SWEDHR Research & Reports. Vol 2., N° 25, 30 July 2015
SWEDR Chairman interviewed by Sputnik News, 29 July 2015, on the UN Security Council draft resolution to convene an international tribunal to investigate the MH17 crash. Questions by Michael Hughes, U.S. correspondent of Sputnik. Answers by Marcello Ferrada de Noli.
– Sputnik: Do you think it is premature or prudent to draft such a resolution or create such a body at this point?
Drafting such a resolution at this point is neither prudent nor credible; I’d say it would just embarrass the UNSC – for the proposition is on the verge of the absurd:
Firstly, governments among those to compose this would-to-be committee should be instead investigated by the international community for their possible responsibility in the MH17 crash.
For instance, international regulations make a country responsible for the fly routes they assign to the aircrafts flying their air space. Particularly in this case, Ukraine authorities have to be scrutinized on whether – as it is reported in Maj Wechesselmann analysis - they would have changed the MH17 rout with regard to same flights of previous days.
Secondly, the governments and media in those countries that would be likely integrating the committee have already – without exhibiting beyond-doubt proof – ascribed the MH17 crash to the Donbas militia [this was the case of Sweden’s Foreign Ministry at the time, who declared “MH17 most likely shot down by pro-Russia separatists“]. Even more, they have emphatically pointed to Russia as the ultimate responsible.
Thirdly, countries like Ukraine have questionably credibility in this particular matter of “investigating what happened with MH17”, as they have confiscated – and made secret – material that is essential for the investigation. This is the case of the confiscated tapes by the Ukraine Intelligence Services of the communications between the control tower in Kiev and the MH17 pilots.
Fourthly, the work hypothesis under treatment by the governmental institutions – added the stream media – in those countries, have consistently excluded any opinion or even investigative report from experts that put forward alternative explanations on the possible causes of the crash – for instance mentioning the involvement of Ukraine forces. An illustration of this is the broadcasting of a report done on the 16 July 2015 by the State-owned Swedish Radio, Studio 1. [Content of the broadcasted program analyzed here]
Further. In the western countries, the public is depleted with Russophobic information from both the part of their governments and media, a propaganda devise these governments had deployed to legitimate citizens the sanctions against Russia, and the military and cold war escalating. Russia has already portrayed as the “bad guy” in the film, and the establishment of this committee – composed and approved by those very same countries – will be viewed by the public, “naturally”, as a part of the punishment that the collective US-EU indulges against the Russian people.
So, among the absurdities of this proposition, of the investigative committee proposition, is that it is not really needed by the Western countries. Not needed at all.
– Sputnik: Should the UNSC at least wait for the Dutch Safety Board to release their final report in October? Why or why not?
What I see here is an alteration of the democratic order, not to mention the issue of transparency.
The proper order should be this instead:
First the Dutch Safety Board has to make public all the material available – and they should have done it long time ago – so other experts around the world would contribute with fact-based, scientific conclusions. If the UNSC draft would be approved, most possible the Dutch Safety Board shall continue keeping all materials and preliminary conclusions in secret – on behalf of the new investigation committee.
With regard to the Dutch Safety Board own final report, this report should be given directly to the public – through its publication on line, for instance – before the governments adopt a decision as to how proceeding further (for instance if they would ask UN for a committee, etc.).
I mean – regarding your question – the right order in this matter is that the public in the respective countries has to be given the chance to have its opinion, and then this opinion be heard by their governments. Not the other way around, where the opinions of those in power are those that are imposed on the public – with the help of subservient media.
Of course, the Dutch Safety Board own final report shall first be delivered, then discussed, verified and validated, before the UN establishes any investigative body on this issue.
Corollary, if the Dutch Safety Board is not considered that vital or important by UNSC, neither there is a reason for not making their material and deliberations known by the public already from now.
– Sputnik: Finally, do you think presenting such a proposal could be divisive? Especially when members of the UNSC need to work together on a number of critical issues?
‘Divisive’? I would say it is more than that; it would be bringing fuel to this unfortunate cold war that was re-started by the military and financial interests of the West. So, I will answer your question, quoting a professor colleague from New York University, Stephen F. Cohen, who referred to the nowadays situation as a re-edition of a “cold war”, while marking that the epicentre of this new cold war is not any longer Berlin, but it has moved by the U.S. “right to the Russian borders”.
Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli PhD
Chairman, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights
Read also in SWEDHR Research & Reports: MH17 – The facts and the libel. A false-flag at expense of 298 civilian lives would be a double war crime