For whom the bombs fall

So last week a UN special rapporteur announced the setting up of a special investigation unit to look into US drone attacks and targeted killings. Under the aegis of the UN Human Rights Council, the team expects to look into the possibility that at least some of the strikes can be classified as war crimes.  Now, before anyone gets worked up about this, it is worth noting that this is nothing new. The UN, the human rights council and its affiliates have routinely issued such calls since the first reports of drones in the sky surfaced in 2002. In June this year UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay called for a UN investigation. In 2010, another special rapporteur published a study on drone attacks. As in 2009... and so on. 

Ten years after the first targeted killing by a US drone in Yemen, the UN has churned out a bunch of reports and made a few threats to.. do something about it. In comparison, it took about a year for the UN to go from talk to special inquiry and resolution on the issue of war crimes and human rights violations in Syria, although action is lacking there as well.

If a missile falls on civilians in the desert where there is no one to film it, is it still a war crime?

Amid the growing chorus of questions on the legality of targeted killings is an ominous silent majority. Nobody mourns for those who cannot be seen or heard. These attacks occur deep in the wilderness, far removed from the rest of the world. And while there is room for doubt on the morality of the issue, there is no doubt that these killings are starting to look indiscriminate. A 2009 Brookings Institute study finds that 10 civilians die for every combatant killed by a US drone. Another study at Stanford had higher numbers: 49 civilians for every combatant. The numbers are very discomforting: "TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals".

The same study talks of “double tap” attacks, where a drone fires a second missile at rescuers rushing to the scene of a first strike. A New York Times report suggests that the final authority on target selection is one man- the president- who plays the roles of judge, jury and executioner. It also says that all males in the area of a strike are not counted as civilians simply because they were in the vicinity of a known combatant. Sounds a lot like guilt by association. But a missile rarely leaves much in the aftermath to verify the verdict- a verdict reached thousands of miles away.

Such reports are troubling at the very least because it would appear that a very secretive group of people are able to wield such extraordinary powers of death with very little oversight or need for justification.  Equally worrisome is how far removed and dispassionate the trigger finger is from the scene. But what rules do you draft for this new kind of war and who governs it? Clearly the UN needs to, and has been thinking about this.. for ten years now. This timeframe is not acceptable either.

The moral relativism and ethics of the UN have long been part of its criticism. Is terrorism, war crime, genocide etc. defined by who the actors are? Do some elite nations enjoy immunity from suspicion and impunity to act at will? If so, it undermines the very reason for the existence of a global peace-keeping agency. Ethics decided by consensus means that the UN itself has no framework for ethics in such cases- something that the organization needs. The effectiveness of the UN is also stymied by a strong few- particularly nations holding veto power. Drone warfare continues unabated, as does the brutal conflict in Syria.

The role of the organization in global governance has changed- from the cold war where its primary task was to prevent governments from ending the world, to today, where it has become a platform for global issues.   Its capacity to take strong action has diminished and it would almost seem unfair to expect the UN to do so today. But as a legitimate platform of justice and peace, the UN can accomplish much just by bringing global problems to light. In an age where billions of people have personal access to instant communication and mass media, the role of government as an agent of information control and dissemination has declined.

Raising awareness..
And spawning a whole new range of internet memes

The UN has yet to embrace this fact and use it to its advantage- people matter more than governments and public opinion shapes governments. For all the reports churned out by UN inquiries and investigations into rights abuses and war crimes, very few of them see the light of day.

In 2012, a short independent film called Kony 2012, highlighting war crimes in Uganda and Congo, went viral on the internet. It gathered more than a 100 million views on social media sites in a matter of months. In a matter of days, the US senate passed a resolution on the issue and 5000 African Union troops joined 100 US Special Forces in the hunt for Joseph Kony and his militia. A 30 minute video accomplished way more than years of UN, ICC and Interpol reports.

World approval of drone strikes-
 Pew Research Center/Statista

Today, a majority of Americans give tacit approval to drone strikes because it is assumed that they are killing “the bad guys”- the suspected bad guys that is. The rest of the world does not.

If global governance is becoming more democratic and public opinion has become stronger than government will, it is time for the UN to adapt and embrace mass media and awareness as a potent weapon.

The debate over drone warfare and targeted killings has languished in the halls and chambers of assembly, choked by governments whose legitimacy comes from the silence of the majority.  With resources far greater than any independent filmmaker, the potential to reach millions with accurate facts on global issues is immense.