View previous stories
	Drones are deadly and dangerous - and not just to terrorists by Lawrence Wilkerson Adjunct professor, College of William and Mary USA   25 October 2013   UN rights experts call for transparency in the use of armed drones, citing risks of illegal use.   Expressing concern about the potential for illegal use of armed unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, two United Nations human rights experts today called on States to be transparent in their use, to investigate allegations of unlawful killings and to respect the full range of applicable international law.   “Drones are not inherently illegal weapons,” Christof Heyns, the UN Special Rapporteur Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, acknowledged at a panel that discussed his new report as well as that of Ben Emmerson, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.   “But we need to focus on their use,” he stressed, pointing out that more and more States were likely to use the remote-controlled airborne weapons, which can act with lethal force almost simultaneously with detection of targets. “A world where multiple States use such weapons in secrecy is a less secure world.”   He urged concerted effort to maintain protections of the full range of international law in the face of drone use, including human rights and humanitarian standards, the applications of which have become problematic as countries functionally widened the definition of battle zones and appropriate targets in the fight against terrorism and insurgencies.   Mr. Heyns said in addition, that the right to life must be protected as the supreme right, along with the right not to be deprived of life without strong legal rationales.   “Both States using drones and States on whose territory drones are used have their own obligations to respect international standards and prevent violations,” he said in his report.   The report emphasised that the legal framework for maintaining international peace as well as preserving the right to life makes up “a coherent and well-established system.”   Both he and Mr. Emmerson, agreed that crucial in maintaining such human rights protections was transparency on the part of countries that use drones. “I urge States to declassify, to the maximum extent possible, information relevant to their lethal extra-territorial counter-terrorism operations and to release its own data on the level of civilian casualties inflicted through the use of drones,” Mr. Emmerson said.   Mr. Emmerson said his investigation into legal aspects of drone strikes came in the wake of a joint statement by 16 States to consider the issue, following allegations of disproportionate civilian casualties and other deep concerns.   He showed a reconstruction of a drone strike that was alleged to have killed and wounded dozens of civilians when it hit a Jirga, or council of tribal elders in North Waziristan, Pakistan.   He said it was among a number of reconstructions that had examined particular strikes and which showed that it was possible to provide a degree of accuracy in resolving competing claims. “Greater transparency is quite possible,” he said, citing security experts who denied that such transparency cancelled the drone’s tactical advantages.   He maintained that in any case where civilians are alleged to have been killed by a drone, the country responsible for the strike must provide a detailed description of the incident as part of its duty to investigate.   October 2013   A new report by a United Nations expert has warned that the US’ secretive drone programme threatens international security due to a “lack of appropriate transparency and accountability.”   The report on ‘Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions,’ by Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns, also warns that so-called ‘signature strikes,’ based upon insufficient information are “clearly unlawful,” and condemns the practice of follow-up attacks on rescuers as a “war crime.”   Mr Heyns demands greater openness from the US Government, stating that there should be “at least a preliminary investigation” into any drone strike where there is reason to believe violations of international law may have taken place, and says that “Civilian casualties must be determined and should be disclosed.”   He warns that “A lack of appropriate transparency and accountability concerning the deployment of drones undermines the rule of law and may threaten international security.”   Mr Heyns also emphasises the heavy toll that drones take on those civilians living in the areas where the strikes are carried out – and cautions against taking at face value the claims that those they kill are necessarily ‘terrorists,’ stating that:   “Drones come from the sky, but leave the heavy footprint of war on the communities that they target. The claims that drones are more precise in targeting cannot be accepted uncritically, not least because terms such as ‘terrorist’ or ‘militant’ are sometimes used to describe people who are in truth protected civilians.”   Mar 2013   Drones are deadly and dangerous - and not just to terrorists, by Lawrence Wilkerson.   Although it"s far removed from the public conscience, we ought to pay more attention at just what drone use portends.   Akbar Ahmed"s The Thistle and the Drone: How America"s War on Terror Became a Global War on Tribal Islam, should be required reading for American soldiers, citizens and, above all, every member of the Obama administration.   Written from the perspective of both an academic (Professor Ahmed is a leading anthropologist) and a government official (he was political agent to South Waziristan, in Pakistan"s Federally-Administered Tribal Area, and Pakistan"s High Commissioner to the UK and Ireland), as well as with the inestimable passion of a poet (in both written and visual verse), this book provides critical insights into how US Cold War tactics opposing communism have transmogrified into tactics opposing terrorists.   In the Cold War, the US funded and supported any regime, dictatorship or democracy, that opposed communism. From US support for the cruel and brutal dictator in Cuba, Fulgencio Batista, to the Shah of Iran whose support by the US still haunts US-Iran relations, to the leader of Iraq whom the US first supported and then overthrew, Saddam Hussein, there was no virtue not sacrificed in the American quest to subvert and defeat communism. Today, that zeal - and the money and effort backing it - has morphed into US tactics to defeat terrorism.   Under the Obama administration, the principal instrument of these tactics is the drone. Professor Ahmed"s book provides a searing indictment of the use of that instrument.   A droning misunderstanding   It is increasingly clear that drone use is appallingly misunderstood by the US government. Democrats believe they are regaining their bona fides in the national security field while not putting boots on the ground in dangerous areas; Republicans believe we are killing terrorists so grudgingly accept what the Democrats are doing. They are both badly mistaken.   Whether it is the devastating damage the drones are doing to tribal societies around the world - Professor Ahmed"s principal point - or the damage they are doing to both the warrior ethos in the US Armed Forces and to the international reputation of the US, the results are terrifyingly negative all around - and for very little payoff in terms of stopping terrorism, perhaps even none at all. Even Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld posed this conundrum when he asked in 2003 how killing one terrorist and creating ten more at the same time, worked out to be a success.   Moreover, no one in the US government is apparently the least bit concerned about blowback or about the inevitable adoption of this technology by a host of other countries for use in their domestic situations or, eventually, against the United States. Nor does there appear to be much concern about drones operating inside the United States itself.   Neither in the international use nor the inevitable domestic use (drones are already being used inside the US for surveillance activities), has the US developed the ethics, law, and standing operational procedures needed to preclude abuse and error. Let"s briefly examine each of these challenges. First, Professor Ahmed"s.   Attack of the drones   Couched in terms of the centre vs the periphery - or the state vs certain of its domestic antagonists - the struggles illuminated by The Thistle and The Drone derive from tribal societies fighting against too-swiftly encroaching modernity or, in many cases, simply authoritarian power grabs emanating from the central government. Whether the Rohingya in Burma, the Tuareg in Mali, or the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan, these tribal societies abhor such encroachment, fight back and, in many cases, are crippled and eventually expunged by the superior power of the centre. Think, for example, of the US Indian Wars from 1866 to 1890 and of the tribal societies thus expunged, truncated, or put on reservations that today continue to shame the central government that created them. "Indian Wars" are occurring today all across the globe, many of them aided and abetted by the US in its often misguided zeal to combat terrorism. The drone has become the public image as well as the tactical workhorse of this US assistance.   Little known by most citizens who have never served in the armed forces - now far and away the vast majority of Americans - this use of drones also destroys the warrior ethos of the armed forces. USAF Lieutenant Colonel Jason Armagost has chronicled this phenomenon eloquently in his short article "Things to Pack When You"re Bound for Baghdad", appearing in War, Literature & the Arts.   King Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable may be apocryphal but like most myths this particular one is nonetheless important. The same sort of bond that held Sir Gawain to Arthur holds Army and Marine squads together, puts most fighter pilots in the cockpit, and motivates sailors from submarines to flattops. This is "the bond of vulnerability for state purposes" or, better expressed, for something beyond oneself. In short, when we ask our young people to kill for the state, we had best know what we are about.   If a soldier is not vulnerable - if he or she is sitting thousands of miles away from the battlefield at a computer terminal, for example - that critical bond is quickly destroyed. The recent flap over the medal for heroism for drone operators reflects this reality. If a nation wants to destroy its armed forces - or, worse, limit them to misogynists and masochists - all it need do is proceed down such a path.   Then there is the reality of no tactic or technology has never not been duplicated or countered. There are already nations following the US example and fielding drones, armed and otherwise. I sometimes tell colleagues that if they are enamoured of the technology of drones, just wait until one flies over your house and delivers its precisely guided missile or bomb on top of you.   Moreover, there is the law and protocol.   The US operates drones across international borders almost every day. Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZs) are violated with no thought whatsoever. Rationales offered include the context of global war in which the US is involved. Under that rationale, apparently we reserve the right to fly across any border, anytime, and seek out and kill people.   We fly against ally, friend, and enemy. There is no apparent differentiating of where we can catch and kill a terrorist. That is the sole protocol. Too, if we kill a handful of innocent civilians at the same time, so be it. That is the cost of war. That is collateral damage.   The war at home   Yet the "war" in which we are involved - against terrorists - is a war against a methodology that has killed fewer Americans in all of our history, colonial and national, than a single recent year of highway accidents. And for this we are sacrificing our reputation, our values, and perhaps in the long run the ability to protest successfully and within the law when the same technology is turned on us.   Lastly, there is the homeland.   When I recently asked a law enforcement officer what he thought of drones operating domestically, he replied, simply, "Cool. Eyes and ears above the byways."   I asked him, "How long do you think it will be before someone wants to arm them?"   He smiled and I think I knew what was coming. He said: "It"s already come up. One of the guys at a recent briefing stated how cool he thought it would be if we not only surveilled criminal activity but if we could "pop" the criminal in the act."   Such "popping of the criminal in the act" is just around the corner. Popping the wrong person, or killing innocents who happen to be around, would be like any other police action, the sad breaks of the game.   In the final analysis, whether we consider the international repercussions, the reputational damage, the lack of law and ethical standards, the damage to the armed forces, or the destruction of tribal societies, drone use is fraught with complexities and problems. Our government needs to sort these soundly and well - and swiftly. It is already thousands of deaths behind the power curve.   * Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson is distinguished adjunct professor of government and public policy at the College of William and Mary. Previously, during a 31-year career in the US army, he served as chief of staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell.   The United Nations has launched an investigation into the use of unmanned drones in counter-terrorism operations, after criticism surrounding the number of innocent civilians killed by the aircraft.   The inquiry, announced in London, will investigate 25 drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories.   British lawyer Ben Emmerson will investigate the extent of civilian casualties, the identity of the targets, and whether the attacks could constitute war crimes.   Mr Emmerson said there has been an exponential rise in the use of drone technology because of the low cost of their deployment, both economically and in terms of risk to the lives of service personnel.   While most attacks with unmanned aerial vehicles have been by the United States, Britain and Israel have also used them and dozens more countries are believed to possess the technology.   But Mr Emmerson also said he would not single out the biggest users.   "The plain fact is that this technology is here to stay, and its use in theatres of conflict is a reality with which the world must contend," Mr Emmerson said.   "It is therefore imperative that appropriate legal and operational structures are urgently put in place to regulate its use in a manner that complies with the requirements of international law."   Criticism of drone strikes centres on the number of civilians killed and the fact that they are launched across sovereign states borders so frequently - far more than conventional attacks by piloted aircraft.   Data collected by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism indicates 2,600-3,404 Pakistanis have been killed by drones, of which 473-889 were reported to be civilians.   The UN"s Human Rights Council asked Mr Emmerson to start an investigation following requests by countries including Pakistan, Russia and China to look into drone attacks.   Mr Emmerson said that he did not expect the inquiry to result in a "dossier of evidence" that would directly point to legal liability, but that results had the potential to help support the relevant states own independent investigations.   He also said Britain"s Ministry of Defence had agreed to fully cooperate and he was optimistic he would receive good cooperation from US and Pakistani governments.   Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union"s National Security project said he welcomed the investigation "in the hopes that global pressure will bring the US back into line with international law requirements that strictly limit the use of lethal force".   "To date, there has been an abysmal lack of transparency and no accountability for the US government"s ever-expanding program," Ms Shamsi said.   The report and recommendations will be presented at the UN General Assembly in New York in October this year.   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15196&LangID=E http://www.brookings.edu/research/topics/military-technology http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/04/what-rules-should-govern-us-drone-attacks/ http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15113&LangID=E http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2013/05-10-drone-weapons-ihl.htm http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/contemporary-challenges-for-ihl/ihl-new-technologies/index.jsp Visit the related web page
	Climate Change now seen as Security Threat for the World by Inter Press Service, agencies   Mar 2013   Defence establishments around the world increasingly see climate change as posing potentially serious threats to national and international security, according to a review of high-level statements by the world"s governments released here Thursday.   The review, "The Global Security Defense Index on Climate Change: Preliminary Results," found that nearly three out of four governments for which relevant information is available view the possible effects of climate change as a serious national security issue. It found that the wealthy developed countries of North America, Europe and East Asia, including China, have made the most progress in integrating climate change into their national security strategies.   With the notable exception of India, leaders of South Asian countries have also made strong statements about the security threats posed by climate change, while smaller countries in the Pacific, the Caribbean, and Central America have expressed alarm at the possible catastrophic impacts of climate change on them, according to the review.   It was officially released at the this week"s Climate Security Conference in the Asia-Pacific Region in Seoul, South Korea by the American Security Project (ASP), a non-partisan group headed by former senior U.S. government and military officials.   The Index, which will go online later this spring and be constantly updated, will catalogue official documents and statements by national governments - and particularly their military establishments -- about the relationship between climate change and security issues.   "In many nations, the armed forces are the most respected arm of government, and their action on climate change can raise awareness throughout the country," according to ASP"s Andrew Holland, who co-authored the report with Xander Vagg.   The review"s release comes amidst growing frustration among both climate scientists and activists over the slow pace and weakness of multilateral and unilateral efforts to curb the emission of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.   Governments failure to take stronger action has been attributed in part to the fact that climate change has been seen primarily as an environmental issue. As such, it has been accorded a lower priority than other challenges faced by countries, particularly economic growth.   In recent years, however, governments in a growing number of countries have recognised climate change as a national security issue - a recognition welcomed by activists who believe it should bolster their efforts to push the issue up the national and international agenda.   Here in the U.S., such an effort has been underway for some time. Just last month, a bipartisan group of 38 former senior and cabinet-level U.S. foreign policy officials, military officers, and lawmakers published an "open letter" to President Barack Obama and Congress calling for urgent action, especially in funding programmes designed to help poor countries both curb emissions and adapt to climate change.   Unless such action is forthcoming, "climate change impacts abroad could spur mass migrations, influence civil conflict and ultimately lead to a more unpredictable world," the letter, sponsored by the Partnership for a Secure America, warned.   "…Protecting U.S. interests under these conditions would progressively exhaust American military, diplomatic and development resources as we struggle to meet growing demands for emergency international engagement."   A recent joint report by the Center for American Progress, the Stimson Center, and the Center for Climate and Security found that crop failures resulting from both severe droughts and flooding in various parts of the world contributed to food shortages that helped spark popular unrest in key Arab countries, paving the way for the upheavals known as the Arab Spring.   In his annual global threat assessment report issued last week, the director for national intelligence (DNI) warned that "extreme weather events (floods, droughts, heat waves) will increasingly disrupt food and energy markets, exacerbating state weakness, forcing human migrations, and triggering riots, civil disobedience, and vandalism."   At the same time, head of the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM), Adm. Samuel Locklear, warned that the impact of climate change on his region was "probably the most likely thing that is going to happen …that will cripple the security environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often talk about."   He told the Boston Globe that his command was already engaging the militaries of other regional countries, including China and India, about co-operation in addressing the challenge.   But the security implications of climate change are by no means confined to the U.S. and other wealthy countries with large military establishments, according to the ASP review.   It found that the governments and militaries of a least 110 of 155 countries for which relevant information was available have identified climate as a threat to their security. And many of those have integrated into their defence and national security planning documents.   "It was fascinating to learn how many different nations with such a variety of political systems, economic practices, and geographic locales share a common view on the dangers posed by climate change," Vagg told IPS in an email.   "More to the point, these states all share the view that climate change -- and its direct/indirect effects -- should no longer be treated as a purely environmental threat, but rather a full-blown national security issue."   Of the 32 countries identified by the study as resisting the view that climate change poses a security threat, India and Brazil were by far the most important.   Both countries opposed a move last month sponsored by Pakistan and Britain to put climate change on the U.N. Security Council"s agenda, according to Vagg.   Russia and China also opposed "securitising" the issue by placing it under the Security Council"s jurisdiction, although senior political and military leaders in both countries have defined climate change as a security threat, along with other non-traditional threats, such as global pandemics, terrorism, and transnational crime networks.   Climate change poses an existential threat to small island states of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and the Caribbean. Surrounded by rising seas and highly vulnerable to storm surges, they have been ringing the alarm for some time, sometimes with the help of their larger continental neighbours, such as Australia. Sea-level rise in another low-lying coastal country, Bangladesh, could also displace tens of millions of people.   Of all the world"s regions, the report found that the Middle East and North Africa are most resistant to defining climate change as a security threat, although Turkey, Israel, Qatar, Jordan and Kuwait were notable exceptions.   http://www.rtcc.org/2014/09/01/5-reasons-nato-needs-to-worry-about-climate-change/ http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/08/will-climate-change-lead-to-conflict-or-cooperation/ http://reliefweb.int/report/world/climate-change-fuelling-war http://www.acleddata.com/ http://environmentalpeacebuilding.org/
	View more stories