16. Drones: Ethical Dilemmas in the Application of Military Force

16. Drones: Ethical Dilemmasin the Application of Military Forcerelatively small blast radius enablesthe operator to predict its impact toa high degree. It could justifiably beargued that this does not make theweapon any more valuable from theperspective of ethics – only moreuseable.6.5 There have been a number oftragic events when civilians havebeen mistaken for combatants andtargeted. It would appear that poorsituational awareness and faultyintelligence were key factors. TheUS Air Force has also acknowledgedthat operators have on occasionsplaced an undue confidence in thetechnology and consequently failedto ask crucial questions.6.6 There is a legal obligation formilitary forces to report on civiliandeaths. 22 ISAF investigation teamsdo not make public the reportsof investigations into incidents ofcivilian deaths. UNAMA suggestthat prompt and public release ofinvestigation findings would promotetransparency, accountability andbetter relations with affected Afghancivilians and communities. 237.0 The AUAS Pilot7.1 It has been suggested that thosecharged with the control of AUASmight develop an unhealthyfamiliarity with killing by remotecontrol. A former UK fast jet pilotwho now ‘pilots’ a Reaper UAVdenies that because he is 12,000miles from the battlefield he will bedetached from impact of his actions.“We have the capability to see(unlike in a fast jet) the effect of ourweapon strikes in relatively closeupdetail. Also, if the troops on theground take photos of the strikeeffects they often send them to usas feedback. No matter how explicitthese photos are I personally lookat them all. Not because of somevoyeuristic tendency but because Ibelieve that if you cannot face thereality of what you do in killing ahuman being then you should not bepart of that process.” 247.2 RAF operators of AUAS serve atCreech Air Force Base in Nevadainitially for three years and areexpected to live a strange doublelife. Whereas, their colleagues inmanned aircraft are assigned to atour of duty and then return homefor a period of recuperation, theAUAS operator will each day combinethe horror of war with everydayfamily life. A British UAV pilot wasinterviewed by Stephen Sackur fora BBC Radio 4 programme titled“Drone Wars”. He acknowledgedthe strangeness of being involved inkilling and then going home to the22Breau, Prof S, et al Discussion Paper 2: Drone attacks, international law, and the recording of civilian casualtiesof armed conflict; (Oxford Research Group, June 2011)23Afghanistan, 2011 Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (UNAMA, Kabul, Feb 2012)24Lee, P., ‘Remoteness, Risk and Aircrew Ethos’, in Air Power Review, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Spring 2012).Conference Agenda 2012 161

16. Drones: Ethical Dilemmasin the Application of Military Force8.2 A crucial question concerns thecircumstances under which wemight trust a machine to identifya target and fire a weapon withouthuman intervention. There is agreat deal of research and ethicaldiscussion on this point. It canbe argued that un-distracted byemotions of vengeance or fear andcapable of processing informationfaster than humans, future robotweapons systems could displaymore consistent ethical behaviourthan their human counterparts.In a very different age Augustine(reported by Aquinas) acknowledgedthe dangers of such human failings,“the passion for inflicting harm,the cruel thirst for vengeance, anunpacific and relentless spirit, thefever of revolt, the lust of power, andsuchlike things, all these are rightlycondemned in war”. 27 But whilethe robots of the future might beable to demonstrate discretion, thecapacity to show empathy or mercyis different altogether and maybe forthis reason as much as any other theautonomous operation of weaponssystems is a red line that should notbe crossed. On a more immediateand practical level we acknowledgethe very difficult balance of risksand ethical judgements that weexpect our forces to make and theskill and expertise brought to thistask, sometimes under the mosttrying circumstances. Thus thereis a broad consensus that for theforeseeable future authority tofire a weapon must involve humaninteraction – the so-called ‘human inthe loop’.8.3 As systems become moreautomated the crucial questionis how the human in the loopperceives and executes their role.With an increasing amount ofdata available might the operatorsbecome swamped? If data gatheringbecomes more systematised withmore people involved in the ‘killchain’does the scope for individualquestioning, for example concerningthe evidence that a person orobject is a legitimate military target,reduce? These are questions thatat this stage we raise as mattersfor further study, aware that they arealso being asked elsewhere.D. Conclusion9.0 Some Key Considerations9.1 Our approach has been to engagewith the reality that AUAS are hereto stay while remaining committed tobiblical teaching that ‘Peacemakingis at the heart of the teaching ofJesus, not an optional extra’. 28 Thetension that this creates is noteasily overcome. The conclusions27Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, II-II, q. 40, a. 1, c. Citing Augustine, Contra Faustum, xxii, 74 (www.newadvent.org/summa/3.htm)28The Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church, Peacemaking: A Christian Vocation (published Trusteesfor Methodist Church Purposes and the United Reformed Church, 2006), page 24.Conference Agenda 2012 163

16. Drones: Ethical Dilemmasin the Application of Military Forcerecorded here are by no means afinal destination – much more couldbe said. But for now we highlight thefollowing aspects:9.2 The seductive attraction of AUAS– The ease at which AUAS can bedeployed gives rise to real ethicalconcern. We must constantly projectour minds forward a decade or twoto a point when the technology andprecision weaponry are likely tohave proliferated with many moreStates as well as non-State actorsgaining access. Our nervousnessin this respect is not helped byapparent uncertainties over howto apply national and internationallegal frameworks that have servedhitherto to delineate and limit theuse of lethal force by the State.There exists a danger that thepolitical ease with which thesesystems can be deployed, and theirfuture potential to deliver even moreprecise effect, might encouragethe normalisation of the use ofviolence in response to crisis andconflict. We might begin to addressthis by paying critical attention nowto the use of AUAS in the contextof insurgency noting that theirpersistent use in civilian areas tendsto inflame sentiment and underminesupport for government.Given the potential for globalexpansion of the AUAS marketit is vital that churches and theirmembers are informed and involvedin debate of these issues.9.3 International law and targetedkillings – The UK’s position onterrorism 29 (and indeed that ofalmost all member states of theUN) is that the rules of armedconflict cannot be invoked againstterrorists outside of a situation ofarmed conflict. Our governmentis placed in a deeply ambiguousposition with respect to the US AUASattacks in northern Pakistan andYemen. We work closely with theUnited States in the operation ofAUAS. The US and UK are the twolargest contributors to ISAF forces inAfghanistan and cooperate closely inintelligence operations in northernPakistan. There is evidence that theUS operations in northern Pakistanencourage extremism and result inincreased recruitment to terroristgroups. 30It is clearly in the interest of justicethat those suspected of carrying outor organising terrorism are brought toaccount. Nevertheless internationallaw has normative content thatremains important in safeguardingthe international community from29 This understanding was stipulated as a part of the UK’s acceptance of the 1977 Additional Protocol 1.O’Connell Seductive Drones: Learning from a decade of Lethal Operations.30 David Kilcullen & Andrew McDonald Exum, Death From Above, Outrage Down Below, NewYork Times, May17, 2009 and O’Connell, Mary Ellen, The Choice of Law Against Terrorism, Journal Of National Security, Law& Policy, Vol. 4:34331 Afghanistan, 2011 Civilian Causalities Report (UNAMA, Kabul, Feb 2012)164 Conference Agenda 2012

16. Drones: Ethical Dilemmasin the Application of Military Forcedescent into arbitrariness and theuncontrolled use of brute force. Thetargeted killing of named individualsoutside the context of an armedconflict is a form of lawlessness thatimperils us all. It is in our nationalsecurity interests to uphold the basicaccepted norms in international lawand to work to ensure cohesion inapproach among our internationalpartners.9.4 Accountability under law – Greateropenness and accountability on thepart of military forces would help toclear some of the fog that surroundsthe systems and their use. We havenoted the recommendation thatprompt and public release of ISAFinvestigations into incidents involvingcivilian casualties from all air strikes(by manned or unmanned aircraft)would improve relations with affectedAfghan civilians and communities. 31Greater transparency would also helpto resource public understanding anddebate. Without public trust andaccountability fears may increasethat rather than being masters oftechnology, the technology may cometo master us.***RESOLUTIONS16/1. The Conference receives the report and commends it for study.16/2. The Conference:a. reaffirms the Christian vocation of peacemaking and the crucial importanceof International Law in delimiting the application of military force;b. notes the growing concern regarding the humanitarian impact of all formsof explosive weaponry in civilian areas and urges that this concern beaddressed in any use of Armed Unmanned Aerial Systems (AUAS);c. requests the UK Government to publish as much information as possibleconcerning current strategy and effect of AUAS strikes alongside futureplans for AUAS development and use, and in particular to:i) provide greater clarity on the role that AUAS play in current militarystrategy, with particular reference to counter-insurgencyii) release information on all drone strikes including the number of fatalitiesand publish a summary of all investigations into civilian casualtiesiii) state clearly the UK Government’s position on targeted killings.16/3. The Conference requests that the UK Government urges the United StatesGovernment to discontinue the practice of targeting suspected members ofterrorist organisations with AUAS.Conference Agenda 2012 165

16. Drones: Ethical Dilemmasin the Application of Military Force16/4. The Conference requests the UK Government to explore ways in which theinternational community might implement an arms control regime to reduce thethreat posed by the development of systems capable of autonomous targetingand weapons delivery.The Working GroupSteve Hucklesby - Policy Adviser, Joint Public Issues TeamDr Peter Lee - Senior Air Power Lecturer, Department for Defence Studies, Kings CollegeLondon (and former RAF Chaplain)Paul Morrison - Policy Adviser, Joint Public Issues TeamDr Esther Reed - Associate Professor and Head of Theology and Religion, University ofExeterPaul Schulte - Senior Visiting Fellow, Centre for Defence Studies, Kings College LondonThe working group are grateful for the assistance provided by friends and colleaguesacross churches, academic institutions and in the armed forces in the preparation of thisreport.Disclaimer - It should not be assumed that all aspects of this report have the support ofevery member of the working group.166 Conference Agenda 2012