UNITED NATIONS, August 1. /TASS/. Should the idea of creating an international tribunal to investigate the loss of Malaysia’s flight MH17 over Ukraine last summer be put to the vote in the UN Security Council again, the results will be the same as in the first case, when Russia used its power to veto the resolution, Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin told TASS in an exclusive interview.
"The mass media have mentioned a statement by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin to the effect Ukraine would bring the same product in several months’ time. The way we see it, this sort of approach would be not serious at all, because the result would be the same," Churkin said.
"In the course of the discussion of their draft in the UN Security Council we said: let’s ask the UN secretary-general. May he present various drafts. He has an excellent legal service and top professionals. They have accumulated international experience. They may propose drafts that will look possible. But the quintet (Ukraine, Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Malaysia) opted for a different way. They said ‘We know all ourselves.’ But when this ‘know-all’ attitude prevails, there occur situations that should be avoided by all means. For instance, like the one during the debate and voting in the UN Security Council on July 29," Churkin said.
The UN Security Council on Wednesday failed to adopt a resolution on creating a tribunal for criminal prosecution of those responsible for the loss of Malaysia’s passenger jet. The draft resolution Malaysia proposed together with a number of other countries received eleven votes of the UN Security Council in its support. Three countries (Angola, Venezuela and China) abstained. Russia used its power of veto to block the resolution. Churkin said afterwards that the draft resolution was devoid of any legal basis or precedents and that its authors placed politics and propaganda before practical considerations.
Churkin told TASS he did not rule out the five co-authors of the dismissed draft resolution might try to railroad a similar document through the UN General Assembly, where no country has the power of veto.
"This march of events is possible. I believe they have certain choices. One is to follow the normal procedure existing at the UN General Assembly. In other words, to hold normal consultations and to let us participate in the consultations, too. Then it might be possible to form some judicial body with reliance on the General Assembly capable of conducting normal court investigation," Churkin said.
"Or there is a different way of going about this business: the one they followed when they were drafting the resolution we blocked: to do it all in the cat-in-the-bag fashion. To prepare some sort of draft among themselves and then put it to the vote at the UN General Assembly," Churkin speculated. "Possibly, it may collect the required two-thirds majority required for adoption, or half of the votes. It all depends on the procedure. But then, I believe, there will be a very high risk the yet-to-be created body will not be a body of genuine cooperation crucial to establishing the truth in this complicated situation. It remains to be seen. There is no confirmation yet they will be acting precisely in that fashion," Churkin said.