Soldato
yet generally EU countries do not enforce EU sanctions on non EU countries...so why did we in this case
Ships under attack in the middle east
- Thread starter XeNoN89
- Start date
Gibraltar is part of the EU. A ship is not a country, the Panama flagged merchant ship belonging to a Singaporean entity (and apparently ultimately owned by Iran) was in Gibraltar's waters, EU rules apply there ergo the ship was seized as it was suspected that it was breaking them.
This has been mentioned a few times in the thread. Unlike the US we're not currently enforcing sanctions on Iran (this might change though after their recent behaviour and of course with a new PM).
Last edited:
Caporegime
Fml...another one who can't read the thread and asks the same dumb questions.
Sympathise with this. There was no need to arrest the ship, even if they just wanted to enforce EU sanctions.
It was being monitored, obviously, suspected of carrying oil to Syria, but as long as it stayed out of EU waters it wasn't in any danger of possibly breaking any EU sanctions. So if the point was just to enforce the sanctions, then when approaching Gibraltar waters it could have been warned to stay out of EU waters. That ship would then warn others and word would spread and the existing EU sanctions would be respected by non-EU ships. So obviously the aim was to capture the ship, under the guise of enforcing EU sanctions, and put more pressure on Iran.
It's not like breaking and entering a house, and just being told you shouldn't be here and you must leave. You know you'd be committing a crime and ought to be arrested, in that scenario. This is akin to unknowingly being in/about to enter an area you're not supposed to be in, where usually you're told by a policeman you're not supposed to be here because of such and such, please leave. It could have easily been treated the same, and a helicopter and 30 marines wouldn't have been needed, nor would the capture of the Stena Impero in a tit-for-tat have happened later on. But no... that's too easy and not nearly confrontational enough.
Eh? We've imposed sanctions on Syria because we'd like to actively hinder the regime, if this ship is sailing to Syria to deliver oil to a named entity sanctioned by the EU then it is a good win if we can stop it - warning the ship to stay away so it can carry on and do the thing we'd like to stop/hinder would be completely counterproductive.
As for the idea of this ship spreading the word out among it's other ship buddies etc... I just don't even... I mean what is the internet etc...
Firstly I disagree that this, or the sanctions for that matter, have been productive at all. It's created a mess and it could get a lot worse. It probably will because there are few statesmen left who understand how to be both strong, and fair.
As for hindering... why should the rest of the world be expected to know of, or comply with, what the EU says? Isn't it enough that the whole EU is hurting Syria (sanctions evidently hurt the people more than the government) by not doing business with them? If the EU chooses to take a position of not assisting/doing business with Syria, that's one thing. But it must respect that others choose not to do the same. This was clearly not some kind of attack on the EU, nor intentional breaking of EU sanctions (they likely had no idea it applied inside EU waters to non-EU ships delivering oil to a non-EU country*).
* And I suppose a judge, and maybe even EU court judges later, will have to rule on that definitively at some point.
As for the captain/crew of the ship warning others doing similarly, of course they would. The owners would pass word to other owners doing the same. Iran would definitely be informed. Syria would definitely be informed. They themselves would make sure word got to all other tankers doing the same. Why would they not inform all the ships doing the same and risk their ship/cargo being arrested?
Don
I didn’t realise Syria, Russia etc were EU nations.
Because we want them to, we want to actively undermine the Syrian regime and this is part of it.
Well no, why would we want to undermine the effectiveness of the sanctions we've chosen to impose?
Of course it was intentional.
Because they're already aware that there are EU sanctions on Syria (and indeed US sanctions on Iran) - why do you think they tried to conceal the origin of the shipment for example? They got caught out. You don't need an individual ship to personally tell a bunch of other ship owners that EU sanctions exist!
Caporegime
Lol. Not thinking that shipping companies are aware of international laws. I do love how the shills will go to any length, no matter how ridiculous.
I wonder how many people actually want to impose their own will on the Syrian people other than those who have grown too big for their shoes.
This I would like you to explain as my first thought is what do you mean, that Iran wanted the tanker arrested and the UK fell into the trap? But I doubt you mean this.
Again, why would they enter EU waters if they knew of this interpretation of the sanctions?
I don't think the EU sanctions are all that clear on this precise matter.
If they're going to the bother of adding "including its airspace" then the omission of "including its waters" is rather glaring. Maybe they will say oh that's included as "the territory". But it won't be clear to others.
I would think non-EU ships genuinely did not know they would be breaking EU sanctions by entering EU waters. Iran would be aware that the US and its proxies might go after their oil, so if the crew attempted to not disclose the origin, it's understandable.
If you believe they intentionally broke EU sanctions, then perhaps quote the precise EU sanctions paragraph/s that make it very clear that the actions of the Grace 1 were not allowed.
Caporegime
It's been done, several times, read the thread you ignorant clown.
That's funny. All I saw was @Minusorange having to patiently explain to you that Article 42 does not mean what you say it means.
The Grace 1 wasn't doing any of those things.
Nice personal attack too, oh privileged one.
Caporegime
Suggest you read more...after minus was shown to be wrong. Several times. By several people.
So I suppose we can add illiterate or lazy to ignorant.
So I suppose we can add illiterate or lazy to ignorant.
Well, thank you for confirming that was what you were referring to with your lazy, cowardly innuendo. What comes after that seems to be just noise and failure to understand (or lack of desire to acknowledge) that point 4 applies to such laws and regulations as covered by point 1 (a), (b), (c) and (d).
It doesn't say with all laws that the EU member states bordering states are subject to. It says "the following".
In other words, there is no way that any reasonable person would expect an Iranian (or other non-EU) shipping company to understand from the above that entering EU waters while carrying oil destined for Syria, would be in breach of EU sanctions.
My offer to present something that does make it clear, remains open.
Caporegime
Keep reading...come on, you can do it.
I found this pearl:
It doesn't say "carrying any commodity... in contravention of... states bordering straits". It refers to the act of loading and unloading commodities in transit through a strait. If it meant carrying it would say carrying.
By the way, you don't have to be moving to be in transit. You can be sitting at an airport waiting for the next flight while in transit. A package can be in transit while held up for days at some point along its journey. A ship can be stopped before proceeding with its next journey, while in transit.
If you don't want to take my word for it, then ask the EU why they drafted legislation that bothers to address loading and unloading while in transit, if it's not even possible.
Pretty bizarre argument there my privileged friend.
It doesn't say "carrying any commodity... in contravention of... states bordering straits". It refers to the act of loading and unloading commodities in transit through a strait. If it meant carrying it would say carrying.
By the way, you don't have to be moving to be in transit. You can be sitting at an airport waiting for the next flight while in transit. A package can be in transit while held up for days at some point along its journey. A ship can be stopped before proceeding with its next journey, while in transit.
If you don't want to take my word for it, then ask the EU why they drafted legislation that bothers to address loading and unloading while in transit, if it's not even possible.
Pretty bizarre argument there my privileged friend.
Caporegime
You're still not quite there...come on Danny. You can do it!
Soldato
Nah, pull out completely, stop buying their oil, stop selling them weapons and then sit back and watch the entire sandy ******** implode as they rip themselves to pieces.
It would be glorious to behold. Deus vult.