Where was NATO?
Response to downed MH-17
flight
Opinion
Editorial
By:
Shama Vaidya
On
July 17th, 2014, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 [MH-17] was shot down by a Buk
missile over rebel infested Eastern Ukraine. MH-17 was an international
passenger flight flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, carrying 283
passengers and 15 crew, all of whom were killed in the crash. The warhead
detonated outside the left side of the cockpit, immediately killing the pilot
and copilot. According to the Dutch Safety Board’s report of the crash,
the passengers were barely aware of the attack.
298
people were killed in this attack, and it happens more often than one might
think. Since 1950, “there have been some 20; on average one every 3 years”,
citing messy mix ups of military
|
exercises
as reasoning for hundreds of dead civilians (Parker). Despite the
overwhelming evidence, a majority of the militaries deny responsibility of
the attacks, and are allowed to walk away with no punishment. This flight was
different.
The
question becomes where was NATO when this attack happened? Why do they
maintain an almost disrespectful radio silence in reply to this blatant
attack? The Dutch Safety Report is public, anyone has access to the
information. Anyone could tell you that the missile was a Russian made Buk
missile. Russia disavowed this finding, insisting that those missiles had
been “phased out” in their military. This then brings us to insurgent rebel
groups, which crawl through Eastern Ukraine. We know that the launch area was
within a 320 sq km area, but we still today no group has claimed
responsibility for this attack.
In
order to fully understand why NATO’s complacence is odd, one must first
|
understand
who they are and what they stand for. NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, whose essential purpose is to assure the safety and security of
its members through political and militaristic means. They operate on a
collective defense system, in which an attack on one member is an attack on
all members. A prime example of the invocation of Article 5 is the post haste
after the 9/11 attacks. NATO used this Article to their advantage in order to
legalize and justify the war. Post 9/11, NATO relied heavily on the
non-European members to secure the mission against the Taliban. Their
military organization “encompasses a complete system of commands for possible
wartime use”, which its Military Committee controls as the main
infrastructure of NATO forces (Haglund).
In
the situation regarding MH-17, NATO could have invoked Article 5 again. By
using this principle, the alliance could “impose a no-
|
Thursday, October 6, 2016
Where was NATO? Response to downed MH-17 flight Opinion Editorial By: Shama Vaidya
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment