“The number of immediately available nuclear weapons in the world,” courtesy of National Geographic

With hundreds of prominant global leaders calling for nuclear disarmament, there is a renewed focus in the media and policy arenas on the astounding threat nuclear weapons pose to humanity. But shrouded in secrecy, no one knows exactly how large the world’s arsenal of mass destruction really is. In an effort to illustrate the scale of the problem, National Geographic produced the above illustration, showing “instantly available launch devices — missiles with nuclear warheads installed and ready to fly or drop.” For more information, see the website of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).

“Military robots and remote-controlled weapons pose a range of concerns but a line should be drawn at fully autonomous weapons,” says Article 36, one of several advocacy organizations calling for international conventions to govern the use of military robots.

It was the autonomy of landmines that disturbed me. I had just finished university and was volunteering in northeastern Bosnia for an international NGO doing agricultural and environmental development. The area I lived in, the Brcko District, was one of the most heavily impacted by the hundreds of mines and unexploded munitions left strewn across the landscape after the war’s end. In Bosnia, and later as I travelled to Iraq, Sudan, Uganda and Afghanistan as a humanitarian aid worker, I found in mines a symbol of the worst of humanity’s militarist, xenophobic and uncritically technophile proclivities. Mines seemed inherently unjust, machines capable of maiming and killing without any deliberation by human beings.

When we delegate violent force to a mine, we outsource the decision to end human life to a device that has no ethics, no wisdom, no mercy, no conscience. It has no capacity to negotiate, to de-escalate, to hold fire, to recognize the humanity of ‘The Other.’ It is literally anti-personnel — anti-human. It follows only The Program inherent in its design:

IF victim trips trigger, trip-wire, pressure plate or sensor,
THEN explode.

In pressing for the ban on anti-personnel landmines, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines re-asserted humanity’s responsibility to itself. The treaty, ratified now by 159 countries and largely followed by many non-signatories, represented a consensus that humans have the right not to be killed by autonomous machines.

Mines, however, are becoming outdated weapons. They are analog, unnetworked, static. They are to the emerging class of high-tech weapons as the slide rule is to the smartphone. The rapid development of autonomy in robotics – the ability of robots to make decisions independently of human involvement — means we are on the cusp of a technological revolution in the way weapons select and attack targets. Weapons developers have already designed and/or produced aerial, underwater and land-based military robots capable of operating independent of human involvement — killing and maiming without direct human command and control. The fully autonomous armed robot is a digital, artificially intelligent, GPS-enabled and sometimes mobile landmine.

In a recent report on “the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts“, the International Committee of the Red Cross, which was a major leader in the mine ban campaign, called on the global community to consider the “fundamental legal, ethical and societal issues” raised by autonomous armed robots “before such systems are developed or deployed.”

Without human control, there is no way for weapons to effectively discriminate between combatants and civilians, making fully autonomous weapons a violation of international humanitarian law. To me, autonomous armed robots, even highly-sophisticated ones, are no less morally problematic than the landmines I found so distrubing as a 21-year-old volunteer in Bosnia. As I wrote (with Thomas Nash and Richard Moyes) in a statement for the advocacy group Article 36 calling for a ban on autonomous armed robots: 

Weapons that are triggered automatically by the presence or proximity of their victim can rarely be used in a way that ensures distinction between military and civilian. … Whilst an expanded role for robots in conflict looks unstoppable, we need to draw a red line at fully autonomous targeting.  A first step in this may be to recognize that such a red line needs to be draw effectively across the board – from the simple technologies of anti-vehicle landmines (still not prohibited) across to the most complex systems under development. 

Last week I joined the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC), a group of academics, activists and campaigners who are “concerned about  the pressing dangers that military robots pose to peace and international security and to civilians in war.” Like ICRAC, I believe we need to “urgently commence discussions about an arms control regime to reduce the threat posed to humanity by these systems.” We cannot leave deliberations about the humanitarian and human rights implications of these weapons to those who develop and use them. We need the dedicated engagement of civilians, of civil society: the faith community, journalists, social workers, aid workers, campaigners, poets, musicians, academics and policy wonks. The decision to kill is too serious a matter to leave to a machine.

Last weekend I attended the Drone Summit in Washington DC organized by CODEPINK, Repreive and the Center for Constitutional Rights and chaired by CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin, who launched her new book Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.

In a presentation to the Summit, Chris Woods the Bureau of Investigative Journalism showed that the drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen have resulted in at least 831 civilian deaths, including 230 children.

“It’s time for the American public to know the true extent—and consequences—of the killing and spying being done in our name,” said Benjamin, who, the day after the Summit, interrupted a speech on drones by White House Counterterrorism Advisor, John Brennen, at the Wilson Center.

“I speak out on behalf of those innocent victims,” shouted Benjamin, before being carried out of the room by a federal agent. “They deserve an apology from you, Mr. Brennan. How many people are you willing to sacrifice? Why are you lying to the American people and not saying how many innocents have been killed?”

Participants of the Summit launched a new website — droneswatch.org – which will form the nexus of an emerging campaign to monitor drone use, raising awareness of the humanitarian and human rights concerns.

Like landmines and cluster munitions, which this blog usually focuses on, drones increase the physical and psychological distance between combatants and those they target. “Killing by remote control,” Benjamin calls it. This makes it difficult for users of drones to follow the humanitarian norm of discrimination in military targeting. Thousands of miles away, a drone operator knows little to nothing about the local context, the people s/he kills and maims or the impact it will have on a community.  

Particularly disturbing is the CIA effort to expand drone use to ”signature strikes” — a euphemism for assasination based on profiling — in which, according to the Washington Post, people are targeted for their “patterns of suspicious behavior” even when the US government “does not know the identities of those who could be killed.”

Selecting people for death based on behavior patterns is only a slightly more sophisticated version of what a mine does, when it kills or maims anyone who transits through an area deemed ‘off-limits’ by a military group. The victim of a mine is targeted for punishment not after a lengthy and judicious review of the person’s culpability, but simply because an armed group believes that moving into that specific area constitutes sufficient suspicion of malintent.

“Signature strikes” also open the way to even more unsettling trends toward automation and autonomy in military robots like drones. By creating a precedent that the US can assassinate people based on a profile of behavior, it is only a small step to the automation of target selection. This technology, which already exists, turns drones, underwater robotic torpedoes and military ground robots into mobile, digital mines. Raising awareness of such developments in the weapons industry, the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC) called on the Drone Summit participants to campaign for an international treaty governing the use of armed robots.

For a good write-up of the weekend’s events, read this blog post from ICRAC member Lucy Suchman.

In marking International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action, advocacy groups called on the US to lend its support to the global ban on antipersonnel landmines.

Human Rights Watch called attention to the recent US condemnation of Syria’s use of landmines, arguing that this “rebuke” would have more force if the US sent a clear message that it was rejecting entirely the manufacture, use, trade and transfer of mines.

“The United States should recognize that antipersonnel landmines are no longer acceptable weapons, but relics of the past,” said Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch.

The US Campaign to Ban Landmines pointed out that “every member of NATO (besides the United States), as well as every member of the European Union, and other key U.S. allies, such as Afghanistan and Iraq” has joined the treaty.

“We must remember that the job is still not done until every country has joined the Mine Ban Treaty and assured the world that there will never again be another landmine casualty,” said USCBL’s Zach Hudson. “We call on the U.S. to finally make known its intention to become a States Party to the treaty.”

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon added his voice and authority to the campaign, saying “On this International Day, I call for universal adherence to these important treaties and for increased support for mine awareness and mine action.  Landmines and  explosive remnants of war hamper development and endanger lives.  Let’s eliminate them together for a safe sustainable world.”

Here in New York, the charity Roots of Peace established the Roots of Peace Garden at The Isaiah Wall, Ralph Bunche Park to symbolize “restoring the land after landmines.”

To take action, sign this online petition calling on President Barack Obama to submit the Landmine Ban to the US Senate for ratification without delay. To learn more about the human impact of mines, read this interview with mine survivor and campaigner Firoz Ali Alizada. For more on US landmine policy, click here.

In the above video, co-founder of the International Committee for Robot Arms Control Peter Asaro talks to RT yesterday about the developing dangers of autonomous armed robots — “systems that control themselves without human control.”

“There’s no specific laws against them,” says Asaro, a philosopher of science, technology and media at the New School for Public Engagement in New York City. “What we really need is an international treaty that codifies that we don’t want autonomous systems deciding who lives and dies. It’s OK for a plane to fly itself. It’s not OK for a plane to decide who to shoot at.”

For further information on autonomous armed robots and the nascent humanitarian movement to control them, click here.

As much of the world is readying to celebrate International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action on 4 April, the US remains a hold out on landmine and cluster munitions policies that are widely accepted around the world, including by NATO allies and 68 US Senators.

“As a commander of U.S. troops in combat in Korea and Vietnam, I did not allow my soldiers to use anti-personnel land mines because I believed them to be a net liability,” Lt. General (Ret.) Robert G. Gard wrote in an opinion piece three years ago.

As President Obama seeks to repair America’s reputation abroad, advocating U.S. adherence to the mine ban treaty would be a low-cost, meaningful gesture of diplomatic goodwill with both humanitarian and practical benefits. U.S. participation would almost certainly aid efforts to universalize the treaty by increasing pressure on other hold-out nations like China and Russia.

For an excellent critique of US landmine policy, read this recent article by Don Lieber. Visit the website of the US Campaign to Ban Landmines to see what you can do to call on Obama to make the US truly a leader on conventional weapons issues.

a. Since this is a blog primarily about landmines and mine action, I want to highlight the work of the Uganda Landmine Survivors Association, a local NGO  “focused primarily on advocacy and victim assistance throughout Uganda.” Instead of putting uninformed white Americans at the center of its work, ULSA’s “vision is of empowered survivors … who can attain better living conditions and are able to advocate for themselves at all levels.” ULSA is headed by Margaret Arach Orech, who survived an LRA ambush and has dedicated her life to fight for the rights of civilians affected by war.

b. Mennonite Central Committee does an excellent job in Uganda rooting its support in the local context, maintaining an ethic of humility, service and partnership with local organizations, instead of self-aggrandizement. Among their local partners is the Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative which has been instrumental in the northern Uganda peace effort.

c. Refugee Law Project of Makerere University does fantastic research and advocacy on issues faced by “all asylum seekers, refugees, and internally displaced persons within Uganda.” While they involve foreign academics, they are rooted in the country and are dedicated to careful, accurate research. See, for example, their publications page.

d. to whom it may concern has a list of people and organizations doing good work in Uganda.

e. If you are looking for information, seek out the work of genuine scholars, for example, the following articles and books: Schomerus et al in Foreign Affairs, the latest International Crisis Group report, Chris Dolan’s in-depth study,  Allen and Vlassenroot’s book and Sverker Finnstrom’s monograph as well as the blogs I highlighted in yesterday’s post. For a longer reading list, visit Chris Blattman’s blog.

f. As you watch videos, view pictures, read articles, talk to people, try to think critically about them. Whose voices are being privileged? Who is not being heard? How does it portray ‘The Other‘, ‘The Self’? For guidance on this line of inquiry, view Unmuted‘s “Before You Give, Think!”

Having lived and worked in Uganda, DR Congo and South Sudan, many people have asked me what I think about The Film I Refuse to Name In Print, but other people have responded far better than I can. A few excellent examples:

• Ugandan journalist Rosebell Kagume
• Maureen Agena, citizen journalist from northern Uganda, self-described ‘Visible Child’
• to whom it may concern, a blog written by a former aid worker in Uganda
• Michael Wilkerson, PhD student at Oxford, writing for Foreign Policy
• Poly Curtis over at The Guardian
• “Race matters,” says Eric Ritskes over at his Wanderings blog, who also wrote this incisive critique
• A wonderfully snarky deconstruction by the blog Africa Is a Country

And just for good measure, it is always worth going back and reading Binyavanga Wainaina’s classic screed for the bigger context.

UPDATE 9 March 2012

Here are some additional pieces I found particularly insightful:

• Akena Francis Adyanga, a PhD student from northern Uganda studying at Toronto University
• Washington Post interview with photographer Glenna Gordon
• Novelist Teju Cole on the “White Savior Industrial Complex“
• Mark Kersten, a PhD student at the London School of Economics
• Jezebel has had some good coverage too

UPDATE 10 March 2012

I have been impressed with the wave of cautious and critical responses to this film and the coverage of these critiques in the media. Here are  some more useful links:

• Mareike Schomerus at the LSE is one of the world’s experts on the LRA and has actually interviewed Joseph Kony in the past. She has written a thoughtful reflection for CNN.
• Bishop Ochola has been one of the most prominent voices for peace in northern Uganda, here is an interview with him about his work.
• Elizabeth Dickinson at World Affairs.

The rapid development of autonomy in robotics – the ability of robots to make decisions independently of human involvement — means we are on the cusp of a technological revolution in the way weapons select and attack targets. While it may seem like science fiction, governments and arms manufacturers are spending millions of dollars on researching ways to enable digital weapons to be able to sense, identify and destroy people, vehicles and buildings with minimal or nonexistent human input (e.g. this automated turret from a South Korean manufacturer and attempts to build an “automated kill zone” along the Gaza border. The US Air Force has identified developing autonomous targeting for unmanned aircraft as a strategic priority).

Such systems are essentially landmines of the information age. The landmine itself was simply an “explosive trap”, updating a long military traditional of booby traps and defensive spikes with the technologies of the Industrial Revolution — modern chemical, mechanical and electrical innovations. Similarly, the fully autonomous armed robot is a digital, artificially intelligent, GPS-enabled and sometimes mobile landmine — killing and maiming without direct human command and control. The autonomous armed robot is to the landmine as my smartphone is to my analog watch. Moreover, just as landmines were developed in the core of the international system and then became the cheap, mass-produced weapon-of-choice of militias and guerilla movements all over the world, the cost of robotic systems is plummeting. It will not be long, I believe, before a wide range of state and non-state actors are able to access and use autonomous armed robots. Wired magazine has reported that Iraqi insurgents are developing their own robotic systems.

While millions of dollars and legions of scientists are engaged in developing these weapons, few people from the humanitarian, disarmament and peacebuilding communities have paid much attention to the potential human ramifications. As Brookings Institution researcher PW Singer worries:

As our weapons are designed to have ever more autonomy, deeper questions arise. Can the new armaments reliably separate friend from foe? What laws and ethical codes apply? What are we saying when we send out unmanned ma­chines to fight for us? What is the “message” that those on the other side receive? Ultimately, how will humans remain masters of weapons that are immeasurably faster and more “intelligent” than they ­are?

In a recent report on “the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts“, the International Committee of the Red Cross, called on the global community to consider the “fundamental legal, ethical and societal issues” raised by autonomous armed robots “before such systems are developed or deployed.”

In this post on the website of Article 36 yesterday, Richard Moyes, Thomas Nash and I called for an international ban on fully autonomous weapons of any kind, whether they are ‘analog’ anti-vehicular mines or sophisticated armed robots. Without human control, there is no way for weapons to effectively discriminate between combatants and civilians, making fully autonomous weapons a violation of international humanitarian law.

For further discussion on the potential regulation of fully autonomous armed robots, visit the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC) and read the excellent academic groundwork laid by Noel Sharkey, Peter Asaro, Robert Sparrow, Jurgen Altman, PW Singer and Gary Marchant et al.

The US Campaign to Ban Landmines launched a new effort  calling on concerned citizens to “Lend a Leg” in the struggle to persuade the US government to sign the landmine ban. Click here to send a letter to the White House calling on Obama to do what 68 Senators, NGO leaders, key NATO allies, 16 Nobel Peace Prize Laureates and victims of U.S. landmines have all called on him to do. Click here for my analysis of Obama’s landmine policy.