As the world has reeled from the destruction of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, and the continuing aftershocks it has had on the world, some commentary on the shoot-down of the flight has focused on the less than stellar record of the United States regarding the safety of foreign civilian airliners in combat zones. In 1988, the American ship USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air 655, killing all 290 passengers and crew on board. While the United States erred in its actions in the shoot-down and its aftermath, the reasons for the American military presence in the Persian Gulf and the later actions taken by the United States to recompense Iran for the disaster are crucial to consider, and absolve the United States of the specious charge of hypocrisy in criticizing Russian actions leading to the destruction of Flight MH17.
Misreading History
In assessments of the parallels between the destructions of Flight 655 and Flight MH17, critics of US policy and of the actions surrounding the American presence in the Persian Gulf compare it to the current Russian actions in Ukraine. During the Iran-Iraq War, as brutal trench warfare steadily bogged down the fighting on land, both sides began to consider naval actions to break the stalemate. Iran in particular turned to attacks against not only Iraqi shipping, but also virtually all neutral shipping in the Persian Gulf—a breach of the UN Charter and a complete violation of the crucial principle of freedom of navigation of the seas as laid out by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
It was to counter these illegal actions, coupled with requests from neutral nations such as Kuwait for protection and under the auspices of a United Nations Security Council resolution, that the United States deployed naval assets to the Gulf. In the course of their mission escorting neutral shipping, American vessels and assets were attacked by both the naval and air forces of the Iranian military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. On the day of the Flight 655 disaster, the USS Vincennes had been engaged in combat against IRGC speedboats that were preparing to attack an unarmed freighter, and during the battle moved into Iranian territorial waters to engage.
It was during this engagement that Flight 655 took off from Bandar Abbas Airport, and passed over the battlespace. Misreading the approaching aircraft as a military plane despite a civilian transponder code and a course that was climbing away from the battle, the Vincennes fired on it, destroying the airliner. While the destruction of the plane itself was a significant mistake on the part of the American warship, the background of the American presence in the Gulf was completely legal, desired, and multilateral.
Hardly Hypocrisy
It is misleading to suggest that the American actions in the Gulf before the destruction of Flight 655 are in any way equivalent to the Russian actions in Ukraine. Unlike the United States in the Persian Gulf, which was responding to blatant attacks against international shipping in violation of the UN Charter, Russia has first seized the territory of Crimea based on an armed invasion and fraudulent referendum, and has subsequently sent assistance, equipment, and very likely intelligence advisers to help the separatists in Eastern Ukraine. While a single definitive piece of evidence linking Russia to the destruction of Flight MH17 has not emerged, overwhelming circumstantial evidence, from the statements by Ukrainian rebels right after the plane’s destruction to the type of missile used, point to the Russian-armed and supported Ukrainian separatists as the culprits in the plane’s destruction.
Unlike the American mission in the Gulf, Russia’s covert operations in Eastern Ukraine have been completely unilateral, and have drawn significant criticism from the international community even before the destruction of the airliner. And rather than trying to act as a stabilizing presence in the region, Russia has sought to destabilize Eastern Ukraine from the beginning of the uprising in order to keep the government in Kiev unable to fashion a coherent policy response to other challenges, and help keep Ukraine within Russia’s orbit. It was against this backdrop of aggressive destabilization that the passenger plane was shot down. Even if Russia miraculously had nothing to do with the destruction of the jet, which is looking less and less likely every day, the final responsibility for the violent conditions that resulted in the plane’s downing still rest in Moscow.
The Aftermath
The United States was admittedly deficient in acknowledging the error of its servicemen in the case of Flight 655. The United States initially tried to find another answer to the disaster, claiming that the Iranian pilot was more to blame. However, the United States did pay compensation to the victims of the crash and state its “deep regret” regarding the incident. And regardless of the tardiness of the American response, it was accepted early on that an American ship shot down Flight 655, although American officials distorted the reasons for this incident. While belated, the United States did, in fact, take responsibility and try to make amends for its role in the disaster.
Not only has Russia repeatedly worked to obfuscate and deny what actually happened in the sky over Eastern Ukraine, but it has also proved completely unwilling to control the militias that have control over the crash, which has prevented inspectors from reaching the site and has resulted in significant disrespect to the bodies of those killed in the tragedy. Additionally, Russia has made no move to diminish its external support, and instead appears to be more actively intervening in the conflict in Ukraine. While in the area of responsibility the United States was deficient, Russian actions have been significantly less contrite and more belligerent than America’s eventual response.
The United States erred in the destruction of Flight 655. Its soldiers mistook an innocent civilian airliner for an attacking fighter and destroyed it accordingly. It would appear that the Russian-backed separatists who are viewed as responsible for Flight MH17 made a similar error, mistaking the plane for a Ukrainian military transport. Here, however, the parallel ends. The United States was protecting a vital trade route and the principle of free navigation of the seas, which Iran had repeatedly violated, and had been engaged in a combat situation when its crew mistook the Iranian plane for an attacker. And while the United States fell short in its initial recognition of its role in the crisis, it did eventually take measures to make amends and compensate for the destruction of the civilian plane.
In contrast, Russia has sought to advance its own interests at the expense of those of Ukraine, and has to that end supplied thugs with highly advanced weaponry, the likes of which were used to bring down a civilian airliner. And instead of recognizing the unpredictable and rogue nature of the militias it has been supporting and accepting a role in the tragedy, Russia has continued to support the separatists and is moving towards more overt intervention in Ukraine. The United States’ actions were disappointing, but they remain at their heart a mistake carried out in the midst of a necessary mission for maintaining the global commons, whereas Russia’s actions have taken Talleyrand’s old maxim and turned it on its head: the downing of Flight MH17 was worse than a mistake; it was a crime.
Image Source: The Guardian
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.