http://www.paxchristi.net/international/eng/showsymbols.php?wat=showsym1
For all the talk about peacemaking in
Afghanistan, we remain at war there, with a slower rate of attrition of our
troops, but a perceptible loss all the same. As at 30
October 2012, a total of 437 British forces personnel or MOD civilians have
died while serving in Afghanistan since the start of operations in October
2001. The figure of 400 deaths was passed in March this year, so the pace of
the death toll can be judged from this: 37 or so in about 9 months.
Since the civilian population in this
country scarcely notices that we are at war because most people are unaffected
by it – unless, critically, you have a family member serving in the armed
forces – it is important to recall the dangers of the present situation of an
impending withdrawal for forces by 2014 without any clear signs of peace in
Afghanistan. There are dangers for our armed forces; for the troubled country
of Afghanistan; and for peace in that region and also the world at large.
Yet even when the troops have come home
from Afghanistan, and assuming the best possible outcome (that the country
holds together and does not implode) there remains the undeclared war run by
the United States in Pakistan’s tribal region. This is not a war fought by
conventional means but by a new weapon: unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or
‘drones’ in common parlance. This war receives a fair degree of support in the
United States because it appears to be a war without victims among the armed
forces: al-Qaida and AQ-affiliated groups are targeted, as are members of the
Taliban. The weapons are supposed to be extremely accurate. Only those who have
been signed off by the President of the USA and his legal advisers as ‘high
value targets’ are killed in these ‘targeted killings’. Though the weapons are
expensive, this form of warfare is sustainable in terms of costs, unlike the
conventional force intervention in Afghanistan.
Yet in reality, matters are far more
complex than the proponents of drone warfare suggest. To begin with, no serious
account is taken by the US military of the innocent victims of war. The number
of civilians killed and injured by such weapons is certainly much higher than
the US military has been prepared to concede. For these reasons, and because no
opportunity for surrender is offered to the individual who is targeted remotely
from bases in Afghanistan or in the USA, the use of drones almost certainly infringe
the normal laws of warfare. Moreover, the sovereignty of the nation state, in
this case Pakistan, is infringed each time a UAV is dispatched against a
target: this is an infringement of international law. The UN special
rapporteurs on counter-terrorism and human rights, Ben Emmerson and Christof
Heyns, announced at the end of October that work will begin early
next year by an investigation unit within the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council at Geneva to inquire into
individual drone attacks, and other forms of targeted killing conducted in
counter-terrorism operations, in which it is alleged that civilian casualties
have been inflicted, and to seek explanations from the States using this
technology and the States on whose territory it is used. Some of the attacks, the UN rapporteur declared, may constitute war crimes.
All these issues are serious enough;
but what makes the development of targeted killing by drones so dangerous is
the prospect of other states following the lead of the USA and Britain and
using drones to kill nationals of other states without a declaration of war,
and the unregulated proliferation of this type of weapon that will follow. To
quote the words of the Drone Campaign Network Petition: ‘Although there is some public information about US drone strikes in
Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, there is almost no public information about drone
strikes carried out by the UK in Afghanistan. There are serious ethical,
moral and legal questions about the growing use of armed drones which need to
be properly debated. However, it is impossible to have such a debate while information is being kept secret.’ Such is
the lack of public awareness of the issue, the last time I consulted the
petition, only 1,325 of the 8,675 signatories needed had signed up to the
demand for a public debate on the matter and an end to government secrecy.
‘Blessed are the peacemakers.’ No doubt
those who support this new form of warfare by means of targeted killing would
assert that they are the ones who truly want peace, but that they are realistic
about the chances of achieving this without having permanent surveillance over
lawless areas and the targeting of individuals according to perceived patterns of
behaviour that look suspicious from aerial
surveillance, rather than relying on intelligence about specific al-Qaida activists.
Christian peace movements such as Pax Christi International form part of
the Drone Campaign Network. The icon for Pax Christi
International, painted in the monastery of St John in the Desert, near
Jerusalem, was dedicated to the movement on 1 July 1999 in the holy city of
Jerusalem. At present it is displayed at the International Secretariat in
Brussels, Belgium. The icon depicts Christ as the source of reconciliation, the source of liberation and peace. It is an icon symbolising in itself the living
connection between Eastern and Western traditions in expressing the peace of
Christ. Brother Roger of Taizé has penned a marvellous prayer
to accompany the icon:
O Risen Christ,
You breathe your Holy Spirit on us
and you tell us: ‘Peace be yours’.
Opening ourselves to your peace –
letting it penetrate the harsh and
rocky ground of our hearts –
means preparing ourselves to be
bearers of reconciliation
wherever you may place us.
But you know that at times
we are at a loss.
So come and lead us
to wait in silence,
to let a ray of hope shine forth
in our world. Amen
