Drones Make War Too Tempting
The debate about the use of armed drones has recently intensified. These unmanned aircraft can be controlled from a long distance away, allowing pilots to attack targets without putting themselves in any danger. Armed drones have become notorious in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. uses them to eliminate (alleged) leaders of terrorist organizations. There has been a lot of opposition to this policy; these extrajudicial killings often result in civilian casualties.
It has put the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan, one of its most important allies in the fight against terrorism, under great strain. Pakistan demanded that the U.S. cease drone strikes immediately and has withdrawn permission for future attacks on its territory. When the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Pakistan last week, he said that he expected the drone attacks there would soon cease anyway. The White House therefore made it clear that the Pakistanis released their statement with unnecessary haste.
Controversy
The use of armed drones is controversial in the Netherlands too. For this reason, in January, Foreign Minister Timmermans asked the Advisory Committee on Issues of International Public Law (CAVV) for advice about the legitimacy of the use of drones. They recently came back with their findings and have reached a number of important conclusions. By their judgment, drones are essentially no different than other weapons systems. This means they can be used in theaters of war in the same way as, for example, F-16s.
Outside of a war, however, a different set of rules applies. The Advisory Committee on Issues of International Public Law strongly condemns the use of drones against (suspected) terrorists; after all, everybody has the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the risks to innocent civilians are unacceptably high.
The CAVV advice is characterized by thinly veiled sneering at U.S. policy. For example, it drily points out that in international law, there can be no such thing as a war on terrorism. The recommendations also come with an important warning: The relevant international rules must be obeyed fully and consistently. If not, nations risk setting a dangerous precedent; after all, in the near future, more and more countries will have access to armed drones.
Debate
A debate about the use of drones is urgently required, particularly with respect to the future of the Dutch Armed Forces. Minister Hennis-Plasschaert will soon reveal her vision for the Dutch Army’s future; as part of this, she will specify how the cuts to the defense budget will be achieved. Armed drones are now somewhat cheaper than fighter planes, and the CAVV's advice paves the way for them to play an important role in the minister’s vision of a future where armed forces cost less.
Armed drones are more than just a new weapon, though. As far as international law is concerned, a drone may be equivalent to a fighter plane; however, from a strategic political point of view they are not, because they make it possible to wage a different type of war. Armed drones make undertaking military campaigns relatively cheap. This allows a country such as the U.S. to conduct simultaneous military interventions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, with significant implications for the world order. Perhaps it will become easier to keep repressive regimes and terrorists in their place, but it could also mean that the (long) diplomatic road will be abandoned in favor of the shortcut offered by a military intervention. This would result in an erosion of respect for international law. There is also the fear that precedent about which the CAVV issued its warning was set by the U.S. long ago.
The Warning
The CAVV's conclusion — that existing international law already sufficiently regulates drone use — is too glib. What we need, in a world where the strongest too often dictate their own rules instead of abiding by the strength of the law, is guidance about how we can stop the use of armed drones from contravening international law.
If the Dutch government intends to take the CAVV's warning seriously, here is some advice: Before purchasing any drones, make a public statement opposing the American policy. Such a signal from the capital of international justice would be very welcome.
It has put the relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan, one of its most important allies in the fight against terrorism, under great strain. Pakistan demanded that the U.S. cease drone strikes immediately and has withdrawn permission for future attacks on its territory. When the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Pakistan last week, he said that he expected the drone attacks there would soon cease anyway. The White House therefore made it clear that the Pakistanis released their statement with unnecessary haste.
Controversy
The use of armed drones is controversial in the Netherlands too. For this reason, in January, Foreign Minister Timmermans asked the Advisory Committee on Issues of International Public Law (CAVV) for advice about the legitimacy of the use of drones. They recently came back with their findings and have reached a number of important conclusions. By their judgment, drones are essentially no different than other weapons systems. This means they can be used in theaters of war in the same way as, for example, F-16s.
Outside of a war, however, a different set of rules applies. The Advisory Committee on Issues of International Public Law strongly condemns the use of drones against (suspected) terrorists; after all, everybody has the right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the risks to innocent civilians are unacceptably high.
The CAVV advice is characterized by thinly veiled sneering at U.S. policy. For example, it drily points out that in international law, there can be no such thing as a war on terrorism. The recommendations also come with an important warning: The relevant international rules must be obeyed fully and consistently. If not, nations risk setting a dangerous precedent; after all, in the near future, more and more countries will have access to armed drones.
Debate
A debate about the use of drones is urgently required, particularly with respect to the future of the Dutch Armed Forces. Minister Hennis-Plasschaert will soon reveal her vision for the Dutch Army’s future; as part of this, she will specify how the cuts to the defense budget will be achieved. Armed drones are now somewhat cheaper than fighter planes, and the CAVV's advice paves the way for them to play an important role in the minister’s vision of a future where armed forces cost less.
Armed drones are more than just a new weapon, though. As far as international law is concerned, a drone may be equivalent to a fighter plane; however, from a strategic political point of view they are not, because they make it possible to wage a different type of war. Armed drones make undertaking military campaigns relatively cheap. This allows a country such as the U.S. to conduct simultaneous military interventions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, with significant implications for the world order. Perhaps it will become easier to keep repressive regimes and terrorists in their place, but it could also mean that the (long) diplomatic road will be abandoned in favor of the shortcut offered by a military intervention. This would result in an erosion of respect for international law. There is also the fear that precedent about which the CAVV issued its warning was set by the U.S. long ago.
The Warning
The CAVV's conclusion — that existing international law already sufficiently regulates drone use — is too glib. What we need, in a world where the strongest too often dictate their own rules instead of abiding by the strength of the law, is guidance about how we can stop the use of armed drones from contravening international law.
If the Dutch government intends to take the CAVV's warning seriously, here is some advice: Before purchasing any drones, make a public statement opposing the American policy. Such a signal from the capital of international justice would be very welcome.
Next article![]( "Incongruous Mix")
