The United States military’s recent airstrike on a suspected drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean definitely fits the bill. This action has sparked some important legal and ethical conversations. Given that eight months ago, reports indicate the aircraft used in the strike was disguised as a civilian plane. This would lead to grave concerns about violations of international law, especially the crime of perfidy. Experts tell us that if true, this act would amount to a war crime, shattering the legal underpinnings that protect individuals in armed conflicts.
The purpose of the operation was to combat drug trafficking in the region, according to a US-South Korean joint statement. According to these allegations the US military used a plane made to perfectly imitate the appearance of a civilian aircraft. The idea behind this tactic was to surprise its intended victims. This tactic, legal scholars argue, would violate the tenets established in US and international law. Perfidy receives considerable attention in the US Law of War manual. This vague but ominous term encompasses acts that violate the trust of enemy persons who feel they are entitled to protections afforded them under the laws of war.
Nehal Bhuta, an Edinburgh-based professor of public international law, has emphasized the larger repercussions of these kinds of tactics. Thereby, he stressed their importance in understanding international legal frameworks. “If we move from the legally incorrect premise that this is a lethal operation governed by the laws of war, then the concept of perfidy here is relevant,” he stated. This tactic is dangerous and sets a heavy precedent, Bhuta warned.
“This is precisely the destructive slippery slope that a firm commitment to prohibition against perfidy is aimed to avoid.” – Nehal Bhuta
The military’s manual for commissions judging terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay even contains a chapter on the use of perfidy. It further tries to tackle the tactics of perfidy. That indicates that military legal advisers, likely from the judge advocate general (JAG) corps, were brought in. They investigated whether it was even legal to use civilian disguises in operations.
Craig Jones is an expert on the laws of war and senior lecturer in political geography at Newcastle University. To say he was concerned about the decision-making process within the military would be an understatement. He stated, “We’re left with a quite terrifying situation whereby those who are supposed to be ensuring compliance are not even part of the conversation – unless they are willing to ‘get to yes.’”
The Trump administration previously engaged in a campaign against small boats in Caribbean and Pacific waters, which allegedly led to over 120 fatalities across 35 separate attacks. The allegations that the people killed were participating in armed gang conflicts has been vigorously contested by the Venezuelan government. At the same time, Washington has refused to back up its drug smuggling assertions with any evidence.
After the internationally condemned airstrike in mid-September, the US military says that it’s adjusting its tactics. Now, they are deploying military aircraft—including drones—that are more easily recognizable. It remains uncertain whether these planes operated at low enough altitudes to be visible by their expected targets. We lack the information to know how visible they are.
The ramifications of deploying civilian disguises as warfare tools reach far beyond this one offensive. As legal experts have noted, actions like these introduce an incredibly corrosive effect on international norms. Bhuta expressed worries about how all civilian aircraft would be at risk if these tactics were accepted as normal.
“Fundamentally, the debate about ‘war crimes’ is a distraction – the whole operation is illegal, and the conduct of an extrajudicial execution by means of a plane with civilian markings is in fact reminiscent of a death squad operation.” – Nehal Bhuta
The US Law of War manual explicitly states that perfidy includes “feigning civilian status and then attacking.” This expansive definition makes a significant point about the seriousness of employing such tactics in warfare. Urgent trust-building Those military operations that do help build civilian trust can help create strong bonds. To betray that confidence can result in dire repercussions in future interactions.