Malta abstains in vote for UN Resolution to Establish a UN Commission to Investigate Sabotage of Nord Stream Pipeline.

By Romegas

The Security Council failed yesterday to adopt a resolution, put forward by the representative of the Russian Federation, which would have established an international independent investigative commission into the September 2022 “acts of sabotage” committed on the Nord Stream gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea.

The Council rejected the draft resolution, owing to a lack of sufficient votes in favour. The vote consisted of 3 in favour (Brazil, China, Russian Federation) to none against, with 12 abstentions, including that of Malta.

“The resolution, if adopted, would have requested the Secretary-General to establish an international, independent investigation commission to conduct a comprehensive, transparent and impartial international investigation of all aspects of the act of sabotage on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines — including identification of its perpetrators, sponsors, organizers and accomplices.

It would have outlined the commission’s composition, deciding that it would comprise “impartial and internationally respected experts” selected by the Secretary-General, and be furnished with an adequate number of experienced and impartial staff.

Further by its terms, the Council would have requested the Secretary-General to report to it within 30 days on recommendations for the proposed specific modalities of the commission, and encouraged Member States — including those conducting their own relevant national investigations — to fully cooperate and share information with the commission.

Speaking before the vote, the representative of the Russian Federation said his delegation was proposing the establishment of a United Nations-led, independent investigation into the Nord Stream gas pipeline attacks due to its “serious and very well-founded doubts” about the transparency of national investigations currently being conducted, namely by Denmark, Germany and Sweden.  A more comprehensive and transparent investigation is needed, he stressed, especially given the emergence of new facts and media reports about the Nord Stream incidents.  He also warned that “precious time is being wasted” and that national investigations could go on for years.

China’s representative, expressing regret over the draft resolution’s failure, said that an international investigation would not, in fact, conflict with the national ones currently underway.  A United Nations-led investigation could play a coordinating role and make the findings of other studies even more authoritative.  Launching a United Nations-led investigation is also the best way to respond to broad international speculation, he said, adding that blocking the Council from launching such an investigation only raises suspicions that “something is hidden behind the scenes”.

The representative of Brazil emphasized that any proposal by a Council member must be considered in a respectful and objective manner.  Noting that preliminary information from European authorities indicate that the Nord Stream incidents were an act of sabotage with the possible involvement of a State actor, he cited the importance of more comprehensive efforts on the United Nations part to understand the attack.  He encouraged those responsible for ongoing national investigations to share their conclusions with the Council as soon as possible.”

For a country to abstain in a vote of this nature is neither here nor there. Countries regularly abstain on various resolutions for various interests. It is the reason given for the abstention that rankles.

Malta’s representative, Maria Francesca Gatt, gave the following reason and I’m quoting verbatim from the UN report:

“unfortunately, until this point, the information presented in support of the draft lacks credible supporting evidence.  Furthermore, investigations by Denmark, Germany and Sweden are ongoing, and it is important to allow these national processes to be concluded without interference.  Therefore, she said, Malta abstained in the vote on the basis that any investigatory action by the United Nations would be premature and undermine the integrity of these ongoing national investigations, which are being comprehensively undertaken by the directly affected parties.”

Maria Francesca Gatt and the Maltese Government are being disingenuous – They know very well, that the most directly affected party is Russia – it was Russian Infrastructure that was attacked. Neither Sweden nor Denmark was directly affected – and yet they along with Germany have prevented Russia from participating in the investigations and refuse to share any findings with it. So the Maltese statement is a lie.

When one considers that none other Seymour Hersh disclosed very publicly that he had information that the USA was behind it, and when one remembers that after Hersh’s disclosure, both the Americans and the Germans quickly came out with a ridiculous theory that no one and his dog found credible that it was a few pro-Ukrainians on a yacht that done it – the Maltese statement becomes sinister.

It is now fact, that rather than investigating the matter, the Germans, the Swedes and the Danes are obscuring it – and rather than gathering evidence they are in fact erasing it. They have no interest whatsoever in finding the guilty party.

Let me state once again, that despite the infrastructure being Russian, and that therefore Russia is the most directly affected country these countries have forbidden it from taking an active part in the investigations.

We are not a NATO member, we should have no skin in a conflict that is not ours and does not involve us.

Therefore, when one also takes into consideration, for example, Malta’s decision to walk out on Russia’s children’s commissioner, Maria Alekseevna Lvova-Belova as she spoke via video at an informal meeting for UN Security Council members; the only EU state to do so – it is becoming clearer by the day that Malta’s foreign policy is not set by Castille or even Brussels but by the US embassy.

Malta should act in its own interest and in no one else’s. It is in its interests to see that a truly independent investigation on the Nord Stream attacks is carried out – let us never forget that we are not such self-sufficient when it comes to our energy provision and we rely heavily on our interconnectors.

God forbid, that somehow one day they might be ‘’disrupted’’ and when we cry out to have it independently investigated we’ll find countries with long memories who will abstain, citing our own precedent as a reason.

The Nord Stream incident unless properly investigated sets a bad precedent – for if it isn’t – then anything from offshore wind farms to gas pipes to internet cables at the bottom of the sea becomes fair game.