Key UN members come together on drone deaths
Consensus grows among UN states for greater transparency on drone
civilian deaths
by Chris Woods
Key members of the United Nations - including some of Washington's
closest allies - broke with a decade of tradition when they endorsed
calls for greater transparency over drone civilian deaths recently.
The European Union, the United Kingdom and Switzerland were joined by
the Russian Federation and China in calling for greater openness from
those carrying out drone strikes. Pakistan was particularly strident,
insisting that there was 'no implicit or explicit consent' for US drone
strikes on its territory, which it insists have a 'disastrous
humanitarian impact.' In previous debates states had refused to support
similar calls for greater transparency.
The nations were responding to a pair of reports delivered to a busy
session of the General Assembly in New York by special rapporteurs Ben
Emmerson QC and Professor Christof Heyns. The studies, announced a year
ago in London, are part of an ongoing UN investigation into the legal
and ethical problems posed by the use of armed drones - especially in
non-conventional conflicts.
The United States, one of only three nations which presently uses
armed drones, also indicated that it will continue to co-operate with
the UN's inquiry. So too did the UK. Only Israel - which has suspended
its involvement with the UN's Human Rights Council - has so far failed
to engage.
Heyns, as UN special rapporteur for extra-judicial, summary or
arbitrary executions, stressed that existing international law should be
sufficient to provide an adequate framework for managing strikes: "The
drone should follow the law, not the law follow the drone," he told
member nations.
The issue was not the law but how drones were sometimes used, Heyns
said: "Armed drones are not illegal, but as lethal weapons they may be
easily abused and lead to unlawful loss of life, if used
inappropriately.
"States must be transparent about the development, acquisition and
use of armed drones. They must publicly disclose the legal basis for the
use of drones, operational responsibility, criteria for targeting,
impact (including civilian casualties), and information about alleged
violations, investigations and prosecutions," his report notes.
The South African professor of law also expressed concern that an
increased reliance on drone strikes by nations risked a decreased
emphasis on diplomacy, and on law and order operations.
Heyns once again raised the issue of possible war crimes in relation
to the deliberate targeting of civilians with drones, saying there was
an 'obligation' on member states to investigate such instances.
That appeared to be a reference to the now well-reported US practice
of deliberately targeting first responders at the scene of an original
drone attack. Earlier this week, Amnesty International became the latest
organisation to produce evidence of so-called 'double-tap' strikes in
Pakistan. Findings of similar attacks have been reported by the Bureau,
by legal charity Reprieve and by Stanford and New York university law
schools.
Interim study
In his own report to the UN, British barrister Ben Emmerson - the
rapporteur for counter terrorism and human rights - repeatedly
emphasised what he described as the obligation of states to properly
investigate credible reports of civilian deaths.
"The single greatest obstacle to an evaluation of the civilian impact
of drone strikes is lack of transparency, he said. 'In any case in which
civilians have been, or appear to have been killed, the State
responsible is under an obligation to conduct a prompt, independent and
impartial fact-finding inquiry and to provide a detailed public
explanation." It was that call for transparency which other member
states then endorsed.
Emmerson was also keen to stress that his study is interim. A team of
legal investigators based in London has also been examining 33
problematic drone strikes carried out by the United States, Israel and
the UK, which raise significant concerns regarding legality, civilian
deaths or possible war crimes. As Emmerson told a later press
conference: "The really difficult part of the process is this next
stage," when the three countries will be asked to comment in detail on
individual strikes. That final report is expected in 2014.
Responding in the General Assembly to Heyns' report and comments, the
US was careful not to imply that it accepted any definition of its own
drone strikes as 'extra-judicial killings', actions it condemned
outright. However, the US surprised some observers by indicating that it
intends to continue co-operation with Emmerson's ongoing investigation.
Constitutional rights
The two rapporteurs also spoke at a panel discussion at the UN's
Manhattan building. They were joined by a former US drone operator,
along with academics and human rights investigators. A short film,
prepared by Forensic Architects, showed in Emmerson's words 'an
indication of the potential to mount investigations' into problematic
strikes. "With enough effort and political will it can be done," he
insisted. "I refuse to give up trying to obtain that co-operation."
In a late addition to the panel, former US Air Force drone operator
Brandon Bryant also endorsed calls for drone strike transparency and
accountability. He said that his own misgivings about some US actions
came about after he was 'party to the violation of the constitutional
rights of a US citizen.' This, he said, was despite his having sworn an
oath to uphold the same Constitution when he joined the military.
The October 25 UN presentations came at the end of a week of reports
covering aspects of the ongoing secret US drone war. After the weekend
release of a major study into Yemen drone strikes by Swiss NGO Alkarama,
both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch followed with their
own damning reports into recent US drone activity in Yemen and Pakistan.
In a testy response a State Department official insisted that US
civilian casualties from drones were 'much lower,' but refused to
provide either estimates or evidence to back her claims.
On October 23, Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif also told
President Obama on a visit to Washington DC that drone strikes on his
country had to stop. The impact of that call was muted by a leaked story
in the Washington Post later that day, insinuating that Pakistan may
still give its tacit consent to US drone strikes. In contrast Emmerson's
UN report states that whilst there is 'strong evidence' that Pakistan
previously allowed US strikes on its territory, any such consent had
been removed by April 2012 at the latest.
He also insisted that any side-deals cut between the US and
Pakistan's military or intelligence services had no validity: "The
democratically elected Government is the body responsible for Pakistani
international relations and the sole entity able to express the will of
the State in its international affairs," Emmerson writes.
Although the UN presentations appeared to make a reasonable impact,
this was not the first time that the General Assembly had debated the
issue of drone strikes. In 2010 former UN special rapporteur Philip
Alston also presented a report to the UN, and some of his
recommendations are being repeated by Emmerson and Heyns.
- Third World Network Features
|