IN THE DRONE'S LINE OF FIRE

Who has not dreamed, at least for a few minutes, of getting a "controller" that operates a toy airplane through radio or infrared communications? Everything is for real - take-off, landing and breathtaking turns. Now imagine that this toy has real dimensions and carries warheads on board...

The appearance of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in many countries of the world has long caused a revolution in the method of warfare. We can say that the dream of all military commanders from antiquity to the present day to inflict significant damage on the enemy without risking the lives of their soldiers has finally come true. And drones are also great spies - tireless, fast, ubiquitous and not afraid of overloading.

However, many human rights organizations and expert groups assessed the significant growth of unmanned technology as a challenge, mainly due to the fact that their use is not regulated by clearly defined international standards. Determining what existing legal mechanisms apply in cases where the use of drones results in civilian casualties or violates the principle of sovereignty or privacy is a long and often too confusing process.

Although prototypes of modern UAVs have been used for military purposes for several decades (during the Vietnam War, the 1982 war in Lebanon, the wars in the Persian Gulf and in former Yugoslavia), the United States began to use them especially intensively to protect its national interests after the attacks of 11 September 2001. A big fan of drones is the current head of the White House, Barack Obama, who significantly expanded and expedited the programme for the creation and targeted use of UAVs. According to various estimates, currently the US military has more than 7,000 UAVs, which were and are used in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and other countries. Drones are particularly successful in strikes in remote mountainous areas, where terrorist base camps are located, for example the hard-to-reach areas of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, where militants of Al-Qaeda and Taliban have taken shelter. Drones are used for individual attacks on terrorist leaders as well as on whole groups. For example, in November 2002, a car carrying members of Al-Qaeda was destroyed in Yemen by the Predator drone. However, there is evidence that drones often appear over major cities such as the capital of Yemen, Sana'a.

The Chinese have greatly succeeded in creating drones. Besides the US and China, South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, Russia and some other countries are also developing UAVs.

All modern UAVs are connected to the command centre via satellite, and it does not matter how far apart they are. The most important thing is that equipment does not fail you and provides accurate intelligence. For example, as a result of the interception of negotiations between Al-Qaeda leaders and the head of the group's cell in Yemen this summer, information was received about an impending large-scale terrorist attack. The US consulate in the Pakistani city of Lahore was quickly evacuated and almost the entire staff of the US embassy in Sana'a was moved. And the number of drone flights increased significantly.

However, intelligence can fail, and sometimes rockets hit the wrong target. The media has reported more than once that US drone strikes kill civilians - women, children, whole weddings or funeral processions misidentified as gatherings of militants. Here are just some of the figures. According to official figures released by the US secret services, since 2004 drone strikes have killed 2,050 people, among whom there were no more than 50 civilians. However, an independent study conducted by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism said that CIA drone strikes in Pakistan have killed more than 160 children since 2004. The total number of deaths from drone strikes is from 3,072 to 4,756 people, and from 556 to 1,128 of them were accidental victims. According to a report by the American Council on Foreign Relations, 3,430 people have been killed in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and 450 of them were civilians.

That is why human rights organizations constantly accuse the US of unjustified and unauthorized use of drones. The latest reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch provide accounts by witnesses who survived American drone strikes, as well as witnesses of attacks in Pakistan and Yemen. Amnesty International bases its accusations on the example of nine drone strikes in Pakistan last year and this year, during which, in addition to terrorists, 29 civilians were killed. Human Rights Watch examined the operations in Yemen, where, according to the report, 57 civilians were killed between 2009 and 2013. "The United States must ensure the administration of justice, pay compensation and punish those responsible for these deaths," said Amnesty International's expert Mustafa Qadri.

Last year, the UN special rapporteur on human rights expressed the opinion that the loss of life from drone attacks can be equated to war crimes. Earlier this year, a UN commission launched an investigation into such cases after three countries, one of which is Pakistan, officially appealed to the UN. In early May, the United Nations Human Rights Commission published a draft version of the report, which noted that many developed countries are armed with UAVs and that perhaps it is worth introducing a global moratorium on the testing and production of drones. It is known that the UN report contains data on 33 drone attacks around the world, which led to hundreds of civilian casualties. At the same time, it is clear that the decision to ban the use of UAVs can only be achieved if all parties agree, but the US will surely use its right to veto.

Earlier this year, Republican Senator from South Carolina Lindsey Graham admitted that the victims of US drone strikes are civilians. However, the politician added, these things, unfortunately, happen in the war. "Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate it, but we are at war, and we were able to eliminate some very important members of Al-Qaeda," Graham said. According to him, the drones are a very effective weapon in the fight against militants, who, as he stressed, should be not tried, but killed.

Meanwhile, it is not clear yet whether the hunt for militants always happens with the consent of the country where they are hiding. Are UAV flights against the principle of sovereignty? For example, in the case of Pakistan, the official position of Islamabad, which turns a blind eye to American visitors and then expresses strong protests, is still not clear. Moreover, if we follow the logic of Senator Graham's statement, the United States has really declared war on international terrorism, but then why should civilians of Yemen or Pakistan suffer in this war? Some would say that these are inevitable casualties. But who in this case undertakes to judge the value of human life - for example, in order to destroy a dangerous terrorist, can you sacrifice a couple of children at the same time? Imagine that in some Western country there is a hunt for a dangerous criminal and 10 civilians get killed during the operation to capture him. And law enforcement officials and authorities say it's all right and these are inevitable casualties. How would the public react to this statement?

But even if a war is declared, there is certain international law in this area. And even it does accept reported attacks on people who are trying to save those wounded in the initial attack. In addition, human rights advocates point out that the US killed militants when they could have been captured alive. This is despite the fact that getting accurate data about victims, who are referred to as rebels, is extremely difficult. However, even membership of Al-Qaeda is not a sufficient reason for eliminating someone with the help of UAVs. Such people should be taken to court.

Another no less difficult question is the use of UAVs for civilian purposes. This involves a whole layer of problems - from security to private property. For example, what will happen if everyone is able to buy a gadget in the form of a little drone, and you will not be sure whether the mosquito that has flown into your bedroom is for real or a gadget that steals your corporate information?

Finally, a separate issue is the ethical and psychological implications of drones. Someone whose bullet kills an enemy soldier does not have to be in a nearby trench. Hey can sit in a comfortable chair in a special command post and look at the monitor, sipping aromatic coffee. All you have to do in such circumstances is to decide whether to push the button or not. But pressing the button is not the same as pulling the trigger and shooting a real person. War is turning into a computer game, which further diminishes the value of a single human life. Moral laws in this virtual- military space are distorted and have almost no effect, because neither the results nor the consequences can be seen. In this scenario, a destroyed wedding procession in the mountains thousands of miles away from you is no more than an element of strategy...