Ships under attack in the middle east

[dowie]

Even if the tanker briefly entered Gibraltar waters, it's neither here nor there other than for pseudo-justification for something unjustified.

No it is completely fundamental, it is the basis for the seizure, without doing so then the ship wouldn't have broken any sanctions and there would be no reason to seize it. The narrowness of the straits are irrelevant, please don't conflate this with freedom of navigation through the strait or pretend this was maybe related to altering course to avoid another ship as that is just nonsense.

EU sanctions relating to Syria are public knowledge, it is generally a good idea for a big merchant vessel to adhere to the rules of the countries it will be visiting on it's voyage... this wasn't a case of a ship accidentally entering the waters around Gibraltar but rather it was a done intentionally.

 

[i know nothing]

I do not put so much stock into a single retired persons position and not even the single Spanish Ministry's comments. However seeing as they are the only comments from a ministry inside the EU or a former head (who is on a think tank who comprises of similar power people and I suspect have a similar view to their head) then they are interesting. Hopefully I have cleared up the implication in that case though I have said many times, and with my position being contrary to that through the virtue of there being no EU comment in regards to our seizure of Grace 1 throughout is evident.

As one would expect of Nato and even the EU to condemn the tit-for-tat action. You can actually look further and see France and Germany put comments out: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-and-france-condemn-irans-seizure-of-british-tanker/a-49665532

and

Indeed even the external action arm put out a brief statement: https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters...seizure-two-ships-iranian-authorities-gulf_en

Ahhh... so there has been comment from EU countries as well as the EU then? So what was all that about silence from the EU speaking volumes? Or words to that effect.

 

[Radox-0]

Ahhh... so there has been comment from EU countries as well as the EU then? So what was all that about silence from the EU speaking volumes? Or words to that effect.

The silence and speaking volumes to me was in respect to the UK taking the tanker and no comment from the EU on the enforcement of sanctions.

This above comment from the EU is in regards to the UK tanker being seized recently by Iran.

If anything says more to me that the EU External arm put out a comment in regards to the UK tanker being seized yet remained quiet on the UK seizing the Iranian tanker in enforcing EU sanctions.

 

[i know nothing]

The silence and speaking volumes to me was in respect to the UK taking the tanker and no comment from the EU on the enforcement of sanctions.

This above comment from the EU is in regards to the UK tanker being seized recently by Iran.

If anything says more to me that the EU External arm put out a comment in regards to the UK tanker being seized yet remained quiet on the UK seizing the Iranian tanker in enforcing EU sanctions.

Oh I see, because the EU said nothing about the sanctions it must mean what you're suggesting above?

You're entitled to your opinion I guess.

 

[Jokester]

The silence and speaking volumes to me was in respect to the UK taking the tanker and no comment from the EU on the enforcement of sanctions.

This above comment from the EU is in regards to the UK tanker being seized recently by Iran.

If anything says more to me that the EU External arm put out a comment in regards to the UK tanker being seized yet remained quiet on the UK seizing the Iranian tanker in enforcing EU sanctions.

Have they made statements in the past when Syrian assets have been seized as a result of EU sanctions?

 

[dowie]

After pages of responding to the guff from various RT/Press TV fans re: the legal aspect here/EU sanctions... back to the wider topic re: Iran's response.

Anyone else think they might have shot their load a bit too early?

First they seized a small tanker involved in bunkering operations that no one seems to have claimed - some noises about smuggling etc...

Then they board two "UK vessels", strangely the one that actually was UK owned (and Liberian flagged) has been released.

The one they have seized seems to been a bit of a "miss" with regards to leverage - though you never know with the current UK government.

Firstly it isn't really a UK vessel - it is as much British as the ship seized in Gibraltar is Panamanian, rather it is owned by a Swedish company (incidentally one that hasn't been too great to UK staff recently so meh...)

Secondly it doesn't have any cargo on board, bit unfortunate.

Lastly there are no UK hostages for the Iranians to take... they've set up their little stunt with a fishing vessel this ship apparently collided with and/or filmed to respond to a distress call from... the've seized it (despite it being in Oman's waters and transiting the strait under freedom of navigation rules)... But who are they now going to hold prisoner and charge?

Not sure who the captain is but presumably he is Russian or Indian... doubt they're going to want to have a show trial with a Russian in relation to their fishing boat shenanigans - they'd have much preferred a British officer they could parade on TV.

Now of course everyone is going to be even more cautious and it is going to be even more dubious for them to attempt to repeat a similar stunt in order to seize yet another vessel.

Ostensibly it seems that their negotiating chip isn't as valuable as they might have hoped... Swedish owned vessel, crew from India, Russia etc.. I mean it was flying a British flag at least but that is about it.

 

[Jokester]

Yeah it’s funny that, you would think CT people would be all over the fact they released the actual British ship and seized a Swedish one instead.

 

[Radox-0]

Oh I see, because the EU said nothing about the sanctions it must mean what you're suggesting above?

You're entitled to your opinion I guess.

Yes it plays a part for my opinion. Indeed, as I have made clear, everyone will have differing opinions on the matter.

Have they made statements in the past when Syrian assets have been seized as a result of EU sanctions?

Have Syrian assets been seized in the past as a result of EU sanctions?

In regards to other sanctions and asset freeze's yes they have put out statements.

Here is one in regards to Ukraine: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/...-luhansk-people-s-republic-to-sanctions-list/ talks about Asset freeze for the people in the sanction

Another in regards to Russian sanction: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/...eu-prolongs-economic-sanctions-by-six-months/ also talks about general Russian sanctions, also goes into mode details about individual asset's frozen.

So yeah, as above, have my opinion on the matter. EU and EU countries are fine to come out and ask for deescalation and comments of solidarity in respect to the taking of British tanker, not so much in us taking theirs (and not just the EU, any EU nation indavdiually and even then, only one, Spain who some could argue have a reason to be annoyed say it was at behest of USA). I can clearly see most people will differ on this opinion and have laid my opinions out throughout many last few posts.

 

[Jokester]

Have Syrian assets been seized in the past as a result of EU sanctions?

Yes, someone posted the news links further back the thread.

In regards to other sanctions and asset freeze's yes they have put out statements.

Here is one in regards to Ukraine: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/...-luhansk-people-s-republic-to-sanctions-list/ talks about Asset freeze for the people in the sanction

Another in regards to Russian sanction: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/...eu-prolongs-economic-sanctions-by-six-months/ also talks about general Russian sanctions, also goes into mode details about individual asset's frozen.

Thanks for sharing, here's another one confirming the placement of sanctions on Syria.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/...ews-sanctions-against-the-regime-by-one-year/

The Council also removed 5 deceased persons from the list, as well as one entity which ceased to exist and one entity for which there were no longer grounds to keep it under restrictive measures. The list now includes 269 persons and 69 entities targeted by a travel ban and an asset freeze for being responsible for the violent repression against the civilian population in Syria, benefiting from or supporting the regime, and/or being associated with such persons or entities.

More broadly, sanctions currently in place against Syria include an oil embargo, restrictions on certain investments, a freeze of the assets of the Syrian central bank held in the EU, export restrictions on equipment and technology that might be used for internal repression as well as on equipment and technology for the monitoring or interception of internet or telephone communications.

 

[dowie]

Have Syrian assets been seized in the past as a result of EU sanctions?

Yes and assets belonging to companies from other non-EU countries such as China, Lebanon. You have been given examples of this already!

 

[Kenai]

Firstly it isn't really a UK vessel - it is as much British as the ship seized in Gibraltar is Panamanian, rather it is owned by a Swedish company (incidentally one that hasn't been too great to UK staff recently so meh...)

Interestingly, supposedly Panama had stripped the registration of the Grace I (due to non compliance with sanctions as far as I can tell) back in May and shouldn't have been using the Panamanian flag...

 

[BowdonUK]

I was just reading the latest, and hearing the audio conversations.

I'm in principle against a war with Iran. But their actions have become more and more pro-active and seem to be edging closer to a conflict. If the UK/US stormed an Iranian boat like they did, I think all hell would break loose. A real shame they are falling for the tricks that the war-mongers want.

 

[Radox-0]

Yes and assets belonging to companies from other non-EU countries such as China, Lebanon. You have been given examples of this already!

Yes and you will see in post #978 in response to you providing the link, do you have any reference it being an EU sanction? Here is my quote:

Thank you, will give a full read when I get a second. However from a quick glance, I see no mention of this being an EU specific sanction? Cannot tell, any ideas?

As I say, happy to see where is was an EU sanction, always happy to learn, but cannot see from that article and doing a follow up it being EU sanction specific?

 

[Radox-0]

Yes, someone posted the news links further back the thread.

Thanks for sharing, here's another one confirming the placement of sanctions on Syria.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/...ews-sanctions-against-the-regime-by-one-year/

I saw the chemical element but asked were the EU sanctions? I could not see anything clearly from the articles which referenced the EU sanctions as mentioned in that post and more recent follow on one, would be happy to be proven correct.

No problem. Indeed will find many press releases around sanctions, partly forms my opinion, happy to put out statements about sanctions in other instances, not so much here.

 

[dowie]

Yes and you will see in post #978 in response to you providing the link, do you have any reference it being an EU sanction?

France seized assets in relation to companies dealing with Syria and you're wondering if that is related to EU sanctions on Syria.... sorry but you seem to be engaging in a time wasting exercise here.

Do you genuinely suppose that France just arbitrarily seizes assets with no legal basis? What other basis do they have for the freezing of assets there? The relevant sanctions that France is signed up to re: Syria are those agreed upon by the EU!

 

[Radox-0]

After pages of responding to the guff from various RT/Press TV fans re: the legal aspect here/EU sanctions... back to the wider topic re: Iran's response.

Anyone else think they might have shot their load a bit too early?

First they seized a small tanker involved in bunkering operations that no one seems to have claimed - some noises about smuggling etc...

Then they board two "UK vessels", strangely the one that actually was UK owned (and Liberian flagged) has been released.

The one they have seized seems to been a bit of a "miss" with regards to leverage - though you never know with the current UK government.

Firstly it isn't really a UK vessel - it is as much British as the ship seized in Gibraltar is Panamanian, rather it is owned by a Swedish company (incidentally one that hasn't been too great to UK staff recently so meh...)

Secondly it doesn't have any cargo on board, bit unfortunate.

Lastly there are no UK hostages for the Iranians to take... they've set up their little stunt with a fishing vessel this ship apparently collided with and/or filmed to respond to a distress call from... the've seized it (despite it being in Oman's waters and transiting the strait under freedom of navigation rules)... But who are they now going to hold prisoner and charge?

Not sure who the captain is but presumably he is Russian or Indian... doubt they're going to want to have a show trial with a Russian in relation to their fishing boat shenanigans - they'd have much preferred a British officer they could parade on TV.

Now of course everyone is going to be even more cautious and it is going to be even more dubious for them to attempt to repeat a similar stunt in order to seize yet another vessel.

Ostensibly it seems that their negotiating chip isn't as valuable as they might have hoped... Swedish owned vessel, crew from India, Russia etc.. I mean it was flying a British flag at least but that is about it.

Not sure if first line was shot to me. Personally thought we were having a reasonable discussion even if we had differing opinions

In respect to the question don't think they have shot to early. IMO, they are having an effect to the point the government has advised UK flagged ships to stay away from the region for now.

I think its the flag element which is the important bit really, even if its a flag of convenience really. Cursory look around Swedish news does not suggest its a big deal as it is for UK government and from statement put out by allies expressing solidarity with us and not Sweden.

So while it may not seem a big deal given its only UK flagged, government are taking it seriously enough with there various threats and follow up letter into the UNSC: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/20/middleeast/iran-tanker-seizure-intl-hnk/index.html

I think the leverage is in the tanker itself and will be used to get back their tankers.

 

[Freakbro]

Get in, everyone's favourite Russian shill has joined in! Not bothered to read the thread, not bothered to see that his opinions are not based on facts and is finding excuses to justify breaching sanctions. It's not as if the sanctions are free to view on the EU website and are easily found with a Google search. Nuh uh.

Oh you should, it's been a highly entertaining catch up this morning! Especially when Sooty stayed up far past his bedtime and got over tired, bet he's going to be a nightmare for his parents today

 

[Danny75]

Not sure if first line was shot to me. Personally thought we were having a reasonable discussion even if we had differing opinions

If it was, it wouldn't be solely at you, rest assured. You'll come to see that some members have the privilege of carrying out worse ad-hom attacks than that, all under the watchful eye of the mods. Some opinions are not welcome, but instead of being honest about it and be seen to be censoring certain opinions, the targets are made to not feel welcome. To be sure of what opinions are welcome, search out the 77th Brigade's opinion on anything, and parrot it.

 

[Radox-0]

France seized assets in relation to companies dealing with Syria and you're wondering if that is related to EU sanctions on Syria.... sorry but you seem to be engaging in a time wasting exercise here.

Do you genuinely suppose that France just arbitrarily seizes assets with no legal basis? What other basis do they have for the freezing of assets there? The relevant sanctions that France is signed up to re: Syria are those agreed upon by the EU!

Individual countries can have their own sanction, from that own article:

In January, France sanctioned 25 people and companies based in Syria, and also French, Lebanese and Chinese citizens, over suspicions of fuelling the development of chemical weapons in the war-ravaged country.

I have been asked multiple times for my opinions or statements, or why I have an opinion one way or another and happy to provide so was only asking for confirmation, but also because there is a nice page here in regards to the EU council responses in respect to Syria: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/syria/history-syria/

Here we can see the EU talk about the sanctions against Syria, however we can also see they discuss the airstrike conducted by the US, France and UK and their support:

"We fully support all efforts made by the United States, the United Kingdom and France to degrade the Assad regime’s ability to use chemical weapons and to deter any future use, demonstrated by their action taken on April 13. This response was limited, proportionate and necessary – and taken only after exhausting every possible diplomatic option to uphold the international norm against the use of chemical weapons."

So on one hand we have EU talking about airstrikes yet in two other examples been quiet. First example is the assets France sized. This is why I asked for clarification if this was an EU sanction as I see no reference of it, only that line that "France" sanctioned 25 people / companies. If this was an EU sanction France done the name of it in, then it would mean indeed the EU does not comment of every sanction enforcement as I can see no reference of it and that would weaken my own argument that the EU staying quiet on us enforcing the sanction. So I would be weakening my own position but happy to do so. See I can change my opinions based on new evidence and details and always happy to learn.

 

[dowie]

Not sure if first line was shot to me. Personally thought we were having a reasonable discussion even if we had differing opinions

Eh? Have you read the past few pages?

In respect to the question don't think they have shot to early. IMO, they are having an effect to the point the government has advised UK flagged ships to stay away from the region for now.

It was more in terms of the leverage aspect, I mean when UK ships start transiting again there is a good chance they'll do so in convoys at set times and/or with Royal Marines on board.

The Iranians therefore might well have massively reduced their chances of securing another bargaining chip and the one they did get isn't exactly optimal.

I think its the flag element which is the important bit really, even if its a flag of convenience really.

I'd definitely disagree there - this would have a lot more impact if they had British merchant navy officers to parade on TV or send to some show trail. The flag has a PR effect but in reality they've left with an empty Swedish owned ship and some Indian's/Russians etc...

In fact I'd suggest that the UK could technically hold firm on this one and carry on with the same policy towards the vessel held in Gibraltar re: stating that they're open to releasing it if/when Iran provides assurances re: the destination of the oil. There would be much more pressure on the British government if there were British citizens being held by Iran (Iran is quite keen on Western hostages).