Brit Flag rules dictate that they are managed by a British registered company, in this case NMC which had singularly not offered me a job…
That the RN is professional is a given. My point was that defence is funded by taxation and my point is that someone appears to be getting a free ride. I know it is the reality these days that shipping companies are structured to pay little or no tax. The crew are also paying little or no tax so the guy getting his or her pocket tapped is the British taxpayer.
Any wagers on the Impero mysteriously exploding now that the crew is off her and Iran can be blamed without anyone the wiser?
The purpose of a navy is in basics to protect their national maritime safety while at sea. The Brits sold their flag as a FOC. It’s not the responsibility of the British citizens to protect foreign nationals from another nation unless their lifes are in direct danger. There is no right answer to quickly resolve this. I hope for the seafarers sake a helicopter drops a well sized bag of funds for their release funded by a private account tied to the managing office holding the certificate of competence.
There was a very nice statement by the brigadier general for the US a few nights ago that clearly stated that the US will not provide protection for commercial ships without a US flag. The way it should be.
It was also noted the the Maersk Chicago made that same transit not long after this tanker with no issues. It was also being provided f18 air coverage when transiting the straits.
I would think the British Navy would have an obligation to protect ship flagged UK. It is an indirect hidden subsidy enjoyed by the owners and how much the public benefits may be debatable but that’s the game nowadays.
The solution is very simple. The British releases M/T Grace 1 at Gibraltar, illegally stopped there by some local pirates and then, I assume, the Islamic Republic will release the British tanker at the Hormuz. Pure luck that nobody has gotten hurt so far.
1 Like
The Grace 1 was, according to a EU directive was braking the law by taking petroleum products to Syria. She was arrested because she was sailing in the territorial waters of a EU country where the 1967 convention says this is lawful. This will, unlike what happens in Iran, be tested in open court.
I feel sorry for the Iranians who have to live under such a repressive regime. Scarfs for women and no more Syrah or anything alcoholic in
the country where a decent red was invented.
Hm, M/T Grace was attacked in Moroccan waters by British pirates and brought to Gibraltar. The tanker, its owner and the cargo owner are not subject to any EU directives or laws. Morocco is not part of EU and … is Gibraltar part of EU?? I look forward to the case being tested in open court. Any ideas when it will take place?
From Splash 24/7 today:
Crew of the Stena Impero consist of 23 persons, of which 18 Indian nationals, incl. the Master, which bring one more nation into the equation.
PS> There is also a link to Farsi News in English for some “unbiased” reporting on the incident:
https://twitter.com/EnglishFars
There are dozens of ships of many different nationalities passing through the Straits of Hormuz every day without being harassed by Iran, or anybody else.
AFAIK none of these ships have asked for US Navy protection, nor would they want any.
The BBC here in the UK are suggesting that the tanker has been taken over by Iran because their national flag has been hoisted on the starboard side of the mast. I’m an Engineer so I don’t know much about these things but isn’t that where the courtesy flag is flown and
so quite normal? (Although possibly rather odd under the circumstances.)
3 Likes
I think you will find the the Grace was and still is in Gibraltarian waters and yes Gibraltar is (currently) in the EU as it is a British dependency.
2 Likes
Yes the flag of courtesy should be flown from the Stbd. yard arm when in a foreign port.
BBC, like all other main stream media has very little knowledge of things maritime and usually don’t consult anybody that may assist them with technical terms and facts.
PS> I haven’t seen anything like that on BBC World news.
Don’t shoot! I’ll move the flag to the other halyard…
1 Like
There is a question about the legality of the British action, since the Grace 1 was sailing in an internationally recognised shipping lane through Straits of Gibraltar (just like the Stena Impero was through the Straits of Hormuz) It had not delivered any oil to a Syrian consignee, nor declared a Syrian port as it’s destination. How can the Gibraltar Government then legally declare that it had broken EU sanctions?
In international maritime law, as in any other law, you cannot arrest a person, or ship, just because you ASSUME that a crime MAY be contemplated.
Is there any proof that the Grace 1 was going to Syria?
If the cargo had been transshipped in international waters and ended up in Syria, that MAY mean that Grace 1 had been part of an unlawful (by EU law) activity. But the cargo is still on board and still belong to Iran.
US sanctions against Iranian oil export is not supported by EU or UK and should thus NOT be a ground for arrest.
We are in murky legal waters here-
2 Likes
Syria: EU renews sanctions against the regime by one year
On 17 May 2019, the Council extended EU restrictive measures against the Syrian regime until 1 June 2020. In line with the EU strategy on Syria, the EU decided to maintain its restrictive measures against the Syrian regime and its supporters as the repression of civilian population continues.
An eye for an eye and a tanker for a tanker, that is the name of the game. I have the strange idea that the Brits lived under the impression that the incident with the Grace 1 would remain unchallenged.
On the other hand they are notorious bad strategists and negotiators, look at the mess they made of the Brexit negotiations, stepped in it with no plan at all and don’t know how to finish this.
That is correct; sanctions against Syria, no matter what the source of the oil.
Not Iranian oil export to any other country, which is a unilateral US sanction.
The capture of M/T Grace 1 in Moroccan water must have been approved by the British government under prime minister Theresa May. Why cannot media ask her to clarify matters? Why not just stop the ship, ask it to identify itself and the cargo, visit it, if necessary, etc. Why take control of the ship and divert it to a foreign port? One of my ships once was stopped by a USN warship and visited by a US navy officer and four armed sailors. The ship had traded between two ports in the bay of Aqaba for years and had to be dry docked at Suez. The USN only found a locked container in the cargo hold and wondered what it was. Spare parts! Luckily I had left the key aboard and after checking my spare parts the USN left. We always wondered why USN stopped us.
I donot understand this. Was your ship in international waters? If so also the USN cannot board a ship in such waters. Defense personnel are prohibited anyway from directly engaging in law enforcement activities. Only a Coast Guard law enforcement detachment can do that when a suspicious vessel is identified in international waters.
The Coast Guard has to notify the State Department, which then gets permission from the vessel’s flag nation for the Coast Guard to board. In the rare instances when permission is denied the Coast Guard can only monitor the vessel.
What you describe could lead to an international incident.
1 Like