Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Rehman Chishti Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Leigh, to take part in this debate, not least because Westminster Hall is not quite as cold as elsewhere. I thank The Times for pointing out what the two Front Benchers will say in the debate: apparently, the Labour spokesman will ask for new rules of engagement, and the Minister will not entirely agree with the notion that our pilots are not sufficiently trained. I leave it to them to say their piece, but there are some areas I will not touch on because nothing is to be gained from repetition.

I want to start by defining the parameters of this debate. The Library helpfully says that unmanned aerial vehicles—UAVs—are used by the UK armed forces and are

“more commonly known as drones. These are remotely piloted aircraft that range from simple, hand-operated systems to high altitude, long endurance systems similar in operation to small aircraft.

UAVs are primarily used to gather intelligence and provide a surveillance and reconnaissance function for the armed forces. Only a handful of systems are capable of carrying weapons. The only armed UAV used by the UK Armed Forces is the Reaper and it is only used in Afghanistan.”

It is important to remind ourselves of those distinctions and limited use. The Library continues:

“Remotely piloted aircraft operate on the same rules of engagement as manned aircraft. However the growth in the use of armed UAVs, particularly by the United States, raises a number of moral, ethical and legal issues.”

It is the moral, ethical and legal issues that I want to examine more closely.

We can see in Hansard some of the questions that are being asked, and that the debate is about collateral damage and loss of life, which some people find difficult to explain. A wider argument is that if a country has armed forces, it uses lethal force, and it does so for a benevolent purpose: defence. We have not had much chance to talk about that, and I thought that such a debate would be suitable in Westminster Hall.

To put the matter into context, I understand that, depending on who is counting, between 76 and 80 countries have UAVs, but only three—the United Kingdom, the USA and Israel—use armed drones in military operations. The Minister will be more aware than I am that this country is investing extensively in that area, whether it is in the provision of specially designed headquarters for the Reaper station here or the Anglo-French initiative for Scavenger long-endurance UAVs, so there will be even further development.

That is combined with the strange situation that almost no one in this country under the age of 30 has a defined sense of who or what the enemy is. During the cold war, it was easy to define the enemy, which was another nation state. We now face warfare in which the enemy is no longer a nation state, but a group of individuals who are far away. The process is geographically remote, and some of the warfare engagement is physically remote. That creates problems.

Lethal force is a process by which we license to kill. Curiously, in this country that phrase is associated with James Bond more than with what our armed forces are doing. Politicians should spend more time thinking about the use of lethal force, and when it is appropriate. We need to take the public with us, and it has been clear, particularly when reading newspaper reports on the use of drones in Afghanistan, that in many ways we have not taken the public with us. In areas such as Pakistan, there is an argument that the fallout is greater than the benefits.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. On the use of drones in Afghanistan, does she agree that we need clarity from the Government on whether they are sharing location intelligence with the United States on drone strikes in Pakistan? If we want to win the hearts and minds of the public, we must carry them with us, but when they see hundreds of lives lost in drone strikes, they turn against the west and pose a danger to our national security.

[Ms Stuart]

That is an argument, but I do not want to go down that road. The hon. Gentleman has had an Adjournment debate on that matter, which I read with great interest, but I want to take in new territory. Parliament must explain why it does certain things, and take the public with it. The 1868 St Petersburg declaration refers to the requirement

“to conciliate the necessities of war with the laws of humanity.”

How to get that right is an ever-enduring struggle, and I am not sure whether we have debated that sufficiently here. That is why I am pleased to have this debate. We have become casualty-averse, and there is a debate to be had about moral equivalence, and whether it is morally superior to deal with threats remotely instead of in hand-to-hand battle. I want so spend some time discussing targeted killing, which is the area of the drone debate that causes greatest concern about whether it is right.

A defence research paper on the ethics of targeted killing defines it as

“a pre-mediated state sanctioned killing of a named individual beyond the territorial and jurisdictional control of that state, in an international or non-international armed conflict or hostilities against terrorist or non-state groups.”

In other words, we are not talking about assassination or illegal killing for purely political purposes, and that is what people find most difficult to get their head round.

Some people argue that military historians may view 19 January 2010 as being as significant as August 1945, when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, because technology suddenly allowed a move to something that was not sufficiently explained or spelled out in the ethical framework under which we operate. Two things happened: one was the killing in Dubai; the other, much more importantly, was in Pakistan where a US unmanned aerial vehicle killed six alleged militants in North Waziristan. That takes us to the legal and ethical dilemma that we must examine more closely.

On the history of lethal force, it may be worth reading “My Early Life” by Winston Churchill in which he describes a moment during a cavalry charge:

“Suddenly in the midst of the troop up sprung a Dervish. How he got there I do not know. He must have leaped out of some scrub or hole. All the troopers turned upon him thrusting with their lances: but he darted to and fro causing for the moment a frantic commotion. Wounded several times, he staggered towards me raising his spear. I shot him at less than a yard. He fell on the sand, and lay there dead. How easy to kill a man! But I did not worry about it. I found that I had fired the whole magazine of my Mauser pistol, so I put in a new clip of ten cartridges before thinking of anything else.”

The question these days is about the moral position of asking a man, or giving him the legal authority, to kill another within a framework that we find acceptable, because some people seem to think that if it is hand-to-hand combat, it has a greater moral force or value than if it is remote. I would argue that technology takes us to an ethical area where the framework might have to be configured slightly differently, but what the state is asking of the individual has, in many ways, not changed much. People are worried about remoteness, and it is worth remembering some experiments that were done in the 1960s in America, in the wake of the Adolf Eichmann trial, about the perils of obedience. Individuals were tested on how much pain they were willing to inflict on someone just because they were ordered to do so. In a military context, it is very important that we continue to keep that in mind.

The United Kingdom has always been clear that the chain of command, when it comes to killing or the use of lethal force, has always been retained within the military, whereas the United States and the CIA, as I understand it, are much more prepared to use civilian intelligence as part of that chain of command. That causes its own legal and ethical problems, because there is an argument about whether the civilians in that chain relinquish their right not to be targeted under international humanitarian law.

[Rehman Chishti]

On targeted killing and drones, the United Nations rapporteur, Christof Heyns, is now looking into extra-judicial killing in relation to the use of drones by the United States. Does the hon. Lady also think that that needs to be extended to see whether it can be applied to where the United Kingdom uses its drones?

[Ms Stuart]

I do not yet know, because I do not know what the outcome is, but to my mind, it is very significant that in the United Kingdom it is within the military chain, whereas in the United States it is not.

I am not trying to get us to ask today, “Is that particular application right or wrong?”. In the context of defence and us as parliamentarians, who are asking an Army and a public to order the use of lethal force, I want us to debate what the framework should be, rather than concluding whether it is right or wrong. I am also worried that the further away in the globe something happens, the easier it is—and the happier we seem to be—to jump to conclusions one way or another.

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again. My final point is with regard to the policy and the criteria. Drones were operated by the United Kingdom on 7 October 2007 in Afghanistan, so it is for many years that we have not had the criteria, policy, rules and restrictions, whether under a different Government or this Government. I absolutely agree, therefore, that it is vital for us to get it right.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

Until we get that right, perhaps we all ought to become a little more articulate and explicit about where and when we are prepared to say that something is right or wrong. One point that I was trying to make at the beginning of my speech is that for those over the age of 30 who grew up during the cold war, the enemy was very visible—it was another nation state, very close to home—and the space of theoretical ethical argument tended to be much narrower than it is now, when the war is happening on the other side of the globe. We should face up to that, and given that the Government are intending to spend extraordinary amounts of money on future investment, and that we have international co-operation, this place needs to be aware of what the rules are.

I want, therefore, to draw the Minister further on a number of parliamentary questions that have been asked. First, am I right in assuming that the United Kingdom has no plan to change the operational kill chain, as it is called, to be anything other than within the military? If that is so, does he agree that that ethical dimension must play an enormously important part, as an institution of the military, in their continued training, and will he give a commitment on that? Secondly, the Minister was asked when Watchkeeper will see active service, and the answer was that it will be at some stage or another, but we cannot yet tell. He said:

“The Ministry of Defence remains committed to deploying it to Afghanistan at the earliest opportunity.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 461W.]

It would be helpful to hear how early the earliest opportunity is.

Thirdly, there was a question about unmanned aerial vehicles from the new aircraft carrier for surveillance purposes. I know that there has been a string of questions about whether that is within the remit, and the latest I heard from the Minister was:

“Although not all would be suitable for carrier operations, the UK has previously conducted trials with a Scan Eagle UAV flown from a frigate and is currently considering another such concept demonstration.” —[Official Report, 26 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 30W.]

Has there been any progress on that?

Above all, I would like to hear whether the Minister is contemplating any changes to the ethical rules, and if he does so, at what level will that happen? Will it just be within the military, and does he have any concept of a time scale? Will it go in tandem with the greater investment? As unpopular a view as this may be, I think this is a technological development in warfare that—if used within the right constraints and controls—is with us, and we had better make the best of it.