Graig, please also appreciate that if it weren't for your elucidation the fakery might never come to light until after the 45 minutes are up, so to speak. Was it on "The World at One" I just heard a Maritime Law "expert" wax on at length supporting the UK government's point of view?

Do take care though!

Graig, just occurred to me. The more your views become public knowledge (i.e. the general public) the safer you are likely to be. For example, I'm sure George Galloway would be more than happy to have you on his show (again) on Friday. Just a thought...

April, unfortunately, looks to be shaping up to be an interesting month.

A little bit of historical context, the USS Vincennes was in Iranian waters when it fired its missile that shot down an Iranian airliner. The US denied that for years before finally admitting it.

For a little historical context, the USS Vincennes was in Iranian waters when it fired its missile that shot down an Iranian airliner. The US denied it for years before finally admitting it.

"HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land."

You seem to be applying UNCLOS straight baseline rules (see UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Pt II Art 8, available at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm).

However, if you apply that rule in the way you suggest to the Shatt and the Kuwaiti line to the West, you have cut off Iraq from access to the high seas, which is specifically forbidden under UNCLOS and obviously unfair to boot.

Furthermore, if the Iranians dispute the line as drawn, why - when it was pointed out that their initial claim placed them on the wrong side of it - did they change their minds about where they had made the capture?

I totally support your stance on Uzbekistan, and indeed so does everyone else now by the look of it. But calling this a 'fake border' is overdoing it a bit.

Dear Craig,

I wouldn't trust Tony Blair if he told me the sun rises in the East. This is rather problematic as there's a lot of independent evidence that supports this assertion, still, coming from him I be forced by experience to question his veracity and double-check!

My problem is, I believe he's a pathelogical liar, a person who simply does not realise or recognise the difference between truth and lies, and doesn't she what all the fuss is about anyway! Words are just things one uses at a particular time and their meaning are open to a radically different interpretation on another occasion.

In my opinion the soldiers are just bait in a trap and the Iranian's have fallen into it. Blair doesn't really care about these people. He's both a cynic and a hypocrite. In the current volatile situation with two American fleets off Iran and the threat of attack, anyone with half a brain can see that the Iranian's are going to be on a hair-trigger and are ready to defend their territorial integrety at almost any cost, anything else could be interpreted as weakness on their part.

The mainstream british press is dire, as is usual. Just raise the flag, roll the drum and blow the trumpet and they fall into line. Historically they've always reacted in this way. Nationalism and militarism trumps common sense any time.

What we really need at this time is moderation, rationality, calm reflection and good sense, all of which Blair lacks. I think he's only haging on to power because he's been informed about a coming attack on Iran and he wants to do his master in Washington one last valuable service before he joins the Carlyle Group.

For Lew Page,

Thank you for your quite rational comments, but I cannot agree with you.

No, I'm not applying straight baseline rules, though I do know that in the past Iran has based its claims on them. I am not saying where the boundary should be - that is for agreement between Iran and Iraq, or if they wish for international adjudication. That agreement has never been reached and this area is subject to perfectly legitimate dispute.

What I am saying is that the line the British government had produced has been drawn by the British government. They failed to say that and are trying to pass it off as an international boundary. So I really don't see why I should not call it fake. It is fake.

I make the point that the incident took place closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land just to show that there are definitely genuine factors that could support an argument, in the boundary determination that is yet to happen, that this location should be in Iranian waters.

To sum up. I am sorry, but the boundary lines produced by the British government are fake and have no legal authority whatsoever.

That is exactly the point. There is absolutely no 'Internationally agreed' territorial demarcation in the Gulf.

For anyone to base this dispute on such fiction is complete insanity.

Given the unpredictability of the Iranians the Navy was pushing its luck. That's OK if you're on top of things, have sufficient resource and determination - and/or your surname is Nelson.

It is true that there is no agreed maritime boundary between Iran and Iraq. However, you have missed two important points regarding the Iran-Iraq boundary:

1) The international law of the sea require that, in the absence of agreement on a territorial sea boundary, neither side may extend its territorial sea beyond the median line between the two coasts unless historic title or other special circumstances justify doing so. I can see no such justification in this case. While Iran is not a party to either the 1958 or 1982 law of the sea conventions, the provisions in those conventions concerning the territorial sea are widely-regarded to have become customary international law, and therefore binding on Iran. So until Iran and Iraq formally agree a territorial sea boundary, the median line (more or less as depicted on the Ministry of Defence graphics) serves as a de facto boundary.

2) The land boundary agreed between Iran and Iraq in 1975 extended to the mouth of the Shatt al Arab river at the lowest low-water line. The point at which the British government claims that the incident took place lies just under 1.7 nautical miles southwest of the agreed land boundary terminus, and it is arguable that the incident actually took place on what is technically Iraqi land territory: Britsh charts of the area show the low-water line (the normal baseline from which the territorial sea is measured) running around 100 metres south of where the British government says the incident took place.

My feeling is that the British government slightly oversimplified the legal situation in its presentation but, assuming the coordinates given for the incident are correct, it is extremely unlikely that Iran has any legitimate claim to the point in question.

Martin Pratt
Director of Research
International Boundaries Research Unit
Durham University

It doesn't matter to the Iranians whether they are operating within the terms of any law - International or not. That much should be obvious to anyone. Is it at all likely that any 'International' Court will have the slightest effect on Iranian thinking?

The only way the Iranians will accede to demands for the return of these individuals is if they believe it is in their own - and immediate - best interests.

Iranan leaders have shown themselves to be incapable of working within or even developing any long term international strategy. Their principal preoccupations are internal power structures and money in the bank. All this nonsense about Iran becoming a nuclear power is to support those objectives. At best the Iranian time horizon is two or three years.

This exercise should be clearly understood for what it is, a naked attempt to exert influence. Never mind all the hoo-hah about 'Laws' to which Iran may or may not have been a signatory in the past. What do they mean to Tehran today?

Craig, thank you very much for raising this issue in the way you have. Your discussion exemplifies the often cited benefits of the internet in holding the mainstream media to account.

Regrettably I am not so concerned at the deception attempted by the British government as by the uncritical acceptance of it by our mainstream media. That the British government sees no problem with lying if it thinks it can get away with it is nothing new, although the Blair regime has admittedly sunk to new depths in this regard.

What is disgraceful is the BBC's (in particular) shameless collaboration with our government. I remember the reports on the very first day in which the BBC stated as simple fact the British government's assertion that the incident occurred in Iraqi territorial waters, when the BBC self-evidently had no informational basis from which to draw any conclusion except that the teerritorial position was disputed. And then the BBC's use of the map showing a supposedly clear boundary line was another example of shameless partisanship. Just an extension of their routine bias in any reporting on the crisis caused by US and Israeli-led attempts to pressure Iran out of its legitimate development of nuclear power.

I would also like to thnk Mr Pratt for his informed contribution above. This is the kind of technical dispute that ought to be aired fully in our media when these issues arise, in order to make people aware of the complexities that give rise to genuine disagreements over the facts of the situation.

My working assumption at the moment is that the Iranians have taken these operatives in direct response to the US seizure of Iranian operatives in Kurdstan in (iirc) January. It seems to be a classic tit for tat operation, and illustrates what states are left with when the rule of law is ditched in favour of the exercise of raw power, as has been done by the Washington regime, with generally uncritical British government support.

Very impressed by the high quality of the comments above...had forgotten about the vincennes incident...of course during the last years of the iran-iraq war, the u.s. was operating all kinds of "black" naval operations in the Gulf against Iranian naval units as well as targets in iran itself.
finally, surely someone must see the humor in british government objecting to Iran's showing the british prisoners on television as a violation of the Geneva Convention. Good to know
George Bush's strongest ally takes the Convention so serioulsy.
Barry

Barry,
Showing my ignorance here but does the Geneva Convention not apply to POWs as opposed to common or garden variety prisoners? If, on the other hand, these prisoners are in fact POWs then presumably they don't have the right to benefit from consular access?

Martin Pratt,

Firstly, I note that your response accepts that this line is drawn by the British government and not by Iran or Iraq, let alone agreed by both of them.

Secondly, I note your contention that it is "more or less" a median line. But the more or less is rather crucial here, when we are discussing an incident close to a boundary. All you can say is that the boundary drawn by the British MOD is a boundary that could be justified under the criteria of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea. It would be perfectly possible to draw several other boundaries that might also be justified by the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea.

Thirdly, were I an Iranian negotiator (and I don't know about you, but I have actually negotiated such boundaries) I would certainly argue, given the greater eastward projection of the Iranian coast, that the British proposed boundary line needs to shift south west. Quite simply, this is not an obvious median line.

Finally, arguments regarding tide lines and sands become ultra complex haggling points in practice in negotiations. We cannot presume their outcome.

In brief, it is not legitimate for the British government to draw the boundary and say it is utterly certain about it. A little more humility, and an acknowledgement that this is a boundary subject to dispute, might actually get our people home.

The question is, are we really aiming to get our people home, or to maximise propaganda from the incident?

Dear Mr Murray,

My comments were based purely on my own understanding of the situation with regard to the land and maritime boundaries between Iran and Iraq following research and a careful construction of the median line between the two charted coastlines.

For reasons I don't quite understand, the MoD maps only showed the high-water line along the coast - and I agree that a median line constructed between the two high-water lines would be rather different than the one depicted by the MoD. However, as I'm sure you know, it is the charted low-water line that is the baseline for the territorial sea. Due to the tidal range in the northern Gulf and the shallow profile of the intertidal area, there is a significant distance between the high- and low-water lines in this area: the agreed land boundary terminus at the mouth of the Shatt al Arab at the low-water line is some 10 nautical miles southeast of what appears to be the land boundary terminus on the MoD graphics.

If you look at the charted coastline, you will see that the MoD has simplified the situation by labelling the inter-tidal zone as territorial sea, but it is not fundamentally wrong in its depiciton of the boundary situation. There is an agreed boundary out to a point about 1.7 nautical miles northeast of the position at which the British government claims the incident took place, and the median line between the two low-water lines seaward of this point runs east-southeastwards.

I agree that it would be preferable to draw a distinction between the agreed land boundary and the median line through the territorial sea, which is only a potential boundary. However, as I noted in my previous post, in the absence of a boundary agreement or defined claims by the parties, under international law the median line becomes the de facto boundary.

I hope this helps to clarify my previous post. If the geographical situation I have described is still not clear, I recommend that you consult UK Hydrographic Office charts 1235 and 3842.

Where's Tony Blair's evidence that his evidence isn't fabricated or a distortion of the truth?

This is Tony Blair, everyone, the Butcher of Baghdad, who, if I remember correctly, told us that he had unequivocal evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMD, but couldn't divulge this evidence as it would jeopardise a source in Iraq - we would have to wait till after the invasion.

Four years later and still no evidence is forthcoming.

I'm not interested in anything Tony Blair says - he's a serial liar, serial killer, baby murderer, child murderer, and a spineless coward who surrounds himself with multiple layers of protection while leaving everyone else - particularly Iraqis! - exposed to the consequences of British foreign policy and brutality.

Tony Blair has zero credibility and no morality.

A thought-provoking blog entry and comments!

On the event itself. Has anyone commented on the fact that the seizure occurred to time with the two-week holiday (I think that is correct) in Iran? When not only the local populace would be busy with other things, but also whereby any diplomatic business would be considerably slowed?

My own opinion formed from this and other blogs (such as Juan Cole's) is that this is the Revolutionary Guards all the way, and Iran as a political entity (if that can even be said to really exist) is still deciding how best to look into the mouth of this apparent gift horse.

In other developments, one news site tells me that British troops have surrounded the Iranian embassy in Basra, Iraq. No separate confirmations yet.

Martin,

I can't accept that it is simply an innocent error, on such a high profile matter, that a "potential" boundary was depicted as a real one.

The problem is, and with the greatest (genuine) respect to Naval Hydrographers, even drawing a median line is as much an art as a science, especially in an area where the sands shift rather dramatically. Even if both sides to a negotiation agreed on a strict median line approach, I am pretty sure in these waters they would have plenty to argue about.

I wouldn't entirely accept your characterisation that, prior to agreement, the median line becomes the de facto boundary. My recollection is that UNCLOS stipulates that nations should not try to enforce territorial sea claims beyond a median line pending dispute resolution. That is not entirely the same thing, rather a sensible conflict avoidance mechanism.

The problem is, to the best of my knowledge, the median line we have produced has not been adopted or confirmed by any international organisation. It is no more and no less than the UK government's view of a possible median line. You argue it is quite a good one. Fair enough. The Iranians may have another view. Both views can be quite legitimately held.

There is nothing outlandish about a maritime boundary dispute. Even twelve years ago when we did UK/Ireland, we had to leave little stretches that could not be resolved. And we were using median lines - they are not nearly as simple as you seem to think. Look at US/Canada, or Norway/Greenland, or scores of others.

A final thought on the validitiy of the land boundary, and just to complicate matters further. This was due under the treaty for mandatory review in 1985, 1995 and 2005, provided for in the treaty because the sands shift. These reviews did not happen, not least because the two countries waged a long war across this border. As far as I am aware, neither country has repudiated the Treaty due to the lack of the stipulated reviews, although it could perhaps be argued that the border war was itself a pretty emphatic repudiation. But given the lack of the stipulated reviews, even the settled bit of the border may be a bit fuzzier than we are making out.

It is beyond dispute that a primary purpose of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is to prevent unwarranted interference with merchant shipping. By insisting on our right to interfere with shipping right up to our obstinate view of what the boundary (to which we are not a party) should be, we are being very provocative.

What we should be saying to Iran is "We did not intend to leave Iraqi territorial waters. We acknowledge that boundaries in this part of the Persian Gulf are yet to be finally settled and the area is subject to dispute. No offence or intrusion was intended. We would support any moves by Iraq and Iran to reach a definitive maritime boundary agreement"

Craig,

This from the German Deutsche Presse Agentur (http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2007/03/29/715427.html):

"Das Grenzmarkierungsabkommen im Schatt al-Arab, das 1975 von den damals verfeindeten Nachbarländern Iran und Irak unterzeichnet wurde, ist technisch kompliziert und politisch kontrovers. Die Aufteilung des Seegebiets war einer der Gründe für den achtjährigen Krieg zwischen dem Iran und dem Irak (1980-1988). Saddam Hussein hatte den Vertrag kurz nach Kriegsanfang vor laufenden Kameras verbrannt."

It states that the sea boundaries were a cause for the Iran-Iraq war, and that Saddam Hussein burnt the treaty on television after the war started.

I can't substantiate this, but this does make it clear that no-one should be any doubt that the border is in huge doubt.

Just to add to my earlier post about Blair's complete lack of credibility.

It's disgusting that people are willing to indulge Tony Blair when he'd happily destroy any of you if you got in his way, or his corporate buddies' way.

Tony Blair has zero credibility and no morality, and neither does this country in regard to our relations with other nations, particularly "Third World" nations.

As well as lying over WMD, Blair told us that corporate "globalization" is inevitable - we must accept it, not fight it, for that is our best hope of advancement.

In 2000, Bolivia's water supply was handed over to a British company and Bechtel. People living in extreme poverty saw prices rise, and if anyone tried to circumvent the privatization by using rainwater, they were told they'd be arrested.

Tony Blair's message to the Bolivians was: don't struggle, let me and my perverted corporate friends spit in your faces - and watch us smile as we do it.

The Bolivians fought back, and won, but not without a few people dying first:

"Bolivia's Water War Victory":

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/South_America/Bolivia_WaterWarVictory.html

"BECHTEL VS. BOLIVIA: THE PEOPLE WIN!!"

http://www.goodwriters.net/boliviavictory.html

It's time to thoroughly examine how we are treating foreigners. Only then will we have a right to complain about how foreigners are treating a handful of our own people.

This is like George Orwell's 1984 and the two minute hate - everyone getting worked up into a frenzy of hate, and then Tony Blair's face appears, and we relax, fall silent, in the belief that he'll save us from the enemy stalking around just outside our borders.

The marines are being used by Tony Blair - they are mere cannon fodder.

I have painted the circles as suggested by Mr. Murray on several maps.

The results are viewable at:

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2007/03/blairs_faked_bo_1.html

Although I do not know the true facts about this episode, fabrications on the part of the UK, the US and Israel are well-known. So liars must prove themselves worthy of our trust - many times. Therefore, it's best to never take whatever the Bushites, Blair and Olmert say at face value.

Craig - BRAVO on your courage - it's tough when proffering an 'unpopular' opinon. We respect your courage!
Ray Hrycko, USA

Just a final nail in the coffin for Blair's integrity as a Prime Minister and as a human being.

Those who think that the British government may not care about foreigners, but it does care about British citizens, need to do some rethinking.

Blair is being very vocal over this maritime incident involving Iran. So why wasn't he this vocal in 2003, when Tom Hurndall, a 22-year-old British student, was shot in the head by an Israeli soldier?:

http://www.tomhurndall.co.uk/

"My son lived a worthwhile life":

http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/1720

To this day, Tony Blair has refused to condemn the shooting, even though an inquest - which Israel boycotted! - found the Israeli Defence Forces guilty of intentionally killing Mr Hurndall:

"British peace activist was 'intentionally killed'":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1750916,00.html

"'We are astonished to this day that Tony Blair has never publicly condemned the shooting of Tom,' Joyce Hurndall said. 'It is necessary for the Israelis to hear condemnation from him.'"

So think. Why does Blair condemn Iran for potentially putting some of our military men and women in harm's way, but not Israel when it needlessly kills defenseless British citizens.

James Miller was another British citizen deliberately killed by an Israeli soldier (http://www.justice4jamesmiller.info) - again, there has been complete silence from Tony Blair:

"Inquests find Israeli military guilty of killings of British civilians":

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/idf-a13.shtml

"...the Blair government has made no serious effort to secure the lives of its citizens working in Palestine or justice for their killers. One can imagine the frenzy of condemnation and threats of retribution that would come out of London if Hamas had been responsible for such killings."

-

To say Tony Blair and Margaret Beckett (the brave woman who told the impoverished islanders of Diego Garcia to shove it) are repulsive individuals would be criminally understating things.

Iraqi waters, Iranian waters? They say 1.7 miles inside Iraqi waters, well that should put them 3,000 miles outside UK waters then!

Craig.
The Iranian Government is using the same maps,the same boundaries as the UK government.
You seem to be the only one that considers the boundary "fake"

Tim,

I am sorry, you have lost me. They may be using the same map for illustrative purposes (though I haven't seen it), but they have never accepted this boundary. If they have now, that's an important development, but you'll have to point me towards the evidence that shows what you say.

Maritime boundaries don't appear by magic. They are enshrined in treaties, judgements or arbitrations and registered with the UN. Where do you find this boundary?

Fact check time:

1) Iran objected to the British coordinates and gave their own. Thus Iran in effect says the British coordinates are in Iraqi water.

2) When it was pointed out that the coordinates they gave were also in Iraqi water they gave a second set of coordinates.

The only conclusion I can reach is that Iran perfectly well knows they were in the wrong.

As for the Vincennes--yes, it was in Iranian waters. This is utterly irrelevant, though--it ended up there maneuvering while under Boghammer attack!

Loren,
What is the source of your 'facts'?

Loren,

You are quite simply wrong in logic. That Iran gives coordinates closer to Iran than Britain does is not unsurprising. It would want to claim the incident was closer towards Iran, just as Britain would want to say it was closer towards Iraq. There is no way that necessarily indicates they accept the British line.

Certainly they are aware of the British boundary line - it has been published everywhere. If they did give the second coordinate to place it the other side of the British line (and we can only guess that was their motive), they could just be indicating - "Look, even by your own line, you were across it". To say that in no way implies acceptance of that line. Your logic is just wrong.

Besides which, in law the only way you accept a boundary is to sign a treaty, judgement or arbitration and lodge it with an international authority - and Iran irrefutably has done none of those things.

Peppering the board with half baked technicalities, all the while harrumphing the official line these days is passed on as 'debate'.

1975 Algiers Accord (talks about, future talks, for a possible, probable agreement) about the disputed borders between then Shah and Saddam, getting passed on as the basis of the 'how right Mr. Blair is' effectively hands a get out of jail card to a bunch of incompetent operators whom so far have fumbled from mild crisis to outright disasters, without any accountability. Good for the culprits, but what is int it for the UK?

Considering that;
1- Failure in Iraq; an unmitigated disaster that cannot be glossed over by any amount of 'spin' and 'perception management' (some would call it brain washing).

2- The initial bullish and tough guy stance of Tony Poodlerano on the telly in the EU backslapping convention, whom confidently pronounced the 'illegal' and 'wrong' action of the Iranians in the face of UK mandate awarded by the UN to look after the Iraqi territories. Which then rapidly vanished, giving way to the 'sweaty', 'nervous disposition' accompanied by the 'Christian Look' (the far away gaze, and numb facial features, warbling voice thrown in for good measures). Has set the scene for the continuation of the sad and sorry drama unfolding, before us all.

Fact that legalities and pedantries, not forgetting the UN; are only referred to, in the time of crisis, goes missing. Lawlessness has been the hallmark of these sharp operators, whom have systematically committed premeditated mass serial murder in Iraq, and Afghanistan, disputing the figures of the dead civilians, and soldiers alike. Disputed also has been the whereabouts of officially shipped forty two articulated truck, laden with one hundred dollar bills without so much as a pretend receipt provided for, going missing. Prevarication galore for the litany of lies, and plots to make the murder spree happen, all the while blaming the failures, and or abhorrence of the action undertaken on someone else, apparently is quiet legal. (anyone remember the Frenchies and the UN? remember the forty five minutes between us and the oblivion? remember the grainy Iraqi aircraft in flight? remember the mobile mass murder factories? remember the aluminum tubes, 500 tonnes of uranium ore that was pure uranium? remember the URANUM in the Turkish border, that was sufficient for a nuclear bomb in the neatly printed made in Germany canister?)

To find our troops being sent into the disputed waters, as corroborated by Brigadier Jasim Hakim the head of the Iraqi border security for the area, whom is on record; 'when fishermen informed us of the position of the British personnel, we were surprised to find the British operating in sensitive Iranian territories.' Has not been of any concern, yet the outrage allbeit artificial is heating up.

Now the nice newsman on the telly would not dare to hint at this, after all the 'two minutes hate' would be meaningless without the 'Iranian Villains', and how can we let go of the 'Mother of the three year old' whom was so fortuitously interviewed, going on record for the benefit of the narrative?

The realities are, reconnoitering the reaction speed, and defensive measures of the Iranians going pear shaped, cannot be explained away by the homework-vore dog that has caused so much grief in Number Ten to date. ie 'dog ate my homework does not cut the mustard'.

Finally Iranians have clearly indicated that, they will not be cowed, and coerced, hence setting the scene for an almighty bloodbath, if so much as a single shot is fired in their direction.

This is all rather eminsicent of Mediaeval bishops quarelling about how many seraphims can be comfortably sat on a pinhead.

The real politik is thet the UK dragged their coat tails, IRan either were duped or seized the opportunity to tweak the beard of the infidel and pounced.

The rsolution has absolutely fuck all to do with UN / Maritime Law it is more High crimes and misdemeanours than High and Low water marks - at what state of the moon Pray ?

What intrigues is ;

1. The BBC fillum the sassy lady by "coincidence" the day prior, and just happen to be handily placed. BBC World is of course a section of the Foreign Office.

2. The Lynx helicopter gave "top cover" then for some reason whilst the boarders were still at work returned leaving their colleagues exposed. The MOD vrief is silent on this merely sayin g that after the oincident the Lynx was sent ovr and checked the GSP ref of the anchored vessels and provided a handy snap to almost prove it.

Why the Missing Lynx - these are seasoned boarding parties, this is a routine stop aned search and the aircraft giving cover was withdrawen. The MOD brief is silent withdrawn but Mark Urban on Newsnight said it had a need to re-fuel.

So the Navy plans these risky ventures with insufficent fuel to complete the task - leaving as we now know their colleagues to be casually kidnapped.

It stinks. The Navy crewmen and army staff are victims of a crude and cruel and very risky political trick.

The PR machine is in full cry to defend our "brave" lads and cigarette puffing mum - using the Iranians fillum which apparently gives such great offence against the kaws of Man and God, not to mention Geneva Conventions ( small point, these cannot be POW's - unless of course we are at war with Iran, whih if we are not, it looks as though we very soon will be).

I see the Guardian also is now using the British government's map of the border without proper explanation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,,2043170,00.html

Democracy and a free press are such wonderful things, are they not, when the people are so well informed about crucial issues?

I phoned Richard Norton Taylor and told him that the boundaries are not genuine, in some detail, two days ago. I also told the Independent. They really don't want to know. It is a race to sound the most patriotic and jut out their jaw the furthest.

Pretty depressing, isn't it?

Many good comments here.

My thought is:
Since when did Britain become the owner
of Iraqi or Iranian waters? Surely this "hostage" issue should be governed by maritime laws rather than military jurisdiction!

We are an invading force in the region, Iraq is not our sovereign state. Is it?

This has to be one of the best quality blogs I've seen for a while - very little from the "I fink we shud jus send in the SAS and then nook em" lobby, yet also not too heavy on the leftie conspiracy theories either. One might even call it a balanced, rational debate. If only the grown-ups in London and Tehran could do the same. If both sides were truly interested in keeping the peace, then both should agree that the area is disputed and refer the matter to either a bilateral negotiation (between Iraq and Iran - not the UK) or, even better, independent adjudication by an international court, if such a thing exists. This should be a civil matter, not a military one.

In the meantime, the Iranians really should give the sailors back to avoid being labelled as hostage-takers. Unfortunately to do so now would be hugely embarassing and I really can't see the Iranian hardliners swallowing their pride or giving up their leverage.

Fortunately I don't believe the Americans are really serious about military action - they are far too overstretched to even contemplate air strikes against a country with such a strong defensive capability. I think Cold War II is much more likely than World War III

Just to make it clear that the Guardian can't claim ignorance in its own defence for posting the blatantly misleading and inflammatory map linked above, here's their version of the AP piece posted on Tuesday.

Iran's Border Muddles Captivity Issue
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6512742,00.html

Extracts:

""Until a boundary is agreed, you could only be certain that the personnel were in Iraqi territorial waters if they were within 12 miles of the (Iraqi) coast and, at the same time, more than 12 miles from any island, spit, bar or sandbank claimed by Iran," said Craig Murray, former chief of the Maritime Section of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office."

""If this happened south of where the river boundary ends, knowing the coordinates wouldn't necessarily help us," said Richard Schofield, an expert on the waterway at King's College in London. "We have to accept the British claim with as much salt as the Iranian claim.""

I have posted a map which shows my understanding of the boundary situation between Iran and Iraq at the mouth of the Shatt al Arab at http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/resources/iran-iraq/

If anyone can provide verifiable details of the territorial sea claims of Iran or Iraq, coordinates defining where Iran believes the incident took place, or Iranian data on the low-water line, I will gladly add them to the map.

Ziz: 'BBC World is of course a section of the Foreign Office.'

This is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World

BBC World is a commercial operation, which doesn't even receive any Foreign Office money. You may be confusing it with the World Service radio, which does, but still isn't 'a section of the Foreign Office'.

Lopakhin - you are correct on both counts, the ignorance and confusion were all mine.

The whole of the BBC is of course effectively state controlled through subtle means of recruitment, governance, funding wars and applied pressure, the Gilligan affair being of course the worst recent example.

I have just read the UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm), or at least the parts that seem applicable in this instance.

Assuming that the sailors were in Iranian territorial waters, which appears to be the less likely, though possible, scenario, they would forfeit their right of innocent passage because they were carrying out operations with weapons and affecting the sovereignty of Iran (Art 19.2 a and b). However, the convention only gives the aggreived state the right to request that the offending party leave immediately:

Art 30: "If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately."

I assume that the RIBs are classed as warships as they carry the white ensign and are crewed by regular servicemen, but I may be wrong. There was mention in the convention that the vessel needs to have a duly-commissioned officer. I haven't heard of any officer reported in the press, but I would be very surprised if the boarding party were led by a junior rate. Not sure if a senior rate / NCO would suffice.

The convention doesn't appear to say what powers the coastal state have in terms of arrests etc should the request to leave be ignored. However, it doesn't look like any such request was made either to the RIB crew or to HMS Cornwall, unless Iran claims that this incident is a continuance of the 2004 incident, which would be stretching it a little I think.

Does anyone have any legal justification for the arrest itself? (other than on charges of espionage which would be ridiculous).

It is complicated by the fact that they were not just whizzing around in boats (if that was all then Iran would just have to ask them to leave, as you say) but had conducted an armed boarding of a neutral vessel.

If they had boarded a vessel in Iranian territorial waters, Iran would have the right to arrest them. Say this boarding by the British of a neutral vessel had happened close to the Iranian coast twenty miles to the East, nobody would doubt that.

But of course these are disputed waters. Just as we are wrong unequivocally to say they are Iraqi waters, Iran cannot say unequivocally they are Iranian waters either.

Given the waters are disputed, Iran's behaviour is bellicose and an overreaction. But then, so is ours.

That is why, incidentally, the MOD are quite right to put the emphasis on where the boarded vessel was, not the route of the boats. Military personnel just being in military boats in foreign territorial seas would not be an arrestable offence, just a warning off; a boarding would.

Actually (and this is a mere sidebar) the Vincennes opened the conflict with the Iranian Boghammers inside Iranian waters, which she entered because her helo had taken fire from the Iranian speedboats - after the helo buzzed them and quite predictably drew warning shots. The US Navy denied that the Vincennes was inside Iraian waters for 4 years, an went as far as to present a map to the Congressional inquiry which deleted an Iranian island. Thw whole thing was probably an intentional provocation intended to draw out the Iranian forces, but went horribly wrong.

This issue seems to be just preliminary to an attack on Iran as far as I can see. We need people out in the streets demanding no attack and threatening major civil disobedience and a general strike.

Spinoza750 - your suggestion sounds a little over-the-top considering the UK government has explicitly rejected the use of force to solve the problem and is keeping the real muscle (the US) well out of it.

There is no war happening here - just posturing and propaganda by both sides. Iran has got what it wanted and now just needs to offload the captives without losing face. I can see this sorted out within a week - two at the most.

Dear Mr Murray,

I find the arguments on this blog quite interesting.

However, a number of questions arise, from examining the treaties which are mentioned here.

Article 15 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea states the following:

"Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two States in a way which is at variance therewith."

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t this, in and of itself, mean that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary between the adjacent states (in this case Iran and Iraq) that the median principle applies – i.e. if the site in question is located within the twelve nautical mile limit, it is in the territorial waters of the state whose “land” is nearest?

However, this raises the question of how far out “land” is defined, and whose land it is.

Article 1, paragraph 3 of the 1975 “Algiers Accord” which established the land border between the two states refers to hydrographic charts which are made a part of the agreement:

"3. Common hydrographic charts, which have been verified on the spot and corrected, and on which the geographical co-ordinates of the 1975 frontier crossing points have been indicated; these charts have been signed by the hydrographic experts of the Mixed Technical Commission and countersigned by the heads of the Iran, Iraq and Algerian delegations to the Committee. The said charts, listed hereinafter, are annexed to this Protocol and form an integral part thereof:
Chart No. 1: Entrance to the Shatt-al-Arab, No. 3842, published by the British Admiralty.
Chart No. 2: Inner Bar to Kabda Point, No. 3843, published by the British Admiralty.
Chart No. 3: Kabda Point to Abadan, No. 3844, published by the British Admiralty.
Chart No. 4: Abadan to Jazirat Ummat Tuwaylah, No. 3845, published by the British Admiralty."

And then article 3, paragraph 2 of the treaty establishes the end of the “land border” as being at the astronomical lowest low-water mark indicated on the charts.

"2. The two Contacting Parties have agreed to consider that the river frontier shall end at the straight line connecting the two banks of the Shatt-al-Arab, as its mouth, at the astronomical lowest low-water mark. This straight line has been indicated on the common hydrographic charts referred to in Article 1, paragraph 3, above."

http://www.parstimes.com/history/iran_iraq_1975.html

Does anyone know if copies of these charts are available online? It seems that this is the only way to determine the extent of the land of each state, and then of their respective territorial seas.

I realize that using the 1982 UN Convention is somewhat debatable, especially since the 1975 treaty couldn’t have anticipated the rules established later, and that Iran is still not a signatory to the 1982 convention, but the applicable portions of the 1982 convention are not really different than the rules laid out in article 12 and 13 of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_territorial_sea.pdf

Greg -

Well the median principle applies unless there are "special circumstances". The complex channels and historic navigation rights in this sea are just the kind of special circumstance envisaged.

But even if you do just go for a median line, establishing a median line, and agreeing what is land, the baselines and which triangulation points count, is not a simple exercise, as discussed at great length in my 27 March post headed "captured marines again". There is no independent authority with the power to agreewhat the median line is, where there is no agreement between the bordering states.

The 1975 Algiers agreement provided for updating every ten years - these updates, necessary because of change of channels and banks over time, have not been carried out, which makes the application of that treaty yet another source of moot points.

It is generally accepted that UNCLOS on these questions now has the force of customary international law, so I would argue it does apply here. But not everyone accepts UNCLOS as enshrining customary international law, and to complicate matters, neither Iran nor Iraq is a party to UNCLOS.

Craig,

It appears that I made an error, when I said that Iran is not a signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

According to the UN web-site, Iran did sign the treaty on 10 Dec, 1982.

http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterXXI/treaty6.asp

However, according to the same web-site, no instrument of ratification has been sent.

Also, article 77 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic requires that the majlis approve of treaties.

http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/ir00000_.html

Greg,

it is a signatory but not a party (ie it hasn't ratified yet). This could be yet again because of divisions in the Iranian government. Iran uses straight baselines for its territorial sea claims, and it would have to modify many of these to accord with the Convention. Frankly, it is such a weird theocracy that goodness knows what else they might object to.

Amazing comments-many very accurate, many as conspiratorial as the idea of a staged moon landing.

When it comes to facts, there are two simple ones:
1) a simple check of the locations on Google Earth shows that (second) reported position of the incident-per Iran's claims-happened in water too shallow to draft the Indian vessel; ie, it couldn't have happened where the Iranians said or the ship would still be stuck in the mud.
2) GPS. Sorry, but unless one is a believer in the staged moon landings, pics like these are most likely real:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DB42AC92-E1CC-4478-9910-B8CB299A6612/0/HeloGPS.jpg
Yes, that pic was taken after the incident, but that again demonstrates that the incident couldn't have happened in the shallow tidewaters especially at the TIME of the incident (check tides ;) ).

Sorry. Hate PM Blair all ya want, or whatever, but in this case it seems that the Iranians are the ones lying-or grossly mistaken.

Iranian TV footage of the UK military personnel had a map of the Shatt al Arab with the lat/lon written on the map alongside a position marker. I cant read the coordinates which might be in Arabic script. Any ideas of it in something I can read?

Re the availability of Admiralty charts, the charts are unlikely to be available for free unless some enterprising person posesses a paper map, scans it in as a jpg, tiff or OZFX4 format etc and posts it on the web. I have an two maps:- an aeronautical 1:500,000-scale map with the gps fixes quoted from the UK side if anyone wants me to post them, and a Landsat-7 image with the same gps plots.

Richard

Richard, if you could post a link to the map which appeared on Iranian television, i might could read it - Arabic/persian numbers are not that difficult to read, and if i have any trouble i would be happy to ask an Iranian friend of mine.

Re the admiralty charts, although there may be some question of their current validity, the charts which were referred to in the original 1975 treaty would provide a good starting point, and it seems to me that the British admiralty would have an interest in publishing them (the versions quoted in the treaty), if they do indeed confirm that the purported location of the Indian ship was within the area of Iraqi land/territorial waters.

Sam,

Both the British and Iranian coordinates are in too shallow water for that Iranian ship, (see more recent postings on the weblog).

The point is that the coordinates are anyway not more than a curiosity, as the boundary is not fixed.

Greg,

There is a further point. The 1975 boundary was to be updated every ten years as the boundary is defined down to the low tide mark as the centre of the main flow. That flow almost certainly isn't where it was in 1975. So you can't simply presume that the 1975 line is still the line.

Craig, I read that in the text of the 1975 treaty as well.

However, I think that the border, as established at that time is still relevant.

You are of course, quite right in saying that the sands in the gulf have probably shifted and that consequently it could be argued that the border has also shifted.

However, I would take a different position on this issue. While the Iranians would be within their rights under the treaty to make a claim that the land border had changed, due to "changes brought about by natural causes in the main navigable channel" as stated in article 2 paragraph 2, nevertheless, paragraph 3 of the same article states that:

"The occurrence of any of the changes referred to in paragraph 2 above shall be attested jointly by the competent technical authorities of the two Contracting Parties".

In other words, only if attested to by Iran and Iraq, would any alteration of the border become valid. Of course, either Iran or Iraq could make a claim that the other party was not acting in good faith, if they refused to attest to such an alteration, but clearly the authority to make such a claim is limited to Iran and Iraq - Britain could NOT lodge such a complaint.

Consequently, I am interested in the location of the border as referenced on the admiralty charts.

Sorry, if it sounds as if my points are redundant.

I am replying to whoever asked me to supply the url where the Arabic lat/lon was scrawled on a map which the sailors were pointing at while 'admitting' they were off-side. It as given below.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6513643.stm

The video seen earlier wasnt found today but may be lurking in there somewhere, but there is a still pic of the map. Its history now as they are due to be released shortly but it would be worth getting the Iranian lat/lon deciphered.

It isnt easy to reply to a specific poster on this newgroup!

The UK Hygrographic Office who publish the charts are famous for charging the earth for paper or digital maps and they are very copyright-concious, and both comments also apply to the Ordnance Survey and British Geological Survey. Buying the maps quoted in the UN stuff is the only way unless someone has the maps and is prepared to send a jpg.

I now have two satellite pics, and the Shatt al Arab waterway seems different between them. One was either at extreme low tide or the water is clear and shallow enough for the bottom to show up a long way out to sea. The estuary has meandered even between their photo times.

the UK newspaper "The Guardian" which I quoted from, has re-published the sat-map with 29 50' 36"N 048 43' 08" E given by MOD as the place where the capture occured. The Guardisn also showed a photo taken from a Navy helicopter hovering above the merchant ship being searched, with a Garmin Etrex GPS in the helo's cockpit displaying position 29 50.174' N, 48 43.544' E. After converting to make both co-ords the same format (dd mm ss, or dd mm.mmm)The two positions are 1.027 Km apart in an orientation parallel to the run of the estuary. So all is not as straightforward even at the start!

The Guardian showed the navigable
channel clearly seen with a meander and sandbank which is not followed by their
overprint of the Iraq/Iran offshore boundary. Therefore any ship
would have to curve into Iraqi waters on its way up the channel if
this is correct. If on the other hand the boundary goes mid-channel
round the bend, the ship's position would be much closer to the line.

Another issue is:- did the Iranians leave the sailors' gps running for a time after they were arrested? If so how do they know if the coords the Iranians gave were exactly at the time of capture and not later after they had been escorted to the Iranian side? They would have to use their own gps obviously.

Richard

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)