Armed MQ-9 Reaper , Source: U.S. Air Force
“When force is necessary, we will continue to do so in a way that reflects our values and strengthens our legitimacy, and we will seek broad international support, working with such institutions as NATO and the U.N. Security Council.”
— President Obama (2010 National Security Strategy)
Is it time for the international community to take charge of the counter-terrorism killer drone campaign? Since the Obama administration has repeatedly stated its commitment to seeking “broad international support” when force is required, then perhaps this proposal is not as indecent as it might sound.
Al Qaeda’s organizational handbook, first seized in 2005 by British authorities, includes the following partial organizational mission statement, “the overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime.” The group, throughout its handbook for terror making, makes clear that it does not solely target Americans, but also has within its cross-hairs any government it deems to be a obstacle to its nefarious political objectives.
They don’t like ANY of us
Violent extremist organizations (VEOs) like al Qaeda, are a clear and present threat to not only Western interests, but to nations and their citizens throughout the Middle East, Northern Africa and Asia. Almost 12 years after their attack on the U.S. homeland, the al Qaeda franchise continues to demonstrate that it can strike in varied locations with surprising lethality. There should be no room for doubt that VEOs will continue to work to destabilize governments and to threaten international peace and security for many years to come.
For this reason, an international approach is not only the most sensible response to the threat presented by VEOs, but it is also the most moral, ethical, legal and effective way to wage the global counter-terrorism fight. It is ill-advised (and perhaps even illegal) for any one nation, or small collection of allies, to take it upon themselves to lead a global policing action. If the American administration, as well as its NATO allies, are truly committed to the U.N. charter and international law, then decentralizing the global counter-terror fight is certainly warranted. Further, it is also the responsibility of the broader international community to share in the burden of global anti-terror policing — an ongoing action from which many nations derive a benefit.
The most legal and ethical approach
Article 42 of the U.N. charter reminds members that one of their central obligations is to “maintain or restore international peace and security” when warranted. Is it not within the spirit and intent of the charter for the counter-terrorism effort to be overseen by an appropriately designated multinational agent? If a more secure international global order is to ever become a reality than just an fleeting illusion to be persistently pursued, then all nations should have a say in a campaign as important as the global war on VEOs.
To date, the United States has invested the most in the global counter-terror fight — suffering the greatest combat casualties and financial cost in an ongoing attempt to eliminate the Islamic terrorist scourge. The drone program in particular, arguably the most effective terrorist killing tool in the Western world’s arsenal, is wholly financed and operated by the United States. As the sole sponsor of arguably one of the most controversial military weapon systems since the atom bomb, the United States has had to bare the brunt of legal and ethical challenges emanating from numerous parts of the world — to include scathing criticisms coming from domestic foreign policy stakeholders. Transferring drone program legal and operational “ownership” to a multinational entity could dramatically mitigate the legal risks to the American administration and entirely change the American “Lone Ranger” character of the global counter-terrorism campaign.
Clear Benefits
Since there already exists a legal basis for the application of lethal force by the world’s premier international collaboration organization, the Obama administration should explore the possibility of decentralizing the drone program — making it a truly international effort by working with the U.N. The benefits to be derived from such an audacious move would be numerous — here are a few to ponder.
1. Spread the ethical and legal risks around. Drone strikes are naked extra-judicial killings — a fact that could place America’s chief executive in the legal hot-seat at some point in the future. Only a few weeks ago, the U.N.’s special rapporteur for human rights and counter-terrorism opened an investigation to examine the impact of drone technology on civilians. It is highly likely that the rapporteur’s findings will not be too kind to the American administration. However, should President Obama accept this blogger’s indecent proposal, the legal risks associated with his pet anti-terrorism program could be significantly mitigated.
2. Greater transparency in the targeting process. A oversight or review committee established by the U.N. Security Council, would provide some desperately needed transparency and due-process into the targets selection process. As it stands today, the Central Intelligence Agency alone serves as the agent responsible for the selection, prosecution and liquidation of suspected terrorists.
3. Spread the financial costs around. Getting the global community to pitch in for a collective police action would not be a bad idea. To defer much of the expense for keeping the mechanical hawks of war flying and firing, the American administration could cite Article 50 of the U.N. Charter which states, “should any Member of the U.N. be confronted with special economic problems arising enforcement measures taken against any state by the Security Council, that state shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to a solution of those problems.” Bingo!
Perhaps the most important aspect of internationalizing the anti-terror campaign is that it would demonstrate America’s commitment to act in line with international standards for “use of force” as required by Article I of the U.N. charter. Lastly, in an age where the VEO threat appears to be increasing rather than decreasing would be a prudent move for President Obama to leverage multinational mechanisms to further America’s own national security goals while also demonstrating that America is serious about multinationalism. Indeed, if the administration is committed to “leading from the back” then what better way to show it than by sharing ownership (at least legal ownership) of America’s hawks of war.
