The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has passed a resolution that includes strictures on drones. It calls for the international community to follow international law in regards to the drone strikes. The resolution was tabled by Pakistan and other countries concerned about the escalating drone attacks by the US. Whilst the US has been carrying out drone attacks since 2004 in an attempt to decapitate the al Qaeda and Taliban hydra, this means of unconventional warfare has been receiving plenty of bad press recently. Ever since last month’s report by Amnesty International, in which a detailed field study of three drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal regions revealed that collateral damage in the drone war is more than envisioned before, focus has shifted on to the drone attacks and their effects. The report even went so far as to say that drone attacks were akin to war crimes. This is all well and good. It is heartening to note that the UN is urging more transparency and caution where drone strikes are concerned but there are still questions. What does UNGA have to say about the provisions in international law on ‘hot pursuit’, i.e. when the enemy strikes from another territory and the drones pursue them? This is what has been happening when Taliban militants attack US forces in Afghanistan from their sanctuaries in Pakistan. Hot pursuit is very much an accepted means of self-defence to go after the enemy. The militants who use our soil to attack Afghanistan must be taken out one way or the other; instead of having boots on the ground, which is unacceptable to Pakistan, drones allow for more precision and a lot less civilian casualties. Unfortunately, in a war, collateral damage is inevitable. It is best to use means that ensure the minimum of such damage. Not much is said about the people living in these tribal areas, people who have gone on record as saying that they actually prefer the drones to no action at all. Their lives have been made miserable by the heavy weight of the militants on their heads. The media in Pakistan and our politicians, whilst harping on about the UNGA condemnation have failed to mention that the drone bit was only a small fraction of the entire resolution, a bit of an afterthought as part of a much larger resolution on human rights and the like. The UNGA resolution however, may only be seen as a moral victory as UNGA resolutions are non-binding. Only the UN Security Council has the authority to actually implement such a resolution. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, we have passed another anti-drone resolution in the National Assembly, but we need to understand that without drones our militant problem might get even worse than it already is. It is a mess out there and if someone is willing to clean it up, we should welcome it. *