Attacks from US Aerial Drones

One of the few regular reminders of the ongoing conflict in northwest Pakistan is the use of unmanned aerial drones by the US to target a number of individuals believed to be leaders or active members of al Qa’ida or the Taliban – Afghan or Pakistani – in the rugged and isolated mountain regions of FATA since 2004. In many of these cases the US reported that al Qa’ida and Taliban members were killed, whereas local residents often report that civilians were also killed. As a result, these attacks have become the focus of significant political resentment in Pakistan and outside. As the insurgency in these areas strengthened, drone attacks have been ratcheted up. The Obama administration dramatically increased such drone strikes with at least 51 strikes reported in 2009, compared to 34 in 2008. For more data and locations of drone strikes, see our interactive maps.

Click image to enlarge © Amnesty International USA. Analysis conducted and graphic produced by AAAS.

Unfortunately, it is often impossible for independent observers to investigate the attacks due to insecurity and barriers against independent monitoring by the Pakistani Taliban as well as the Pakistan government. Amnesty International and other human rights groups have however, repeatedly voiced serious concern over civilian casualties caused by US airstrikes, such as was the case with a 30 October 2006 airstrike, apparently by US forces, on a religious school in Bajaur that killed at least 82 people, many of whom were reportedly under 18 years old and as young as six.

The use of drones, armed with guided missiles, is seen by US officials as a useful tool for eliminating insurgents hiding in the tribal areas, beyond the reach of US ground forces stationed in Afghanistan as well as Pakistani government troops. US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Islamabad in late October 2009, when questioned in a public meeting about the use of drones, “It will not be sufficient to achieve the level of security that Pakistanis deserve if we don't go after those who are still threatening not only Pakistan, but Afghanistan, and the rest of the world. And we wanted to put that on the table. And I think it was important that we did”.

International Law

Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in his report to the General Assembly’s Third Committee (social, humanitarian and cultural) at UN Headquarters in New York, expressed concern in late October 2009 that the increasingly frequent use of drones by the US to carry out targeted executions may violate international law. He said, “While there may be circumstances in which the use of such techniques is consistent with applicable international law, this can only be determined in light of information about the legal basis on which particular individuals have been targeted, the measures taken to ensure conformity with the international humanitarian law principles of discrimination, proportionality, necessity and precaution, and the steps taken retrospectively to assess compliance in practice.” Alston stated that unless the Obama administration explained the legal basis for targeting particular individuals and the measures it is taking to comply with international humanitarian law which prohibits arbitrary executions, “it will increasingly be perceived as carrying out indiscriminate killings in violation of international law.”

Click image to enlarge © Amnesty International USA. Casualties in US drone attacks in FATA and NWFP 2005-2009.

The US’ Legal Explanation

In March 2010, Harold Koh, Legal Adviser to the United States Department of State, set out for the first time a brief explanation of the Obama administration’s claimed basis in international law for the drone attacks. He asserted that “as a matter of international law, the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa’ida, as well as the Taliban and associated forces, in response to the horrific 9/11 attacks” adding that the USA “may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defense under international law.” Harold Koh argued that this included “authority under international law … to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qa’ida leaders who are planning attacks.“

However, this explanation leaves many questions unanswered. Despite Koh’s statement, the USA has thus far not officially acknowledged that it carries out drone attacks in Pakistan (Koh speaks only generally, of “lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles”) and refuses to provide any official information on these attacks, which is crucial to assess their legitimacy under international law and standards. These include who the targets were, what justification there was for using lethal force against them, whether non-lethal alternatives were tried or even considered, what safeguards were put in place to ensure that civilians are not endangered, who was killed or injured, what investigations took place in cases where violations of international legal rules are suspected and more. Nor was such information forthcoming from the Pakistani authorities. In addition, the attacks have taken place in remote areas to which access is difficult. For these reasons, Amnesty International has not been able to independently investigate conditions surrounding the planning, conduct, or consequences of drone attacks in Pakistan.

To read more about the use of drones by the US in Pakistan, please read pages 84-90 of Amnesty International’s report entitled “As If Hell Fell On Me”: The Human Rights Crisis in Northwest Pakistan.