by Jennifer M. Ramos and Daniel Brunstetter
Unmanned aerial system (UAS) technology is proliferating around the world. Despite concerns about potential abuses, this technology can – so the argument goes – be primarily used and developed for the betterment of humankind. Clearly, there is a sense in which this could be true. For example, drones (as UAS systems are commonly known) are being used to gather information about changes in the environment in which we live. NASA is in the midst of a 5-year project to collect data about global warming, while researchers based at Wake Forest University employ drones to better understand how the Peruvian cloud forests impact world climate patterns. But, while the use of drones for research purposes about the environment is not particularly controversial, when drones are used to monitor and understand the social climate where humans interact, a host of thorny questions arise.
As noted in a recent article, The Sentinel Project has adapted drone technology to serve humanitarian purposes, namely the deployment of drones in the name of violence prevention in Kenya’s Tana Delta. This region has been the site of sectarian violence in recent years between rival ethnic groups over land rights, and has led to a strong paramilitary presence in the region. Drones could therefore provide a key mechanism to supplement existing security building efforts in the region in order to prevent new clashes, presumably by providing local law enforcement officials with permanent surveillance capacity.
The Sentinel Project, challenging prevailing views that paint a disturbing picture of drones, has engaged with locals in Kenya. Their goal is to hear from those who have the potential to benefit from humanitarian drone initiatives, rather than remain mired in academic discussion from abroad. They report that Kenyans seem largely supportive, or at least openly curious about, the beneficial potential of humanitarian drone efforts. That said, they did note that the use of drones raise some concerns, including “custody of the hardware”, “access to information,” and “logistics.” These concerns are commonly cited in the drone literature, and are just the tip of the iceberg when considering the legality, ethics, and long-term consequences of drone use, even if, initially, such use is for humanitarian purposes.
We agree that it is important to gauge the concerns of those who might benefit most from humanitarian drones. Yet it is also important to think about the flip side: the potential for abuses that such drone technology could bring. Such fears cannot be relegated to the realm of theoretical discussion, especially in a region that has been plagued by sectarian violence, as well as violence from terrorist groups. While drones certainly can have positive benefits, their surveillance capabilities inevitably present a slippery slope that opens the path towards the use of armed drones, even if their initial use is well intended. Stated differently, the use of surveillance drones in regions prone to illegal violence is a potential precursor to a deadly dilemma, namely that of deliberating on whether to convert surveillance drones to armed drones, or seek the help of countries – such as the US – that employ armed drones.
Kenya is one of only three countries where a majority of the public supports US drone strikes against perceived extremists (53%; Pew 2014). This is perhaps due to the fact that Kenya has been in a struggle with local Muslim extremists – Al Shabaab – who have committed numerous attacks against civilians in recent years. All this suggests that conversion from surveillance to lethal drone use should not be immediately dismissed. However, public opinion around the world generally condemns lethal drone use, because such use is seen as a violation of international law and human rights. From Japan to Peru (12% and 10% approval ratings, respectively; Pew 2014), the global public is seriously concerned about weaponized drones.
More poignantly, in Pakistan, where US drones strikes occur with tacit approval from Pakistan’s ruling elite for counterterrorism purposes, the approval rating stands at a mere 3%. Even more compelling perhaps are the individual testimonies that recount how drones affect everyday people. In a recently released Stanford and New York University report based on over 130 accounts of eyewitnesses, family related victims, and scholarly experts, drone attacks—and even the mere presence of drones—cause “considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians…”, not the least of which are psychological traumas. These are not isolated findings. Such concerns are also reflected in reports from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International concerning drones.
Given these public sentiments, we must ask the question: what if the Kenyan government feels compelled to employ lethal drones, or allow the US to do so, against localized threats, such as Al Shabaab? Moreover, can we be confident that the Kenyan government, will resist the allure of Gyges’ ring, a.k.a. armed drones to confront all threats in the future? If not, how might public opinion change regarding so-called humanitarian drones operating side-by-side lethal drones?
Once lethal drones become a possibility, then drones cease to be “just” a humanitarian tool. They become a technology that dehumanizes not only future potentially legitimate targets, but also those who die as a consequence, as well as those who live amidst the perpetual fear of lethal drones. To put it bluntly, if we can imagine the Kenyan government ever contemplating acquiring armed drones – which is not as far fetched as it might seem – then thinking critically about the slippery slope we describe ought to be of paramount importance.
To conclude, we seek to place the humanitarian benefits of drones in context by also asking key critical questions: How can we prevent sliding from humanitarian to dehumanizing drones? And if this is ultimately impossible, which it may well be in a world plagued by extremism, how can we maximize the humanitarian benefits of drones while minimizing their dehumanizing effects? Academics “from afar” can help to inform the conversations that must be held at the local level, but ultimately the answers must be decided by those most affected. This means learning what these local populations think about lethal drones in the Tana Delta region and against other threats within Kenya. Such dialogue and debate is essential for the populations living in these areas to thoroughly assess the potential promises and pitfalls of drones so that places such as the Tana Delta do not tragically devolve from the use of well-intended surveillance programs to questionably legal and ethically dubious lethal use of force.
Jennifer M. Ramos is Visiting Associate Researcher at UC Irvine and Associate Professor at Loyola Marymount University in Political Science. She specializes in international norms and security, and has a forthcoming edited volume (co-edited with Kerstin Fisk), Preventive Force: Targeted Killing and Technology (NYU Press). Daniel Brunstetter is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Irvine. He has published on the ethics of war and drones in Ethics & International Affairs, the Journal of Military Ethics, The Atlantic, and elsewhere.