War Profiteers' News, August 2013,

Editorial Javier Grate In the last few years there has been an increase in the number of initiatives against drones and other forms of killing by remote control, as reported in this newsletter. As warfare and war technologies change, so does the focus of our campaigning. Is this a sign that our campaigning, rather than setting our own agendas, is merely a reaction to the agenda of the powerholders? Why is it that there are so many new initiatives against the robotisation of war? In the words of anti-drones campaigner Chris Cole: "Without potential footage of the grieving relatives of soldiers who put their lives at risk, politicians are under more pressure to send drones because there is no perceived cost in doing so, and will thus increase the numbers of conflicts". Drones can actually increase military conflicts, rather than reducing them, as the attacker perceives that there are fewer risks in taking military action. Moreover, you can argue that the accuracy of this technology is not as reliable as it's exponents suggest. For example, there is no such things as pinpoint precision when it comes to drones - this is dramatically manifested in the huge numbers of civilian victims caused by drone attacks. The question of who is responsible and who takes the decisions in these attacks is also not a small one. With drone pilots thousand of miles away from the battle field, and with technology moving towards completely autonomous drones, the risks are enormous. This technology also contributes massively towards the arm race, as now everyone wants to have a drone, and here is where the war profiteers come in, ready as always to make a killing from war! The main producers of drones have been Israel and the US, but the technology is moving so quickly that very often you read of a new country producing their own drones. Is the technology the problem or just what it is used for? This is not an easy question to answer, and I think we need more debate about it. There are many who argue that drones for civilian use can be good. For example, how it's hard to argue against the use of drones combating big fires. However, at the same time we know that civilian use of drones has a big impact on privacy, as you could be being filmed right now by a drone as you read this editorial. The military is one of the main drivers behind the development of this technology, and most civilian-use drones are about more and more control, I very much think that we could do without the technology all together. It appears that apart from being horrified by killings by remote control, another reason for choosing it as a campaign focus is that there is the perception that here there is the chance to succeed. But what do we mean by being successful? Is regulation of the use of this technology enough? Do we think we can stop what at the moment seems like an unstoppable trend in warfare? What are our goals when campaigning against killing by remote control? At WRI we don't want to say we prefer human to robots killers - we just don't want any killers. We are against killer robots as well as we are against human killers. As new initiatives are being formed, what's important is to avoid duplication. For this, it is important to know what the specific focus and expertise of the different groups are and how they can complement each other. This means we very much welcome the initiative started by CodePink of forming a Global Drones Network, and hope that it becomes a place for international networking against drones, where international campaigns and actions can be initiated, and also a place for international solidarity, especially with communities at the receiving end of this deadly technology. In WRI - itself a network - we know too well of the difficulties of keeping a network alive and active, so we wish all the best of luck to this Global Network, and that together we will all say:

stop killing by remote control!

Swedish peace activist arrested at weapons factory

Martin Smedjeback, a nonviolence trainer, active in the antimilitarist network Ofog, was arrested on the evening of July 14th in Malm, in the south of Sweden. He climbed the fence of the weapons factory Aimpoint, which manufacturers redpoint laser sights used by the US Army and many other military forces around the world. At the interrogation at the police station that same night, he was informed that he would probably be charged with illegal trespass or severe illegal trespass: crimes that have a maximum sentence of six months and two years in prison respectively. Aimpoint has a history of charging peace activists who trespass on their property with substantial criminal damages. Three peace activists (one of them Smedjeback) who peacefully climbed their fences in 2008 were charged with around 60 000 Euros by Aimpoint and the Swedish courts sentenced the peace activists to around 20 000 Euros. Whether or not the weapons company will demand any criminal damage at this time is still not clear. 'The court has already sentenced me to 7800 Euros in criminal damage which I dont intend to pay them. It is they, the weapons manufacturer, who should pay for damage. For the damage and lives taken their weapons have caused in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq', says Martin Smedjeback. http://ofog.org/

Shareholders of arms giant welcomed by protest

Wendela de Vries The second biggest arms company of Europe, EADS, has its headquarters in the Netherlands. Although these headquarters are not much more than a mailbox EADS has the same tax policies as Starbucks it means the company falls under Dutch law and has to have an annual shareholders meeting in Amsterdam. It has become a good Dutch tradition to welcome the EADS shareholders with banners and loud noise. EADS has been much in the news over the last months. First, because it attempted to merge with Europe's No 1 arms manufacturer, BAE Systems. Had this merger succeeded, it would have created the biggest global arms company. However, the German government was not charmed by the idea of loosing its grip on EADS (the German state is shareholder, as are the French and the Spanish states) and blocked the merger. It was a very informative process for a further understanding of the close interconnection between the arms industry and the state, while at the same time the economic interests of the arms industry do not run parallel with the political and military interests of the state. The relationship between the German government and EADS deteriorated even further when, just a few days before the Annual Shareholder's Meeting, German defence minister De Maziere terminated a drone programme on which EADS has been working with the US arms company Northop Grumman. For EADS this drone programme was of extreme importance; the company has been trying for years to become the leading producer of a European drone design, in a drone market dominated by Israel and the US. EADS has developed several drone types but has found no European government interested so far, apart from this now terminated programme of the Euro Drone. Besides a protest outside, the Dutch peace group Campagne tegen Wapenhandel organised a protest inside. The group own's some shares, and also borrowed some shares from German activists from the group Kritischen Aktionre, which gave them admission to the shareholders meeting and a 3minute speaking time per shareholder. The Campagne tegen Wapenhandel asked questions, amongst others, about the corruption case in which EADS is involved, about state subsidies for military Research and Technology, and about illegally re-exported EADS war material which was found in Syria. The Campagne tegen Wapenhandel also brought in some ICAN (International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons) campaigners who asked questions on EADS's nuclear missile

programme. Based on the recent failure of a test launch of an EADS M-51 nuclear missile, when the missile put itself on self-destruct and exploded shortly after launch, the ICAN activists making this self-destruct standard on all missiles so they would not reach target and would do no harm. This proposal, alas, was not adopted by EADS. For more photos go to https://www.facebook.com/media/set/set=a.664030420279087.1073741829.1902...

Niyamgiri is WON at seventh palli sabha!!

Posted on Foil Vedanta On Monday 29 July the seventh village Phuldumer again voted unanimously to reject Vedantas mine. This means the majority have now spoken, and Niyamgiri is saved by the peoples vote as sanctioned by the Supreme Court of India! In Odisha activists are already celebrating after months of hard work to ensure this precedent legal process was fair, and not manipulated. This victory also shows the amazing strength of Niyamgiris the people. Despite all Vedanta and the Odisha state governments attempts to subvert the process: by threatening villagers with guns and violence, by selecting just twelve villages, by choosing corrupt judges Niyamgiri villagers have united, across caste, class and district to defend the mountain that gives them life and livelihood. There are over 300 villages who depend on and worship the Niyamgiri hill range. Today 240 km2 of mountain looks to have been saved, not to mention the hope and fighting strength that this victory will give to others fighting Vedanta, and similar industrial projects, elsewhere. We will be celebrating this amazing victory for peoples movements, peoples democracy and grassroots international solidarity at Vedantas AGM on Thursday. Kumuti Majhi, a Kond tribal and leader of Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti said on Friday: "We thank the Judges who gave us a opportunity to voice our opinion. We are hoping that the rest of the villages will vote no." This is. of course, not the absolute end of the line. When the other five villages have held palli sabhas, the resolution agreed at Niyamgiri will go to the Tribal Affairs minister of Odisha, and then be passed to the Ministry of Environment and Forests who will give the ultimate nod. However, with such an unanimous verdict, and the national media of India following every move, the MoEF will have a very hard time opposing the peoples decision. 31 out of 40 voters from the Dongria mountain village of Batudi in Rayagada district attended its palli sabha on Saturday 27th July. 31 out of 40 voters attended and once again unanimously voted against Vedantas mine. The village also rejected the state governments joint verification report which alloted tiny amounts of land to settle claims filed by the community and individuals. Dasru Jakesika, secretary of the village forest rights committee, said: We were cheated. They got our signatures by fooling us. We dont agree to 5, 10 or 20 acres. The whole of Niyamgiri belongs to us, Another Dongria resident Dukhi Jakesika said: Our Niyam Raja is situated at Niyam Dangor where Vedanta proposed Mining lease area and

planning to extract bauxite. All the employee of Odisha Government are cheater for us. In future we cant believe to them.. they could have done joint verification properly we saw they gave very scanty place to our Niyam Raja, streams, tiger habitat and beer habitat. Tiger and Beer can stay at one place their catchment area is like over the Niyam Giri range .Our Niyam Raja is in all the hills .But we are surprised to see that , how they mapped. So all the officials are working for Vedanta not for us. We worship the entire hills top as Niyam Raja in Niyam Giri. Not only we collects fruits, Medicinal plants, tuber, green leaves but also all the communities collects the same things over the hill tops. (Source: Sushanta Kumar Dalai) Disari Sikoka echoed: Vedanta Company, Govt., Police, Goons are are asking us to leave Niyamgiri. With the money power they all act like their agent and show us Gun. We wont leave Niyamgiri. But the most telling and nerve wracking of the palli sabhas was Phuldumer, Vedantas darling village where it has focused many of its Corporate Social Responsibility programmes, bragged about in its annual reports and large public billboards. This was the seventh village to vote, critically determining whether a majority of votes and villages out of the twelve total would stick to the unanimous NO verdict and so win the fight and save the mountain. 49 voters from 22 families attended the Phuldumer meeting and once again unanimously voted no. The papers quoted Chanchala Harijan. She had earlier been a Naib Sarpanch of the village and is quoted in Vedantas CSR reports (see pic) as saying that no state welfare had ever been provided to the village before Vedanta came along and helped them. She has now changed her tune dramatically and spoke at the palli sabha saying poigniantly: We will die but wont give up Niyamgiri. Can the Government create a mountain like this? Another voter Rama Majhi said: We cant live in the cities without Niyamgiri. We have to save Niyamgiri. For more information http://www.foilvedanta.org

War Profiteer of the Month: Combined Systems Inc. (CSI)

Headquartered in Jamestown, Pennsylvania, United States, Combined Systems Inc. (CSI)often manufacturing under the brand name Combined Tactical Systems (CTS)supplies Tunisia, Yemen, Germany, Netherlands, India, East Timor, Hong Kong, Argentina, Chile, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Cameroon, and Sierra Leone, as well as its most high-profile clients as of late Egypt and Israel. They are owned by Point Lookout Capital and the Carlyle Group, with the former, whose offices are located in New York City, holding the controlling shares. On Point Lookouts portfolio page, the section on CSI reads: The companys CTS branded product line is the premiere less-lethal line in the industry today.

Until recently, Combined Systems used to fly the Israeli flag at its headquarters. According to its own advertising, its "OC Vapor System is ideal for forcing subjects from small rooms, attics, crawl spaces, prison cells," and is used against prisoners in the US. CSI is owned by Point Lookout Capital and the Carlye Group. Point lookout Capitol, which holds a controlling number of shares, says glowingly of CSI: The companys CTS branded product line is the premiere less-lethal line in the industry today. Point Lookout Capital is headquartered in New York City. Nearly every week Combined Systems Inc. holds trainings across the US for law enforcement and security personnel, in using their chemical munitions and other weaponry. CSI is the primary supplier of tear gas to the Israeli military as well as a provider to Israels police (and border police) for use in occupied Palestine. There is extensive written documentation of CSI sales and shipments to Israel; moreover CTS-brand canisters are ubiquitous at Palestinian protests, including the regularly recurrent nonviolent demonstrations at Bilin, Nilin and Nabi Saleh. Palestinian protesters recently killed by tear gas include Mustafa Tamimi, from the small village Nabi Saleh, on December 9, 2011. An Israeli soldier inside an armored jeep fired a tear gas canister at close range directly into his face. Jawaher Abu Rahma of Bilin suffocated on tear gas at a protest in January of last year. His brother, Bassem Abu Rahma, died in April 2009 when an Israeli soldier fired a tear gas canister directly into his chest. There have also been countless injuries. The Popular Struggle Coordination Committee, a coordinating body for unarmed demonstrations in the West Bank, noted in a 2010 report: According to Palestinian Red Crescent records in Bilin and Niilin, 18 people have been directly shot at and hit by the high velocity projectiles since their introduction, in these two villages alone. Photos and news reports have shown that CSI is a major tear gas provider for the Tunisian military. A Tunisian protester and a photographer from France were recently killed by impacts from tear gas canisters fired at close range. The companys tear gas is the primary one used by the Egyptian security forces in its attempt to crush demonstrations there, which still continue. Amnesty International documented three shipments of tear gas from CSI (in the U.S.) to Egypt in 2011 that were approved by the U.S. State Department, despite the Egyptian security forces record of using of tear gas to kill and injure protesters. In the months following Mubaraks ouster, Human Rights Watch also reported excessive use of force against peaceful demonstrations, including illegally shooting tear gas into the crowd at shoulder height, on February 25, March 9, April 9, June 28 and 29, August 1 and October 9. Combined Systems has aggressively propagandized its products. On May 18, 2011, the Chilean government announced in the wake of a study by the University of Chile which demonstrated that CS exposure may lead to miscarriages that they would temporarily suspend the use of tear gas throughout the country. Latin America News Dispatch quotes then-Interior Minister Rodrigo Hinzpeter as saying: [I]t seems reasonable to suspend the use of tear gas until new medical reports dispel any doubts about the appropriateness of employing these gases to confront situations of public disorder and vandalism. Fortunately for the Chilean government and unfortunately for Chilean protesters, such as the 30,000 protesters who, a week earlier, had gathered to demonstrate against the HidroAysn hydroelectric project and been faced with tear gas the Chilean government was able to put together a report, three days later, citing Combined Systems, arguing that tear gas was safe. The report, and the lifting of the ban on tear gas, came just in time for the state to use tear gas against the next round of HidroAysn protests. Killing With Canisters In the West Bank, many protesters have died or been seriously injured as a result of being shot at close range by Combined Systems tear gas canisters, including 28 year old Mustafa Tamimi of Nabi Saleh who died in 2011 after half of his face was shot off by a Combined Systems tear gas canister. In 2009 Bassem Abu Rahmah, from Bil'in, was killed by a Combined Systems canister, and in 2010, his sister Jawaher was as well. The number of deaths as well as serious injuries as a result of teargas cannisters has drastically increased since 2008, when Israel began using Combined Systems

extended range 40mm cartridges, sold under the brand name Indoor Barricade Penetrator, and which travel at a velocity of 122 meters per second and are designed to penetrate buildings. Although the manufacturers labels clearly indicate that the teargas grenades are not to be used at short range and are not to be fired people, this has not stopped the Israeli military from doing so effectively turning these canisters into large bullets. (For more info, check out the B'Tselem report, page 8. To see the manufacturers website for the Indoor Barricade Penetrator, click here.) Combined Systems canisters have also been used to kill protesters in Guatemala. For more information: http://facingteargas.org/tc/22/combined-systems-inc-csi https://www.combinedsystems.com/

Campaign of the Month: Campaign to Stop Killer Robots

Over the past decade, the expanded use of unmanned armed vehicles has dramatically changed warfare, bringing new humanitarian and legal challenges. Now rapid advances in technology are resulting in efforts to develop fully autonomous weapons. These robotic weapons would be able to choose and fire on targets on their own, without any human intervention. The Problem describes numerous ethical, legal, moral, policy, technical and other concerns with fully autonomous weapons. Giving machines the power to decide who lives and dies on the battlefield is an unacceptable application of technology. Human control of any combat robot is essential to ensuring both humanitarian protection and effective legal control. A comprehensive, pre-emptive prohibition on fully autonomous weapons is urgently needed. The Solution outlines how a ban could be achieved through an international treaty, as well as through national laws and other measures. In recent years, the benefits and dangers of fully autonomous weapons have been hotly debated by a relatively small community of specialists, including military personnel, scientists, roboticists, ethicists, philosophers, and lawyers. They have evaluated autonomous weapons from a range of perspectives, including military utility, cost, policy, and the ethics of delegating life-and-death decisions to a machine. Our Bibliography provides a list of recent publications about this challenge, while Statements contains documents issued by the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. The Problem Over the past decade, the expanded use of unmanned armed vehicles has dramatically changed warfare, bringing new humanitarian and legal challenges. Now rapid advances in technology are resulting in efforts to develop fully autonomous weapons. These robotic weapons would be able to choose and fire on targets on their own, without any human intervention. This capability would pose a fundamental challenge to the protection of civilians and to compliance with international human rights and humanitarian law.

Several nations with high-tech militaries, including China, Israel, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, are moving toward systems that would give greater combat autonomy to machines. If one or more chooses to deploy fully autonomous weapons, a large step beyond remotecontrolled armed drones, others may feel compelled to abandon policies of restraint, leading to a robotic arms race. Agreement is needed now to establish controls on these weapons before investments, technological momentum, and new military doctrine make it difficult to change course. Allowing life or death decisions to be made by machines crosses a fundamental moral line. Autonomous robots would lack human judgment and the ability to understand context. These qualities are necessary to make complex ethical choices on a dynamic battlefield, to distinguish adequately between soldiers and civilians, and to evaluate the proportionality of an attack. As a result fully autonomous weapons would not meet the requirements of the laws of war. Replacing human troops with machines could make the decision to go to war easier, which would shift the burden of armed conflict further onto civilians. The use of fully autonomous weapons would create an accountability gap as there is no clarity on who would be legally responsible for a robots actions: the commander, programmer, manufacturer, or robot itself? Without accountability, these parties would have less incentive to ensure robots did not endanger civilians and victims would be left unsatisfied that someone was punished for the harm they experienced. The Solution Giving machines the power to decide who lives and dies on the battlefield is an unacceptable application of technology. Human control of any combat robot is essential to ensuring both humanitarian protection and effective legal control. The campaign seeks to prohibit taking a human out-of-the-loop with respect to targeting and attack decisions on the battlefield. A comprehensive, pre-emptive prohibition on the development, production and use of fully autonomous weaponsweapons that operate on their own without human interventionis urgently needed. This could be achieved through an international treaty, as well as through national laws and other measures. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots urge all countries to consider and publicly elaborate their policy on fully autonomous weapons, particularly with respect to the ethical, legal, policy, technical, and other concerns that have been raised. The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots calls on all countries to welcome the April 2013 report by UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Professor Chrisof Heyns, and endorse its recommendations that call on all states to: Place a national moratorium on lethal autonomous robotics. (Paragraph 118) Declare unilaterally and through multilateral fora a commitment to abide by International Humanitarian Law and international human rights law in all activities surrounding robotic weapons and put in place and implement rigorous processes to ensure compliance at all stages of development. (Paragraph 119) Commit to being as transparent as possible about internal weapons review processes, including metrics used to test robotic systems. States should at a minimum provide the international community with transparency regarding the processes they follow (if not the substantive outcomes) and commit to making the reviews as robust as possible. (Paragraph 120) Participate in international debate and trans-governmental dialogue on the issue of lethal autonomous robotics and be prepared to exchange best practices with other States, and collaborate with the High Level Panel on lethal autonomous robotics. (Paragraph 121) Act There are many actions that you can take to support the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots objective

of a pre-emptive ban on fully autonomous weapons. One way is to contact your government (via a letter to your foreign minister) to find out its position on fully autonomous weapons: Does it support the call for a moratorium or ban on robotics weapons systems that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human? Heres some other ways to take action: Join the global coalition Donate to support our activities Participate in upcoming events Learn more about the issue Get resources and spread the word For more information http://www.stopkillerrobots.org