ACTIVE ARAB PARTICIPATION NEEDED IN LIBYA: NATO CHIEF

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer

ABU DHABI: (MARCH 24, 2011) In an exclusive interview to ECSSR Website, former Secretary General of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) His Excellency Jaap de Hoop Scheffer spoke on critical and burning issues facing the Arab world presently, namely the NATO intervention in Libya and the unrest in Bahrain. The interview was conducted on the sidelines of ECSSR’s 16th Annual Conference entitled “Global Strategic Developments: A Futuristic Vision”. Following is the edited version of the interview:

Question: Sir, do you think Western intervention in Libya has been fully thought through? Have Western powers accounted for the possibility that the crisis could prolong and demand greater international involvement in the future?

Answer: In the case of Libya, one has to understand that the international community had to act quickly as thousands of innocent civilians had already succumbed to the brutality of Qaddafi’s forces. When a major humanitarian crisis unfolds in real time, decision-makers have to take immediate and effective action. Sometimes every aspect cannot be fully thought through, but the right thing needs to be done. I am teaching nowadays, but I know from my experience that reality can sometimes be very different from the dry casuistry of textbooks.

I would also add here that this time the West acted only after receiving the clear support of Arab states, who correctly understood the enormity of the situation. Moreover, military action was taken to implement the UN resolution 1973. I would also compliment here the role of GCC states, particularly the UAE and Qatar for their rightful stance to stop the crisis from worsening. Moreover, the United States and its allies rightly thought through that they would not engage in any intervention without clear Arab support and UN mandate.

Question: But is it not true that NATO forces are already overstretched and that it is possible they might be drawn into other theatres of conflict in the region, such as Yemen.

Answer: Without condoning the violence against civilians in Yemen, I would say that the situation there is currently not comparable to the situation in Libya. Meanwhile, one cannot overemphasize in this regard the need for active Arab participation in settling their own conflicts. This year has witnessed, what many people are calling, a remarkable political awakening in Arab world. Therefore, it is time Arab states actively participate in enforcing UN Resolution 1973 on the Libyan regime. Otherwise, I am afraid the present intervention in Libya would be seen by many in the Arab world, as another Western action in the region, which is simply not true.

It is also important to note that my good friend Mr. Amr Moussa (Secretary General of Arab League) has now clarified that the remarks on his purported reservations over the ‘no-fly zone’ over Libya were misconstrued. This is welcome news, as it is important that the international community takes a united stand and Arab states in particular play a pro-active role with the international community in settling this crisis by enforcing the UN Resolution.

Question: It is said that ‘no-fly zones’ have seldom proved effective. There was a no-fly zone over Iraq for over a decade, but it could not avert a showdown. Thus, when President Bush went to war he was criticized around the world. Is President Obama being inadvertently drawn into a similar situation in Libya?

Answer: The no-fly zone over Iraq was in place to stop Saddam Hussein from attacking the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs in the south. It was effective in that respect but he war could not be averted. However, it would not be correct to compare the Iraq war with the current situation in Libya, or to even compare the two US Presidents you have mentioned. It is clear to all that President Obama, unlike his predecessor, does not follow interventionist policies.

Question: But people are asking the rationale of another military engagement at a time when NATO forces appear overstretched, are bogged down in Afghanistan, and there are major financial and resource constraints. Questions are also being asked about the goals and endgame of the mission in Libya.

Answer: I think the goals of the mission are clear. It is not regime change but the protection of civilians from the violence perpetrated by the Qaddafi regime. There is no denying some of the issues you have mentioned, but the international community could not have allowed the killings to continue before its eyes and do nothing about it. As I said reality is at times completely different from all that is written in books.

Question: There has not been a clear and categorical US position over the unrest in Bahrain. There have been a lot of conflicting messages emanating from the Obama administration in this regard. Do you agree?

Answer: I agree that there has been lack of clarity in this regard. However, it is my personal view, that Bahrain has sovereign right to call upon its allies in times of crisis for its defense. Having said that, I believe that violence can never solve anything. I sincerely hope that a non-violent solution will soon be found in Bahrain. I have the privilege of knowing His Majesty the King of Bahrain and His Highness the Crown Prince, and I know they would be inclined toward a non-violent solution. Bahrain has to be mindful that it cannot offer any excuse or argument to Iran on a silver platter that the latter might exploit in international forums.

http://www.ecssr.ac.ae/ECSSR/print/ft.jsp?lang=en&ftId=/FeatureTopic/ECSSR/FeatureTopic_1384.xml

Drones: Terminators With Gaming Console Joysticks!

By Dr. Adil Rasheed

Article Published on Website of the ECSSR (3 June 2013)

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, governments and militaries around the world faced a hideous enemy who could morph and blend into the landscape after carrying out asymmetric kamikaze and shoot-and-scoot attacks.

The difficulty in identifying, tracking down and taking out a terrorist required the development of a new and unconventional form of warfare, one which combined search and reconnaissance capabilities as well as the ability to shoot down and eliminate the threat with minimal risk of collateral damage and with few military casualties.

Inevitably, the solution came from cutting-edge technology, particularly the revolutionary innovations taking place in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), popularly known as drones.

This technology proved highly beneficial for militaries, as the large-scale, conventional wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proved inadequate and very costly (both in terms of lives and money) in eradicating the threat of terrorism.


In contrast, drone warfare provided a more effective, less violent and highly cost-efficient alternative to conventional warfare and so it became the preferred option for the Obama administration in conducting the ongoing war against terrorism.

In fact, the technology has now become so ‘convenient’ that it is being frequently used in missions that are considered “too dull, dirty or dangerous” for manned aircraft. In fact, the game consoles wizards are fast replacing fighter pilots of old aircraft as operators of lightweight UAVs. Thus, the tendency to overuse drones in military operations has in itself raised a new set of legal and ethical issues for the technology.

Over 70 Countries Have Drones!

But before addressing some of the legal aspects, it would be important to gain a better understanding of drone technology and its rapid advancement. A drone can be defined as an aircraft which has no human pilot on board. Its flight is controlled either autonomously by computers or through remote control by a pilot situated in a distant location on land or in another vehicle.

Drones have become so popular and pervasive today that according to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, published in February 2012, at least 76 countries already have military unmanned aerial systems. The GAO report adds that the number of countries with drones has ‘nearly doubled’ in the span of seven years.

In fact some drones, particularly Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs), have now achieved worldwide fame that arguably matches the star status of some of the most advanced fighter jets and bombers of our times. The names of Predator (armed with Hellfire missiles), the Reaper and the surveillance aircraft, Global Hawk now bask in international limelight. However, militaries also use UAVs for a variety of other purposes and applications too such as reconnaissance, search and rescue, logistics, research and development applications, etc.

According to some military aviation experts, UAVs today even have the potential to eliminate the use of piloted aircraft in the not-so-distant future. More important, a new swarm of small and insect-like drones are joining the military fleet, adding a surprising twist to a rapidly unfolding hi-tech tale. For years, the US military (particularly its Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA) has been working on developing ‘micro-air vehicles,’ i.e. ultra-small flying robots capable of performing surveillance in ‘dangerous’ territory.

The Drone Bugs

According to DARPA, these drone bugs have a wide variety of uses. For example, when fitted with chemical sensors, these insect drones can detect traces of explosives in suspected buildings and caves. Again, these insect-like drones can be equipped with small video cameras that could show whether a building is occupied and whether those inside are civilians or combatants. They could also be equipped with microphones to record sounds and conversations.

For example, the DelFly Micro, is “the smallest flying ornithopter carrying a camera in the world” and measures less than 10cms from one wingtip to another. Then there are the small kamikaze drones that can destroy enemy targets by crashing into them. The drone named ‘Switchblade’, developed by the US technology company AeroVironment, carries a video feed and can locate a hidden enemy like a sniper and kill him. A similar kamikaze drone, called the ‘Devil Killer,’ has been developed by South Korea. But the US military is taking a step further by using neuroscience technology to hack into insects’ bodies, whose movements are then controlled by micro-machines placed on them.

Another promising breakthrough is the control and coordination of a fleet of drones from one computer. It is claimed that a computer software called Ballista, built by the company DreamHammer’s, could enable a single operator to control many drones simultaneously by using an intuitive computer interface. Thus, the movement of several drones being controlled by this software and all of them do not have to be aerial vehicles, as some may be UAVs, while others could be unmanned wheeled rovers, watercraft or even submarines. Thus, one person at the controls could launch a full-scale offensive of drones through air, land and sea.

Drones in Commercial Airspace

Again, drones of all shapes and sizes are not only revolutionizing military technology, they are also about to change civilian lives. Their non-military applications are growing by the day, and they are already used in oil-gas-mineral exploration, search and rescue operations, detection and dousing of forest-fires, agricultural surveillance, commercial aerial surveillance, remote sensing, transportation of various kinds of payloads, etc. Even household drones will soon be available for cleaning and dusting the floor.

Last year, the US Congress passed a bill which requires the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to issue regulations on integrating drones into commercial airspace by September 2015. Thus, we are fast approaching the time when anyone, at least in the US, can buy a drone over the counter with a few hundred dollars. In the words of Peter W. Singer, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, the opening up of the US national airspace to commercial drones would do “what the Internet did to desktop computers.”

However, the commercialization of drone technology is currently facing three important impediments: safety, privacy and insurance. There are concerns that despite legal provisions mid-air collisions between manned aviation (airplanes and helicopters) and unmanned vehicles or even among UAVs could occur frequently. In addition, increased use of private drones (particularly small drones) could intrude upon individual space and violate privacy as drones could pry into homes or offices and transmit images and sounds in real time to their operators stationed far away. Again, insurance companies are reluctant to provide coverage for aerial drone accidents as these unmanned flying objects could fall and cause incalculable damage to people or properties below them.

Convenience to Kill!

However, it is the military uses of drone technology which has really stirred a hornet’s nest for its advocates. One of the pet peeves of peace activists and human rights campaigners that oppose the use of drones by the military stems from the very benefits the technology provides. It is said that because drones are cheap, highly effective, seemingly risk-free for their operators and are adept at minimizing civilian casualties, it is tempting governments and militaries to employ them more often. Many human rights activists charge that it is this convenience that has allowed US military to carry out hundreds of drone strikes on hapless human targets in Afghanistan, Northwest Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and other regions of the world.

According to estimates by the New America Foundation, there have been 355 drone strikes in Pakistan and 66 in Yemen till date. In February of this year, US Senator Lindsey Graham estimated that about 4,700 people have been killed in America’s drone war, many of whom were innocent civilians. Again in February of this year, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism published its estimates of deaths caused by drone strike in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, which, it said, ranged between 3,072 and 4,756.

Again, many legal experts around the world are alarmed by the impunity with which drones allegedly breach international law, violate the sovereignty of nations and carry out extrajudicial killings. Concerns have also been expressed over the lack of transparency, oversight and regulation in these campaigns. Many civil rights advocates were outraged when the Obama administration publicly acknowledged for the first time that four US citizens have been killed in drone strikes since 2009 in Pakistan and Yemen.

Breach of International Sovereignty and the Human Cost!

US President Barack Obama recently addressed most of these concerns by signing a new “presidential policy guidance” on when the US can use drone strikes. On May 23, 2013, he made a groundbreaking speech and declared that he is now going to restrict the use of drone strikes.

He proposed the institution of special courts to decide on targeted assassination of terrorism suspects under new legal regulations to prevent any possible violations. He also said that drone attacks will now be carried out primarily by the US military rather than the CIA, and only after a new test has been passed to ensure that all other alternatives to avoid such strikes have been exhausted.

Human rights campaigners greeted this announcement but continued to have reservations. Many called on the US President to publish the new legal tests that have to be cleared before a drone strike is carried out, as the details of these tests have only been read by the US Congress.

Despite the various legal and ethical challenges attached to the use of drones, it is clear that this technology has now become so popular and widespread around the world that it would be difficult to stop its spread and growth. Therefore, the big test ahead lies for governments, militaries, legal institutions and human rights organizations to properly regulate the uses of this technology for the good of mankind. Like it or not, drones are here to stay or as Peter Singer puts it: “This is a powerful technology. No amount of hand-wringing is going to stop it.”

http://www.ecssr.com/ECSSR/print/ft.jsp?lang=en&ftId=/FeatureTopic/Adil_Rasheed/FeatureTopic_1689.xml