With no direction... or pilot
It seems the UN is going after the controversial US drone program:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/un-drone-inquiry/
When you have the words "special rapporteur" and "human rights" in the same sentence, you might expect to hear about the human rights violations in China, or the arrests of journalists in Belarus, or some "disturbing" situation in Iran, Sudan, North Korea or East Timor. But when one of the unusual suspects (like the US) gets into the sight of the UN human rights council (no matter how much the US doesn't give a damn about the UN anyway), then this certainly can't go unnoticed.
Last week the British attorney Ben Emmerson was assigned the task of a thorough investigation of 25 drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and Palestine. The purpose was to "look at possible evidence that in some cases of drone strikes or other forms of attacks, disproportionate collateral damage and civilian casualties had been caused". Since it's pretty clear that there indeed are civilian casualties in those cases, the investigation soon took the shape and tone of an indictment, primarily against the US actions in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, where the US has been doing "secret" bombings for years.
Although they're so "secret" that everyone knows about them, so far the White House has yet to officially acknowledge the existence of most of these operations. There are virtually no written rules about defining the targets, or selecting the moment for doing a strike. There's no public accountability about the number of drone attacks, or the casualties resulting from them. Even the financing of these programs is opaque to public scrutiny. The former Obama defense official Rosa Brooks described a situation where a unknown number of nameless people are regularly being executed by the US for unspecified reasons, in drone attacks that they never admit having carried out, with no guarantees against abuse of power (or against errors of judgment) - apart from the mere alleged "good will" of some benevolent member of executive power. It's a practice that would've probably made GWB and his hawks look like shy pigeons in comparison (an image which I'm sure Chuck Hagel would very neatly fit into, given his timid display at the congressional hearing the other day - but I digress).
No doubt, the work of the Emmerson commission and the report it'll come up with before the UN General Assembly in October, will cause a huge interest and a lot of controversy. Even before the final results are known, the UN has been eager to remind the world that in fact the war on terror is still underway. And there's a lot of suspicion around the way it's being carried out.
The unmanned aircraft has become one of the newest symbols of US military power in recent years. The new technology has drastically changed the modern strategies of warfare - they give the opportunity of constant surveillance of the battlefield (or 24/7 monitoring of a particular "target"), and meanwhile they can carry out attacks with relative accuracy, virtually in any location at any moment. And all of this is happening without direct threat for the life of the US personnel who are executing the operation - and at a much lower cost, on top of that. The drones are simultaneously effective and easily replaceable. That's why they've quickly become a key element in the operations against enemies to the US interests in various corners of the world.
And still, the lack of a direct risk doesn't mean that there should be no restrictions on the use of drones - because they're essentially a weapon. And because, although the strikes are done by unmanned (or ordinary) aircraft, the US bombardment deep into the territory of sovereign countries, where civilians often become casualties, can't but become a factor in the internal policies of the affected country.
The Pakistani example is very telling in this respect. Pakistan has become famous for mass anti-US protests in the recent years, ritual burnings of the US flag, etc. And the drone attacks are certainly not helping win hearts and minds, and improve Washington's image in any way. An international Pew Research poll from a year ago indicates that only 17% of the Pakistanis support the drone strikes on their territory, while 74% of them consider the US an enemy. When you have such an overwhelming consensus on an issue of such importance, it inevitably turns into a major subject in political debates in that country. The US may've never openly and officially called this a "war", but that's practically exactly what it is.
Meanwhile, let's keep in mind that a large part of the military in Pakistan, as well as a number of members of the ruling party, actually have a favorable attitude to the US strikes. As a result of the bombardment, the Islamists' capabilities of launching large-scale offensives against the Pakistani army have drastically shrunken, and some of their most experienced commanders are no more among the living. In the meantime, the rulers in Pakistan are feeling increasingly pressured by public opinion, which believes that the passive response of their leaders to the US behavior betrays utter political weakness.
That's probably why Pakistan was compelled to turn to the UN on the issue of civilian casualties in the drone strikes, which is what triggered the Emmerson investigation in the first place. Thus, in many ways the active US military involvement in Pakistan is ultimately undermining the legitimacy of the local government itself, while fueling the anti-American moods among the populace - and we all know that this can further fuel extremism more often than not. Ultimately, Pakistan could end up with an Iranian-type of government, all the while fueling the wheel of the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan. Which doesn't help the long-term stability in the region, or the US interests in the long run, and is raising the question if there's any long-term strategy behind the drone strikes at all.
At least on paper, the US strategy in the so called "war on terror" is supposed to mostly boil down to smoking out and then eliminating various Al Qaeda leaders and key figures in other international extremist networks who could threaten the US national security. But it's hardly clear how many of the extremists who've been killed in those drone strikes in Pakistan or Yemen had really been a direct threat to America - because a large part of them seem to have been simply corresponding to the arbitrary description for an extremist, i.e. "armed bearded men with turbans and AKs" (sorry for the over-simplification). They could've been a real problem for security at a local level, granted, but it's still highly debatable to what extent the direct intervention of Washington was necessary in that case. We may've ended up with a precedent situation where the US is practically having a free pass (or rather, acquiring a blank check from the position of power) to arbitrarily shoot anything it doesn't like, regardless of national sovereignty and/or tactical significance of the target - without fear of repercussions.
The problem might be that at the core of the US policy there's the almost mythological notion of the Islamists as more or less a homogeneous group of people with one purpose: hurting the US interests worldwide, no matter the cost. A global movement of some sorts that's fueled by a powerful and essentially irrational hatred for the West and the Western values (of course, America being the paragon and flag-carrier thereof). We've all heard of the Clash of Civilizations. Thus, under the "extremist" label a multitude of separate movements could now be included, albeit a large part of them having specifically local aims: be it the change of a regime in a certain country, or establishing some sort of regional autonomy, or simply establishing a hub for criminal activity. It's hardly a certainty that they're all allied between themselves in a global league of some sorts, at least not initially. But, as soon as they get on Washington's black list and the drones start flying overhead and bombs start falling all around them, whether they intended it or not, they all suddenly find themselves in the same camp, which inevitably brings them to closer contacts, and the coordination between them and the larger international terrorist networks gets intensified.
And so the US policy on terror actually turns out to be more of a consolidating influence for the extremists, rather than one that would ultimately undermine their "base". I mean, you could shoot all their leaders who presently remain standing, but that still wouldn't make the root source of extremism go away. In the place of each extremist you've shot in a drone strike, two more will come. When you add to the equation the risk of mounting civilian casualties, and destruction of infrastructure, and simply the sense of insecurity that these attacks create, then the controversial moments and the questions about the efficiency of this new fancy US tool tend to become way too many.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/un-drone-inquiry/
When you have the words "special rapporteur" and "human rights" in the same sentence, you might expect to hear about the human rights violations in China, or the arrests of journalists in Belarus, or some "disturbing" situation in Iran, Sudan, North Korea or East Timor. But when one of the unusual suspects (like the US) gets into the sight of the UN human rights council (no matter how much the US doesn't give a damn about the UN anyway), then this certainly can't go unnoticed.
Last week the British attorney Ben Emmerson was assigned the task of a thorough investigation of 25 drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and Palestine. The purpose was to "look at possible evidence that in some cases of drone strikes or other forms of attacks, disproportionate collateral damage and civilian casualties had been caused". Since it's pretty clear that there indeed are civilian casualties in those cases, the investigation soon took the shape and tone of an indictment, primarily against the US actions in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, where the US has been doing "secret" bombings for years.
Although they're so "secret" that everyone knows about them, so far the White House has yet to officially acknowledge the existence of most of these operations. There are virtually no written rules about defining the targets, or selecting the moment for doing a strike. There's no public accountability about the number of drone attacks, or the casualties resulting from them. Even the financing of these programs is opaque to public scrutiny. The former Obama defense official Rosa Brooks described a situation where a unknown number of nameless people are regularly being executed by the US for unspecified reasons, in drone attacks that they never admit having carried out, with no guarantees against abuse of power (or against errors of judgment) - apart from the mere alleged "good will" of some benevolent member of executive power. It's a practice that would've probably made GWB and his hawks look like shy pigeons in comparison (an image which I'm sure Chuck Hagel would very neatly fit into, given his timid display at the congressional hearing the other day - but I digress).
No doubt, the work of the Emmerson commission and the report it'll come up with before the UN General Assembly in October, will cause a huge interest and a lot of controversy. Even before the final results are known, the UN has been eager to remind the world that in fact the war on terror is still underway. And there's a lot of suspicion around the way it's being carried out.
The unmanned aircraft has become one of the newest symbols of US military power in recent years. The new technology has drastically changed the modern strategies of warfare - they give the opportunity of constant surveillance of the battlefield (or 24/7 monitoring of a particular "target"), and meanwhile they can carry out attacks with relative accuracy, virtually in any location at any moment. And all of this is happening without direct threat for the life of the US personnel who are executing the operation - and at a much lower cost, on top of that. The drones are simultaneously effective and easily replaceable. That's why they've quickly become a key element in the operations against enemies to the US interests in various corners of the world.
And still, the lack of a direct risk doesn't mean that there should be no restrictions on the use of drones - because they're essentially a weapon. And because, although the strikes are done by unmanned (or ordinary) aircraft, the US bombardment deep into the territory of sovereign countries, where civilians often become casualties, can't but become a factor in the internal policies of the affected country.
The Pakistani example is very telling in this respect. Pakistan has become famous for mass anti-US protests in the recent years, ritual burnings of the US flag, etc. And the drone attacks are certainly not helping win hearts and minds, and improve Washington's image in any way. An international Pew Research poll from a year ago indicates that only 17% of the Pakistanis support the drone strikes on their territory, while 74% of them consider the US an enemy. When you have such an overwhelming consensus on an issue of such importance, it inevitably turns into a major subject in political debates in that country. The US may've never openly and officially called this a "war", but that's practically exactly what it is.
Meanwhile, let's keep in mind that a large part of the military in Pakistan, as well as a number of members of the ruling party, actually have a favorable attitude to the US strikes. As a result of the bombardment, the Islamists' capabilities of launching large-scale offensives against the Pakistani army have drastically shrunken, and some of their most experienced commanders are no more among the living. In the meantime, the rulers in Pakistan are feeling increasingly pressured by public opinion, which believes that the passive response of their leaders to the US behavior betrays utter political weakness.
That's probably why Pakistan was compelled to turn to the UN on the issue of civilian casualties in the drone strikes, which is what triggered the Emmerson investigation in the first place. Thus, in many ways the active US military involvement in Pakistan is ultimately undermining the legitimacy of the local government itself, while fueling the anti-American moods among the populace - and we all know that this can further fuel extremism more often than not. Ultimately, Pakistan could end up with an Iranian-type of government, all the while fueling the wheel of the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan. Which doesn't help the long-term stability in the region, or the US interests in the long run, and is raising the question if there's any long-term strategy behind the drone strikes at all.
At least on paper, the US strategy in the so called "war on terror" is supposed to mostly boil down to smoking out and then eliminating various Al Qaeda leaders and key figures in other international extremist networks who could threaten the US national security. But it's hardly clear how many of the extremists who've been killed in those drone strikes in Pakistan or Yemen had really been a direct threat to America - because a large part of them seem to have been simply corresponding to the arbitrary description for an extremist, i.e. "armed bearded men with turbans and AKs" (sorry for the over-simplification). They could've been a real problem for security at a local level, granted, but it's still highly debatable to what extent the direct intervention of Washington was necessary in that case. We may've ended up with a precedent situation where the US is practically having a free pass (or rather, acquiring a blank check from the position of power) to arbitrarily shoot anything it doesn't like, regardless of national sovereignty and/or tactical significance of the target - without fear of repercussions.
The problem might be that at the core of the US policy there's the almost mythological notion of the Islamists as more or less a homogeneous group of people with one purpose: hurting the US interests worldwide, no matter the cost. A global movement of some sorts that's fueled by a powerful and essentially irrational hatred for the West and the Western values (of course, America being the paragon and flag-carrier thereof). We've all heard of the Clash of Civilizations. Thus, under the "extremist" label a multitude of separate movements could now be included, albeit a large part of them having specifically local aims: be it the change of a regime in a certain country, or establishing some sort of regional autonomy, or simply establishing a hub for criminal activity. It's hardly a certainty that they're all allied between themselves in a global league of some sorts, at least not initially. But, as soon as they get on Washington's black list and the drones start flying overhead and bombs start falling all around them, whether they intended it or not, they all suddenly find themselves in the same camp, which inevitably brings them to closer contacts, and the coordination between them and the larger international terrorist networks gets intensified.
And so the US policy on terror actually turns out to be more of a consolidating influence for the extremists, rather than one that would ultimately undermine their "base". I mean, you could shoot all their leaders who presently remain standing, but that still wouldn't make the root source of extremism go away. In the place of each extremist you've shot in a drone strike, two more will come. When you add to the equation the risk of mounting civilian casualties, and destruction of infrastructure, and simply the sense of insecurity that these attacks create, then the controversial moments and the questions about the efficiency of this new fancy US tool tend to become way too many.