|
5.10 CAUSE AND EVENT
The head of the Finnish investigators Mr Kari
Lehtola added on Swedish television the
night before, that the writer - duly named - of
this paper was an amateur - 'completely
unable to do a proper analysis of cause and
event' and that it was worrying that he
"should be able to overthrow the
government of an independent state".
The writer has no intent to overthrow the
Finnish government, but it is interesting to
note the Lehtola remark about cause end event.
Mr Lehtola and his colleagues in the
Commission have stated that a lot of 'events'
took place when the 'Estonia' sank, but for most
of these alleged 'events' there is no proven or
identified cause.
5.11 EVENTS AND CAUSES
This paper is not about cause and event, but
events ... and causes (and lessons not
learnt).
Ms Sahlin and Mr Lehtola and
the heads of the Swedish political parties were
and are unfortunately not properly informed
about the laws and codes for international
maritime accident investigations, which Sweden,
Finland and Estonia have adopted in the United
Nations. UN-resolution IMO A.849 (20) and its
Code for Investigations of Accidents and
Incidents at Sea, paragraph 13, is
clear: "When new
evidence relating to any casualty is presented,
it should be fully assessed and referred to
other substantially interested States for
appropriate input. In the case of new evidence
which may materially alter the determination of
the circumstances under which the marine
casualty occurred, and may materially alter the
findings in relation to its cause or any
consequential recommendations, States should
reconsider their findings."
It is as simple as that. The reason is of
course that the safety at sea will be improved.
The cost is minimal. If Mr Lehtola, who
announced a false wreck position - believes that
the writer is an amateur - "completely unable
to do a proper analysis of cause and event"
- he is kindly invited to prove it. Ms
Sahlin cannot ignore in 2001 that new
proven facts have been presented 1997-2001,
which require a full new investigation - the
alleged events disclosed by the Commission have
different causes than concluded by the
Commission or are physically impossible. In the
United Kingdom several marine accident
investigations ('Derbyshire', 'Gaul',
'Marchioness') have been formally re-opened
(sometimes 10-15 years) later, when new facts
have been presented. This has then resulted in
real improvements to safety.
|
The only reply from the RINA was on 28 February
2002 -
|
"I apologise if it was not made 100% clear
when your abstract was accepted that all
conference papers are subject to a final review
before inclusion in RINA conferences. I have
forwarded your comments to the technical
co-ordinator for the conference and await his
response. However as matters stand at this time
the RINA cannot accept your paper for
publication or presentation at the
conference".
|
In view of the fact that the organizers refused to inform
who the persons of the Reviewing Committee were and what
items constitued 'attacks on people' and why Heiwa
Co decided not to attend the conference in spite of
having made all the necessary arrangements.
On 19 March 2002 the organizers informed:
|
"You state that you were invited to speak
at the conference. This is incorrect. You
submitted an abstract of your proposed paper in
response to the First Announcement and Call for
Papers. Your abstract was accepted subject to
review of the full paper. A comparison of the
abstract (which was published in the provisional
program before your paper was received) with the
full paper attached to your email clearly shows
that it gave no indication of the contentious
elements in your paper".
|
Actually Heiwa Co had submitted a synopsis of the
paper in November and had then been invited to submit the
full paper as per a certain layout. There was no mention
of a later review of the paper. The synopsis (or
abstract) was not published in the (provisional - sic)
program - it was the Summary of the full
paper and the conference
program was evidently the final one. Furthermore
from the organizers, RINA:
|
"You state that your invitation to speak
was withdrawn. This is
incorrect.
You will be aware that acceptance
of an Abstract does not constitute a right of
the author to present his paper, at any
reputable conference. Your paper was reviewed,
as were all other papers received, and it was
considered that whilst it undoubtedly had
considerable merit and contained elements which
could prove valuable, the second half of the
paper contained attacks on people rather than
processes which were inappropriate to the
subject of the conference. I believe that those
who have had the opportunity to read your paper
will concur with this view. I should also point
out that the decision not to accept your paper
was made by The Royal Institution of Naval
Architects, and not by the MAIB or the Nautical
Institute".
|
Heiwa Co considers it very strange that thousands
of invitations are sent out to attend the Conference with a
program indicating a Heiwa Co paper which had been
submitted in January and that it is later removed from the
program. Furthermore from the organizers:
|
"You state that you sought clarification
but none was given. This is incorrect. I refer
you to our emails of 28 Feb, 1 and 8 March, in
which we re-iterated the reasons for not
accepting your paper".
|
Heiwa Co has still not received any information
about the Reviewing Committee and what items of the paper
were considered inapproproate and
why. Furthermore from the
organizers:
|
"You state that your "speech" was censored
by The Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
This is incorrect, and indeed is an unworthy
accusation to make against an internationally
renowned professional institution, and one which
has given much space in its journals for such
views on the Estonia incident to be expressed.
The Institution recognises and respects your
right to hold the views you do, and to express
them in the proper forum. The "Learning from
Marine Incidents" conference was not a proper
forum".
|
The fact is that the Synopsis submitted in November was
accepted as Heiwa Co was invited to prepare the full
paper (speech) according to certain rules, including writing
a Summary. The original Summary of the Heiwa Co paper
was not the one printed in the program/invitation -
it was a modified - censored - version, which Heiwa
Co accepted in retrospect.
On the same day (19 March 2002) of the above
letter from the conference organizers The Times of
London wrote in its editorial:
LYING FOR ONE'S
COUNTRY
Deceit
is justified in wartime, rarely in
peace
...
Deception is the hallmark of good strategy. The
general who misleads his opponents and take
advantage of their confusion saves lives and
wins battles. In every war, intelligence plays
as great a role as armour. ... Deception must
implicate not only the enemy but one's one side
also. Many were the instances ... when official
announcements covered up the truth, hid losses
or mislead opinion.
The morality here is obvious: the arsenal of
democracy must include poisonous words. The
morality of peacetime deception is far less
clear. Western intelligence routinely fed lies
into the public domain for 40 years during the
Cold War, hoping that the communists would fall
for myths created by covert CIA funding ... The
target of such deception were Western
institutions themselves: newspapers, public
organisations and even democratic institutions.
The strategy was not only risky but
counter-productive. Covert funding, if revealed,
discredited the benficiary; false statements
undermined public trust; lies, when exposed,
provoked political cynicism. ...
And news management comes close to falsehood
...: spinning is now seen as not an adjunct to
but an enemy of democracy. ... There are still
obvious areas where truth is harmful. ... can
all require categorical denial of what has been
truthfully revealed or blurted out. ... The
fight against terrorism is, of its nature,
covert, deceptive and underhand. In all other
battles democracies employ such methods only at
hugh cost.
|
The Times of London has a good understanding of the
situation. The truth of the Estonia accident cover-up cannot
even be discussed at a joint RINA, Nautical Institute and
Marine Accident Investigation Board conference in London
about what we can learn from marine incidents. So the Heiwa
Co paper
has to be read on the Internet. It seems that the
Swedish Board of
Psychological Defence is in action again.
As of 28 May 2002 no further info has been given
from RINA in spite of numerous assurances from the
organization clerk that clarification will be given.
Evidently the Royal Institution of Naval Architects is not
interested in safety at sea and promotes censorship to this
effect.
Back to 'Disaster
Investigation'
Back to 'Lies and Truths about the
M/V Estonia accident'
Back to Heiwa Co home
page
To more info in English about the
Estonia investigation
Prof. D Vassalos, FRINA, about
M/S Estonia 2008 /Stratclyde
University
Various Swedish FRINA about M/S
Estonia 2008
The Costa Concordia incident
2012
|
Heiwa Co -
European Agency for Safety at
Sea
|
|
