Ben Emmerson QC - UN Rapporteur, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights HARDtalk


Ben Emmerson QC - UN Rapporteur, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights

Similar Content

Browse content similar to Ben Emmerson QC - UN Rapporteur, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Chris Christie has fired on aid for allegedly creating a scandal.

:00:00.:00:00.

Welcome to HARDtalk When a US drone kills a jihadi militant in Pakistan,

:00:00.:00:19.

has a law been broken? What if the missile kills women and children

:00:20.:00:26.

too? Who can be held to account? Today my guest is Ben Emmerson, the

:00:27.:00:29.

British lawyer addressing these questions for the United Nations. He

:00:30.:00:32.

says drone strikes and other exceptional counter-terror measures

:00:33.:00:36.

simply breed more terror. But does this liberal lawyer really know what

:00:37.:00:39.

is best in the struggle to make the world a safer place?

:00:40.:01:14.

Ben Emmerson, welcome to HARDtalk. I want to start with the role you have

:01:15.:01:22.

right now, the UN special rapid serve, looking at counterterror

:01:23.:01:28.

measures and impact on human rights. You are an experienced lawyer. What

:01:29.:01:32.

experience do you have in the field of security and counterterror? Most

:01:33.:01:38.

of the work I did during my career, in one way or another, had a

:01:39.:01:44.

security or counterterror element to it. I looked at the legality and

:01:45.:01:49.

human rights compatibility of many of the measures taken in the post-

:01:50.:01:55.

September 11 period in order to meet the immediate threat of terrorism

:01:56.:02:00.

from Al-Qaeda. It is a natural progression of the worker have done

:02:01.:02:04.

in the past. I see you as a top lawyer who sits in an office in

:02:05.:02:09.

London, around the world, but I do not see was a man who has spent a

:02:10.:02:14.

huge mass of time in conflict zones. Talking to intelligence officials,

:02:15.:02:18.

maybe even talking to militants or terrorists. Have you done that? In

:02:19.:02:24.

the course of the work they do, I certainly do travel to these

:02:25.:02:28.

countries. I do have discussions with senior national security

:02:29.:02:34.

officials. Last year I had meetings with the head of the CIA is whether

:02:35.:02:39.

the leading figures in the Obama Administration's national security

:02:40.:02:44.

agency. I have a reasonably open dialogue with those who are most

:02:45.:02:47.

closely involved in some of the difficult national-security balances

:02:48.:02:52.

that need to be struck. When you are talking to them, did you say that

:02:53.:02:59.

you are by nature a pacifist? Is that the way you sell yourself to

:03:00.:03:04.

those people to make a do nothing that the word came up in the

:03:05.:03:08.

conversation. It is an interesting philosophical position for you to

:03:09.:03:14.

have, given that you now have to weigh up the right balance between

:03:15.:03:18.

counterterror, combating the serious threats around the world with human

:03:19.:03:22.

lives. I would like to think that pacifism, , that is a torrent of war

:03:23.:03:31.

and violence, is a rational position. I regard John Brennan as a

:03:32.:03:38.

man who is not actively promoting conflict. He is an intelligent man

:03:39.:03:45.

and a man who is in a great deal to impose discipline on the role that

:03:46.:03:50.

the CIA plays. Generally, military men, they are not pacifist, are

:03:51.:03:59.

they? No. I have worked in the field of armed conflict for a long time. I

:04:00.:04:03.

was the defence counsel at the Yugoslavia war crimes tribunal. I

:04:04.:04:08.

now sit there as a judge. One thing I can say from my involvement with

:04:09.:04:12.

soldiers and military commanders is that in my experience, they have a

:04:13.:04:17.

far more acute sense of the Raghu of human life than some of the

:04:18.:04:23.

politicians who sent them into conflict. -- the value of human

:04:24.:04:32.

life. A fascinating point. I want to talk about the political leaders who

:04:33.:04:37.

currently have to deal with, whose actions you have to assess. One more

:04:38.:04:43.

question on the mandate you have as the UN report. Because you are

:04:44.:04:48.

essentially work for the human rights Council, you are beholden to

:04:49.:04:54.

them. The UN human rights Council RA particular body. They have over 40

:04:55.:05:00.

members who sit on the panel. Many of them represent some of the most

:05:01.:05:03.

repressive regimes in the world. The mandate you are handed comes to you

:05:04.:05:08.

dressed up in the language of human rights, but also dressed up in a

:05:09.:05:15.

great deal of hypocrisy. The two things I would say from the outset,

:05:16.:05:21.

my job is not to speak for the UN, but to speak to the UN. To speak to

:05:22.:05:26.

the member states that make up the organisation. They also tell you

:05:27.:05:32.

what you would like to investigate. Sometimes they do, sometimes they

:05:33.:05:37.

make decisions of my own. Is it not true that Russia and China have been

:05:38.:05:40.

very keen for you to look at the human rights of occasions of US and

:05:41.:05:45.

other Western electronic surveillance techniques? It is

:05:46.:05:50.

certainly true that Russia and China were joint parties to a statement

:05:51.:05:54.

with a number of other states, calling me to look into the

:05:55.:05:59.

implications of drone technology in counterterrorism operations. I have

:06:00.:06:07.

not had any direct? -- direct communication in terms of

:06:08.:06:11.

surveillance. We will take drones as an example. Do you not see them as a

:06:12.:06:19.

tool to be used by governments? We are always acutely aware of the

:06:20.:06:25.

risks of being pushed and prodded in one direction or the other. One has

:06:26.:06:30.

to credit those who occupy these mandates with the political savvy

:06:31.:06:38.

and as to understand it is a risk. We have to ensure that the standards

:06:39.:06:42.

are playing will not just apply to certain states, but to all states.

:06:43.:06:47.

To take the example of drones. That is an issue which the US has been

:06:48.:06:57.

the market leader in the use of drugs technology for

:06:58.:06:58.

extraterritorial counterterrorism operations, operations in states

:06:59.:07:05.

outside their own. There are credible reports that a large number

:07:06.:07:10.

of other states and 30 state have arsenic to look into the US policy,

:07:11.:07:14.

are themselves in the process of developing arms drone capabilities.

:07:15.:07:20.

We know that more than 50 states currently have rightly piloted

:07:21.:07:26.

aircraft. The question is whether they are capable of adaptation for

:07:27.:07:29.

military weapons. Some nations were now have them. Israel has them,

:07:30.:07:36.

China has them. Israel, the UK and the US have them and have used them

:07:37.:07:42.

in conflict. There are reports that China is in the process of

:07:43.:07:45.

developing and acquiring its own capability. Other states are doing

:07:46.:07:52.

the same. There are a number of European states negotiating

:07:53.:07:57.

contracts. My point is this - once the ball is kicked into play, it is

:07:58.:08:03.

my responsibility, not any particular State's responsibility,

:08:04.:08:08.

to decide how it is investigated. So I am asking questions not just of

:08:09.:08:12.

the US, but of China and Russia and other states. You put it within a

:08:13.:08:17.

framework you developed of an era of exceptionalism in counterterror Tech

:08:18.:08:24.

knowledge it that technology. And there that began at the end of

:08:25.:08:28.

September 11. A new way of conducting counterterror operations.

:08:29.:08:32.

I love the work has been about the way the Americans have used them. Is

:08:33.:08:39.

there any doubt in your mind that in the record that Americans have

:08:40.:08:42.

developed in using Dram strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, that

:08:43.:08:51.

they have broken the law? There is considerable doubt as to whether

:08:52.:08:54.

they have broken the law. There is considerable doubt as to what the

:08:55.:08:57.

law is and how it applies in some of these situations. One of the great

:08:58.:09:04.

difficulties in dealing with drones, they have brought in to

:09:05.:09:07.

focus some of the difficult legal questions, but on basic principle

:09:08.:09:12.

they note different from any other form of weapons delivery system.

:09:13.:09:22.

They make it much easier to make a military intervention in a country

:09:23.:09:26.

with which you are not at war. You do not have to put boots on the

:09:27.:09:30.

ground. The first thing to say about them is that they are a weapon which

:09:31.:09:37.

is peculiarly suited to asymmetrical warfare. Warfare where one of the

:09:38.:09:43.

parties is a nonstate group, but in common parlance, a terrorist

:09:44.:09:49.

organisation, insurgents. They are Ray Carter in certain to weapon.

:09:50.:09:55.

Used in conventional warfare between states they would be much less

:09:56.:10:00.

useful, because they are relatively easily defeated by sophisticated

:10:01.:10:02.

defence systems. This is a weapon which has been a weapons delivery

:10:03.:10:10.

system, it has been designs for these kind of conflict. I am

:10:11.:10:14.

surprised that he shied away from a clear declaration that they are used

:10:15.:10:19.

outside of declared war zones and illegal. You say you are not sure.

:10:20.:10:26.

The current situation is that as a matter of international law, there

:10:27.:10:30.

is very significant disagreement as to what the basic principle is. URA

:10:31.:10:36.

top international lawyer. Push your opinion on the table. One are the

:10:37.:10:42.

things I have made clear is that I am not avoid the question at all.

:10:43.:10:47.

Once it becomes clear that there is no consensus, amongst international

:10:48.:10:53.

lawyers... There will be no consensus on less top leaders like

:10:54.:10:58.

you put your opinion on the table. How is it develop a must win a

:10:59.:11:05.

woodchipping? -- how does a consensus develop unless we know

:11:06.:11:11.

what you think? States around recurrence to come together in order

:11:12.:11:15.

to determine whether the series of legal issues in dispute are ones in

:11:16.:11:22.

which they can agree on. I will sketch team in a few sentences. The

:11:23.:11:30.

US position, which is not broadly accepted in Europe, is that it is

:11:31.:11:35.

engaged in a non- international armed conflict with a nonstate armed

:11:36.:11:43.

group named allocator. It has no geographical limitation. --

:11:44.:11:49.

Al-Qaeda. In their view, a war in which they are entitled to use the

:11:50.:11:53.

violent means that the drone strike represents. They are entitled to

:11:54.:12:03.

invoke the targeted rules that are part of a war. He made a speech

:12:04.:12:08.

where you refer to these as an attack on international law. You may

:12:09.:12:16.

be able to correctly, that think what I would have said is that they

:12:17.:12:19.

pose a very real challenge to the framework of international law. We

:12:20.:12:24.

need to get absolute clarity as to the circumstances in which it is

:12:25.:12:31.

lawful to use any form of lethal extraterritorial force in a

:12:32.:12:34.

counterterrorism operation. Most conflict that take place in the

:12:35.:12:37.

world today are asymmetrical conflicts. Within a war zone such as

:12:38.:12:43.

Afghanistan, all of the evidence suggests that drones are capable of

:12:44.:12:48.

improving the situation awareness of commanders and reducing the risk of

:12:49.:12:53.

civilian casualties if they are used and operated strictly in accordance

:12:54.:12:57.

with the requirements of international law. The difficult

:12:58.:13:01.

issues arise in those areas where there is no recognised, that is to

:13:02.:13:09.

say, there is no conflict between the US or the state using drones and

:13:10.:13:15.

the insurgents on the ground. For that, it was a judge whether the

:13:16.:13:22.

drones are lawful, we run right into a profound difference of legal

:13:23.:13:25.

opinion which is really running right across the ground. You said,

:13:26.:13:40.

the United States has violated human rights with the use of crime

:13:41.:13:46.

strikes. First of all, how can you be sure... Defined, violating

:13:47.:14:00.

Pakistani rights. They have collaborated about the drone

:14:01.:14:08.

strikes. Evidence shows historically that there was corporation from the

:14:09.:14:15.

security services. Is the president of Yemen Saint... There is no

:14:16.:14:20.

dispute that in Yemen the use of lethal force with drawings and other

:14:21.:14:25.

methods is conducted with the express consent of the Yemeni

:14:26.:14:28.

government. The Yemeni government is engaged in its own internal armed

:14:29.:14:32.

conflict with Al Qaeda and other groups, and there is no question as

:14:33.:14:36.

far as Yemen is concerned that consent has been provided, and the

:14:37.:14:39.

Yemeni government tells me they give consent on a case-by-case basis, and

:14:40.:14:47.

if consent is with health, -- withheld, the strike doesn't go

:14:48.:14:53.

ahead. In April of 2012, the Pakistani Parliament, the elected

:14:54.:14:55.

representatives of the people, unanimously passed a resolution

:14:56.:15:01.

which rescinded all prior consent to the use of Pakistani territory for

:15:02.:15:04.

their space for military operations by the US. And they required that

:15:05.:15:10.

all future consent should be the subject of a formal parliamentary

:15:11.:15:13.

procedure, so they have to be done in writing, they had to be screwed a

:15:14.:15:20.

fight by the relevant committees. -- scrutinised. It determines how

:15:21.:15:27.

consent can lawfully be given within Pakistan for the purposes of

:15:28.:15:31.

providing authority for the use of its airspace were territory by

:15:32.:15:36.

another state. If I may, I don't want to get the entire interview

:15:37.:15:39.

devoted to drones. One final question on drones, it comes back to

:15:40.:15:44.

me asking Wattyl security credentials are. He made it quite

:15:45.:15:47.

plain you don't believe in the efficacy drone attacks. Your

:15:48.:15:51.

argument seems to be that they breed more terror, they don't live in

:15:52.:15:57.

terror, they encourage it. Again, I think you may be in accurately

:15:58.:16:00.

paraphrasing my position. The report that I produced to the General

:16:01.:16:12.

Assembly makes it clear that an analysis of how drones operate and

:16:13.:16:15.

what their implications is something which requires a far greater degree

:16:16.:16:22.

of transparency and accountability. I want to carry on... That is the

:16:23.:16:27.

key question, because it is difficult to make a proper and

:16:28.:16:31.

objective evaluation of trust in the reliability of the information that

:16:32.:16:36.

emerges, without a far greater degree of transparency. If I was to

:16:37.:16:39.

make one point about this, the biggest mistake that was made in the

:16:40.:16:46.

use of armed drones as a counter-terrorism technique was the

:16:47.:16:50.

original decision to hound the operation to the CIA -- hand. The

:16:51.:16:57.

CIA, like any other agency that operates as a secret intelligence

:16:58.:17:01.

service is bound not to confirm or deny its operations, which makes

:17:02.:17:06.

accountability and transparency impossible. One of the big positive

:17:07.:17:09.

developments last year is the Presidents decision to migrate the

:17:10.:17:16.

drone strategy away from the CIA. Let's stick with that theme of

:17:17.:17:19.

trust, and run with it into a different area. That is the area of

:17:20.:17:23.

electronic mass surveillance, which you have said that you are going to

:17:24.:17:27.

look at and write a report on by the end of this year. Edward Snowden

:17:28.:17:30.

told an awful lot of things we didn't know about the scale of US

:17:31.:17:36.

and UK Internet-based and telephone -based surveillance right around the

:17:37.:17:43.

world. In the UK, intelligence chiefs said this was extraordinarily

:17:44.:17:47.

damaging to their ability to do their work. You appear not to trust

:17:48.:17:52.

their word on that, and don't believe them. I think the public is

:17:53.:17:58.

entitled to know what, first of all, the level of surveillance capability

:17:59.:18:03.

is, and to engage in an intelligent debate about whether that is

:18:04.:18:11.

unacceptable invasion of privacy. When Andrew Parker, head of MI5,

:18:12.:18:16.

said enormous damage had been caused, this was a gift for those

:18:17.:18:19.

who want to attack the UK and will help them to attack that well. Those

:18:20.:18:24.

were mere assertions? They are just assertions? How do you know? You

:18:25.:18:31.

might be looking at Intel... They were correct or incorrect

:18:32.:18:33.

assertions, but they are assertions. They are not backed up by public

:18:34.:18:37.

disclosure of the nature of the harm it is said to be cause. It is vital

:18:38.:18:45.

at this point that there is an informed public debate about where

:18:46.:18:49.

that balance is to be struck. I can tell you that intelligence chiefs

:18:50.:18:52.

make it quite clear to me in private that they take the view that the

:18:53.:18:58.

nature of the threat posed by a violent extremist and fundamentalist

:18:59.:19:02.

terrorism has changed dramatically over the past five years or so. It

:19:03.:19:08.

has changed in terms of its organisation, it has changed in

:19:09.:19:10.

terms of its predictability. And they have a very strong case to make

:19:11.:19:16.

that therefore under current circumstances the only way to

:19:17.:19:24.

identify the risk of an act of terrorism, particularly from small

:19:25.:19:29.

cells or loan terrorists, is to have a comprehensive metadata system in

:19:30.:19:36.

place. The case needs to be made, and a debate needs to take place.

:19:37.:19:40.

Particularly when we are transgressing with the United States

:19:41.:19:45.

across borders into surveillance which includes other states. In your

:19:46.:19:50.

view, are we transgressing individual human rights? Fundamental

:19:51.:19:53.

rights of privacy for example? In the way that this data is being

:19:54.:20:05.

gathered? Does it matter? I want to pin you down. If you want to ask the

:20:06.:20:12.

personally, do I think that my Google mail, did I ever think that

:20:13.:20:15.

my Google mail was secure, the answer is no. And do you care if in

:20:16.:20:23.

those metadata terms it is being mined by intelligence agencies? It

:20:24.:20:32.

has always been my personal consumption that that kind of

:20:33.:20:38.

communication through an unprotected non- encrypted communication across

:20:39.:20:41.

open Web-based mail is a bit like pinning a notice on a noticeboard,

:20:42.:20:46.

it is available for people to see. A lot of those people at commercial

:20:47.:20:53.

intelligence services, it perhaps doesn't matter if you have no

:20:54.:20:57.

reasonable expectation of privacy. When the revelations first emerged,

:20:58.:21:01.

I made it clear that while I thought it was an important issue for public

:21:02.:21:05.

debate, and it certainly seems to be regarded as such in the US, perhaps

:21:06.:21:13.

more so than in this country, it is clearly not the most egregious human

:21:14.:21:18.

rights violation that is permitted in the counter-terrorism context. We

:21:19.:21:21.

have talked mass surveillance and drone strikes, we could have talked

:21:22.:21:26.

extraordinary rendition as well, and your work finding outwards at the

:21:27.:21:30.

what happened in terms of rendition of prisoners. Is your conclusion

:21:31.:21:36.

that the high moral ground that western states often adopt when it

:21:37.:21:39.

comes to talking about human rights and their adherence to human rights,

:21:40.:21:44.

even in the most sensitive security matters, that moral high ground no

:21:45.:21:50.

longer exist, is actual conclusion? It is difficult to generalise about

:21:51.:21:54.

states as a whole. If you want to ask me about the UK and the US there

:21:55.:21:58.

is a genuine governmental commitment to observing the basic vegetables of

:21:59.:22:07.

international human rights law. This idea of exceptionalism since 911,

:22:08.:22:11.

has been a falling away that? There is no doubt that in the first five,

:22:12.:22:17.

six, seven years after September 11, there was a violation of laws, to an

:22:18.:22:24.

extent that is now recognised. Even in the US, the first thing that

:22:25.:22:28.

President Obama did after his first election was to recognise that the

:22:29.:22:33.

US had taken a wrong turn and had engaged in acts of secret

:22:34.:22:36.

detention, that water boarding was torture, and that these were gross

:22:37.:22:43.

violations that needed to be... What is striking is that nobody has been

:22:44.:22:47.

held to account. Exactly, it is striking. And you are a man who has

:22:48.:22:54.

spent his entire career dedicated to treaties and conventions and

:22:55.:22:58.

institutions like the International Criminal Court. Would it make a huge

:22:59.:23:04.

difference if for example a western leader, like George W Bush, or Tony

:23:05.:23:09.

Blair, were brought before an international court? Even a national

:23:10.:23:14.

court, these crimes were committed in a national jurisdiction. Is that

:23:15.:23:19.

what should happen? The only country to prosecute a CIA agent for

:23:20.:23:24.

involvement importer is Italy. 22 CIA agents have been sent to prison

:23:25.:23:33.

in Italy. Were out of time, but yes or no, should George W Bush or Tony

:23:34.:23:38.

Blair, for the good of everybody's belief in the international system,

:23:39.:23:42.

face a court of law for what they did? The crimes that were committed

:23:43.:23:50.

under the hat of the CIA were gross human rights violations for which

:23:51.:23:55.

those responsible not just for the infliction of the punishment, but

:23:56.:24:01.

those who authorised it, they should be put on trial. That depends on the

:24:02.:24:09.

evidence, it will always depend on the evidence. Ben Emmerson, thank

:24:10.:24:13.

you for coming on HARDtalk. It has been an eventful start to the

:24:14.:24:43.

year, and we can all breathe a sigh of relief over the next few days as

:24:44.:24:48.

things quieten down. A bit of patchy rain today, the weekend shaping up

:24:49.:24:53.

quite nicely. Drive but colder, and some rain towards the end of the

:24:54.:24:58.

weekend. At the moment, we are sandwiched in between to weather

:24:59.:24:59.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS