When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
eyes on the U.S.

The Drone Wars: Modern Battlefield Tool Or International War Crime?

An MQ-9 drone taking off in Afghanistan
An MQ-9 drone taking off in Afghanistan
Jannis Brühl

NEW YORK — The U.S. government has come in for severe criticism about its use of drones, as many claim that it is violating one of the central tenets of international humanitarian law: Under no circumstances should civilians be the target of military operations. Any country that deliberately crosses that line is guilty of war crimes.

Admittedly, this principle dates back to the 20th century, a time when wars were fought between two armies on a battlefield. Back then it was clear who counted as a soldier. Anyone wearing a uniform was a legitimate target. Anyone else was not.

In modern warfare, however, there are no clearly defined battlefields. Conventional armies fight an opposition that makes bombs in the basements of residential buildings. The line between combatant and civilian is becoming increasingly blurred. Even the International Committee of the Red Cross says that the U.S. is justified in attacking “irregular combatants” — farmers who strap on a rifle or students who are drawn into jihad for a few months. The important distinction is that the target must have a sustained involvement.

Washington’s approach to defining combatants has come in for heavy criticism in recent years. All men who have had contact with a known terrorist are “automatically” designated as combatants. U.S. journalist Jeremy Scahill writes in his book Dirty Wars that in certain regions of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, the U.S. military classifies every man between 16 and 60 as a potential terrorist. “The number of civilian deaths in drone attacks is small because by definition there are very few civilians,” Scahill says.

One thing is clear, however. Technological developments that allow drones to be more precise in targeting attacks are a positive development for international law. Indeed, this fact is what American officials emphasize in defending the use of drones. But though greater precision often allows the military to differentiate more clearly between combatants and civilians, tragedies still happen.

Unintended targets

Mahama Bibi was picking okra in her family’s field when she was killed by two Hellfire missiles on Oct. 24, 2012. Her three grandchildren were with her as she was torn apart by an American drone attack. Nabeela, 8, and Asma, 7, were also injured. Only Naeema, 5, was physically unharmed, but all three were traumatized. Another grandchild was wounded by a second attack that followed minutes later.

The death of the 68-year-old grandmother is just one of the shocking cases of civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes described in Amnesty International’s recent report “Will I be next?” The human rights organization claims that there are no terrorists in Mahama Bibi’s family. Her husband used to be a teacher and three of her sons are also teachers. “We are normal people,” says one son, Rafeequl Bibi.

According to Amnesty’s research, the Pakistani secret service was convinced that a Taliban fighter had been glimpsed in a street near Bibi’s house shortly before the attack. Even if this was the case, the nearest street is more than 280 meters away from the family’s home.

For its report, Amnesty researched 45 drone attacks that took place between January 2012 and August 2013 in the mountainous region of North Waziristan. It cites another example from July 2012, when 18 civilians in Zowi Sigdi came under attack from the skies as they sat down to eat together. Amnesty claims that although they “represented no threat,” the official U.S. report classified them as combatants.

Amnesty International estimates that there have been between 400 and 900 Pakistani civilians killed in drone attacks since 2004, while at least 600 civilians have been “seriously wounded.” UN special rapporteur Ben Emmerson gives the number of victims in Pakistan alone as at least 2,200. Amnesty’s report criticizes Pakistan’s government for its “silent support” of the U.S. drone program but also blames Australia, the UK and Germany for making the attacks possible.

On a recent visit to Washington, Pakistani President Nawaz Sharif called for an end to drone strikes, a subject the UN General Assembly has also debated. Though President Barack Obama has defended them, there’s no doubt that the use of drones raises uncomfortable questions for a democratic leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.


Look At This Crap! The "Enshittification" Theory Of Why The Internet Is Broken

The term was coined by journalist Cory Doctorow to explain the fatal drift of major Internet platforms: if they were ever useful and user-friendly, they will inevitably end up being odious.

A photo of hands holding onto a smartphone

A person holding their smartphone

Gilles Lambert/ZUMA
Manuel Ligero


The universe tends toward chaos. Ultimately, everything degenerates. These immutable laws are even more true of the Internet.

In the case of media platforms, everything you once thought was a good service will, sooner or later, disgust you. This trend has been given a name: enshittification. The term was coined by Canadian blogger and journalist Cory Doctorow to explain the inevitable drift of technological giants toward... well.

The explanation is in line with the most basic tenets of Marxism. All digital companies have investors (essentially the bourgeoisie, people who don't perform any work and take the lion's share of the profits), and these investors want to see the percentage of their gains grow year after year. This pushes companies to make decisions that affect the service they provide to their customers. Although they don't do it unwillingly, quite the opposite.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

Annoying customers is just another part of the business plan. Look at Netflix, for example. The streaming giant has long been riddling how to monetize shared Netflix accounts. Option 1: adding a premium option to its regular price. Next, it asked for verification through text messages. After that, it considered raising the total subscription price. It also mulled adding advertising to the mix, and so on. These endless maneuvers irritated its audience, even as the company has been unable to decide which way it wants to go. So, slowly but surely, we see it drifting toward enshittification.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest