The armed UAVs (drones, in common parlance) are fast becoming the weapon systems of choice in the latest wars being waged by the US/Nato in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Mali et al. Its pursuit of al-Qaeda though understandable is simultaneously raising very serious issues of strategic, ethical, moral and legal dimensions across international borders.
The US drone campaigns are characterised by a criminal disregard for international law. They ruthlessly violate sovereignties of nations and wreak indiscriminate death and devastation in their target zones. For every moderately worthwhile terrorist leader that they take out, they also kill a disproportionately large number of innocent men, women and children - who are arrogantly and heartlessly dismissed as mere “collateral damage”.
The humans, who comprise this “collateral damage”, however, get buried unsung.
In our regional context, the UN, the US and Pakistan have all been complicit in creating and sustaining this human tragedy.
The UN has been a mute and callous observer of this gross injustice. It could have raised its voice and mounted a potent diplomatic initiative to deter this human tragedy. It chose to remain criminally silent; and all that while the “collateral damage” continued to rise exponentially. Only now has the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, Ben Emmerson, deemed it necessary to state that the US was, indeed, in violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. He also negated the US contention that these drone attacks had Pakistan government’s tacit approval(?). But is it not a case of too little, too late? The tragic “collateral damage” may have already brutalised the vengeful tribal societies of Pakistan’s northwestern frontier regions beyond redemption.
The UN could and should have intervened to save innocent lives. It could and should have proffered non-military solutions to the issue. It chose to do neither.
‘The UN has a case to answer’.
The US is in a relentless pursuit of terrorists across the globe, in particular al-Qaeda. It has assets on ground to search, identify, report and indicate targets to the distant operators, who guide these deadly weapons systems stealthily to their unwary quarries. The execution is generally silent, quick, ruthless and indiscriminate, and gives rise to some very serious issues.
How credible is the intelligence on which these strikes are based? Is the target a legitimate one beyond reasonable doubt? Has the correct target been identified and engaged? And do its crimes justify the penalty?
Furthermore, are the ends of justice truly being met? Does the US President have the authority to assume the roles of the prosecutor, jury and judge all by himself? What about the “distant operators”? They are killing people in countries against which their own country (US) has yet to declare war. So where does this place them? Are they too like their country on the wrong side of international law? And finally if the US violates a country’s sovereignty (Pakistan, for instance) by using deadly force against its people, then does it amount to an act of war? If not, then how do we justify the “collateral damage”?
The implications of this form of warfare in the near future are extremely explosive. Till now the US has been the sole user of this technology. It has yet not made public any doctrines, parameters or defining paradigms that regulate the employment of such weapon systems. It is but a unilateral decision of the US President, which is remorselessly executed by the CIA (responsibility being shifted to the Pentagon soon) with scant regard for international law or even a modicum of morality or justice.
There are other powers on the horizon, which are fast catching up on this technology. They too could soon be following the US in unilaterally pursuing their own national interests or chasing “terrorists” across international borders. China has, reportedly, acquired the technology and Russia cannot be lagging by much. Could India and Israel, both committed allies of the US, be far behind?
That would make for a very dangerous global strategic environment, indeed. International covenants, UN-led, need to be put in place to establish regimes and to define paradigms to regulate the development and employment of these and similar technologies in the future.
The US could and should have chosen alternative solutions to the problem. It could and should have prevented the dastardly “collateral damage”. It chose to do neither.
‘It has a case to answer’.
The Pakistani rulers of those times were, perhaps, the worst of the lot. They were complicit in waging a war against their own people.
It did not matter whether it was the dictatorship of General Pervez Musharraf or the democratic government of PPP’s Zardari and Gilani; they all displayed a criminal and disdainful disregard for Pakistani lives - lives, they were honour and duty bound to secure. Their servile attitude towards the US was shameless, unbecoming and undignified. They showed a despicable eagerness to serve US interests, even “beyond the call of duty.” National interests were blatantly ignored. They obviously had other selfish priorities. Their spineless appeasement of the US literally endorsed the “collateral damage”.
Wikileaks laid bare their diabolical betrayals of the luckless Pakistanis they led. The lack of a political will to save Pakistani lives, the (ab)use of Shamsi Airbase, the absence of a military response to the drones and the abject acquiescence of Pakistani leadership to US pressures contributed in no small measure to the “collateral damage”.
What else would have ever made them angry, if not the deaths of innocent Pakistani men, women and children?
Though the desired end states of the US and Pakistan in the GWOT were similar, yet the Pakistanis in power could have insisted upon other ways and means to achieve them. They could have saved Pakistani lives. They chose not to do so.
‘These Pakistanis have a case to answer’; in particular in this election season.
Does the human issue of the “collateral damage” warrant a suo motu action by the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
Does it feel too that it might have a…….!

The writer is a retired brigadier and a former defence attaché to Australia and New Zealand. Currently, he is on the faculty of NUST (NIPCONS).   Email: im_k@hotmail.com