Two UN human rights experts have criticised the secrecy around United States’ drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen and called for more transparency and accountability in an effort to alleviate the situation.
Ben Emmerson and Christof Heyns, who presented two reports on the drone issue at the United Nations on Friday, also called on other countries to speak up about when deadly drone strikes are acceptable.
The two UN special rapporteurs also urged other countries to officially say when they deem deadly drone attacks as acceptable.
They said the lack of consensus could lead to “a breakdown of peace and security” as the technology is being acquired by more and more countries in the world.
According to Emmerson, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, data from the Pakistani government show at least 2,200 people have been killed in Pakistan by US drone attacks since 2004, of whom at least 400 were innocent civilians.
However, Emmerson says, the involvement of the CIA in US drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, makes independent verification almost impossible because it creates an “insurmountable obstacle to transparency”.
Heyns, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, also expressed disappointment with Washington’s response to a report by Amnesty International which questioned the legality of US drone attacks.
In a joint report, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said earlier this week that US officials could be found guilty of war crimes for the secret CIA drone attacks which have killed hundreds of civilians in Yemen and Pakistan.
The Obama administration said Washington “would strongly disagree” with the report, claiming the US actions are legal.
Clarifying that his report was interim, Emmerson told reporters he saw three main challenges. First, there was a critical need for clarity on legitimate rules of lethal targeting.
The ‘significant lack of certainty’ in international law on situations in which drone attacks could be mounted, and on who could be targeted, had a bearing on civilian casualties.
Second, he said, the lack of transparency was the single greatest obstacle to assessing with precision that nature of the targets.
The United States publicly acknowledged its actions in Yemen and Somalia, but kept those in Pakistan classified.
Its public commitment to migrate targeted killings away from the Agency towards the Department of Defense, while not a solution to all problems, was a significant step in the right direction, he added.
He said that the third challenge was the lack of consensus around key principles of international law, relating to their significance in asymmetrical warfare.
Part of the process was to seek States’ clarification on the subject, so that the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council could impose some discipline on counter-terrorism activities internationally.
Heyns said, “In general, drones should follow the law and not the other way round.” There was not a need for new treaties, but the application of the existing system more rigorously, he added.
To a question on whether shifting the jurisdiction of United States drone operations would make a difference, Emmerson said that would be more appropriate in terms of engagement in armed conflict and would increase transparency.
Emmerson said he remained optimistic on the issue of transparency in the period ahead.
Hynes cautioned that institutional shift alone would not guarantee greater transparency. The United States Joint Special Operations Command, too, worked under considerable secrecy. “We need to wait and see where we are going.”
To another question, Emmerson said the unanimous resolution by Pakistani parliament earlier this year negated any suggestion that the country had consented to United States drone attacks.
Greater transparency and accountability were also needed in light of the international obligation to ensure full reparations to victims and their families.
Emmerson said he would issue a final report after having investigated individual drone strikes with significant casualties and provided those States involved an opportunity to respond.
It was important to gather contextual information to understand the circumstances of the attacks, he said.
