Brits in the Gulf: What we're not being told
Who's waters, what rights, and what map?
In an article in AlterNet: "Brits in the Gulf: What we're not being told", HMS Cornwall's commanding officer Commodore Nick Lambert, who headed the British naval task force, says:
“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters... Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated”.
At the same time, Craig Murray, Britain's former Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and the former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office says:
“Before people get too carried away, the following is worth bearing in mind. The Iranians claimed the British soldiers had strayed into Iranian territorial waters. If they had, then the Iranians had every right to detain them for questioning... There is nothing outlandish about Iranian claims, and we have no right in law to be boarding Iranian or other shipping in what may well be Iranian waters... You probably won't read this elsewhere in these jingoistic times but, in international law, we are very probably in the wrong. As long as the Iranians neither mistreat our Marines nor wilfully detain them too long, they have the right.”
Also, he points out that a *fake* map was used by the British gov to prove the 15 sailors were in Iraqi waters:
“A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the [Persian] Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.
B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.”
.. that was cool, West Ender - thanks.
(at March 29, 2007 08:33 PM)
That was crap Westender. About time to get tough - break off diplomatic relations with Iran, freeze all assets and start deporting all the Iranians in in the UK as (extremely) undesirable aliens.
Yes, got to agree with Craig, it gives the Iranians every right to blindfold and parade troops and subject thme to mock executions.
Craig's a reliabe sort- he went off with a lap dancer from a club in Uzebkistan and lef this wife eventually. Amazing what you people will drag up from the gutter to justify your sadistic agenda. Next thing you will be justifiyng hanging women from cranes for adultery.
(at March 30, 2007 05:07 AM)
It's very simple TruBrit, if they were inside Iranian waters the Iranian navy had every right to arrest and question them, regardless of who went with a lapdancer or who is high on drugs or toxicated by alcohol.
All your comment is pointless. They were military personel in a war zone. They weren't kidnapped while sunbathing in hawaii.
(at March 30, 2007 12:13 PM)
I bet TB doesn't have the balls to turn and shout the same words to Americans. We can (and will) keep killing British troops in battle 'cause that's how our army works.
Regard, Ian
(from Michigan)
(at March 30, 2007 12:22 PM)
TruBrit sounds like cheap Iranian intelligence agents, trying to ruin someone by exposing his/her sex life :D
(at March 30, 2007 12:44 PM)
Britain should simply apologise for an error of navigation. End of story.
(at March 30, 2007 03:12 PM)
I'm looking for some understanding here; whether or not the Brits were in Iran or Iraqi waters (I accept the area is disputed) what do the Iranians gain by 'arresting' them, holding them captive and parading them? The Brits were working under a UN flag. It just makes Iran look barbaric and gives the western press a field day proving how bad Iranians are.
On a wider note Sunni and Shi'ite are in meltdown across Iraq and potentially the rest of the Middle East - why don't Iranians work with the United Nations instead of against them
(at March 30, 2007 04:11 PM)
Can someone tell me what the quran says about holding hostages and making them make statements and write letters against their will. Is this islamic? thanks Jane
(at March 30, 2007 04:28 PM)
"Confused", I understand where you're coming from, but it's the right of any country to watch its own territories and arrest and question any "intruders". Howcome the allied forces have every right to arrest every "suspect" outside of Iran (such as the Iranian diplomats/agents in Iraq) but Iranians have no right to arrest members of a foreign naval force inside their own waters?
By the way the British Navy was *not* sailing under the UN flag. There is no UN peacekeeping force in the Iraqi conflict.
It's a pity that those men and woman have now become a propaganda subject for the Iranian government, but it doesn't change the main problem.
What I don't understand is that
(at March 30, 2007 04:28 PM)
Jane:
Firstly the Quran has nothing about taking hostages.
Secondly, these are not hostages, they are military personnel in a war zone.
Thirdly, this is the style of the Iranian government, they *want* an apology. It's not only Brits who get caught in this *apology* shows, everyone (including Iranians themselves) get caught in that.
(at March 30, 2007 04:52 PM)
the British government must apologise for the incident and demand quick consular access and release of the personnel who've been arrested. I simply don't understand why they're trying to force-release them instead of simply apologising for the incident.
(at March 30, 2007 05:12 PM)
It's a good opportunity for the people of the United Kingdom and the United States to re-think what has happened in the past few years. Why are British troops in that region anyway? Is it not because a bunch of lies that Blair made up to fool them?
I pray for the release of all prisoners of war and hostages everywhere in the world, and only hope that incidents of this kind open people's eyes and ears.
(at March 30, 2007 06:04 PM)
Das ist doch nur ein Witz, oder? Ihr Briten zieht für erfundene Kriegsgründe in den Irak-Krieg, aber lasst euch die Entführung eigener Soldaten und deren Verhöhnung im TV gefallen? Und die UN bekommt auch mal wieder nichts auf die Reihe... Stellt dem Iran ein Ultimatum, und wertet die Entführung danach als kriegerischen Akt. Säbelrasseln wäre diesmal im Gegensatz zum Irak mal angebracht, lasst euch nicht vera... Holt sie raus.
Schönen Gruß aus Deutschland
(at March 30, 2007 07:02 PM)
Wrong! It's Tony Blair who has to apologise, before everyone else, for lying to all of us, and leading us to a bloody war, for which all evidence was forged, where our troops get killed by friendly fire, and our seemen get arrested for slipping into enemy territory.
(at March 30, 2007 07:17 PM)
You still stone women to death.Peasants.
(at March 30, 2007 08:55 PM)
Yet another false flag?
Is it iran turn now to be invaded?
(at March 30, 2007 09:25 PM)
First of all the UK is not at war with Iran so the Geneva and Vienna Conventions do not apply. So does that mean the Iranians are entitled to arrest the Marines they believe were trespassing on their water? The answer is no.
Under international maritime conventions, which the Iranians HAVE signed, if a foreign ship sails into your waters, you must first warn them and ask them to leave, escorting them outif necessary. For Craig Murray to say the Iranians are entitled to arrest them because they trespassed is plain wrong, legally. That is just muddying the waters, to use a metaphor.
However if we assume the Iranians regard themselves as on a war footing with the British, then the Geneva and Vienna conventions do apply and these specifically require the country taking prisoners/hostages to permit consular access and not to parade them on television.
So whichever way you look at the Iranians are not abiding by international law. In fact if the Gulf waters are disputed, and no one knows where the boundary is, then the Iranians have declared their boundary unilaterally. This should make it all the more imperative for them merely to warn the so -called intruders as no one can be expected to know where the boundaries are.
Whether or not we or they agree with the American and British presence in Iraq, parading hostages on television with forced confessions just repulses the West.
It must be the IRG who are doing this in retaliation for the arrest of their personnel (NOT diplomats incidentally) by the Americans in Iraq rcently.
I am still puzzled though by what they are trying to achieve. The Iraqi Shiite dominated government have said the British are patrolling the Gulf at their request to stop weapons being smuggled into Iraq and oil smuggled out. This is not a military exercise. Why should the Iranians want to provoke an international incident in thsi way? There must be other and better ways of making their point?
Darius
(at March 31, 2007 12:31 AM)
It looks to me like the iranian government WANTS a war, like they're poking the UK in the eye. How would that play out among the citizens of Iran? Would they forget all their internal difficulties and unite under what is now an unpolular president? Their military seems dug-in, ready for an invasion. What does the general population think about that?
(at March 31, 2007 04:52 AM)
Firstly to Darius: you are right about the maritime laws: however according to the Iranians the Brits have repeatedly tresspassed into their territory and have even signed an agreement once not to repeat that. I cannot point you to that agreement on the web, but that is *their* argument.
Secondly, nobody in Iran wants a war, neither the government (who cannot afford a war) nor the people who have the memory of an 8-year bloody war with Iraq (in which Saddam hussein was totally supported by US and many European countries). Anyway, that's history now.
You tell me, what would happen if the Royal Navy arrests the crew of an Iranian military boats doing business insite British waters? Will the British government give them flowers and send them back home on a first class flight? Be a bit realistic guys. Britain and Iran have totally opposite claims on the location of the marines. This has to be solved either diplomatically between nations or in an international court. Even the UN did not accept the strong-worded resolution suggested by Britain.
I do wish this to be resolved quickly and hope the crew return to their bases safely. I do not like this story escalating, but I cannot stop thinking that the Iranians have found the best tool to bring down Tony Blair's government. There will be anger and confusion towards Iranians for a while, then the whole anger will turn to Blair for not being capable of resolving the issue. They did the exact same thing by keeping the American hostages until Jimmy Carter's government came down really badly and Reagan won the elections. The hostages were released the day after Ronald came to power.
(at March 31, 2007 04:05 PM)
false claims and confused and confusing arguments.
what *war* zone are some of my iranian compatriots talking about? are we in war already? if you are referring to the iraq war, it has now been over for about 4 years. the british marines and sailers were acting in a law-and-order capacity, not as soldiers.
iranian government is in clear violation of its responsibilities and the whole thing is a hostage taking in order to score some points against the west in the nuclear stand off.
(at March 31, 2007 10:27 PM)
What were British sailors doing so close to the Iranian Navy anyway?
(at March 31, 2007 10:57 PM)
I dont necessarily agree
(at April 1, 2007 02:27 AM)
Lets face it. From where I sit, what we have is here is a case of a bully in the schoolyard, with the headmaster on spring break. Iran's leadership is just trying to take advantage of a situation involving what they sees as perceived weak leadership in the UK, because they think that it will be productive to their cause. they are very much mistaken. This is a now game about saving face. Iran's president will ultimately be the one eating crow, unless he does the rational thing and find his way out, and save face. It will be up to the world community to decide how this row is finally settled in the history books. I would hate to see either Persian or Western blood spilled on a simple game of pride. This is the fundamental issue here.
Remember when Saddam Hussein held those poor western children hostage back in the early 90's? What a freeking idiot he made himself look like, after that surreal display of incompetence. Where is Saddam today? Worm food, that where he is...along with his two sons. DEAD. The West wont tolerate this jackass behavior for too long, just long enough to get the stealths spooled up, and have a good reason to apply a good measure of Texas whoop-ass. The Persians would be well served to pray that Western patience and temperance lasts longer than history would suggest......History will show that the forces of: Democracy, religious freedom and tolerance and diversity, and economic prosperity will prevail. Fundamentalistic, intolerant extremism is inherently self-destructive, and will not survive the test of time, so why even entertain it? My 2 cents..
(at April 1, 2007 02:49 AM)
Lets face it. From where I sit, what we have is here is a case of a bully in the schoolyard, with the headmaster on spring break. Western military leadership hasn't learned enough from the drastic failures in Iraq, and wrongly thinks they can still bring in their army and navy close to the borders of any country and do whatever they like. It will be up to the world community to decide how this row is finally settled in the history books. I would hate to see either Persian or Western blood spilled on a simple game of pride. This is the fundamental issue here.
Remember when Saddam Hussein killed those hundreds of thousands of poor iranian children, women and men back in the 80's with full support of the "democratic" and "tolerant" west? What a freeking idiot he made himself look like, after that surreal display of incompetence. Where is Saddam today? Worm food, that where he is...along with his two sons. DEAD. Iran wont tolerate this jackass behavior any longer, 8 years was enough, just long enough to get the missiles, fast boats and the feeling of pride and defense spooled up, and have a good reason to apply a good measure of Persian whoop-ass. The western military forces in the Persian Gulf would be well served to pray that Persian patience and temperance lasts longer than history would suggest......History will show that the forces of: Democracy, freedom and tolerance and diversity, and economic prosperity will prevail. Imperialistic, fundamentalistic, intolerant extremism is inherently self-destructive, and will not survive the test of time, so why even entertain it? My 2 pence..
Remember what Chuck Yeager used to say: "It's the man, not the machine"
(at April 1, 2007 11:58 AM)
Lynyrd SkynyrdII, You people need to learn how to treat your own Women first, before you start trying to dictate how to treat westerners. Any leadershiP that advocates the destruction of another entire country, and peoples, like Iran's president said of Israel, and honestly believes that the Holocaust never happened?? Im sorry, that dog don't hunt. Your people come from a culture of rich heritage, and im sure there are many fine ppl in Iran, that are having their true concerns and interests twisted and mis-represented by the present leadership.....Let us pray that the road will lead to a graceful exit for both parties.
(at April 1, 2007 12:17 PM)
To the noname comment before me: FYI, the so-called President Ahmadinejad of Iran does not even have the power to move a traffic police from one street to the other one, so his comments about the Holocaust and Israel are nothing but "noise".
And again FYI, in Iran women are pushing for their legal rights more than ever before. It's not the men who will give them their rights, it's the women themselves who would get their rights, exactly similar to what happened in Europe decades ago.
It's unfair to point at irrelevant things at a crisis like this, we should all put down our differences and help solve this problem in a peaceful way. How would you like it if Iran uses high levels of child poverty in Britain or high level of gun crime in the US as a reason to keep sailors ("you Brits first learn how to educate and feed your children and stop producing the biggest number of chavs and chav wanna-be's in Europe) or (you yanks first learn that there is life without the gun)...
Your problem is that you never understood the region you're dealing with. The president's comments are almost totally ignored in Iran, but widely spread in the west. Western media and press are 100 times more interested in the Mr. President than the Iranian media and press. Someone there should ask why? Once you learn who's in charge, who has the power and whose words you should take seriously, then you know how to think, talk and deal with us.
Finally, thanks for recognising that there are decent people in all countries. We should encourage dialogue amongst these decent people, not hatred and war.
Peace
(at April 1, 2007 05:54 PM)
I just wish Iran would show as much outrage for Darfur, the sunni woman shot in the face for not leaving her home, for your own people who are tortured and killed, by your religious police, as you do over some 15 soldiers who searched a boat.
(at April 1, 2007 08:31 PM)
Agree with nasm, we have many internal problems that need to be solved. This incident (British sailors) could be a simple thing with a quick end. Now see how successfully the iranian government has used this opportunity to divert domestic and international attention from real domestic and international problems.
(at April 1, 2007 10:21 PM)
To Westophil: If your President Ahmadinejad does not have any real power, then why did your electorate even elect him? What is the purpose of the President, other than as a puppet adminstrator? And why do you even tolerate such a puppet that can only create "noise"? To us in the west, he is THE representative of your populace, and he is portrayed as the one who represents the will of the majority in Iran. If he is not in a place of power, then why is he presented as such? Having him in that type of position only foments a situation where he can be further villified by the West, rightly or wrongly, thus further propagating the misunderstandings and mistrust, and providing more justification for hawkish positions against him.
From where i sit, it seems like the burden of implementing any substantive change rests then squarely with the Iranian people, the common Iranian. Why dont your people just revolt, and move toward a truly open democratic government, that tolerates diversity, economic prosperity, free trade, and pluralism. If you dont want that, then you are telling the rest of the world that you want The human desire for democracy and freedom-based society will always prevail over any single-minded dictatorial monoculture. Sure we have problems in the west, but every culture does. Another thing, If the West is so bad, then why is it the case that so many immigrants (many of them Iranians) still teem toward Europe and the United States from repressed places in the world? Its simple, OUR SYSTEM WORKS BETTER. Period. The sooner people realize that, the better off we will all be. We are tolerant and accept all religions! I can have coffee with my muslim friends reading the Koran at Starbucks, talk freely about buddhism with my asian friends, and discuss Christianity, all in the same room with tolerance and respect if we so chose. that is not the case in many countries.
(at April 3, 2007 12:00 AM)
Lynyrd Skynyrd, thanks for your lecture.
1) Ahmadinejad does not control the army, the police, and no other military and paramilitary force. He is elected to run the daily business of the country, and he got the majority vote for his promises to improve the quality of life of the working class and the poor. He did not even say a word about holocaust or Israel or weapons during his presidential campaign.
2) The reason he's got a bigger mouth now is because of internal politics, perhaps to blame foreign elements for his failure to improve the quality of life of the poor. His rhetorics are aimed for domestic consumption, but you take him and his comments too seriously, and then get scared. Simply put: ignore what he says. This is what most Iranians and the Iranian press do. Can I be more clear than that?
3) FYI there has been big movements towards a more open society ignited by Iranians themselves. It's achieved a lot, faced lots of problems and still has a long way to go. It's moving, slowly (and painfully).
4) The issue of immigration is not limited to Iran. People move around the world looking for better life style and opportunities. Aussies and Canadians go to the UK, Brits go to California, Californians go to Dubai, and Iranians go to Germany seeking better life style, business opportunities etc.
5) Who said "West" was bad? All politicans including the western ones have been involved in dodgy politics. Western politicians supported Saddam Hussein during his invasion of Iran, that's a fact.
(at April 3, 2007 12:29 PM)
Thanks, Westophil, I think points 1, 2, and 3 are what my gut has been telling me about this all along. I heard the demographics in Iran has something like half the population under 30?! That would be 1) tempting for those in power to want to manipulate, but 2) potentially a huge force for great social change. Look what the baby boom acomplished in the 60's. I'd love to see the same thing happen in Iran.
(at April 4, 2007 01:50 AM)
To Lynyrd S. re:To Westophil: The questions YOU keep asking about the Iranians and their President Ahmadinejad are some of the same questions I and many other freedom-loving, peace-loving, Constitution-respecting Americans are asking about President George W. Bush!
"And why do you [we] even tolerate such a puppet [of the Neoconservative One World Order empire-building elitists]?...To us[them] in the west[the rest of the world], he is THE representative of your [our] populace, and he is portrayed as the one who represents the will of the majority in Iran [U.S]."
Americans (most of whom probably didn't have any hard feelings toward Persians or even know how to find Iran or Iraq on a map before all the War Machine propaganda started) were shocked, panicky, and prone to make decisions based on fear after 911. But more and more are coming to their senses, and working for peace.
www musalaha org
(at April 4, 2007 09:47 PM)
To Miraclewhip: Well, for your information, at best, BuSSh represents at best, only 40-5o percent of the americans, At best. Its probably only really around 15-20 percent, those being blindly loyal, or just plain uneducated, hawkish. I voted for him, and I regret it now, knowing what he represents, and how he as destroyed American credibility in the world community, and not done anything substantial for the poorest of the americans. The war in Iraq has been an utter failure, even most republicans are finally realizing that now...prepare for a sea change...its the democrats turn to restore sanity in our country....
(at April 6, 2007 02:09 AM)
miraclewhip;
point well taken. Its time for the Democrats to restore sanity to america.
Comments