Jennifer Gibson writes:
‘Confusion and uncertainty,’ ‘lack of clarity,’
‘confusing explanations.’
These are terms that appear again and again in
a new Parliamentary report grappling
with the Government’s murky drone policy.
Given
that the use of armed, robotic aircraft to carry out targeted killings overseas
is a matter of life or death, the conclusions of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR)
are alarming to say the least.
The
influential cross-party parliamentary committee released its months-long
inquiry into the UK’s use of drone strikes outside of declared warzones earlier
this week.
It rightly called for
urgent transparency from the government as to what the legal basis is for its
policy of ‘targeted killing’.
Not
only did the committee find the Government’s position on such strikes ‘confused
and confusing’, it argued the Government had ‘misunderst[ood] … the legal
frameworks that apply’.
As a result, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet had potentially exposed military
personnel and Ministers ‘to the risk of criminal prosecution for murder.’
The
JCHR’s inquiry was sparked by the Prime Minister’s announcement last
September that the UK had carried out a ‘targeted strike’ in a ‘country where
we are not involved in a war.’
The
Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon, said they would not hesitate to
do it again ‘anywhere else’ they felt it necessary. David Cameron called it ‘a
new departure’ for the country.
This
‘new departure’ had all the hallmarks of the highly controversial, secretive US drone programme.
Undertaken
by covert agencies such as the CIA, this campaign has seen over 500 strikes in
countries – such as Pakistan and Yemen – where the US is not at war.
While
the US has refused to answer even basic questions about its programme,
independent estimates by organisations, such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, suggest the strikes may have secretly killed
as many as 5,000 people, including hundreds of women and children.
But
in many ways, this kind of unaccountable shadow war is nothing new for the
British Government.
Indeed, a little-noticed section of the JCHR’s report
detailed the mounting evidence of UK complicity in this US
programme.
Britain
has supported the secret US drone war through the sharing of intelligence and
the provision of RAF bases.
All the available evidence suggest that
the UK has for years been working hand in glove with the US drone programme,
doing everything but pushing the button to fire the missile.
However,
attempts to get clarity over the UK’s role have been frustrated by a veil of
secrecy and repeated obfuscation by
the government.
A recent Vice News investigation found
that despite denials, the UK had been intimately involved in tracking and
adding targets to the US Kill List in Yemen for years
In
order to avoid detection, the Ministry of Defence had hidden its involvement
from Parliament by ‘seconding’ its personnel to MI6.
As an intelligence agency,
MI6 is exempt from information disclosure rules.
But
the complicity hasn’t just been in Yemen.
In 2010 an unnamed source from GCHQ told the Sunday Times that the agency provides ‘locational intelligence’ to the US for drone strikes in
Pakistan and that it was “proud of the work it did with America.”
Such
cooperation, as the JCHR noted, raises the troubling possibility that UK
officials have already been complicit in murder, especially when the US
standards for taking a strike at times have amounted to little more than those
being struck having ‘ill intent in their minds’.
Given
the US’s own generals are now calling the US drone programme a ‘failed strategy‘ that is ‘creating more enemies than [it
is] removing from the battlefield,’ the JCHR’s report is a serious and much
needed wake up call.
Before
the UK goes any further down the slippery slope of global kill lists, it needs
to be transparent about just how far it’s already gone.
Ministers must
drop the tactics of confusion and obfuscation, and come clean with Parliament
and the public.
No comments:
Post a Comment