Turkey’s rapid rise as a major drone exporter has sparked debate over its human rights implications. Begum Zorlu explores Turkey’s “no-questions-asked” policy and highlights potential war crimes linked to Turkish drones.

It has been over two years since journalist Stephen Witt published an article in The New Yorker titled “The Turkish drone that changed the nature of warfare.” While the claim might initially seem exaggerated, Witt contended that Turkey’s drones have become a strategic asset for militaries around the world and a critical diplomatic tool for Turkey.

Since the article’s publication, Witt’s argument appears to hold some truth. According to the Turkish Exporters Assembly, Turkey’s defence and aerospace industry exports have reached nearly $5.8 billion this year. Particularly, Bayraktar TB2 drones’ success in overcoming advanced air-defence systems in Ukraine has led to increased interest from states around the world, including European countries such as Poland and Croatia, which have decided to purchase them.

But what sets Turkey’s drones apart, and what are their implications for human rights? There is an ongoing debate surrounding the ethics of drones, the threats posed by the introduction of AI models (particularly in target selection) and the consequences of increasing arms expenditure. While these issues are closely interconnected, this post will centre on understanding why Turkey has become a dominant drone exporter and exploring the broader human rights concerns linked to its drone sales.

Turkey’s rise as a drone exporter

The use of drones has become a central feature of modern warfare, significantly shaping military strategies worldwide. While the United States pioneered their widespread deployment during the war on terror, many other states have since expanded their use in military operations. Their growing popularity over the past decade can be attributed to their cost-effectiveness compared to traditional military equipment, their ability to reduce risks to personnel and their capacity to conduct operations with greater precision and flexibility.

Since 2016, with the leadership of multiple companies, like Baykar and Turkish Aerospace Industries, Turkey has increased its production of drones with the main aim of reducing dependency on external actors. In an age of increasing demand for drones, the country’s rise as a significant drone exporter can be attributed to two key factors. First, what has been termed Turkey’s “no-questions-asked” policy on drone exports allows the sale of military equipment without strict regulatory checks, making Turkish drones appealing to a wide range of buyers. This goes hand in hand with Turkey’s aim of leveraging drone exports as a diplomatic tool to solidify its geopolitical presence in regions like Africa or Central Asia, as these exports foster multiple relationships, including the training of armed personnel.

Secondly, their affordability compared to other major sellers, combined with their proven battlefield success, particularly in Ukraine, has made them highly sought after by a broader range of buyers, especially low-and middle-income countries. As a Crisis Group report underlines, they offer significant value for money and perform better than the Chinese and Iranian alternatives. Their ability to visibly demonstrate success, such as recording precision strikes on targets, further validates their effectiveness.

Thinking about human rights implications

The proliferation of drones in modern warfare has introduced significant discussions about human rights violations, resulting in civilian casualties, indiscriminate targeting, and the erosion of accountability in conflict zones. The most visible case of drones targeting civilians has been in the war on terror, where US drone strikes have frequently resulted in significant civilian casualties in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan. These strikes, often conducted with limited accountability, have raised critical ethical and legal questions about the use of drones. The expansion of their accessibility risks two critical areas of development:

1. A drone arms race

We are already seeing an increasing rise in arms trade this year. According to SIPRI, global military expenditure reached a record high of $2,443 billion, the highest documented by the organisation. Military spending accounted for 2.3 per cent of the global GDP. As drones become cheaper and easier to access without regulatory frameworks, there are fears of what could be termed a “drone arms race”. Zhar Zardykhan, writing for Global Voices, highlights how the reduction of barriers to entry is enabling smaller states like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to purchase advanced UAVs such as the Bayraktar TB2.

In Central Asia, the increasing deployment of armed drones by nations like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, both with a history of border disputes, is heightening fears of conflict escalation. The affordability and rapid spread of drones can further complicate diplomatic efforts, exacerbating regional instability. Furthermore, increased defence spending can overshadow the need to invest in vital infrastructure and the well-being of communities.

2. Increasing civilian casualties

The increasing accessibility of drones, particularly to states with domestic insurgency, can heighten the risk of civilian attacks. As an example, Turkey has significantly increased its drone transfers to Africa, particularly since 2020, framing these sales as support for states in combating insurgencies. However, Amnesty International, in its review of drone attack cases in the region, highlighted an emerging pattern that leads to the targeting of civilians.

In the case of Turkey, its sale of drones, notably to Ethiopia, has raised significant concerns from humanitarian groups and Western states. According to The Economist, the Bayraktar TB2 may have been involved in an airstrike that killed at least 58 civilians in the Tigray region. Mali is another contentious case of Turkey’s sales, where humanitarian actors have highlighted regime repression and war crimes exemplified by a drone attack where 13 civilians, including 7 children, were killed in drone strikes by the Malian army.

Instances involving Bayraktar TB2 drones have been documented by humanitarian actors, including their deployment by Burkina Faso’s military in strikes that caused civilian deaths at markets and a funeral—actions that Human Rights Watch identified as violations of the laws of war. Amnesty International also pointed to two strikes during Somali military operations supported by Turkish drones, which resulted in the deaths of 23 civilians, as potential war crimes.

Urgent need for global regulation

It is important to note here as Hartman and Béraud-Sudreau demonstrate that the human rights dimension is not limited to Turkey’s exports. The US and their allies regularly supply arms to autocratic regimes, exposing an inconsistency between their proclaimed values and their foreign policy actions. However, the rise of Turkish drones, especially since the 2020s, marks a significant shift in the international arms trade dynamics and poses ongoing questions on human rights. It can be argued that the lack of comprehensive international mechanisms governing drone technology and other arms, coupled with a broader absence of international cooperation, has created opportunities for Turkey to transfer armed drones more comfortably. Regulations on drone warfare are relatively weak compared to other areas of international law.

While this post focused on Turkey’s drone exports in Africa as an illustrative case, Turkey’s role in Libya, Iraq and Syria raises additional questions on human rights. For example Martins, Tank and İşleyen highlighted a controversy surrounding allegations of the deployment of a fully autonomous Turkish drone, the STM Kargu-2, in Libya. Although these claims remain contested, the incident raises further concerns about the lack of international regulations on drone exports and possible use of artificial intelligence.

As Tara Sonenshine highlights, in the last two decades, experts have been trying to establish international arms agreements, with some nations supporting a 2016 UN proposal to document drone trade. However, these efforts have fallen short of producing comprehensive legislation. In this context, unchecked accessibility of these weapons amplifies the risks of a global arms race, civilian casualties and regional instability. This underscores the urgent need for strengthened international cooperation and regulatory frameworks to address the broader human rights implications of unregulated drone warfare.

All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Image credit: Boevaya mashina