another sad chapter....

[phylo_roadking]

1. Merchant vessels, State vessels and warships of the two Contracting Parties shall enjoy freedom of navigation in the Shatt-al-Arab and in any part of the navigable channels in the territorial sea which lead to the mouth of the Shatt-al-Arab, irrespective of the line delimiting the territorial sea of each of the two countries.
2. Vessels of third countries used for purposes of trade shall enjoy freedom of navigation, on an equal and non-discriminatory basis, in the Shatt-al-Arab and in any part of the navigable cannels in the territorial sea which lead to the mouth of the Shatt-al-Arab, irrespective of the line delimiting the territorial sea of each of the two countries.
3. Either of the two Contracting Parties may authorize foreign warships visiting its ports to enter the Shatt-al-Arab, provided that such vessels do not belong to a country in a state of belligerency, armed conflict or war with either of the two Contracting Parties and provided that the other Party is so notified no less than 72 hours in advance.

P.S. VERY interesting.....I've just noticed something!

IF the Algiers Agreement is in place, which is one of the cases we are at least ALL listing as a possibility....LOOK AT POINT 3 ABOVE

Either of the two Contracting Parties may authorize foreign warships visiting its ports to enter the Shatt-al-Arab...AND provided that the other Party is so notified no less than 72 hours in advance

So, IF the Algiers Agreement is in place, which the RN were banking on...note my bold - its the AND that's important, its an obligatory action in ANY circumstance under this agreement...DID THEY GIVE THE IRANIANS NO LESS THAN 72 HOURS NOTICE?

Somehow I think the answer would be a good Yorkshire "Did they b*ggery!"

Whatever way you slice this, the RN seem to be ending up more and more in the wrong! The MoD's contention is they're of course in the right because of this Agreement? Then why break the provisions of it???

Let's face it - The Royal Navy and the US Navy have been policing all sorts of Resolutions and Mandates here since the early 1990s, relying on all sorts of treaties and obligations - they just didn't expect anyone to have the temerity to do what they did. They had expected a major threat from Iraqi fast craft that never materialised, the USS Cole incident turned out to be a once-off so far...and just never thought they would ever be called to account for it tp ANY extent by the world's press and public opinion. "Thankfully" for the UK world opinion lay with them as the aggrieved, hostage-taken party - but the grounds for them being where they were relies on one case as opposed to several strong ones against, and even relying on that one case they've gone and rendered themselves in the wrong even on it.

Remember to scale this down. Murderers, rapists etc. have walked from courts because police the world over didn't carry out their various procedures correctly, rendering themselves in the wrong. THIS circumstance above - of informing or not informing Iran - would the the equivalent of an American policeman not reading a suspect his Miranda rights, or a judge not signing a warrant before it was served, something of that nature. Enough for a lawyer to get to defendant walking out the courtroom door a free man. There are SO many issues here - and just today LWD has thrown up THIS one - that noone is going to look at now BECAUSE the crisis is "done" and over with. VERY thankfully for all concerned the Iranian President wanted to both disarm the Republican Guard and defuse the situation.

(P.S. Sid - I'll choose my own examples and decide if their pertinent or not, all right? Do you wish to take exception with any of the above? P.P.S. note I said equivalent, as in something that messes up a good case!)

There's ONE thing that I'm willing to bet on - IF a Policy Review takes place over this, rather than a Procedures Review - I'm willing to bet, as someone said way above...that the Royal Navy carry out their stop-and search function rather less closer to Iranian waters or any boundary than they did before. NOT because they were in the wrong, oh no... ...just out if respect for those nice Iranian people...!

[sid guttridge]

Hi Phylo,

And whose foreign warships are you suggesting were visiting what Iraqi port on the Shatt-Al-Arab that the Iranians had to be given 72 hours notice?

Cheers,

Sid.

[lwd]

...
So, IF the Algiers Agreement is in place, which the RN were banking on...note my bold - its the AND that's important, its an obligatory action in ANY circumstance under this agreement...DID THEY GIVE THE IRANIANS NO LESS THAN 72 HOURS NOTICE?

Somehow I think the answer would be a good Yorkshire "Did they b*ggery!"

Whatever way you slice this, the RN seem to be ending up more and more in the wrong! The MoD's contention is they're of course in the right because of this Agreement? Then why break the provisions of it???
!

No it doesn't make the RN more in the wrong. By the way there was also a notification statment in the earlier treaties. I also suspect that the Iranians were notiffed something to the effect that the Cornwal will be operating in these waters from xxx date until further notice. Very easy message to send and means Iraq has lived up to her treaty obligations. Although one could argue that while operating under Iraq authorization even that wasn't necessary.

[phylo_roadking]

Well, lwd - I've taken steps to find out if this was sent. When I know one way or another I'll be VERY glad to post it here.

[phylo_roadking]

whose foreign warships are you suggesting were visiting what Iraqi port on the Shatt-Al-Arab that the Iranians had to be given 72 hours notice?

Sid, read what you've just written? Then look at the original quote? Its NOT visiting ports IN the Shatt-Al-Arab...its about vessels visiting either of the nations' ports then going into the waterway! lwd understood that, same as me.

The Cornwall isn't an Iraqi vessel - its still a "foreign" vessel - and DON'T claim is technically an Iraqi vessel - because you can't get MORE foreign in legal terms than that of an occupying power or "Occupying Power"! So EITHER the Iraqi government or the RN acting on their behalf (as the MoD called it) would have had to notify Tehran.

[Magnus]

I've been following this thread but have been "out of the loop" for a while so I've had to re-read some parts of it. I do think that you have made a good argument here phylo and I agree with the points you've made.

I'm also interested in what has come of this affair. What is the government in the UK stance on the issue today? Is there any debate or has it been brushed under the rug?

[sid guttridge]

Hi Phylo.

OK. Let's try again.

Which foreign warship are you suggesting was wanting to visit "either of the nations' ports then going into the waterway" that the Iranians had to be given 72 hours notice?

The only construction I can see that could make this relevant according to what you have said was if HMS Cornwall wanted to enter an Iraqi port but hadn't given the Iranians the necessary 72 hours notice.

Maybe I have missed something, but I thought the incident had nothing to do with any such event. How are you suggesting Para.3 is relevant here?

Cheers,

A confused Sid.

[Cott Tiger]

I've been following this thread but have been "out of the loop" for a while so I've had to re-read some parts of it. I do think that you have made a good argument here phylo and I agree with the points you've made.

I'm also interested in what has come of this affair. What is the government in the UK stance on the issue today? Is there any debate or has it been brushed under the rug?

The position hasn’t changed Magnus. The RN, the British government and the international community in general all believe that the British personnel were illegally abducted in water internationally recognised as Iraqi.

Phylo and the Iranians think otherwise.

Regards,

Andre

[phylo_roadking]

Magnus - tens of hundreds of thousands of normal "little people" notwithstanding, that is.....

[sid guttridge]

Hi Phylo,

Falling back on the group opinions of the uninformed does not strengthen any case. It doesn't matter how many people believe something, it doesn't make it any righter or wronger.

Now about my question above....?

Cheers,

Sid.

[phylo_roadking]

Sid, if you can read the above thread and even think I need to fall back on anyone's opinion.....then you're a hopeless case. If I don't have one of my own, I go and find out what I need to have one. Andre made a quantitative call, I was merely pointing out that that's not the case. Interpret how you like....

[sid guttridge]

Hi Phylo.

O.K.

Now about my question above.....?

Cheers,

Sid.

[phylo_roadking]

An interesting postscript to this event...

In April 2008, a year after the event, the Times ran a story on this. It turns out that the MOD had confirmed IN WRITING to Service chiefs in the UK several months after the event that the 15 sailors and marines were indeed NOT in Iraq's maritime territory as the UK government had claimed!!!+`- These documents - TWO srets of them, one dating from the time of the incident and one from a few months later - had been released to the Times under FOIA.

The sailors and marines were apprehended in March 2007 because the US-led coalition designated a sea boundary for iran's territorial waters WITHOUT TELLING THE IRANIANS WHERE IT WAS , according to the internal MOD documents and briefing papers written AFTER the incident had faded from public notice.

At the time, Defence Secretary Des Browne repeatedly insisted to parliament and the world that the military personnel from HMS Cornwall were seized in Iraqi waters. A ficticious map claiming to show a line in the Persian Gulf called the "Iraq/Iran territorial Water Boundary" was also produced in a televised briefing by Vice-Admiral Charles Style, the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff...but according to the FIRST set of partially censored documents obtained by the Times WHICH HE AND OTHER USED AS THE BASIS FOR THEIR PUBLIC STATEMENTS, the arrests took place in international waters - which was NOT the case - as shown by the SECOND set!

***Rather, the second set of LATER briefing documents to service chiefs revealed that the so-called dividing line was invented by the US-UK coalition without telling Iranian authorities about their unilateral declaration. A report, addressed to Chief Air Marshall Sir Jock Stirrup, CODS, blames the incident on the absence of an agreed boundary and a failure to coordinate between Iraq, iran, and the coalition. It also reveals that it was the BRITISH who apparently raised their weapons FIRST - BEFORE the Iranian gunboats came alongside the British boats.***

Oh dear oh dear....in other words - yes, this WAS the worst bad-publicity incident the UK government and armed forces had been involved in for years - and yes they DID lie about it at the time.

THEN, in the age of FOIA - they were STUPID enough to admit it on the QT!!!

To plagarise Pitt the Younger - lies, damned lies...and politicians...

[Reb]

Ouch..

You know how beaurocracies are - particularly govt. ones. They make up their little declarations then hold events where they indulge in an orgy of self congratulation for coming up with yet another brilliant strategem.

this time they overlooked that one little thing...the only thing that mattered.

Are there leaders of consequence left? Anywhere?

cheers
Rebel

[Hans]

Not in the land down under there aren't, although our smirking fool hopes to rule the world from China after he saves the planet from melting or some such thing. That's after he starves the pensioners to death so he won't have to look after them.

- Hans