U.S. Drones and Human Rights: Death from Above
Published in der Tagesspiegel
(Germany) on 11 October 2010
by Jost Müller-Neuhof (link to original)
The American unmanned drones currently killing people in Pakistan are an affront to human rights, and they humiliate those who survive them.
Receiving the Nobel Peace Prize can cause changes; sometimes it can have no effects whatsoever. Nobody knows in advance. It’s a wager on global policies, a symbol. That’s the way it is now with the latest recipient, Liu Xiaobo, and so it also was with Barack Obama. The difference: Liu has a superpower facing him; Obama has a superpower behind him. The Chinese were honored with it; the Americans were obligated by it. One may well wonder what the honorees will do with it.
Under Obama, the U.S. unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan have been accorded the status of a tried and true military tactic. In his short time in office, Obama has ordered twice as many such long-distance attacks as his predecessor George W. Bush. This is the same Bush who, with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and waterboarding, was successful in achieving the dubious honor of a special place for the United States in the annals of human rights among western democracies. Funny that Obama’s warlike stealth flights beneath the world’s human rights radar don’t attract much global attention. He benefits from his squeaky clean image and leaves the dirty work, much as his predecessor did, to his intelligence personnel.
But one has to differentiate. Whether these executions are legal is a case by case issue and depends on the circumstances. In any case, they’re problematic for the Europeans because of human rights issues. The Americans, on the other hand, say it’s war, so all is fair. In armed conflicts, the rights of those involved shrink to zero. As cynical as it sounds, according to the proportionality principle, it’s open season. As much as these “targeted killings” carried out by the Americans outrage European human rights sensibilities, one can’t forget that death is part of fighting a war, although it’s not necessarily part of fighting the war on terror. Still, when two F-16 fighter jets finished off al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi four years ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel celebrated with everyone else.
Germans were able to consider the fatal reality of warfare with the air strike called in by Bundeswehr Colonel Klein in Afghanistan that was also ordered, in his words, for the purpose of killing insurgents. He was promoted, and all charges against him were dropped. Why the Bundeswehr saw no reason for disciplinary action — despite the fact that Klein violated the rules of engagement — remains a mystery. One must conclude that war is, and will remain, a matter of power and not of justice.
One doesn’t have to accept all that, and German lawyers will have to investigate if and when Germans fall victim to American drones. But in human rights, politics plays a more important role than justice does. And here lies the problem inherent in “targeted killing.” The people waging the war are often the same ones who must make the peace. It should be noted that killing with drones is the most arrogant way of destroying the enemy. Those who employ these unmanned weapons should know that those who survive have been humiliated and degraded.
Perhaps this really is the future of war. But it’s not the future of peace.
Receiving the Nobel Peace Prize can cause changes; sometimes it can have no effects whatsoever. Nobody knows in advance. It’s a wager on global policies, a symbol. That’s the way it is now with the latest recipient, Liu Xiaobo, and so it also was with Barack Obama. The difference: Liu has a superpower facing him; Obama has a superpower behind him. The Chinese were honored with it; the Americans were obligated by it. One may well wonder what the honorees will do with it.
Under Obama, the U.S. unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan have been accorded the status of a tried and true military tactic. In his short time in office, Obama has ordered twice as many such long-distance attacks as his predecessor George W. Bush. This is the same Bush who, with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and waterboarding, was successful in achieving the dubious honor of a special place for the United States in the annals of human rights among western democracies. Funny that Obama’s warlike stealth flights beneath the world’s human rights radar don’t attract much global attention. He benefits from his squeaky clean image and leaves the dirty work, much as his predecessor did, to his intelligence personnel.
But one has to differentiate. Whether these executions are legal is a case by case issue and depends on the circumstances. In any case, they’re problematic for the Europeans because of human rights issues. The Americans, on the other hand, say it’s war, so all is fair. In armed conflicts, the rights of those involved shrink to zero. As cynical as it sounds, according to the proportionality principle, it’s open season. As much as these “targeted killings” carried out by the Americans outrage European human rights sensibilities, one can’t forget that death is part of fighting a war, although it’s not necessarily part of fighting the war on terror. Still, when two F-16 fighter jets finished off al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi four years ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel celebrated with everyone else.
Germans were able to consider the fatal reality of warfare with the air strike called in by Bundeswehr Colonel Klein in Afghanistan that was also ordered, in his words, for the purpose of killing insurgents. He was promoted, and all charges against him were dropped. Why the Bundeswehr saw no reason for disciplinary action — despite the fact that Klein violated the rules of engagement — remains a mystery. One must conclude that war is, and will remain, a matter of power and not of justice.
One doesn’t have to accept all that, and German lawyers will have to investigate if and when Germans fall victim to American drones. But in human rights, politics plays a more important role than justice does. And here lies the problem inherent in “targeted killing.” The people waging the war are often the same ones who must make the peace. It should be noted that killing with drones is the most arrogant way of destroying the enemy. Those who employ these unmanned weapons should know that those who survive have been humiliated and degraded.
Perhaps this really is the future of war. But it’s not the future of peace.