MOSCOW, August 10. /TASS/. Russia’s decision to veto the United Nations resolution on creating a tribunal to investigate the MH17 air crash in Ukraine has saved the reputation of the UN Security Council, speaker of Russia’s State Duma Sergey Naryshkin wrote in his article published in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta on Monday.
"The Russian veto actually saved the reputation of the Security Council - a decision on such a tribunal would have been deliberately false and unjust," he said.
Naryshkin also noted that the United States "would now start to impose the discussion in other formats, even though non-binding." "It’s Washington that is interested in instability giving the United States time to continue old and begin new robberies. They need hue and cry around the MH17 crash precisely for this, with a trumped up version of the reasons for the tragedy submitted by them long ago," he wrote.
According to Naryshkin, the United States will continue "to create new pretexts to foment anti-Russian sentiment in Europe." "It is even trying to turn the UN Security Council into a platform for its propaganda, which has already exceeded all conceivable limits," he noted.
"As for the international tribunal, it will be once held on an occasion other than its ordering customers would like it to be. One day a really impartial and professional court will take into account all these facts, including those I’ve mentioned today. There will be such a tribunal and not any other," Naryshkin wrote.
On July 29, the UN Security Council failed to pass a resolution on establishing a tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the MH17 crash. The document submitted by Malaysia in collaboration with a number of other countries was supported by 11 Security Council member-countries, 3 countries [Angola, Venezuela and China] abstained, which was sufficient for passing the resolution. However, Russia its veto right to bock the passing of the document. Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin said following voting that the draft resolution was "devoid of any legal and case-law foundation," and that its authors gave preference to the political and propaganda purposes over the practical ones.