The recent news about Ocean Infinity (OI)’s search ship, Seabed Constructor going ‘dark’ for three full days by turning off its Automatic Identification System (AIS) in the designated search area for MH370 has evoked responses ranging from surprise, concern, and a strained ‘business as usual’ on the one hand, and deep suspicion, wild speculation, and updated conspiracy theories on the other.

Malaysia’s Transport Minister, part-calm and part-casual, responding to the buzz seemed to suggest that there was nothing amiss in this matter, and that OI was within its rights to turn off the realtime tracking mechanism (AIS). What is disquieting is a subtext that OI as a private corporate entity is entitled to do as it pleases, and has no obligations in the present context to anyone beyond the other party to the ‘no cure, no fee’ agreement governing this round of search for MH370, namely, Malaysia.

There are many legitimately interested parties to the latest search agreement, and surely not restricted to the signatories, Malaysia and OI. While OI, primarily representing its mystery investors, may view the search for MH370 and the success based incentive in plain commercial terms, Malaysia bears a broader, more visible burden of responsibility towards a wide range of entities, and the public at large.

Let’s examine who these are…

The affected families. Their grief, welfare, and need for answers are routinely invoked but they are always kept afar from any deliberations on critical developments/ decisions regarding the search. They are perhaps seen either as incapable or irrelevant. The families have a legitimate right to information, that encompasses the search and investigation and includes enabling arrangements and progress updates. Generally speaking, they prefer the truth rather than ham-handed efforts to soften the message or their impact. In the latest episode, the AIS was apparently turned off in the search area by the search ship, to avoid raising the families’ hopes of a debris find (since the ship lingered in a couple of places for some length fo time). Effectively, its action triggered the very hopes that it sought to avoid in the first place.

An assumption here is that it was sufficient if the Malaysian Government knew the ship’s whereabouts. We ought to trust and in good faith leave it to that Government to decide what is best for the rest, and accept its updates without question or challenge. You don’t need no more.

We could bring up families’ participation and representation in the discussions, directly or through representatives with OI and on-board Seabed Constructor, the search ship. Given that efforts thus far to involve families’ has been non-existent, that seems too distant a possibility however legitimate a claim for it might be.

The investigation team. Seldom seen and rarely heard, it has the unenviable task of making sense of an international incident that remains woefully short on detail and defies explanation. In an ironic twist, opacity surrounding the team’s work supposedly shields it from pulls and pressures from various quarters, and protects its independence. Its work ultimately is subject to the budgets and access to resources, and therefore, hypothetically speaking, can be hampered by the one who pays the bills. What the ‘nuts and bolts’ of collaboration are, and where the boundaries are set between the team and the Government in Malaysia, particularly where diplomacy, multinational participation, tripartite agreement and quasi-commercial deals are at play, is unclear to me, a layman.

I imagine that the Investigation team will have a seat on the table; a voice independent of national interest, and a role. It makes me wonder why it is more important for the Malaysian Navy divers to be on board the search ship, and none from the Investigation team. Surely it can’t be the case that the divers will be expected to go a few kilometres deep into the ocean to retrieve anything of significance. Before I get lost in such musings, the point to note is that the Investigation team has much to draw from the current search and indeed the Government’s deal with OI for the search, in its intent and substance, intersects with the Investigation’s charter.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Malaysia continues to have an Annex 13 investigation team in place. Its final report is not in yet, and it is accurate to say that Malaysia still holds responsibility as the lead country to bring the search and investigation to a satisfactory close. The deal with OI must be seen as part of the process and governed by the provisions of relevant international conventions on search, investigation, handling of debris and other remains, recovery, custody, analysis, disposal, and reporting, and blessed by ICAO. Hopefully someone at the ICAO has had a good look at the terms of the deal with OI. To state the obvious, and at the cost of repetition, the deal with OI is not in an era well past the formal closure of search and investigation for MH370, leaving it as just a trade between the humanitarian and the commercial, limited between the State and a private enterprise, outside the ambit of ICAO and other international institutions of governance. The ICAO as the apex rule making body for international civil aviation will seek to draw from the search and investigation experience, conclusions and recommendations in this unprecedented case.

The aviation industry. Though strangely silent for the longest period regarding MH370, industry players must surely be watching closely how the search proceeds. Every airline is likely secretly relieved that its own aircraft was not involved, uneasy that the threat of a recurrence cannot be ruled out, and worried that next time one of them may not be lucky. They have a stake in seeing how the present deal plays out, how committed are all parties to the transparency and the truth. One guesses that they would like to know what happened to MH370, partly anxious about what new regulations, product and system design changes may come up arising from the MH370 experience, what added cost burdens will be unavoidable in its wake.

Airline passengers. Millions of flyers clock billions of passenger-miles each year. They know now, that just like them, those on MH370 too travelled by the ‘safest mode of travel’. So while aggregate level air safety statistics serves some useful purposes, it does little to settle their nerves shaken by the missing Malaysian Airlines plane. Their safety and security to an extent rides on how the MH370 saga plays out, how thorough and transparent the search and follow-through is. Malaysia’s stances and actions will determine if the public’s faith is belied or sustained.

The deal with OI is a welcome step in that it resumed the stalled search in January 2018, after nearly a year. Given, enormous stakes and the close scrutiny of the search process, and an underlying mix of hope, cynicism, and suspicion, it makes sense for Malaysia to communicate accurately and frequently. It is fulfilling a duty enjoined on it by international conventions, and acting on behalf of a range of legitimate interested parties. As the Lead in the search and investigation it must be careful not to present the search deal as a gesture, or a favour to any constituency. Nor must it present the deal and its ‘no cure, no fee’ format as somehow representing an allowable relaxation in application of International law and convention. The two Navy personnel on board the search ship Seabed Constructor are best viewed not as symbols of Malaysia’s need to control the proceedings and outcome but as a sign of its commitment to fulfil obligations comprehensively and with integrity.

Also see:

‘MH370 hunt going smoothly’

MH370: Search ship disappears for three days

Addendums / Corrections:

It is now a a couple of hours since I posted the note. In the last hour, a more knowledgeable friend, deeply unhappy with the note told me that it was riddled with inaccuracies and a lack of understanding. He informed me of the following:

1. Malaysian personnel on board are hydrographers, not Navy divers, ostensibly to monitor and report back on the ship’s movements / activities and more broadly ensure compliance with the agreement.
   
2. That being at sea is an arduous affair. (I understood that having people on board who are not sea-hardened could fall sick, have difficulty adjusting to life at sea and m ay slow down the search in case they need to be brought back to shore).
   
3. He didn’t quite see the point in having Investigators on board. What will they do? (If I am deeply suspicious, I could argue for a presence just to make sure there is no collusion between the parties to the agreement, and also have a first hand impression of the site and the finds, rather than deal in hand-outs).
   
4. That the ICAO has no power of superintendence or enforcement. (I doubt that I suggested that ICAO had both these powers) I am told that they stick with policy and guidelines, and that countries are free to adopt and notify which guidelines are not being agreed with. There are audits and findings that countries are urged to pay heed. I understand this and find it problematic. That’s besides the point. The sense that I had was that bringing up ICAO reflexively triggers the point about every country’s rights and choices, and the limits of this international body’s reach.

To my mind, none of the above materially alters the thrust of the points I make in the note. I am no expert but am happy to be corrected, and learn. Ultimately it is about the unease and disquiet that is not always easy to reason with, and an attempt to understand its source, whether well-founded or otherwise.

Image from Ocean Infinity.

This article originally appeared on my Facebook page.