The MQ-9 Reaper drones derive their reputation from the attacks that Americans carried out with them on opponents in Afghanistan and Iraq, among others. So formidable and effective are the Reapers that Ukrainian President Zelensky is said to have asked the US for these unmanned aerial vehicles.
The Netherlands is already busy purchasing four Reapers, just for reconnaissance. “The Dutch Reapers are not armed,” reports the Ministry of Defense on its website, adding: “If the government wants this, it can easily be achieved.” The Hellfire missiles, already part of the Apache helicopters, can be hung under the drone in this way.
The House of Representatives now seems to be paving the way for this politically, after years of discussion between supporters and opponents. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives will vote on a motion by Peter Valstar (VVD), who has a majority with the support of government parties, including CDA and CU. Reapers can be armed, the motion says, “if the defense needs it.” The war in Ukraine has shown that said Valstar in newspaper The Telegraphhow effective drones are.
The Air Force will not comment, a spokesman said: “Whether or not to arm is a political choice.” Minister Kajsa Ollongren (Defence, D66) is working on a new defense memorandum on how to spend the extra billions on defence. It is not certain whether the drone armament will have a place in this, especially because its own D66 is against it. In any case, the armament of the Reapers has come closer.
No surprise for Jessica Dorsey, who has been working on the legal embedding of unmanned weapon systems for years: “Because you don’t buy Reapers if you don’t want to arm them.” Dorsey, a researcher at Utrecht University, is surprised by the sudden rush in The Hague. “It is striking that the Christian parties CDA and CU will agree so quickly around Easter with a step that will bring us closer to making more victims.”
Why are there more casualties to be expected with this armament?
“After 20 years of US drone warfare, we know that drones lower the barrier to using force. Drones like the Reaper can be used where, for example, the F35 cannot be used. Remote warfare transfers the physical risks from one’s own military to civilians far away. The deployment also increases the distance between citizens in the Netherlands and citizens elsewhere. All this means that you are more likely to use weapons with drones. The more often you use something, the greater the chance that it will go wrong.”
If things go wrong, Valstar said in The Telegraph“That only costs material and no human lives.” That is, according to Dorsey, “a misunderstanding”.
What is the misunderstanding?
“That drones ensure a very neat, risk-free war; in line with the precision war myth. That image is actually not accurate at all. The drones are at most risk-free for the user. Not for the people who see these machines floating overhead and who don’t know when the next missile will be fired.”
What exactly can go wrong?
„A well-known example is the drone attack of the US on an alleged terrorist in Kabul last year. Ten innocent civilians were killed, including seven children and an aid worker. The New York Times published a story last weekend with many other examples.”
Also read: Drones play a key role in the war in Ukraine
That story describes how drone pilots become seriously traumatized by the remote killing of men they have seen spending weeks with their families. “That shows that drones do pose risks for users and their mental health.”
The Netherlands reportedly does not want to use the Reapers for this ‘killing of targets’, but for example to support ground troops. Does that matter?
“Secure. The Netherlands is not the US. And to date, the Netherlands has been very neat in what is said that soldiers will do and what they actually do. But with armed Reapers the way to targeted killing very short. That is why you need guarantees and procedures, a very specific document, for the deployment of the drones. When do you use them? Against who? If things go wrong, who is responsible? Transparency and accountability to Dutch citizens are so important. Also for soldiers, because that gives legitimacy to their operations.”
What should that system look like?
“That’s exactly what we should be discussing, like in Germany. The parliament there recently also decided to arm drones, but after eight years of thorough and sometimes very heated debate. Germany is now getting a whole system for the deployment of the armed drones with checks and balances, overseen by parliament. Such safeguards are part of the democratic rule of law.”
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of April 19, 2022
#Researcher #Jessica #Dorsey #drones #weapons #greater #chance #wrong