Damaged drone dreams

The US drone program buzzes its unmanned aircraft over distant lands, frightening the public, because they are not sure whether the alien vehicle will merely fly over them or drop bombs to annihilate them. Many in the US, from across the political divide, agree that drones are a dream weapon that provide a “cleaner” way to do war, by pursuing American interests without risking military lives. However, one should remember the words of John F. Kennedy, “there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it.”

There are certainly costs to using drones, including logistical failures that have resulted in thousands of civilian deaths and America’s staunchest rival, Iran, now possessing a downed drone. Further, the over-usage of the drones in international relations shows that it is a case of the weapon inspiring the war, not the war inspiring the weapon. Finally, the domestic effect of the drone program is that it violates the constitutional checks and balances placed on the president and CIA’s power by Congress.

With a constant bombardment and surveillance operation led by the drones, the US has eliminated several high level terrorist leaders. Despite all the logistical successes of the program, there have certainly been some blunders that were inevitable in using remote technology to kill human targets. As such, there have been countless botched drone missions in Pakistan and Afghanistan that have led to the death of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent civilians.

While some may discount these deaths as unavoidable collateral damage, one should think of the operational mistakes being made in the over-use of drones. By using an unmanned vehicle, the US will engage targets that they would otherwise avoid sending ground forces to attack. Thus, the US uses force more freely and takes action even when they lack the amount of credible information needed to put American lives at risk. This means that while the drones might protect American lives, they put the lives of civilians living in war zones at greater risk of destruction due to faulty or negligible intelligence.

Another issue is the hazard that more countries will acquire drone technology, which will all but guarantee an increase in hostilities across the globe. Most nations wish to posses a technology that could allow them to wage a seemingly “cost-free war”, and this is especially true for America’s adversaries like China or Iran. The recent downed drone that Iran has recovered is just one of the many inevitable instances where other nations will attempt to harness this technology, and perhaps use it against the US in the future.

What is far more devastating to the future of the US than the logistical failures of the drone program is the way in which it is affecting the nation’s foreign policy. Under current international law, there are no rules in place for the use of drones. However, the international community, through major documents like the UN Charter, prohibits the use of force against nations one has not declared an enemy.  For the drone operations in Pakistan, where the US has at least nominally recognised the nation as an ally, there is a violation of America’s international legal obligations.

Not only is the drone program putting the US in violation of international law, it is creating more hostile enemies globally and subverting the soft-power of the nation. With the advent of new weapons, American policy makers seem far more willing to exercise force in order to achieve their objectives rather than utilising soft-power diplomacy. This is evidenced by the drones being used against Qadhafi’s regime in Libya, which was bombed rather than negotiated with, as well as the extrajudicial killing of an American-jihadist imam, Anwar Awalaki, in Yemen. The US has enjoyed several years of diplomatic negotiated peace with its rivals without reverting to force in the past, but it seems with the new technology, the policy is to shoot first, ask questions later.

The final and perhaps most alarming element to the drone program is the effect it has on the constitutional sharing of powers between the president and Congress. The decision to use drones is currently the exclusive right of the CIA and the president. Under the Constitution, the president is the commander-in-chief and can make treaties with the advice of Senate. However, Congress possesses the ultimate right to “provide for the common defense,” and “declare war.” Therefore, though the President represents the US to foreign nations, he or his agencies like the CIA, cannot unilaterally engage the US in an armed conflict without the consent of Congress.

As it currently stands, the drone program is handing far too much power to the executive branch and violating the rights of Congress. In many ways, the Congress has capitulated its rights to the president by allowing him to conceal the details of the drone program based on a generalised fear for national security. President Kennedy once stated, “there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.”

Therefore, the American people should realise that though drones may save some American military lives, they carry with them latent and long-reaching effects. Not only are there logistical nightmares that expose the US to greater threats by its enemies, the drones also have negatively affected America’s soft power in international relations and violated the constitutional balance of powers.

Unless this technology can be brought out of the shadowy rooms of the CIA and into the realm of the public through Congress and the international community, the drones will carry a far greater cost than benefit (despite popular belief).

The writer holds a Juris Doctorate in the US and is a researcher on comparative law and international law issues.

Canada bans burqa at citizenship swearing in

Women who cover their face often come from a cultural milieu that treats women as property: Kenney. – File Photo

TORONTO: New Canadian citizens must remove any face coverings, such as the Islamic niqab or burqa, while they take the oath of citizenship, the country’s immigration minister said Monday.

Jason Kenney said most Canadians find the practice of reciting the oath behind a veil disturbing and said new Canadians should take it in view of their fellow citizens.

He said he has received complaints from lawmakers and citizenship judges who say it’s difficult to ensure that individuals whose faces are covered are actually reciting the oath.

The Conservative minister called the issue a matter of deep principle that goes to the heart of Canada’s identity and the country’s values of openness and equality.

He said women who feel obliged to have their faces covered in public often come from a cultural milieu that treats women as property rather than equal human beings.

”I do think that most Canadians find that disquieting to say the least,” Kenney said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

”Most Muslim Canadian women I know find the practice of face covering in our society disturbing, indicative of an approach to women that is not consistent with our democratic values,” Kenney added.

Kenney made the announcement in the French-speaking province of Quebec, which has experienced heated debates over how much Canada should bend to accommodate the newcomers.

While in the rest of Canada such issues are more often raised by conservatives, in Quebec it’s the left-leaning and Parti Quebecois separatists who often discuss it.

Kenney said his government would not go further by drafting laws to ban women from wearing veils that cover their faces in public.

France became the first country to enact a law designed to forbid face-covering veils such as the niqab or burqa anywhere in public.

Violators risk fines or being ordered to take citizenship classes.

”We shouldn’t have the state using its power to dictate what people choose to wear in their private lives, but when there are important points of intersection with the state in obtaining state services I think it’s entirely reasonable for people to show who they are,” Kenney said.

There are no laws banning veils or headscarves in the US, though there have been unsuccessful attempts in some states to ban ”Sharia law.”

The sponsor of such a bill in Oklahoma wanted to prohibit women from wearing headscarves in driver’s license photos.

The burqa is a head-to-toe gown with a mesh-like panel over the face that allows a woman to see and breathe.

The niqab is a veil that leaves only the eyes exposed.

The new Canadian rule takes effect immediately.

Kenney defended it by saying it has nothing to do with religious freedom, and said when Muslim women make a pilgrimage to Mecca they’re required to show their face.

”So, the notion that this is somehow a religious obligation, I don’t accept,” he said.

Kenney said he raised the issue during a recent meeting of citizenship judges in Ottawa and was told it was a widespread problem.

About 940,000 Muslims live in Canada, about 2.8 per cent of the Canadian population.

It is the fastest growing religion in Canada.

Over the last decade Canada has naturalized between 150, 00 and 180,000 new citizens a year.

Ihsaan Gardee, the acting executive director of The Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the decision will have a damaging effect on Canadian democracy because it forces those who wear the veil to choose between their religious convictions and adopting Canadian citizenship.

Gardee said a young, veil-wearing woman, who was scheduled to take part in a citizenship ceremony on Tuesday, called his office and was no longer sure if she would attend.

The rule also takes effect as the Supreme Court of Canada hears the case of a woman who wants the right to wear a niqab while facing her accused rapists in court. Kenney said the timing of Monday’s announcement was a coincidence.

Lawyer David Butt, who represents the woman, said he expects the rule to be challenged in court but he said it puts anybody who challenges it in an impossible situation as it would also jeopardize their citizenship.

Butt said Canada’s version of the bill of rights protects the right to wear the niqab or burqa.

Giving birth is a battle for survival in Afghanistan

An Afghan midwife helps a mother with her newborn baby at the Razai Foundation Maternity Hospital in Herat. - Reuters Photo.

HERAT: She was 15 years old, heavily pregnant and had travelled eight days on the back of a donkey to reach hospital. Suffering from seizures and high blood pressure, she died soon after at the Herat Maternity Hospital in western Afghanistan, one of the thousands of women who die in the country each year from causes linked to pregnancy and birth.

“She came at a late stage and we couldn’t help her,” said Somayeh, a midwife at the hospital and herself just 21. “She was already in a coma.”

Politicians, economists and activists from around the world met in Bonn this month to thrash out their vision for battered and impoverished Afghanistan. In addition to the insurgency and violence, it remains the most dangerous place in the world for a woman to have a baby, the latest World Health Organization data shows.

The figures are distressing, but still a marked improvement on the situation 10 years ago. The latest available WHO data, from 2008, shows the number of women who died giving birth had dipped to 1,400 per 100,000 live births from 1,800 in 2000.

The Ministry of Public Health says it has made maternal health a priority, supporting training schemes that have lifted the number of qualified midwives in the country to 3,000 from just 400, and expanding emergency delivery services.

“We have demonstrated that these strategies can work in Afghanistan. They can bring a change in the lives of women and families,” acting public health minister Suraya Dalil says. “The challenge is to sustain those achievements.”

Charities such as World Vision — which trained Somayeh — and Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) also have in-depth programmes to help new mothers across Afghanistan.

But they worry that the planned drawdown of Western troops and funds — all foreign combat soldiers will be gone by the end of 2014, and a large chunk of aid budgets is expected to go with them — could jeopardise the modest gains of the last decade. Without foreign cash to bolster scarce government funds, midwife training will almost certainly drop off, while aid groups may leave if they cannot operate in safety. MSF closed its Afghan operations in 2004 after five team members were killed, although the group has since returned.

“The greatest risk at present is through aid levels dropping off precipitously,” says Sarah Pickworth, a public health specialist who has worked extensively in Afghanistan.

“Without sufficient funding, there is likely to be a significantly slower pace of change. This risks losing the momentum of the tremendous gains made.”

Faced with an appalling death toll among pregnant women and new mothers, communities in rural areas — which have some of the highest mortality rates — have mobilised to help women. Herat’s Institute of Health Sciences (IHS) has trained 256 midwives in the past seven years through schemes largely supported by charities such as World Vision. Many of its students have been deliberately selected from remote villages. But if Herat is hit by violence, the families are likely to take their daughters out of school and take them home to safety. A deterioration in the security situation would likely hit pregnant women as well as midwife training.

Transporting women in labour from rural areas to clinics is already a tough proposition in a country where few can afford cars and roads are scarce and badly maintained. It will become still harder if gunmen have freer rein to target travellers.

The re-emergence in political life of groups like the Taliban, which banned education and the free movement of women, could also have a devastating effect on death rates. Under their influence, a generation of potential female midwives and doctors has already been lost, midwife trainers say. This is particularly devastating in a country where male doctors treating women is still largely taboo.

But as big a problem for Afghanistan is money. The Afghan government is facing a $7 billion hole in its budget after 2014, which it will need to pay for security and other services. It is relying on foreign help to plug that gap.

The grinding poverty in which many women live means hygiene and nutrition are often poor. A recent survey showed only around half of Afghans have access to clean drinking water, and only a fifth use approved toilet and sanitation facilities. The IHS’ deputy director, Dr Ehrary, says money is a major stumbling block to completing the five further rounds of midwife training he calculates are needed to provide a base number of healthcare professionals in the region.

“Training is not difficult, but finding funds is difficult,” he says. The institute is struggling to train this year’s government-recommended quota of midwives to the right standard.

“We told the ministry we could not run the class this year because we have only three teachers and we cannot meet their standards,” he added. “They have now been funded.”

Iraqi PM opens door to US investment

raqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said his war-scarred nation was ready to construct a new economy, one that holds “limitless” opportunities for US firms.—AP Photo

WASHINGTON: Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki issued an open invitation for US firms to help rebuild Iraq Tuesday, as his oil-rich nation closes the door on a nearly nine-year American military presence.

Hailing a new stage in the country’s history, Maliki declared his war-scarred nation was ready to construct a new economy, one that holds “limitless” opportunities for US firms.

“It is not now the generals but the businessmen and the corporations that are at the forefront” of Iraq’s future, he told a business gathering just steps from the White House.

“Circumstances have improved because of better security,” said Maliki, playing the role of salesman-in-chief for an economy that was ravaged by authoritarian rule and multilateral sanctions even before the war began in 2003.

“We are not satisfied with the number of US corporations in Iraq,” he added. “All sectors of the economy are there, open for business for American business.” On the list of sectors open to business, oil will be first among equals.

With massive proven reserves of 115 billion barrels of oil, the fourth largest in the world – much of it untapped – foreign oil companies are girding to return to the country.

Output today is around 2.5 million barrels per day, but that rate could be nearly doubled by 2016, according to oil cartel OPEC.

But a political tug-of-war between the semi-autonomous Kurdish north and Baghdad has stalled efforts to create a new law governing the sector for the last three years.

While many companies, including ExxonMobil, have piled into Iraq despite the absence of a clear regulatory framework, there has often been confusion about their legal status.

Last month Exxon signed a deal with the authorities in the north, against the wishes of Maliki’s government.

The Kurdistan contract potentially puts another Exxon contract with the Iraqi government in jeopardy.

Crafting a new hydrocarbon law that makes the most of the country’s resources, while attracting knowledgeable and deep-pocketed foreign firms, will be essential to putting the country on a sound footing.

Oil exports already account for around two thirds of Iraq gross domestic product, but actual revenues could be increased dramatically if production can be ramped up and if an estimated $100 billion of funds to rebuild the oil sector can be found.

Maliki gave little indication that a deal with the Kurdish north was imminent, but said, “we do need a great package of new laws.” On Monday Maliki held talks with US President Barack Obama in an attempt to create a new paradigm in relations that have frequently been overshadowed by Iraq’s descent into civil war and fierce divisions in the United States over the war’s prosecution.

The prime minister’s delegation included 40 Iraqi businessmen.

US Commerce Secretary John Bryson said that American firms were eager to play a role.

He noted that the Iraqi government had set out $186 billion for around 2,700 projects to meet the country’s economic and social needs.

“Meeting those needs can help create jobs here in the United States he said.”

Obama to honor troops to mark end of Iraq war

WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama will on Wednesday embrace returning troops and seek to turn the page on the divisive, bloody and costly period of modern US history stained by the Iraq war.

He will pay homage to military sacrifices and seek to move Americans towards a future unclouded by major foreign land wars and urge them to join an effort to rebuild the country’s recession-hammered economy, officials said.

Obama, who rose to power opposing the Iraq war, told a Virginia television station Tuesday he would express “incredible pride in those men and women” who gave “millions of Iraqis the chance to live in freedom.”

He will travel to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, days before the final exit of all US troops from Iraq, after a near nine-year war that killed almost 4,500 Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis and cost more than a trillion dollars.

Fort Bragg is home to units including elements of the storied 82nd Airborne Division, which had made repeated deployments to Iraq after President George W. Bush ordered a 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

“This is the core commitment that the president made to the country – that he would end this war – and the war has ended,” a senior Obama aide said Tuesday.

“You are going to see some very powerful images in the coming weeks of troops leaving. This is a very significant moment for the country.”

Obama opened several days of remembrance by hosting Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki at the White House on Monday and promised an “enduring” future relationship with his country.

There are fears however that Iraq, despite years of training by US forces, still lacks the capacity to defend its borders and could be unduly influenced by Washington’s foe Iran.

Some US observers also fear a return to bloody sectarianism, doubt the strength of Iraq’s political structures, and feel Maliki, a Shiite, has been entrenching himself in power to the detriment of the country’s minorities.

But the focus on Wednesday will be the end of America’s war.

“The President looks forward to thanking the troops, thanking those who served, and discussing what that sacrifice that Americans have made means now, as the Iraq war comes to an end,” said Obama spokesman Jay Carney.

“We live in a world where sometimes we travel at warp speed, in terms of our attention to events. But it wasn’t that long ago that Iraq was the most dominant issue in America.”

Obama’s visit will also have a political dimension, in North Carolina, a state which he won in his 2008 election victory and hopes to recapture on the road to a second term in 2012.

When Obama took office, more than 150,000 troops were in Iraq, but the few thousand that remain will leave this month after an effort by both sides to agree an extended US training mission failed over a dispute about legal immunity for American personnel.

But some of the euphoria that might have been expected to greet the end of such a divisive and costly war is mitigated by public exhaustion and the fact America remains embroiled in an even longer conflict, in Afghanistan.

The president will also remind Americans that they have a duty to care for badly wounded soldiers who will weigh on public finances and American medical resources for decades to come.

The administration has launched several programs to help returning soldiers when they take off their uniforms and enter the civilian work force, but unemployment for veterans of the last decade remains at 11.1 per cent.

With one eye on his reelection bid at a time of economic dislocation and high unemployment, Obama will also stress that the energy America poured into fighting wars abroad must now be turned to easing woes at home.

“A lot of people wondered whether it would ever happen – whether these wars would just keep dragging on and on,” the senior official said.

“One of the points we are going to keep making, we are ending the war in Iraq and we are beginning to wind down in Afghanistan – it is more important than ever that we focus on rebuilding this country.

“We need to have our eye firmly on the ball here economically.”

WORLD NEWS TODAY: Google donates $11.5 million to fight slavery

WORLD NEWS TODAY: Google donates $11.5 million to fight slavery: ''Many people are surprised to learn there are more people trapped in slavery today than any time in history,'' said Jacquelline Fuller, ...

Google donates $11.5 million to fight slavery

''Many people are surprised to learn there are more people trapped in slavery today than any time in history,'' said Jacquelline Fuller, director of charitable giving and advocacy for Google. ''The good news is that there are solutions.''. - Photo by Reuters

SAN FRANCISCO: Tech giant Google announced on Wednesday it is donating $11.5 million to several coalitions fighting to end the modern-day slavery of some 27 million people around the world.

In what is believed to be the largest ever corporate grant devoted to the advocacy, intervention and rescue of people being held, forced to work or provide sex against their will, Google said it chose organizations with proven records in combating slavery.

”Many people are surprised to learn there are more people trapped in slavery today than any time in history,” said Jacquelline Fuller, director of charitable giving and advocacy for Google. ”The good news is that there are solutions.”

The Washington, D.C.-based International Justice Mission, a human rights organization that works globally to rescue victims of slavery and sexual exploitation, was chosen by Google to lead the efforts.

It will partner with Polaris Project and Slavery Footprint and a handful of smaller organizations for the multi-year effort to rescue the enslaved, push for better infrastructure and resources for anti-slavery enforcement agencies overseas, as well as raise awareness here in the United States and help countries draft anti-slavery legislation.

”Each year we focus some of our annual giving on meeting direct human need,” Fuller said. ”Google chose to spotlight the issue of slavery this year because there is nothing more fundamental than freedom.”

Gary A. Haugen, president of the International Justice Mission, said the coalition would focus on three initiatives: A $3.5 million intervention project to fight forced labor in India; a $4.5 million advocacy campaign in India to educate and protect the vulnerable; and a $1.8 million plan to mobilize Americans on behalf of the millions currently at risk of slavery or waiting for rescue around the world.

The remaining $1.7 million will go to several smaller organizations working to combat slavery.

”It’s hard for most Americans to believe that slavery and human trafficking are still massive problems in our world,” said Haugen. ”Google’s support now makes it possible for IJM to join forces with two other leading organizations so we can bring to bear our unique strengths in a united front.”

Those leading the US efforts will meet in Washington on Wednesday to kick off the joint initiative. The project will focus on improved legislation to protect vulnerable children and adults in the United States, as well as a push for more accountability and transparency in the US supply chain by retailers and manufacturers to make sure their products are ”slave-free.”

The trafficking of women for the sex trade is common in big American cities. Some illegal immigrants find themselves forced to work in sweatshops, in private homes as domestic servants or on farms without pay under the threat of deportation.

The new effort will launch initiatives that ordinary Americans can take to help abolish modern-day slavery, such as understanding how their own clothing or smart phones might contain fabrics or components manufactured by forced labor.

”Whether it’s by calling the national human trafficking hotline, sending a letter to their senator, or using online advocacy tools, millions of Americans will be able to use their voices to ensure that ending this problem becomes a top priority,” said Bradley Myles, executive director of Polaris Project.

Google.org _ the philanthropy arm of the Silicon Valley firm _ announced the anti-slavery effort as part of its $40 million in end-of-year giving that brings its charitable donations to more than $100 million in 2011. The grants will also support science, technology, engineering and math education; girls’ education in the developing world; and the use of technology for social good.

Justin Dillon, the founder of Slavery Footprint, said the Google grant would allow the movement to move from ”anecdote and emotion,” to tangible action that could make a dent in history.

”Having a company like Google recognize the value of our work marks a major turning point for the anti-slavery movement,” said Dillon, whose nonprofit gives consumers some tools to determine whether slaves were used in the making of their goods and teaches them to use social media to sound off about slavery and engage with corporations about their supply chains.