what fits its interests.
Furthermore, drones which were once meant to target high-profile militants are now targeting low-profile members. Pakistan, unlike the US, is not in a direct conflict with al-Qaeda and the Haqqani network, which are the targets of some drone attacks. This makes it difficult for Pakistan to ensure the legality of attacks on its soil.
Harold Koh says that since Taliban are not political leaders but belligerents[2] i.e. support the military operations of one party to the detriment of another, targeting Taliban is legal from the point of view of International law of Armed Conflict (ILOAC). Experts are unsure about how to classify Taliban as they do not have a distinguishable sign visible from distance and do not carry arms openly.
While the UN Charter contains a right to respond to an armed attack and a right to deflect an imminent attack, analysts feel that drone attacks are not a defense against imminent attack. For this to be applicable, the imminent attack has to be clearly defined and agreed upon by US and Pakistani intelligence forces. Unfortunately, US has openly disclosed its mistrust of Pakistani authorities who they suspect tip off the targets before the attack.
The use of force permitted under Article 51 of the UN charter
Legitimacy of the drone attacks is also dependent on public perceptions. America is notorious for exploiting Pakistan for its own interest and the drone attacks fit right into this strategy. Pakistanis generally disapprove of US use of Pakistani resources and, in view of the high civilian death toll, are skeptical on how they identify a target. They feel that US Government does not appreciate the sacrifices Pakistanis make and instead malign it with accusations of being in cahoots with the militants.
Many feel that drones are provoking further resentment rather than quelling militants. Jemima Khan in a televised interview said that the civilian survivors from drone attacks are turning militant in revenge for the loss of their relatives’ lives. Clive Smith, Director Reprieve, discussed CIA strategy which involved targeting funerals of a low profile militant to take out other militants who attend the funeral.
The American public , on the other hand, support drone attacks as they kill the very militants who are endangering America’s national security. Many find the precision of the drones to be commendable. An unmanned method of warfare ensures fewer casualties for the US forces. Unfortunately, it would also mean that “going to war would behard to distinguish from going to work.” However, some Americans have urged for greater regulation of drone attacks and the people it targets.
The issue of legality would be clearer if Pakistan as the target state gave its consent to the attacks. In the absence of any formal consent, defense analysts believe the two governments have made an illicit deal. Several events seem to substantiate these suspicions.
The January 10th attack that took down Aslam Awan, an al-Qaeda member, was a joint effort on the part of US and Pakistan intelligence agencies. Once Pakistani spotters identified and marked the target, the information was conveyed to US drone operators.
A little while back American use of the Shamsi Air base for drone attacks caused an uproar that resulted in the expulsion of US forces from the base. But later on, we started hearing of other Pakistani bases from which the US were operating including Pasni, Dalbadin and Shahbaz base (Jacobabad). The military government under General Musharraf had said that Americans had these bases in 2006. But Information Minister Awan’s statement two months ago to gradually taper US presence from these bases indicated something fishy was going on. In addition to the three bases named above, US is said to be operating from the Zhob, Meeranshah and Peshawar airbase. Bruce Reidel, a former CIA officer, claimed that contrary to the opinion of the Pakistani public, US operations were allowed because “the Pakistani army helps it to operate”.
Another interesting development is the possible reopening of NATO supply routes. The routes which carried approximately 40 % of NATO supplies were blocked in reaction to the Salala check-post attack two months ago. The government however, plans to impose a tariff of perhaps Rs.1000 per container once the routes are opened.
Although the Pakistani government promised to raise the issue of unsanctioned drone killing to the UN Security Council, it has never done so. With vehement statement like “drones would be shot down” or “drones would never be allowed back in Pakistan” on one hand and the resumption of US operations in Pakistan on the other hand, we can see a clear contradiction in the acts and statements of the Pakistani government. It belittles a serious issue awarding it a sense of mundanity. Furthermore, it shows that Pakistanis like to make a fuss over things but hardly stick to their threats. This can damage its image in front of international powers which might be inclined to think that their actions are not accountable in Pakistani territory.
Our politicians are obviously hiding the truth but as a democratically elected government they are answerable to the public. The Army is equally involved but may feel compelled to remain silent as it is under the control of a civilian government. It is also possible that the Pakistan Army needs to the help of US forces to fight militancy in the region. If US had continued drone strikes after the NATO attack, it could have exposed the weakness of the Army in retaliating against the Americans. The US indeed made a wise decision to prevent chaos in the region.
But maybe, just maybe, Pakistani leaders are telling the truth when they say that drone attacks are counter-productive. Even then, there is little we can do to fend off the Americans. Our Interior Minister himself claimed that Pakistan does not have the capacity to fight the Americans. If that is the case, then Pakistan is forever locked in a whirlpool of US bootlicking.
Courtesy: Tacstrat Analysis
[1] Alston, Philip. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” UN Human Rights Council. 14th session, Agenda item 3 ( 2010): 10
[2] Alston, Philip. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” UN Human Rights Council. 14th session, Agenda item 3 ( 2010): 20
[3] Alston, Philip. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” UN Human Rights Council. 14th session, Agenda item 3 ( 2010): 15
[2] Alston, Philip. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” UN Human Rights Council. 14th session, Agenda item 3 ( 2010): 20
[3] Alston, Philip. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” UN Human Rights Council. 14th session, Agenda item 3 ( 2010): 15
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). SPY EYES Analysis and or its affiliates will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements and or information contained in this article
Comments
Post a Comment