Australia Still Reluctant to Disclose MH17 Information
When Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down over Eastern
Ukraine on 17 July 2014, Australian politicians and the mainstream
media, especially the Murdoch newspapers, were quick to apportion blame.
Responsibility for the disaster was immediately attributed to Russia,
either directly or thorough Russian support for the so-called
“separatists” in the Donbass region.
For the Australian politicians and media it was a case of “guilty as
alleged” although at that time in the immediate aftermath of the
disaster there was no evidence upon which to form any conclusions.
Three days after the crash the United States Secretary of State, John
Kerry, appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press TV program said that the US
had
“picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the
trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was
exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar.”
Mr Kerry did not specify how the US had this information, but it was a
reasonable inference at that time that the data had come from US
satellites.
Since Mr Kerry’s remarks it has been established by independent
investigators that the US had at least three satellites in
geo-stationary orbit over Eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014 Two of these
satellites are of the SBIRS type (GEO-1 and GEO-2), and a Space Tracking
and Surveillance System (STSS) satellite. Between them they are able to
perform continuous surveillance of the area of interest.
Some commentators have endeavoured to downplay the significance of
this by suggesting that factors such as cloud cover impeded surveillance
capability. This is self-evidently nonsense. As one of their prime
functions is to detect missile launches, their defensive capability
would be hopelessly compromised if something as simple as cloud cover
impeded their capacity to provide a timely warning of missile launches.
The capability of these satellites certainly includes the ability to
detect and track the launch of a BUK missile, the weapon most commonly
described as the cause of the disintegration of MH17. They can similarly
track an air-to-air missile, which is the alternative hypothesis that
has been advanced.
There has been a great deal of contradictory information from
official sources about this satellite data, which is itself suspicious.
For example, on 19 December 2015 the Dutch chief prosecutor and
coordinator of the criminal investigation into the disaster, Mr Fred
Westerbeke, told the Dutch daily newspaper
NRC :
“Satellite images showing how on July 17 Flight MH17 was
shot out of the sky by a rocket do not exist. There has been a
misunderstanding about this… There is no conclusive evidence from
intelligence services with the answers to all the questions.”
If Mr Westerbeke was correct, then it clearly contradicts the claims
made by Mr Kerry 17 months earlier. But Mr Westerbeke then contradicted
his own earlier statements in a letter to the families of the Dutch
victims in February 2016. In that letter Mr Westerbeke stated:
“The US authorities have data generated by their own
security forces, which could potentially provide information on a rocket
trajectory. These data have been confidentially shared with the Dutch
Military Intelligence and Security Service (DISS). The DISS and the
Public Prosecutor are now investigating in what form the US state secret
information can be used in the criminal investigation and what will be
provided in a so-called official report to the Public Prosecution. That
special report can be used as evidence by the Joint Investigation Team
(JIT).”
It seems a reasonable inference on the basis of that statement that
the secret US satellite data does disclose the required information.
Specifically, it answers the major question: who fired the missile and
from where?
The issue that is publically troubling the JIT is how to use
sensitive intelligence data in a public forum such as a trial of accused
persons. The undisclosed problem for the JIT is twofold. If, as is
widely suspected, the satellite data show that the BUK missile was fired
by Ukrainian forces, then that will contradict 20 months of relentless
anti-Russian propaganda. The western media are not good at admitting the
error of their ways.
The second problem is the agreement of 8 August 2014 whereby the
members of the JIT agreed not to disclose any information unless all the
parties agreed. As one of those parties, Ukraine, is a prime suspect,
it is unlikely that the evidence will ever be revealed if it in fact
implicates Ukraine.
It is still the case that the Australian government has never
acknowledged the existence of the 8 August 2014 agreement. It has not
bothered to tell the Australian public why it entered into such an
agreement when the public interest would demand a transparent and full
investigation of the worst disaster to be inflicted on Australians since
the Bali bombings of 2002.
Given the existence of Mr Westerbeke’s letter to the families of
Dutch victims it is difficult to understand why the Australian media are
persisting with the claim that the Americans have refused to release
the data. Paul Malone’s claim to that effect in the
Canberra Times
of 12 March 2016 is plainly wrong. It is possible of course that Mr
Malone is aware of the facts, but the two problems identified above
prevent him disclosing those facts.
Apart from detecting the launch of a missile, the satellite data can
pinpoint the precise point from which the missile was fired. In the
present case that is supremely important.
The Report of the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) into the MH17 disaster,
published in October 2015 only went as far as to narrow the location of
the launch site to an area of 320 square kilometers. This was territory
contested by both Ukrainian and separatists forces. Despite the
uncertainty and non-attribution of culpability in the DSB Report,
Australian politicians falsely claimed that the report “proved” that
Russian backed separatists were responsible.
Apart from a complete failure by the Australian media to correct this
false information, they have also failed to address two further pieces
of relevant evidence found in the DSB Report.
The first piece of evidence is found in the technical appendices of
the DSB Report. Appendix T (from the Dutch Intelligence Services) has
clearly not been read by any member of the Australian mainstream media.
This appendix stated, inter alia:
- Although the separatists had captured a Ukrainian military base at
Donetsk, the BUK systems located there were “not operational” and
therefore “could not be used by the separatists.”
- Although there was information pointing to the fact that the
separatists had been supplied with heavy weapons by the Russian
Federation, there were no indications that these were powerful
anti-aircraft systems.
- Although the separatists were trained to use weapons systems, there
are no indications that they were being trained to use powerful
anti-aircraft systems.
- There was no evidence of any intention by the separatists to shoot down a civil aircraft.
Reports in the mainstream media imply that the firing of a BUK
missile is a matter of pointing it at the sky and pushing the proverbial
button. As Appendix T makes clear however, extensive training in their
use is required.
Not only must the crews be trained to a high level of proficiency,
for which Appendix T notes there is no evidence in respect of the
separatists, the firing of a BUK missile also requires the ancillary use
of radar systems. Again, there is no evidence that the separatists had
such radar equipment.
There was evidence however, that radar equipment of the Ukrainian
armed forces was operational at the relevant time and in the relevant
location. The Russian authorities at a press briefing given on 21 July
2014 disclosed this. Again, the Australian media ignored this evidence.
Contrary to the vague generality of the DSB Report as to the launch
location, we have a report by the Russian manufacturer of the BUK
missile, Almaz-Antey, released at the same time as the DSB Report.
Almaz-Antey produced a detailed analysis of the data. Their
conclusion was that the BUK missile was launched from the Zaroschenskoe
area, which was under the control of the Ukrainian armed forces at the
time. This report has never been mentioned in the Australian mainstream
media, probably because its conclusions do not fit the official
narrative.
Thus, Mr Malone in the
Canberra Times states that the JIT
investigation is “widely expected” to “confirm that the missile was
launched from separatist held territory.” It would only be “widely
expected” by those reliant upon the constant stream of disinformation
and concealment of evidence common to the mainstream media’s coverage of
the MH17 disaster.
It was noted above that there was an alternative hypothesis about the
cause of MH17’s crash, namely an air-to-air missile, presumably fired
by one of the Ukrainian fighter aircraft identified in the area in the
Russian briefing of 21 July 2014.
The Russian forensic expert Albert Naryshkin comprehensively advanced
the air-to-air missile theory in July 2015. His report (available only
in Russian) concluded that although the specific weapon could not be
unequivocally identified, the specific nature of the missile damage to
the aircraft meant that the most likely weapon was a Python air-to-air
missile.
This particular weapon was adapted for use by the SU-25 Scorpion
fighter that was the type of fighter observed by Russian radar data on
17 July 2014 and reported on at the 21 July 2014 briefing.
The merits or otherwise of this hypothesis are beyond the scope of
this article. Suffice to say that it was not considered by the DSB and
any mention of it is conspicuously absent from the Australian media.
Three further recent developments are worth noting. The first of
these was the Coronial Inquest held in Melbourne in November 2015 in
respect of the Australian victims. The inquest has been reported by John
Helmer on his website. Suffice to note here that the coronial inquiry
was deeply flawed. It was marked by secrecy, the suppression of
evidence, conflicts of interest, and a manifest desire to simply parrot
the official line regardless of other evidence that is progressively
emerging.
It accepted without question the conclusions of the DSB Report, even
though that Report is incomplete, does not ascribe culpability as it
awaits the JIT investigation, and for the reasons mentioned below, is
far from flawless.
The second development worth noting is that both the Dutch and the
Russians have released letters addressed to the families of the victims.
The Russian statement is by the Deputy Head of the Federal Air
Transport Agency of the Russian Federation, Oleg Storchevoy. Mr
Storchevoy takes the opportunity to address some of the misinformation
about what Russia has and has not done to assist the official inquiry.
He notes, for example, that Russian primary radar data was provided
to the DSB, together with telephone conversations and other data, in
August 2014. Russian primary radar data was in fact the only such data
available, as the Ukrainians had for some reason switched off their
radar at the critical time.
The Russian data supplied to the DSB confirmed increased activity by
Ukrainian BUK missile systems within the conflict zone ahead of the
tragedy. That evidence was ignored by the DSB.
It might be interpolated here that the separatists have no air force,
so the need for anti-aircraft systems to be active remains obscure. No
explanation has been forthcoming from the Ukrainians.
Mr Storchevoy also drew attention to the unprecedented cooperation
offered by Almaz-Antey, the BUK manufacturer which again was ignored by
the DSB.
Mr Storchevoy noted that Russia has repeatedly pointed out that the
Dutch technical investigation was performed in an extremely
non-transparent and biased manner. He said that the Dutch authorities
should also explain how they distorted facts and concealed data, and
ignored important data supplied by the Russians.
These and other questions posed by Mr Storchevoy are legitimate and
deserve careful consideration and response. Perhaps needless to add, no
report of Mr Storchevoy’s statement has appeared in the Australian
mainstream media.
The second letter was written to the families of the Dutch victims by the head of the JIT inquiry, Mr Fred Westerbeke.
Mr Westerbeke’s letter discussed, inter alia, that conclusions about
the technical analysis of the aircraft debris should be available in the
latter half of 2016. Importantly, as noted above, he confirmed that the
Americans had provided data about the missile trajectory although the
form in which that data can be used is unsettled.
Mr Westerbeke also said that the analysis of other data, including
intercepted telephone calls, location data from telephones, images
(unspecified), witness statements and technical calculations would
enable “certain inferences” to be drawn about the rocket’s track.
Reference was also made to the English blogger Eliot Higgins who
operates under the name of “Bellingcat.” Despite repeated critical
analysis of Higgins’ falsification of data and manifest other errors, he
continues to be reported in the western mainstream media as a reliable
source.
Why western intelligence agencies, with their vast resources, would
defer to one man operating out of his house in Leicester is explicable
only if Higgins is seen as a useful conduit for what is invariably
anti-Russian propaganda.
Westerbeke obliquely dismisses Bellingcat as a resource, as
“providing no evidence of direct involvement of members of a Russian
unit” in the shoot down on MH17. The claim of Russian direct involvement
is one of the more sensational of Bellingcat’s claims faithfully and
uncritically reported in the western media.
In the light of the Westerbeke letter, the Australian Federal Police
were asked whether they agreed with the contents of the Westerbeke
letter. Westerbeke had signed the letter on behalf of the members of the
JIT (which includes Australia).
They were also asked whether a similar letter would be sent to the
Australian families. The AFP’s response was a non-answer, saying only
that the queries had been forwarded to the JIT!
Information has also been sought from the Prime Minister’s on what
compensation the Australian victim families might expect. Under the
relevant Australian legislation victims of terrorism are eligible for
compensation up to $75,000. That possibility was raised by a number of
mainstream media outlets in Australia in July 2014. In order to be
eligible the Prime Minister must declare that the deaths of the
Australian citizens were as a result of a terrorist attack.
The government had announced on 9 October 2013 that payments would be
made to the victim’s families of other terrorist attacks pursuant to
the prime ministerial declaration. The payments have been applied
retrospectively, starting with the events of 11 September 2001. To date
there have been 10 such declarations, the latest being the Paris attacks
of 13 November 2015.
The Australian government has not declared the shooting down of MH17
to be a terrorist act for the purposes of the legislation. The reasons
for this are unknown, although comment has been sought from the Prime
Minister’s office.
Australian victim families still have other remedies available under
the provisions of the Montreal Convention of 1999. Under Article 21 of
that Convention damages of (approximately) $215,000 are set.
Potential liability of the carrier, in this case Malaysian Airlines,
is however unlimited unless it can prove that the death “was not due to
the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its
servants or agents.”
Given that the evidence appears to suggest that MH17 either flew over
a war zone of its own volition or was directed to do so by Ukrainian
air traffic control, discharging that onus may prove difficult.
Proceedings seeking various declarations have been launched in the
New South Wales Supreme Court by Tim Lauschet (2015/210056) against
Malaysian Airlines, but that case is still at a preliminary stage.
The only clear point to emerge in Australia in the 21 months since
the disaster is that the government and the mainstream media are
determined to, on the one hand deny the public vital information about
the disaster, and on the other hand maintain the fiction that the
disaster was the fault of Russian backed separatists.
That line serves to justify the sanctions imposed on Russia and the
continuing demonization of President Putin. If only Prime Minister
Turnbull’s plea for an intelligent and adult dialogue was sincere. If
that were the case the Australian public would be better informed than
they are. It seems a very vain hope.
James O’Neill is an Australian-based Barrister at Law.
A
Philadelphia area football coach steps down, and the entire coaching
staff dismissed, due to older students raping a freshman with a broom
handle 
Opposition
MSPs say the invitation to the president undermines the safety of the
Scottish parliament for members of the LGBTI community
'Manny Pacquiao is no longer welcome,' said the owner of the mall where the boxer was watching a movie with his entourage
