Summary of second plenary debate on MH17 in Dutch parliament

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

At February 4 2016 the Dutch parliament had a plenary debate with ministers Koenders, Koenders and secretary of state Sharon Dijksma about MH17. Topic of today was the missing primary radar recordings which both Ukraine and Russia could not provide to the DSB.

A full transcript of the debate is here.

The video recording of the debate can be seen here (thanks to Grijze Duif). The official website of the Tweede Kamer has a recording online as well.

Hardly any of the 150 members of Dutch parliament attended the meeting. Only the representatives of the Commission for Foreign Affairs attended.

The Dutch Prime Minister Rutte also did not attend. He was abroad. Rutte so far did not attend any debate on MH17.

The Dutch government made it clear they do not want to interfere with the Dutch prosecutor (OM) and DSB. Both are independant in their investigation. OM states there is enough evidence, so the government will not take the initiative on its own.

The Dutch government will not sent a letter of protest to ICAO. Dijksma explained ICAO does not have a way to protest.

Hardly any further news. The government continued in their passive approach. No opinion was given on the fact that DSB was not able to speak to the air traffic controller. Dijksma mentioned there is no obligation to speak to the air traffic controller although it is very usual to do so.

Pieter Omtzigt asked  why there is no signed and written ambtsbericht made by the Dutch prosecutor (OM) which confirms to the government that the OM does not need the primary radar recordings for the investigation. This fact was told to the minister by OM but never documented. Minister van der Steur said he does not care there is no written and signed ambtsbericht available. Omtzigt requested to have such a ambtsbericht.

Omtzigt submitted a new motion: a request to the government to ask Russia, Ukraine and the US and NATO for radar recordings. Within ten days the government has to inform the parliament. The voting for this motion is next Tuesday.

At February 9 both motion of Omtzigt and Bontes were put on hold until further notice. The motion will be submitted after minister van der Steur has answered the new questions on radar images.

Summary: this debate was like all other meetings and debates  on MH17. The government shows a totally passive approach into searching for truth and keeps on stating the independance of JIT/OM and the DSB.

At February 9 GeenStijl had a couple of interviews with members of Parliament and Minister van der Steur

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

1 Comment on Summary of second plenary debate on MH17 in Dutch parliament

  1. Here my intuitive – and as usual fact-free – interpretation of the parliamentary debate with the Dutch government on February 4, 2016, about the radar data held by the Americans, the Russians and Ukrainians.

    It is well known Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland offered the world to declassify some (satellite) data about the launch site of the alleged BUK near Snizhne or wherever.

    Now you would expect the Dutch government immediately asked for declassification of these data. Indeed, for then it would be very clear to the world the separatists were the perpetrators.

    But despite a lot of questions of the MP’s the government tonight tried everything not to disclose this information. They said the government does not know about radar data, and it has no say in public declassification since the prosecution office is an independent institute and it is them who do not want to disclose the facts. But the prosecutor knows all the facts already.

    What might have happened? We first have to assume a BUK was launched from the south east of Donetsk downing MH17. Then, in the first instance Secretary of State John Kerry thought the separatists were the perpetrators. But then he possibly has been warned the Ukrainians also had BUKs in that area. From that time it was all silence.

    What would be your problem as you were JIT? Only when you have definite proof the separatists were on that launch spot, you would declassify the information for the public.

    So, maybe at the moment they have not enough proof and du moment they show the evidence, Russians and separatists would anticipate and be able to defend themselves. So they first wait to gather a lot of witness statements. For maybe after early declassification nobody in that tiny area dares to testify against the separatists.

    The second problem the MP’s mentioned was the ultimate time delay acceptable by ICAO rules in forcing Russia and Ukraine to give their radar images. I understood the longer we wait the less likely they have to hand it over. That was the big debate tonight with the unwilling government.

    But now we have a possible plot. If JIT cannot prove the separatists or the Russians were in charge on that launch site, they will wait so long it is too late to ask radar data from Russians and Ukrainians.

    Remember, how funny, also Ukraine is member of JIT: [In the JIT the Netherlands Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Dutch National Police work together with police and judicial authorities of Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine.]

    And, as long as the Russians have no conclusions about the witness reports, they do not know what has been “proven”. Hence, if it appears to JIT the launch site was in the hands of the Ukrainians, JIT will not ask about radar data from the Russians and let time expire.

    So, at this moment radar information is counterproductive for the tunnel vision of JIT, since there is no reasonable ground to hide the truth.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.