MoD confirms joint UK/France study into future drone

An MoD spokeswomen has said that the UK and France are half-way through a joint three-month feasibility study into the possibility of jointly producing/purchasing a new drone.    The study came to light after the a senior Dassault executive called a press conference to argue against the possibility of a joint purchase of Reaper drones.   According to the report in Defence News potential candidate drones include developments of EADS Talarion, BAE Systems’ Mantis,  General Atomics Reaper and  Dassault /Thales Système de Drone MALE (SDM).

Drone goes rogue again

Less than a week after the US government deployed Predator drones over the US-Mexico border  the flights have been temporarily halted  after a Predator drone ‘went rogue’.   According to a US Customs statement to a local Texas paper the drone experienced a “communications loss“.  

This is not the first time that a predator or reaper drone has gone ‘rogue’ – the term used when the remote control of a drone is lost.  Apparently a short loss of communication between drones and their remote pilots is not unusal but when it is for an extended period of time, panic ensues.  Last September (2009) the US Air Force had to shoot down one of its own drones  in Afghanistan when it went rogue and threatened to leave Afghan airspace. Perhaps the most famous ‘rogue drone’ story concerns a smaller Israeli-made Orbiter drone, being used by Irish peacekeepers in Chad in 2008 which, after a communication loss with its operator decided to head home to Ireland -some 5,000 kilometers away.   Needless to say it didn’t make it and crashed.

As pressure grows to allow drones to operate in the UK drone manufacturers and operators are desperate to show that drones are ‘the safe security option’. Each drone that goes rogue shows this is not the case.

Amnesty International: Attacks from US Aerial Drones in Pakistan

Amnesty International USA have published a new report, As if Hell Fell on Me’: The Human Rights Crisis in Northwest Pakistan, looking at the impact on civilians of the onging conflict in Northwest Pakistan.  Describing the area as a “human rights free zone”, the report says that civilians are facing the triple threat of the Taleban, the Pakistan army and US drone attacks. 

A short chapter in the report  – mostly reproduced on the web  here – focuses on the CIA’s drone attacks in the area.   The following, looking at the legal situation,  is excerted from the report:

In March 2010, Harold Koh, Legal Adviser to the United States Department of State, set out for the first time a brief explanation of the Obama administration’s claimed basis in international law for the drone attacks.  

He asserted that “as a matter of international law, the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida, as well as the Taleban and associated forces, in response to the horrific 9/11 attacks” adding that the USA “may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defense under international law”. Harold Koh argued that this included “authority under international law … to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qa’ida leaders who are planning attacks.“ He further stated that “whether a particular individual will be targeted in a particular location will depend upon considerations specific to each case, including those related to the imminence of the threat, the sovereignty of the other states involved, and the willingness and ability of those states to suppress the threat the target poses”, adding that the principles of distinction and proportionality under international law were adhered to in both planning and execution of all attacks.

This explanation leaves many questions unanswered. Even after Koh’s statement, the USA has not officially  acknowledged that it carries out drone attacks in Pakistan (Koh speaks only generally, of “lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles”) and refuses to provide any official information on these attacks, which is crucial to assess their legitimacy under international law and standards. These include who the targets were, what justification there was for using lethal force against them, whether non-letha alternatives were tried or even considered, what safeguards were put in place to ensure that civilians not endangered, who was killed or injured, what investigations took place in cases where violations of  international legal rules are suspected and more. Nor was such information forthcoming from the Pakistani authorities. In addition, the attacks have taken place in remote areas to which access is difficult. For these reasons, Amnesty International could not independently investigate conditions surrounding the planning, conduct, or consequences of drone attacks in Pakistan. The organization calls upon the governments concerned – the USA and Pakistan—to ensure that all their actions are in strict accordance with relevant rules of international law, and that sufficient information is made available to the public to ensure accountability.

My letter on armed drones

The Guardian has published my letter in response to the Philip Alston report calling for similar scrutiny of the British use of armed drones.

Philip Alston’s report to the UN human rights council (Report, 4 June) on CIA drone strikes in Pakistan raises issues of extreme concern for those who are just as worried about the UK’s use of armed drones in Afghanistan. The UK has launched attacks using armed drones over 80 times since May 2008, yet all requests for information on the circumstances of the use of British drones and resulting civilian casualty figures have so far been refused. The “Playstation mentality” reported by Alston is not confined to the CIA. A US military inquiry into the deaths of 27 Afghan civilians following a Nato attack in February reported this week that drone operators had downplayed information that civilians were in the attacked convoy. It seems reasonable to conclude that British drone operators, too, are susceptible to the reality that, from thousands of miles away, launching weapons at a blip on a video screen makes the choice to kill far too easy. We once again call on the government to release details of the circumstances in which armed drones are being used by British forces.

Chris Cole

Director, Fellowship of Reconciliation