Many rulings, no smoking gun
'WE saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory. We saw the hit. We saw this airplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from.'
Famous words spoken by former US secretary of state John Kerry to explain the downing of Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Focus Malaysia
5 hours ago
- Focus Malaysia
Putin's MH17 endgame is to get Russia off the hook
WHEN Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim raised the MH17 issue with Russian President Vladimir Putin, he received only cold comfort. In his recent visit to Russia, he had to broach the subject in the wake of a United Nations (UN) aviation agency report that found Russia responsible for the 2014 downing of Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine. All 298 individuals including 44 Malaysian passengers on board were killed. The memory of this tragic incident still burns bright in the minds of the relatives of the victims, and ever since then they have been waiting for answers as to who was to be solely blamed. Eleven years later, Putin could only convey condolences to the families of the victims in his meeting with Anwar, dashing hopes that compensations were on the plate in response to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) council ruling. The horror of the air disaster will never go away as long as there is no final closure to the case. Once it is conclusively proven that Moscow must take the full blame, and must make reparations for this senseless act of violence, the matter can hopefully rest in peace. The UN aviation body—the ICAO—has ruled that Russia is to be held accountable for the shooting down of the MAS passenger jet over the troubled region. After much deliberation, the ICAO governing council voted that the Russian Federation had violated international air law by 'resorting to the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight'. Although Russia is an ICAO member (there are 193-member states), it was not elected to the ICAO council, the main governing body comprising 36-member countries, which is mainly responsible for recommending practices related to air navigation, among other varied duties. Subsequently, Russia halted its participation in the investigation last year, claiming allegations that Moscow had a direct hand in the disaster were 'fake allegations'. The current 36 members, elected in 2022 to serve for three years, handed down the ruling after the Australian and the Netherlands governments brought the case against Moscow in 2022. Malaysia is also a member of the council. But Putin promptly poured cold water on the ruling because he believes the report is politically tainted and is biased against his country. In short, Russia's hand is not soiled with the blood of the innocent victims. By rejecting the findings of the report, the Russian leader is questioning the very legitimacy of the ICAO, which was established in 1947 to 'enhance global civil aviation safety'. By failing to uphold international air law, Moscow does not believe in 'sharing the skies' for the safety of air travellers. Putin has laid out starkly his imperious demand: he wants a thorough, detailed, independent, comprehensive, and exhaustive investigation. Putin must be aware that Malaysia has also cast its vote against Russia and when he met Anwar, he was ready to hand down his own ruling. There was nothing the prime minister could do except to listen meekly as his host sternly spoke his mind. Perhaps, the ICAO thought Anwar could carry the message directly to Putin but Moscow sees it in a different light. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the publication of the ruling 'was timed to cast a shadow on Anwar's visit to Russia'. But it was Putin who cast a shadow on Anwar: the Russian leader gave neither space for the prime minister to discuss the findings nor gave face to Malaysia's position in the important UN aviation agency. Many of the 36-member states are heavyweights in the aviation industry such as the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Japan and Putin sees all of them as Western allies ganging up against the Russian Federation. If Russia had been elected to the ICAO council in 2022 (it fell short of the votes to get elected), it would have vehemently denied responsibility and would have probably staged a walk-out in protest. But how does Putin propose to conduct an independent investigation into the MH17 tragedy? Does this mean he wants a new slate of ICAO council members to deliberate again on the matter? Or does he want the investigative body to be a totally new setup outside the framework of the ICAO, with members sympathetic to Russia? Which ever way one looks at it, an independent probe into the incident will not be independent because Russia will most certainly play a dominant, aggressive, and intrusive role in the deliberations. One can say rightly that Putin will only be interested in one conclusion and, that is, Russia must not be found guilty of the horrendous crime. Put the whole blame on Ukraine. And if Ukraine, which is now battling the Russian invaders, is annexed, Putin can turn around and say, with the demise of the Ukraine statehood, the case is closed for good. ‒ June 5, 2025 Phlip Rodrigues is a retired journalist. The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Focus Malaysia. Main image: Reuters
The Star
20-05-2025
- The Star
Many rulings, no smoking gun
'WE saw the take-off. We saw the trajectory. We saw the hit. We saw this airplane disappear from the radar screens. So there is really no mystery about where it came from and where these weapons have come from.' Famous words spoken by former US secretary of state John Kerry to explain the downing of Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.
Borneo Post
17-05-2025
- Borneo Post
Unanswered cry for justice and compassion a decade after MH17
In the echoing silence left by the shattering explosion that ripped through the skies over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, lies a wound that refuses to heal. What happened was that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down. It wasn't just a plane breaking apart; it was the tragic death of 298 innocent people. It was a cruel act that devastated families and made many countries feel deep sadness for a long time. Now, ten years on, the UN aviation agency, ICAO, has clearly stated Russia is the culprit for the MH17 atrocity. They found Australia and the Netherlands' claims valid, based on Russia violating the rule against using weapons on civilian planes. This decision gives renewed voice to the grief of victims' families, like Wan Yusuf Irfan Wan Amran, son of Captain Wan Amran Wan Hussin, whose powerful words are a passionate call for justice and compassion after such immense loss. Irfan's words paint a vivid picture of a life irrevocably altered. For a nine-year-old boy, July 17, 2014, became the day his worldnfractured, the day his father, a pillar of laughter, discipline, and quiet strength, was stolen by a senseless act of extermination. His simple yet profound statement, 'Over a decade has passed, yet not a day goes by without thoughts of him,' speaks volumes about the enduring pain that time cannot erase. It is a testament to the indelible mark left by a loved one, a constant reminder of what was so fiercely taken away. The ICAO's ruling, a long-awaited confirmation of what investigationsnhave painstakingly revealed, has reignited the fervent demand fornjustice. Irfan rightly asserts that MH17 was not just any plane; it was a symbol of national identity, 'our national carrier, carrying ourn people under the Malaysian flag.' The downing was an assault not only on individual lives but on the collective spirit of a nation. To have an international body pinpoint responsibility should be a pivotal moment, a catalyst for resolute action. To be responsible, in response, Malaysia must now lead a coalition of nations — the Netherlands, Australia, and others — to escalate accountability through international courts, leveraging the ICAO ruling to demand reparations and sanctions against those implicated. Simultaneously, diplomatic pressure at the UN, even in the face of veto threats, could amplify global condemnation and moral clarity. Yet, the disappointment in Irfan's voice is profound as he laments the perceived lack of 'resolve and compassion' from the authority. Malaysia's emotionally distant and mechanical response to the MH17 tragedy, devoid of basic compassion, distressingly reveals a deeper national unease. When a commercial aircraft carrying 298 souls was blasted out of the sky in a conflict not of their making, the world looked on in horror. Families across continents plunged into grief, while nations scrambled to assert moral clarity and demand justice. And yet, amid this storm of anguish and urgency, the official Malaysian reaction appeared curiously muted — more concerned with protocol than with pain, more focused on preserving diplomatic poise than acknowledging raw humannsuffering. What a shame! This aftermath desperately needed clear empathy, a voice for national grief, and leadership that could mourn while firmly seeking justice. The lack of this wasn't just a PR mistake; it showed a clear gap between the government and the people's emotions. In such a huge tragedy, silence and coldness felt wrong. Malaysia needed then, and every nation needs — not just good administration, but the courage to feel and show it when the world is watching. It speaks of a profound disconnect between the bureaucratic machinery and the raw, visceral pain of those who have suffered the ultimate loss. To be treated as a 'footnote in a long-forgotten chapter' is an acute indignity, a further wounding of already broken hearts. This demands immediate redress: the establishment of dedicated Family Liaison Units to provide personalized updates and mental health support, coupled with a parliamentary resolution formally acknowledging the families'suffering and affirming the state's duty to protect their dignity. The call for 'significant recognition' and a 'clear path toward justice' is not an unreasonable demand; it is a fundamental expectation of a system meant to protect and support its citizens, one that has, thus far, fallen short. Following in his father's aviation footsteps, Irfan's experience isnparticularly heartbreaking. The mentorship he was denied, seized away by both the Russian perpetrators and a system in Malaysia he believes failed to protect his father's memory, layers another profound personal tragedy onto this already devastating event. His father, who 'served Malaysia with pride,' deserves to have his sacrifice acknowledged and honored. To transform this grief into a legacy, Malaysia could establish the 'Captain Wan Amran Aviation Scholarship,' funding aspiring pilots in his name, while integrating MH17's lessons into school curricula to ensure future generations understand the human cost of geopolitical recklessness. The fact that his service and death 'have not been met with the respect and protection they deserve' is a painful truth that demands restoration. The plea for compensation, framed not merely as a financial obligation but as a 'national duty and a symbol of dignity,' underlines the need for a response that transcends mere legalities. It is about acknowledging the sincere value of the lives lost and offering a tangible symbol of the nation's commitment to its bereaved families. A state-funded compensation program, including educational grants and healthcare support, must be established, not as charity, but as a moral imperative. Concurrently, Malaysia should spearhead multilateral negotiations to hold Russia financially accountable, mounting reparations as a non-negotiable component of justice. The sentiment that families should not have to 'chase what is rightfully theirs' speaks to a desire for proactive empathy and support, a recognition of their ongoing suffering. In his heartfelt conclusion, Irfan's words echo with a profound human yearning: 'We do not ask for pity. We ask for justice. We ask for memory. We ask for compassion. We ask to be seen.' This is not a plea for special treatment but a fundamental request for their suffering to be acknowledged, for the memory of their loved ones to be honored, and for the pursuit of justice to be carried out with genuine compassion. To answer this call, Malaysia must erect a national MH17 memorial — a sacred space for collective mourning — and designate July 17 as a day of remembrance, ensuring the tragedy remains etched in the nation's consciousness. Leaders must also meet privately with families, offering not just apologies for past bureaucratic failures, but a pledge to center their voices on all future actions. The ICAO's ruling provides a crucial foundation for moving forward. Indeed, it is a validation of the truth that families have long known and a step towards holding those responsible accountable. However, the impassioned words of the pilot's son serve as a strong reminder that justice is not merely a legal outcome; it requires a human touch, a demonstration of empathy, and an unwavering commitment to remembering the lives that were so tragically lost. Malaysia's response must transcend symbolism: by partnering with ICAO to reform conflict-zone flight protocols, it can ensure MH17 catalyzes systemic change, preventing future atrocities. Transparency through ublic progress reports and family inclusion in diplomatic delegations will further bridge the gap between policy and humanity. The world must not allow MH17 to become a footnote. It must remain a stark reminder of the human cost of conflict and the enduring need for justice and compassion in its wake. Through legal rigor, cultural remembrance, and unrelenting empathy, Malaysia can transform this tragedy into a testament of resilience — one where Wan Yusuf Irfan's cry for justice becomes a chorus answered by a nation that refuses to forget.
