Was the Prime Minister suggesting that it would be morally reprehensible to ignore the victims of British drone strikes and that we would of course squarely face up to our responsibilities to these people and their families? Alas not. Instead, and rather predictably David Cameron was arguing that we cannot turn away from drone technology which, as he put it, is “taking out” the bad guys.
It’s not only the British Prime Minister suggesting there can be no turning away from drone technology. There seems to be a growing acceptance of the inevitability of a drone-filled future behind much reporting and commentary on the issue of armed drones. “The future belongs to drones” was how The Economist put it this week, whilst a Reuters article argued that drones were “the perfect weapon for a war-weary nation …on a tight budget.” The Reuters piece went on to quote an unnamed senior US official:
As the Iraq war winds down, more drones equipped for intelligence gathering and other purposes have been freed up…..The overall U.S. drone arsenal has also increased. “It’s something that in some ways is a natural evolution…..”
As we have noted before this (anything but natural) “evolution” is changing the nature of warfare and making the world a much more dangerous place. Launching armed interventions simultaneously in six countries around the world without any risk has suddenly become a reality because of drones. As a thoughtful piece in this month’s Defence Technology International, exploring how drones are impacting on the pace of war, suggests
“Would the U.S. engage in such a wide-ranging air campaign if it were conducted only with manned aircraft flying from overseas bases and carrier strike groups? Has the use of unmanned systems led to more warfare, in more places, because of the smaller logistics tail and the fact that pilots’ lives are not at risk?”
I think the answer to that has to be a resounding ‘yes’ – drones are definitely beginning to lead to more warfare. However in order to avoid difficult questions about international law, the Obama Administration is insisting these are not acts of war but ‘police actions’
Writing in Foreign Policy Thomas Ricks argues: ”The drone strikes being conducted in [Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen] are not being done to challenge those states, but to supplement the power of those states, to act when they cannot or will not.” (So much for the principle of sovereignty – if states will not do what we demand we can overrule them with drone strikes.) “Drone aircraft have changed warfare…. [and] they also are changing diplomacy and foreign relations” Ricks argues “but it is not war”
To show how much nonsense this idea of ‘police action’ is Greg Scoblete at The Compass says “If Iran suddenly developed the wherewithal to fly a drone over suburban Virginia and blew up the house (and wife and kids) of a man it claimed was in the CIA conducting a terror campaign against Iranian nuclear scientists, I think the U.S. would consider that bombing an act of war, or at the very least an act of terrorism. It certainly wouldn’t consider it “police work.”
A future of drone strikes being responded to with terrorism which lead to further drone strikes and so on can easily be foreseen. In Pakistan ordinary people are doing what they can to break the spiral as this project shows. We too in the UK and the US have a responsibility to ‘turn our face away’ from this dreadful future and do what we can to prevent the continuing drone war evolution.
The drone strike was aimed at members of al-Shabab group which the US alleges is building close ties with al-Qaeda. A ‘senior US military official’ told the Post that “they have become somewhat emboldened of late, and, as a result, we have become more focused on inhibiting their activities.”
Unveiling the new strategy, John Brennan, counter terrorism advisor to President Obama, stated (while heroically keeping a straight face) that “Al Qaeda seeks to bleed us financially by drawing us into long, costly wars that also inflame anti-American sentiment.” Cleverly avoiding this trick (!) the US will instead, as the LA Times put it:
When challenged about whether targeted killing was appropriate, Brennan, a former CIA officer went on to argue that in the past year, “there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities that we’ve been able to develop.” However, as even the LA Times itself pointed out, it was just last month that two US servicemen were mistakenly killed by a US drone strike. Tactfully the LA Times suggested that Mr Brennan must mean drone strikes in Pakistan. However even if Brenan’s claim is limited to drone strikes in Pakistan, it is extremely difficult to square with the myriad of civilian casualty reports from there.
The Pakistani lawyer, Mirza Shahzad Akbar, who is suing the CIA on behalf of civilian victims of drone strikes, was refused entry into the US this month to take part in a human rights conference at Colombia Law School.
“If seeking justice through the law – instead of violence – is the reason for banning my travel, then mine is another story of how government measures in the name of “national security” have gone too far… Why would the US government want to prevent me from discussing these cases at Columbia law school? Perhaps, it is because our legal challenge disrupts the narrative of “precision strikes” against “high-value targets” as an unqualified success against terrorism, at minimal cost to civilian life.”
Trying to prevent angry Pakistanis from using lawful means to pursue claims against the CIA for drone strikes instead of turning to violence seems to be purely idiotic. Clive Stafford Smith, renown lawyer and founder of Reprieve, the organisations supporting Mr Akbar and other layers in Pakistan, took this theme up in a short interview with Newsweek when asked for his opinion on US drone strikes:
“Drones are idiotic. When you fire a drone, the odds are you’re wrong when you identify someone as a terrorist. Our experience in Guantanamo is that the Americans get it wrong more than two thirds of the time. The second thing the Americans have to do when they fire a drone is to identify where [the target is in real time]. The chances of getting that right are slim to none. The third thing they’ve got to get right is hit the right place. When you add these things together, the odds that they’re going to hit the right person are very small. The odds that they’re going to kill innocent people, really annoy people in Pakistan, and provoke people to hate them are very, very high. So not only is it immoral, it’s very stupid.”
Unfortunately, pointing out the stupidity of a particular policy to the military never seems to be enough. Thankfully more and more people are beginning to take action to stop the idiocy of drone strikes.
An article by two senior MoD scientists in an obscure US military journal suggests that while the UK military says it has no intention of developing a fully autonomous armed drone, background research work, which would enable such a system, continues.
Just a few weeks ago a report released by the UK Ministry of Defence (The UK Approach to Unmanned Aerial Systems) declared that while it was not currently (as it put it) developing an autonomous armed drone it was “looking to increase levels of automation where this will make systems more effective.”
Using almost exactly the same wording, Tony Gillespie and Robin West, who both work at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, wrote in an article for The International C2 Journal that “The UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) has no intention to develop systems with no human intervention in the [Command and Control] chain, but there is the desire to raise the autonomy level of its Unmanned Aerial Systems.”
The 20-page article goes on to outline four key underlying legal principles of the Laws of Armed Conflict (Necessity, Humanity, Distinction and Proportionality) before suggesting that “the problem… is to identify which of the authorized entities in the UAS Command and Control chain can become non-human and still meet the [legal] requirements.” The authors make the argument that “humans are well adapted to make subjective, qualitative decisions whereas machines make good quantitative ones….” therefore “the next step in the systems engineering process requires an approach that turns qualitative criteria into quantitative ones.”
Of course it is not just in the courts or the conference room that pressure is needed to ensure that illegal drone strikes cease. Public action such as the recent vigil at UAV Engines in Shenstone (photo) and the protest at Hancock Air force base in New York State from where drones are controlled – in which almost 40 people were arrested – are also very much needed to bring about an end to current and future drone wars.
The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems (click image to open PDF)
The UK Ministry of Defence has published a new document, to “inform and prompt wider debate” on military unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), commonly known as drones. The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems is a Joint Doctrine Note (JDN) that examines technological and scientific issues related to current and future use of armed and unarmed drones. It also sets out, for the first time, what it sees as the legal, moral and ethical issues that arise from using such systems.
Arguing that unmanned aircraft now hold a central role in modern warfare, it states “there is a real possibility that, after many false starts and broken promises, a technological tipping point is approaching that may well deliver a genuine revolution in military affairs.”
The publication of this report is very much to be welcomed, in particular its recognition of the serious moral, ethical and legal issues at stake with the growing use of unmanned drones and autonomous systems. At just over 100 pages long the document covers a lot of ground but in this initial review I want to focus on three particular issues.
Framing the Debate: On not calling a spade, a spade
As has been the case for some time, when talking about unmanned drones, the use of the term ‘drone’ is an absolute ‘no no’ within the military. While ‘unmanned aircraft’ or ‘unmanned aerial system’ is seen as acceptable, the term ‘remotely piloted aircraft’ is suggested as appropriate, the document says, “when talking to the media.” While it may well be true that this is in part to avoid confusion, it is to counter, one of the key weaknesses to the future development of UAVs identified by the document: the “public perception issue”. By avoiding the term ‘drone’ it is perhaps hoped that negative perception of the ‘killer drones’ variety can simply be avoided.
The document also argues strongly against the idea that any drones currently under development could or should be called ‘autonomous ‘suggesting instead that they are in fact merely ‘automated’. “Those [drones] that carry out their entire mission from take-off to landing without human intervention may be said to be fully automated” it argues. Taking what could be said to be a maxim approach to the issue of autonomy, the document argues that machines or systems can only truly be called autonomous when they are self aware or their understanding is indistinguishable from humans;
“Autonomous systems will, in effect, be self-aware and their response to inputs indistinguishable from, or even superior to, that of a manned aircraft. As such, they must be capable of achieving the same level of situational understanding as a human” says the document.
This would be a substantially different definition of ‘autonomy’ than is being used by many scientists and companies involved in developing autonomous systems as the document itself recognizes: “Companies may describe their systems to be autonomous even though they would not be considered as such under the military definition.”
I imagine the reason for taking this position, is again in part for public perception reasons. However there are other key reasons for not wanting to label drones as autonomous as the document clearly recognizes: “The distinction between autonomous and automated is important as there are moral, ethical and legal implications regarding the use of autonomous unmanned aircraft.”
While this new document is an important step forward by the MoD in acknowledging that there are legal, ethical and moral issues associated with the growing use of drones, at the same time the document wants to frame the debate and keep it on its own terms.
Humans: In, on, or out of the loop?
Legally humans are required to make the final decision with regard to firing of weapons from drones. This is known as humans being ‘in the loop’. However we know that industry is developing systems that will mean humans moving from being ‘in the loop’ to being ‘on the loop’, that is monitoring several armed drones at the same time. The new document notes this change and acknowledges that the growing development of autonomous (sorry, automated) drones, means that the legal requirement is “being eroded”.
At one point the document tries to clearly states that the MoD has no plans to enable drones to independently make decisions about firing it weapons:
“It should be noted that the MOD currently has no intention to develop systems that operate without human intervention in the weapon command and control chain, but it is looking to increase levels of automation where this will make systems more effective”
But the issue of drones deciding themselves whether to launch weapons is not completely ruled out as this key passage, shows:
“A human-authorised [drone] attack would be no different to that by a manned aircraft and would be fully compliant with the LOAC [Laws of Armed Conflict], provided the human believed that, based on the information available, the attack met LOAC requirements and extant ROE [Rules of Engagement]. From this position, it would be only a small technical step to enable an unmanned aircraft to fire a weapon based solely on its own sensors, or shared information, and without recourse to higher, human authority. Provided it could be shown that the controlling system appropriately assessed the LOAC principles (military necessity; humanity; distinction and proportionality) and that ROE were satisfied, this would be entirely legal.
In practice, such operations would present a considerable technological challenge and the software testing and certification for such a system would be extremely expensive as well as time consuming. Meeting the requirement for proportionality and distinction would be particularly problematic, as both of these areas are likely to contain elements of ambiguity requiring sophisticated judgement. Such problems are particularly difficult for a machine to solve and would likely require some form of artificial intelligence to be successful. Estimates of when artificial intelligence will be achieved (as opposed to complex and clever automated systems) vary, but the consensus seems to lie between more than 5 years and less than 15 years, with some outliers far later than this… Until such a capability is achieved it is likely that, apart from some niche tasks, human intervention will continue to be required at key stages of an unmanned aircraft’s mission if it involves weapon-delivery.”
There are very serious legal not to mention ethical and moral issues raised by the prospect of unmanned systems deciding themselves whether to launch their weapons. The MoD’s assurances that they are not currently, as they put it developing these systems, while at the same time blurring the distinction between ‘autonomous’ and ‘automated’ is unhelpful. This together with the fact that exploration into the “the technological challenge” to achieve such a capability appears to be continuing is extremely worrying. It would be helpful if the MoD simply, clearly and unambiguously ruled out the idea of humans being ‘out of the loop’ when it comes to launching weapons.
Will Remote War means More War?
We have argued for some time that the geographical and psychological distance between the drone operator launching weapons and the point of attack may mean in practice that the threshold for launching weapons may be reduced. In addition, the fact that remote war is undertaken at no risk to your own forces also may mean that there is a greater temptation to undertake armed attacks and assassinations. The authors of the document raises this issue too in a section on ethical and moral issues:
“One of the contributory factors in controlling and limiting aggressive policy is the risk to one’s own forces. It is essential that, before unmanned systems become ubiquitous (if it is not already too late) that we consider this issue and ensure that, by removing some of the horror, or at least keeping it at a distance, that we do not risk losing our controlling humanity and make war more likely.”
However, the document also argues that this negative must be “tempered” by the fact that “the use of unmanned aircraft prevents the potential loss of aircrew lives and is thus in itself morally justified.”
The authors argue that “what is needed is a clear understanding of the issues involved so that informed decisions can be made.” We would, of course support this point and would argue that in a democratic society it should not be a matter for military or legal experts to make a these important decision but there needs to be a genuine public debate.
Further comments
I will be reflecting further on this interesting and fascinating insight in the MoD’s thinking on drones over the next few weeks. I’d be really interested in your comments too!
While the commitment to purchasing and developing new drones has the British military industry salivating they are also peeved that money is going to US companies, hence following written exchange from Hansard:
Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will have discussions with the Defence Manufacturers Association for the purposes of ensuring that future unmanned aerial vehicles are procured from UK manufacturers. [21701]
Nick Harvey: Our primary objective is to provide our armed forces with the equipment and support they need, at the right time, and at a cost that represents value for taxpayers’ money. We continue to believe the best approach to delivering value for money is through purchasing goods and services from the global market, in which UK companies compete, including off-the-shelf where appropriate. The Ministry of Defence has a number of future unmanned aerial vehicle requirements at different stages of development. MOD regularly has discussions about its future requirements with interested companies, trade bodies and the National Defence Industries Council.
In a surprising decision, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that the court “ lacked the jurisdiction to review the targeting of a U.S. citizen abroad for death”.
“This Court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion – that there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is . . . judicially unreviewable. But this case squarely presents such a circumstance.”
Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, said it would be “a profound mistake” to allow the government “unreviewable authority to carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere. It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American liberty.”
In response to the decision Human Rights Watch have written to President Obama asking him “to clarify [the] legal rationale for targeted killings, including the use of Unmanned Combat Aircraft Systems (drones), and the procedural safeguards it is taking to minimize harm to civilians”.
A U.N. investigator called on the world body on Friday to set up a panel to study the ethics and legality of unmanned military weapons — an apparent reference to U.S. drones that strike suspected Islamist militants.
In a report to the U.N. General Assembly human rights committee, Christof Heyns said such systems raised “serious concerns that have been almost entirely unexamined by human rights or humanitarian actors.”
“The international community urgently needs to address the legal, political, ethical and moral implications of the development of lethal robotic technologies,” said Heyns, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions.
It was the second time this year U.N. experts tackled the issue. In June, Heyns’ predecessor, Philip Alston, called for a halt to CIA-directed drone strikes on al Qaeda and Taliban suspects in Afghanistan and Pakistan, saying killings ordered far from the battlefield could lead to a “Playstation” mentality.
The CIA contested Alston’s findings, saying — without confirming it carried out the strikes — that its operations “unfold within a framework of law and close government oversight.”
But Heyns, a South African law professor, said there was a need to discuss responsibility for civilian casualties, how to ensure the use of robots complied with humanitarian law, and standards for developing the technology involved.
Saying the United Nations should take a lead, he urged Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to convene a group of national representatives, human rights experts, philosophers, scientists and developers to promote a debate on the legal and moral implications of robotic weapons.
The group should discuss the challenges the weapons posed and how the technologies could be used “to promote more effective compliance with international human rights and humanitarian law,” he said.
Among the issues it should study was “the fundamental question of whether lethal force should ever be permitted to be fully automated,” he added.
Heyns’ statement to the U.N. committee did not name any country, weapon system or target in its discussion of robotic technologies.
Under President Barack Obama, the CIA has stepped up drone strikes in the tribal zone of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, targeting high-level al Qaeda and Taliban figures as well as largely unknown foot soldiers.
But Alston’s June report said the United States was just one of 40 countries with drone technology. He named Britain, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Russia and Turkey as also having or seeking the capacity to fire missiles from drones.
Responding to a parliamentary question from Caroline Lucas about the civilian victims of UK drone strikes in Afghanistan last week, David Cameron said “I do not think that the answer is to turn our face away…”
Writing in Foreign Policy Thomas Ricks argues: ”The drone strikes being conducted in [Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen] are not being done to challenge those states, but to supplement the power of those states, to act when they cannot or will not.” (So much for the principle of sovereignty – if states will not do what we demand we can overrule them with drone strikes.) “Drone aircraft have changed warfare…. [and] they also are changing diplomacy and foreign relations” Ricks argues “but it is not war”
An unnamed military source confirmed to the Washington Post yesterday that 
An article by two senior MoD scientists in an obscure US military journal suggests that while the UK military says it has no intention of developing a fully autonomous armed drone, background research work, which would enable such a system, continues.
