Which Countries know the Truth about the British Sailors?

[xiix]

I am surprised to hear so much speculation and rhetoric about the location of the British vessel that was intercepted by the Iranian navy. In this day and age, surely the precice coordinates of the boat are no big secret? I’m not sure what technologies would enable states to monitor this sort of thing, certainly the British have perfect data that was relayed from the boat, and undoubtedly the americans have satellites coverage of that area at all times. So which other countries likely can say with absolute certainty whether or not the boat crossed into Iranian waters and what technology would enable them to know this? Obviously as far as the politics of the matter are concerned, there is a room for manipulation of the facts, but isn’t it actually a straightforward matter for a great many people?

[Elsie]

I agree there’s a huge song and dance about it but that’s only because both parties desire the moral high ground in the issue (because that in turn protects their back, esp. with regard their domestic audiences) i.e. even if the outcome means they ‘lose face’ they can still claim they were in the right.
I’m not, however, sure it really matters where they were; this isn’t about encroachment, it’s a choreographed power-play which Iran initiated and on the subject of which the UK is struggling to keep up.

So it’s realpolitik, it’s unusually high stakes, and it looks increasingly unlikely the empire can prevent Iran from ticking all its boxes.

If you’re particularly interested in GPS and in the unusual boundaries of the Shatt al Arab Waterway, I’m sure folks will be along shortly.

[Colibri]

The problem may not be in where the boat actually was; it’s where the boundaries are that’s probably the real problem. The defined boundaries in the area have changed over time, and different ones may be recognized by Iran and Iraq.

From here

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

And, even if the incident occurred well before the spot where the river empties into the Gulf, the issue could be equally unclear — because the question of where the river border actually runs is as murky as the brown silt waters of the Shatt al-Arab.

The waterway is formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers at the southern Iraqi town of Qurnah. From there, the Shatt al-Arab, which the Iranians call the Arvand River, meanders south between Iran and Iraq until it spills into the northern Persian Gulf.

. . .

A 1937 treaty gave Iraq full rights to most of the Shatt al-Arab and fixed the border on the Iranian shore. Iran resented the terms, maintaining it accepted them only under pressure from the British. Lingering bitterness over the treaty may have influenced last week’s Iranian action.

. . .

Iran scrapped the border pact in 1969. Four years later, Algeria mediated another deal setting the border in the middle of the river’s most navigable channel. The river splits into a multi-channel delta as it nears the Gulf.

But Saddam Hussein tore up that treaty in 1980 and invaded Iran, setting off a bloody eight-year war.

Although the war ended without a formal peace treaty, both Iraq and Iran have generally accepted that the border runs down the middle of the main channel.

But the channel shifts due to silting. Because the two countries have not agreed on updated charts, that means there is no universal agreement on exactly where the border line runs.

If the seizure occurred near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab — which is likely — the issue becomes even more complicated because Iraq and Iran have never agreed on each others’ claim to Gulf waters near the mouth of the waterway.

Without such an agreement, international law requires countries not to extend their territorial waters “beyond the median line with neighboring states,” said Martin Pratt of the University of Durham in Britain.

But defining that line is difficult because of conflicting claims to rock formations, sandbars and barrier islands in the shallow waters of the northern Gulf, Pratt said.

As a result, there may be “legitimate grounds for arguing for a different definition” of those median lines, Pratt said.

“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 sand bank claimed by Iran,” said Craig Murray, former chief of the Maritime Section of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

[si_blakely]

Except that the UK govt has published one set of co-ordinates showing that sailors were in Iraqi waters, and the Iranian govt has released two - the first was in Iraqi waters and was withdrawn, and the second was in Iranian waters.

So I think that it is fairly clear where the sailors actually were, but of course, that is not the point. It’s now a power-play, with Iran attempting to provoke the UK. I don’t think they will be provoked, they will wait out the Iranians, and hopefully the moderates in Iran will force Ahmadinejad to back down. No matter what, no action will be taken by the UK until the sailors are freed. Then, I think that Ahmadinejad should sleep very lightly, lest he wake one morning having deliberately and illegally entered Iraq - in the company of a squad of friendly SAS troops.

Not that I would condone such an action against a sovereign ruler. Just sayin’

Si