Only Brazil and China joined Russia at the U.N. Security Council in voting for Moscow’s resolution calling for a U.N. probe into the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. The measure failed to garner the necessary nine votes for adoption.
The United Nations Security Council refused to establish an independent U.N.-led investigation into the sabotage that destroyed the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea last September.
By a vote of three in favor and 12 abstentions, the Council on Monday threw its weight behind investigations by Germany, Sweden and Denmark instead, which so far have yielded few public results. Last month, economist Jeffery Sachs and former C.I.A. analyst Ray McGovern addressed the Security Council in favor of a U.N. investigation. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported on Feb. 8 that the United States blew up the pipelines. U.S. intelligence, speaking through The New York Times, claimed it was a freelance operation by a “pro-Ukrainian group.”
Read the Russian resolution here. Following the video read comments from various ambassadors after the meeting.
Watch the hour-long Security Council meeting:
Stefano Vaccara, a U.N. correspondent for La Voce di New York, questioned various ambassadors in the corridor as they left the meeting. He reported the following comments.
US Ambassador Robert Wood:
“Brazil voted as it felt it should. I am not in a position to comment on their vote. The majority of the Security Council has decided that it is necessary to wait for the conclusion of the ongoing investigations and I believe that this is the responsible position to take among all those that have been heard. And the result of the vote proves it”.
Does the US believe it is fair to ask for a “deadline” for these ongoing investigations?
“Absolutely not. Investigations have to take as long as it takes to get to the truth and so I don’t think imposing a deadline helps the success of the investigation.”
But do you at least believe that Sweden, Denmark and Germany should share their investigations with the Security Council?
“I cannot speak for the rules that these investigative institutions have, on their jurisdiction, etc. I am not able to comment on them. I believe that these investigations need the necessary time”.
Ambassador Wood, but will you at least read Hersh’s article?
Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia:
Ambassador, but between the investigations of Sweden, Germany and Denmark, isn’t there anything that Russia could trust, at least a little?
“No. Now we call all three ‘unfriendly countries’.”
Not even one is saved?
But not even Denmark, which a few days ago involved you in its latest discoveries?
“This happened because we were knocking on their door all the time, and in the end they had to show something to signal their cooperation, but it’s not enough.”
Why did you present the resolution if you knew it didn’t have the votes to pass?
“For this resolution we have held consultations for much longer than in any other resolution. We have introduced many suggestions that other countries had proposed, but this issue is now political, it is no longer technical”.
Ambassador Costa Filho of Brazil:
You voted for the resolution but you also made it clear that it is not a vote of no confidence in the investigations of Sweden, Denmark and Germany. But why wouldn’t their investigations be enough to find the perpetrators of the attack?
“Because it’s been six months and we don’t know anything.”
I just spoke to US ambassador Robert Wood and asked him if there should be a deadline for the investigation, and he immediately replied no, for the US, investigations need all the time they will need. What do you think?
“I can’t answer that question. He has his opinion. I’m not saying the investigation should be concluded now, but there should already be indications of where they are, and instead we have nothing.”
Brazil is getting into the habit of voting with Russia in the Security Council…
“No, it doesn’t seem accurate to say that. We voted consistently condemning the invasion. The only time we didn’t vote on the resolution was in the General Assembly when it called for the expulsion of Russia…”.
Just a few days ago, you voted with Russia to let a humanitarian speak but you were once again in the minority.
“But that was a procedural vote. We cannot say we are on Russia’s side.”
Let’s say then that Brazil in recent times shows independence or rather, “unpredictability”, in its vote?
“No, absolutely not. Independent doesn’t mean unpredictable. We decide on the merits of issues, which means we don’t always vote one side or the other. Brazil votes based on how it perceives the issue at hand. That’s the definition of independence. This is the definition of democracy, when one can express his conscience through the vote”.
Does this independence also help to obtain the position of permanent member in the eventual reform of the Security Council?
“We don’t think in those terms. In this case one thing doesn’t tie into the other. We don’t vote a certain way now thinking about the reform of the Security Council…”
Ambassador, let’s talk about peace: very little is heard of it these days in this institution. Next month, Russia will hold the rotating presidency of the Security Council. Lavrov will come here to New York. As an seasoned diplomat, do you think that something new could happen next month? A different approach, by peace I mean.
“It takes the will on both sides to sit down and discuss peace. We’ve been asking for it for a long time, for the whole year. The parties will have to sit down and discuss”.
Could Brazil be an “honest broker” for peace?
“President Lula has already offered to help make this happen, along with others.”
Selina Sweet, then explain why the hoi poloi can be easily motived to come out into the street and “demonstrate” if there are riots and looting attached to the adventure, but not if the object is merely to prevent warfare and widespread death. Focus on what actually happens in the real world, not some “trigger words” that so easily get you worked up. You hope to be more than some mere reflex arc, right?
Stupid decision as it just incriminates the US even more. Anyone with an IQ over 4 can work this out for themselves. The smart thing would have been for the US to support the investigation and then do its usual behind the scenes manipulations to obfuscate the results.
Dont give them any ideas!
This is a predictable result of a post WWII US plan for world domination. The UN was located in US territory by its main economic supporter. Consequently its integrity and honest approach to world issues, is and has always been compromised.
All UN commitees and authorities are under direct US control and scrutiny, nothing happens that it was not supposed to happen. Additionally in July 1944 at Bretton Woods, NH, all economic and financial institucions under US control were also created. World Bank, IMF, WTO, as well as later WHO and every other entiy with international jurisdiction, but unfortunately also under US control. There was a very brief period of time when a UN Secretary General acted honestly and outside of American control, that was during Dag Hammasskold tenure, and his honest decisions made absolutely necessary his assasination in 1961 during the “Republic of Congo Affair”. The same would take place to JFK for exactly the same reasons two years later in 1963. When the US Evil Empire bites the dust, (and bite it will) a new and independent UN organization will have to be created in Europe, Switzerland woud be an acceptable location, not perfect but better than the present NY entity. Basically a New World Order, plain and simple
What’s all the fuss? It’s obvious that Russia did it. OK, the Europeans did say that they would stop all Russian gas deliveries by end 2023 but that doesn’t mean they would (or that Russia could be allowed to) cut off supplies before they, the Europeans, were ready. The Russians did it because they wanted to supply Europe through Ukraine – and which they continue to do. The Ukrainians demanded Nordsteam 2 be stopped because it would cut off their pipeline income – but the Russians are still paying their dues (so it was a success). The Danes have just found a misterious object near the destroyed pipelines – probably pieces of a mini-submarine with ‘USSR’ stamped on the metalwork (warning for Mr Blinken: it needs to be changed to ‘CCCP’) – but as with Sweden and Norway, will not yet clarify their findings. The Americans, unlike with ‘totally obvious’ gas attacks in Syria (no White Helmets in Raqqa or Mosul), refuse to jump to conclusions. Germany, having unfairly built its economy on cheap Russian gas, accepts any punishment its allies (USA/Uraine) hit it with – “blow up our pipelines: we deserve it”.
Joe Biden may well be confused but he is in good company: so am I.
Its obvious the Russian’s did NOT do it: they have a new engineering thingy you may have not yet heard about at their end of the pipeline. Its called an on / off tap. Only stupidity would lead anyone to send explosives teams 1000 Kms further down stream form your won on / off tap, well outside your own borders, on long deep dives to 90 + meters in international waters, to destroy your own 51% ownership of $20 billion infrastructure !
I have just finished watching an amazing interview with Seymour Hersh on CNN, broadcast two weeks ago. The interviewer is Zakka Jacob and he appears to be skeptical of Hersh’s account regarding who was responsible for the NordStream bombings of September 26, 2002. From the start Hersh’s credibility is pitted against that of the New York Times and The Washington Post.
Jacob quotes Hersh as saying that the New York Times account is “crazy.”
He then asks Hersh how he thinks the Times would react if he presented his own sole-sourced account (available on Substack) to that paper. Hersh did not answer directly, but referred instead to his policy of never burning a source. That sounds evasive, but only if you are uninformed.
Those who have thought deeply about the use of anonymous sources tend to agree with a policy that says anonymity will be permitted in exceptional cases, but only if the Editor, and he or she alone, is given the name of informant.
Hersh is a very smart guy, and he probably realizes that if he were to abide by that policy and give the name of his source to the Times’ editor, no matter how good a secret-keeper the editor might be, the secrecy guarantee from Hersh to his source would be compromised.
So, does Hersh answer the question directly by saying, no, his account would not be accepted by the Times. Or does he answer yes, the Times would accept it, thus betraying any guarantee he might have given to the source that the secret would be known only to Hersh.
Either response diminishes Hersh’s credibility, which hurts when the whole framing of the issue is about whose credibility is greater: Hersh’s or The Washington Post’s and the Times’s.
Instead of falling into that trap by answering directly, Hersh leaps over it by focusing on the issue of his need for strict secrecy so that his sources will trust him. Many viewers will think he is being evasive, others will just feel confused. Not so many people, I would guess, would see the problem I have mentioned.
All kinds of distractions appear in the interview, so that even the moderately intelligent reader has difficulty following Hersh’s arguments, which are complicated. President Biden’s message to Putin was that if Putin invaded Ukraine he, Biden, would see to it that NordStream 2 would be put an end to. When Putin invaded, the deterrence rationale for the threat no longer existed. But Hersh comes up with another possible rationale for blowing up the pipelines, other than making good, so to speak, on his threat. This had to do with leaving Putin the possibility of using the pipelines to persuade Germany not to support Ukraine in the war. Blowing up the pipelines would remove that possibility.
All of this is not easy to explain, and Hersh does not have the crisp delivery that Zakka Jacob has.
The sound effects, moving logos, and catch-phrases such as “calls New York Times crazy,” work to undermine confidence in Hersh.
More than anything else in the way of engendering confusion, in what I saw, was that the interview loops back to the start of the program without the audience being told what is happening. All the emphasis on source credibility returns and the viewer loses any grip he or she might have had on what Hersh was arguing. Indeed, we are expecting further argument from him when the loop-back takes place.
I conclude with my observation that if CNN received some inducement to promote the idea that we just don’t know what the truth is about the responsibility for the NordStream sabotage, then whoever provided the inducement was richly rewarded by this broadcast.
Of course, if the CNN purports to be serving the public as a reliable news source, that is a wholly different matter. In this instance it fails utterly. It does not go into the adequacy of the Times account, and compare it with the adequacy of Hersh’s, for example.
CNN wins at the level of smoke-and-mirrors persuasion, loses on the level of fairness in factual presentation and rational coherence. I say this with reference to what I saw, leaving open the possibility that some technical glitch for which CNN was not responsible caused the looping back I have described.
I have just watched a French TV interview with Seymour Hersh, where the questions are open-ended, and make it easy for Hersh to convey what he knows in a frame of his own choosing. I learned an enormous amount in such a short time, without any distractions. The questions were in French, and Hersh’s answers were in English, but with French subtitles. The subtitles were well-crafted, which would have meant a lot of work on the part of the program producers.
It was at hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKIPdi1u_ns&t=1s
I highly recommend this program to everyone. It has a lot to say about journalism today.
I had trouble trying to reach the interview with the address I posted. I got there directly by Googling .
The email I posted did not work for me as posted. Try the words “elucide hersh” in your search engine. élucide is the name of the French program. That worked for me, directly.
No one made the obvious point that there is a war going on. Basically, it’s US/NATO versus Russia.
The national investigations that are relying on are all being conducted by NATO aligned countries, Sweden, Denmark and Germany.
Accordingly, it is impossible for those investigations to be “objective”, non-biased, and neutral. They have no credibility or trust, before they are even completed.
The problem with lies is that everything you do to cover them up just makes you look more and more like a liar at a point. The cover story we call America is just a twisted mass of ludicrous contradictions.
Nothing like proving what Georgie Bush said about the UN, i.e., “it’s irrelevant.” However, not willing to go along with a president who launches wars without the UNSC’s authorization, I’m guessing that the problem here is that there are too many Americans on the UNSC, plus some obsequious members of NATO states. Or is it that Washington has too many UNSC member by the balls?
Is the Divided Nation Security Council extremely pointless
absurd, aimless, fruitless, futile, impotent, inconsequential, ineffective, ineffectual, insignificant, irrelevant, meaningless, powerless, silly, stupid, trivial, unnecessary, unproductive, useless, worthless, inane, feckless, good-for-nothing, impracticable, inept?
” Or is it that Washington has too many UNSC member by the balls?”
You can’t have them by the balls if they don’t have any!
The UN’s purpose is quite clearly NOT the maintenance of worldwide peace under the aegis of impartial and equal justice driven by an unrelenting search for the truth. Assuming its performance has EVER matched this charge, it has clearly degenerated to merely fulfilling the wishes and commands of the self-appointed planetary hegemon whose reign simply cannot handle the truth.
All of us who breath air are victims of the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines and the subsequent atmospheric poisoning. This voting to not find the perpetrators of this crime against all life is obviously due to knowing who did it and few want to challenge the global bully. Depressing but very predictable.
Of course the UN rejects a probe! The US has significant influence within the UN and contributes the most funds to it. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you UN! God forbid you would do the right thing!!!
From the “not with a bang but a whimper” category:
Synonyms of mealymouthed
: not plain and straightforward : DEVIOUS
a mealymouthed politician
not brave enough to say what you mean directly and honestly:
a mealy-mouthed spokesperson
Top mealy-mouth displayed: US Ambassador Robert Wood
“Will you at least read Hersh’s article?”
It proves again the power of Washington NOT tolerating ANY opposition in the UN. What else is NEW!! Another reason that this institution should be removed as an international FORUM!!
Nord Stream Pipeline “Who done it” caper?
If it looks like a duck. It quacks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, then you are probably not talking about a Studebaker stuck in a ditch.
So, the sabotage is supposed to remain a mystery. This must be the American rules based international order at work. So much though for democracy and rule of law. What quaint ideas. I guess those principles have no place in the rules based order regime. Perhaps that is why the rest of the world is rejecting it. Good riddance. As for all of the countries that chose international criminality over law, fuck you. You will never prosper. Perhaps it’s also time to get the UN out of the US or perhaps better the US out of the UN. Without the US, perhaps the UN would actually begin to work as intended.
But wouldn’t a retaliatory drone strike soon follow?
Battle lines are being drawn in world. Be careful which side you choose. A liar and a bully will betray you when it suits them
America is obviously the enemy of peace and security in the world today. The parallels with Nazi Germany are clear enough – ruling with an iron fist to secure its domunance over other nations and controlling the essential resources of industry and finance.
Although mot well established in the early 20th C. , Germany then, and America now, are willfully ignoring the ‘rules based international order’. America and it’s allies regularly espouse those ‘rules’ while violating them. Acts of terrorism are perpetrated by the USA. Remember ex-President G.W. Bush saying “you are either with us or against us”? My head is spinning trying to understand what he meant.
It’s very unfortunate that the votes are counted that way. In effect the abstentions are “no” votes, but they are gutless “no” votes. Clearly, the “yes” votes won unanimously. But, by abstaining, 12 countries could vote “no” without committing openly to willful ignorance on a matter of grave importance.
If the USA is innocent, it should have no fear of an impartial investigation. If the USA is innocent, those other 11 countries should have no fear of the USA. But, apparently, 12 countries are afraid, afraid to vote “yes” or “no”.
This vote paints a very hideous, ugly picture of the UN Security Council.
It is, in truth, The UN Insecurity Council.
Wow, that’s really whack. Putin gets charged with war crimes by the ICC for helping evacuate children civilians (not the 14 yr old Ukrainian draftees with 4-hr life expectancies) from a war zone, but the UNSC has no interest in ascertaining who committed a very serious and very genuine war crime in the sabotage and shut-down of the Nord Stream pipelines costing Germany, America’s esteemed putative ally, nothing less than all of its manufacturing operations, oligarchic profits and worker paychecks. Just like the entire West never really wanted to know who brought down the Malaysian jetliner over Ukraine, and excluded all evidence backing Russia’s strong claim to innocence whilst letting the real perps, the genocidal neofascists heading the spanking new government in Kiyv, run the investigation along with the virulently Russophrenic Dutch.
Meanwhile, most Americans seem quite satisfied, thank you very much, that their country, founded on the most laudable of platitudes back in 1789, is quite solidly and irreversibly run on standard operating procedures based entirely of lies and false narratives–as long as all the whiners get their pittance of free stuff from the government on time. If Franklin had bet against our keeping the nascent “republic” back in ’89, he would have won, as this has become a very embarrassing warmongering dictatorship, and on an inexorably accelerating time course, I might add. Just read a history book, inaccurate though they generally are.
“Wow, that’s really whack.”
Clowns sitting on “high” branches whilst sawing them.
They deserve a thank you for their services.
“…quite solidly and irreversibly run on standard operating procedures based entirely of lies and false narratives–as long as all the whiners get their pittance of free stuff from the government on time.“ who are these “whiners” ? Who care nothing for the truth as long as they get the free stuff(your words)?
I quite agree with your points, which are well-stated. It is both puzzling and sad that there is so little opposition here in the US to what the US is doing and has done to provoke and perpetuate the Ukraine war, which seems blindingly obvious–at least to those of us who follow alternative sources like Consortium News. Thank Dog for Code Pink and a few other voices in the wilderness. The entire structure of our government, from the deep state to Congress and the courts, is complicit in continuous criminality abroad. There are no George McGoverns, Eugene McCarthys or Frank Churches anymore in the Democratic party. Sanders has become an embarrassment and a disgrace. McCarthyism 2.0 is the Democratic program is quash dissent against permanent war and keep Trump out of the WH.
The march towards formlessness continues. Faces slapped at the Oscars, social justice as the ultimate good instead of economic justice as a reality to pursue, the Nobel Peace Prize given to a warmonger named Obama – this is where culture begins to solidify into a sterile civilization, and the stones left behind no longer speak to anything noteworthy ever having occurred. It’s the way things go – inexorably, by the way – and we’d better get used to it and act upon its reality. The UN, too, now also feels the pull of the eunuch. Negotiating with nothingness is something which is hard to transform into a conciliatory victory.
UN discrediting itself.
The UN reeks of cowardice these days. What a waste.