Sunday Times 2
Pak resolution and US humiliation at UNHRC: Watch out India, UK, Sri Lanka
The United Nation’s Human Rights Council (UNHCR) last Friday adopted a Pakistan-sponsored resolution (A/HRC/25/L.32) that urges member states to “… ensure that the use of armed drones comply with their obligations under international law,” including the UN Charter, human rights law and international humanitarian law, including the principles of distinction and proportionality. It was adopted with 27 in favor, 6 against, and 14 abstentions.
In favor (27): Algeria, Argentina, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Gabon, Indonesia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Venezuela and Vietnam.
Against (6): France, Japan, Republic of Korea, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, and United States of America.
Abstentions (14): Austria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Italy, Montenegro, Namibia, Romania, and United Arab Emirates.
Though initiated by brave Pakistan, the draft resolution was tabled with the support of Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Switzerland, Venezuela and Yemen.
Pakistan said, “The resolution did not refer to any specific country, and did not intend to name or shame anyone. This resolution was about supporting a principle and upholding the United Nations protection of human rights. Pakistan recalled that the European Union Parliament had also recently adopted a resolution on this same matter. Pakistan hoped this resolution could be adopted by consensus.”
The most important substantive element in the resolution is a provision on transparency and investigations, which;
“[c]alls upon States to ensure transparency in their records on the use of remotely piloted aircraft or armed drones and to conduct prompt, independent and impartial investigations whenever there are indications of a violation to international law caused by their use”.
The crucial procedural element is a decision by the Council “to organise an interactive panel discussion of experts at its twenty-seventh session” on the issue of armed drones” as mentioned in the report of UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights, Ben Emerson.
The Obama administration first joined the council in 2009, ending a boycott initiated by the Bush administration, which was concerned about smaller nations influencing the body. Earlier on March 20, commenting on the resolution the US State Department said that the UNHCR was not the right forum for a discussion on armed drones.
“This particular resolution deals solely with the use of remotely piloted aircraft. We don’t – we just don’t see the Human Rights Council as the right forum for discussing narrowly focused – for discussion narrowly focused on a single weapons delivery system. That has not been a traditional focus area for the HRC, in part for reasons of expertise.”
Paksitan insisted drone attacks is a human rights issue and successfully moved a UNHRC resolution against drone attacks without naming any country. Top: A US drone firing missiles at a target. Left: A drone attack victim being treated at a hospital in Pakistan
This, like the rest of the Obama administration’s approach on this matter, is misguided, says Andrew Prasow, an American lawyer affiliated with Human Rights Watch.
“This resolution would be the first time the council is going to do anything about drones and the US is not participating in any of the informal discussion about language,” he told foreign Policy. “They are telling us they are reserving judgment on the resolution, which means they won’t be happy with it. We have also heard from them and others as well they are concerned that the council doesn’t have the jurisdiction over this issue. I think it’s ludicrous to say the Human Rights Council doesn’t have anything to say about drone strikes.”
Recent Past: UN General
Assembly and EU Parliament
In November 2013, Pakistan successfully included references on the use of drones in a UN General Assembly resolution that urged member states to comply with their obligations under international law. The resolution called upon states to ensure that any measures taken or means employed to counter terrorism, including the use of remotely piloted aircraft, comply with their obligations under international law including the Charter of the UN human rights law and international humanitarian law in particular the principles of distinction and proportionality.
The European Parliament in February 2014 voted to condemn the covert drone strikes that have killed and maimed scores of civilians in countries such as Pakistan and Yemen. The resolution notes that “drone strikes by a State on the territory of another State without the consent of the latter constitute a violation of international law and of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of that country”.
The vote won a majority by 534 to 49. The resolution, sponsored by the Green Party, with backing from multiple other political parties, demands that EU Member States “do not perpetrate unlawful targeted killings or facilitate such killings by other states”, and calls on them to “oppose and ban practices of extra judicial targeted killings.”
The resolution seeks to apply further pressure on countries which participate in the CIA’s highly contentious target killing programme, which has been deemed extrajudicial and is highly unpopular both in Europe and the United States. EU member states such as the U.K. and Germany would be required to disclose the full extent of their involvement in the CIA’s covert programme, both through intelligence-sharing and the provision of infrastructure at US airbases on their soil.The resolution also notes that “drone strikes by a State on the territory of another State without the consent of the latter constitute a violation of international law and of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of that country”.
Individual European countries on human rights
Notably, during the period of explanations of votes, Germany, and the Czech Republic, indicated ambivalence and not a very strong reason for abstaining rather than favouring the resolution. The reason they gave: redundancy in the work of the Council. According to the summary record, Germany said: “They welcomed the transparent and open negotiation process on the draft resolution and believed that an appropriate framework was already in place. They had therefore argued in favour of avoiding any duplication of work.” However, like the stand of India, Germany’s stand was procedural and failed to address substantive issue of the legality or illegality of using weapons in accordance with the international law.
The UK stated; “When used in the context of armed conflict, the appropriate law was international humanitarian law and the Human Rights Council did not have a mandate to consider this. The United Kingdom called for a vote on the resolution, to which it would vote no.” France, in an explanation before the vote, said that the draft resolution gave rise to a number of concerns. This resolution was outside the competence of the Human Rights Council.
The most concerning aspect of this vote is that almost all European countries — except Ireland — backed out from supporting this resolution, perhaps indicating to the world that EU countries are still not mature in their human rights standards to lead the world in promoting human rights. This also indicates that EU countries — despite recent humiliation caused to it over alleged tapping of phones by USA, where Germany also was victim, also the fact that Drone attacks were publicly despised by the European officials and the public, European Parliament’s resolution on drone attacks — the EU countries failed to take a stand against the mighty USA.Foreign policy of France — which is generally not so pro-US — also voted against it. It was France who defended US’s alleged tapping of phones of EU headquarters in the EU parliament stating that it should not be the policy of the EU to clash with the US and perhaps causing a much needed let off to US. Italy too abstained by not supporting the resolution perhaps reflecting the effective build up in US diplomatic relations with the recent visit of Obama to the Holy See and Italy.
Germany with its Nazi history has over the last few decades done much to improve its human rights emphasis to reflect its moral stance and this was, we presumed, reflected in the resolution against HRC Resolution against Sri Lanka. However, Germany too abstained by not supporting the Pakistani Resolution, perhaps reflecting that Germany too is not ripe in its development in its human rights policy and its strong endorsement of the US drone programme.
Asian Countries
Basically, the stance of Japan and South Korea not to support reflects the growing tensions in the North China Sea where the support of the US is perceived as critical. Japan which abstained from voting in the HRC Resolution against Sri Lanka went out of the way to vote against the Pakistan resolution indicating its powerlessness over the US.
India, in an explanation before the vote, “…agreed that actions by countries had to be in accordance with international law and agreements to which they were party. The draft resolution related to the use of one weapon system in situations of both counter terrorism and military operations. At this stage, India felt that the scope of the resolution was too broad and many of the aspects included needed to be appropriately deliberated upon at different fora. The international community should join hands in eliminating the scourge of terrorism itself. There was a proliferation of open panel discussions during the Council sessions and intersessionally and funds had to be requested. India would abstain from the vote.”
Sri Lanka’s take — concluding remarks
What does the future hold for the US in this case? If the expert panel process is indeed politicised, the United States may try to pull more countries into its camp in the future. And if the US strategy fails, the US will likely find itself in a shrinking minority and in a compromising position. This shows that what goes around comes around. The US was clearly knocked down.
On the other hand, apart from the western duplicity, had Sri Lanka taken intensive steps to promote reconciliation and tried a few criminals who were involved in war crimes (including some LTTE leaders in the PC) in a prolonged trial with confused and vague evidence, and had used effective geopolitical balancing with trade pacts with USA, we may have taken the US on a different route on the Sri Lanka issue — because, it is unlikely that a European country to initiate resolution against Sri Lanka at this moment. Even now, despite the international probe, it is not too late for Sri Lanka to approach the US to soften its stand – and Pakistan resolution has clearly opened a little window of opportunity to make a pact with the devil.
While Sri Lanka should back Pakistan and Yemen to provide much evidence on drone attacks to corner the US, it should make its maximum endeavors to win most of the EU countries, from now onwards, so that the UNHRC investigation report will not become as a basis for a trade-sanction resolution in the EU parliament by parties like Green Party.
More than the US, it will be the trade sanctions from the EU that will hit SL the most. May be it is the EU that will ultimately determine Sri Lanka’s fate, and the eventual EU-India pact which will be superimposed — like the Indo-Lanka treaty — if Sri Lankan fails on a geo-politically balanced foreign policy.
(The writer is an Attorney-at-law and Nippon Fellow of the UN ITLOS (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea), MICS, LL.B(OUSL)