Skip Nav | Home | Mobile | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Security | Support Us

World

Blair's Faked Border

Bernhard | 01.04.2007 11:01 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Terror War | World

If one would use a maritime boundary defined by equidistance from the Iraqi and Iranian coastlines, as is commonly done in such cases, the result would be something like this purple line. The merchant vessels position as given by the British and the British forces themselves would then have been well in Iranian waters.

map 1
map 1

map 2
map 2

map 3
map 3

map1
map1

map 2
map 2

map 3
map 3


As former British ambassador Craig Murray points out [1], the British seem to have faked a maritime boundary.

The British Ministry of Defense has released [2] coordinates where fifteen British sailors and marines were picked up by Iranians after searching a merchant ship:

"As shown on the chart, the merchant vessel was 7.5 nautical miles south east of the Al Faw Peninsula and clearly in Iraqi territorial waters. Her master has confirmed that his vessel was anchored within Iraqi waters at the time of the arrest. The position was 29 degrees 50.36 minutes North 048 degrees 43.08 minutes East.

The MoD asserts that this position is within Iraqi waters:

This places her 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters. This fact has been confirmed by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry.

Additionally the MoD provides a map [3] with the position marked and with a line labeled "Iraq / Iran Territorial Water Boundary". I have taken this map and made two circles with the ship-position the MoD marked as the center. This is a part of the graph. (see map 1)

The blue line is the circle centered in the given position and touching the nearest point of the Iranian coast. The green line is the circle centered in the given position and touching the nearest point of the Iraqi coast. The distance from the given position to Iraqi land is considerably larger than that to Iranian land.

But the MoD map also says "positions for illustrative purposes", so let's not rely on them. The next map is copied [4] from Microsoft Encarta. The maps there include latitude and longitude lines. Using such and the MoD coordinates I interpolated by pixel-count and marked that position in red. (see map 2)

The blue line is the circle centered in the given position and touching the nearest point of the Iranian coast. Again it is obvious that the position is more near to the Iranian than the Iraqi coastline.

Which leads to the obvious question. On what basis are the British asserting that the line they painted in their graphic is indeed the "Iraq / Iran Territorial Water Boundary."

That boundary is simply not well defined and Iran and Iraq have fought several wars about the Shatt al-Arab [5] and its waterways. There is no binding or otherwise recognized international agreement about the maritime boundaries.

If one would use a maritime boundary defined by equidistance from the Iraqi and Iranian coastlines, as is commonly [6] (see Art.7) done in such cases, the result would be something like this purple line. (see map 3)

The merchant vessels position as given by the British and the British forces themselves would then have been well in Iranian waters.

Tony Blair should get some sense and tone down the hype over this. The British sailors and marines certainly will soon be returned to their homeland.

To rely on dubious boundaries that are not supported by the geography but drafted by his own Ministry of Defense is certainly not a strong argument for further agressions.




References:

[1]  http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/03/fake_maritime_b.html

[2]  http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm

[3]  http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/09D090E9-66DD-4951-9774-AC88983AF4CD/0/Slide2.JPG

[4]  http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/MapCenter/MapPrintPreview.aspx?lat=29.87489218232043&long=48.72396581946536&alt=9&mapsize=Large&mapstyle=Comprehensive&mapstyleselectedindex=0&selectedent=42509&entityname=

[5]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvandrud/Shatt_al-Arab

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

Bernhard
- Homepage: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2007/03/blairs_faked_bo_1.html

Comments

Hide the following comment

a way to the truth

02.04.2007 16:17

One of the first things to do when establishing the proof about something the British government does or says is to expect that they are lying. They lied about WMD/Oil and they continue to lie about the numbers they have killed through their genocidal policies. So no - I am not surprised that they are lying about the location of their ships. All I await is news that Britain/US/Israel have started yet another war of aggression.

Krop


Publish

Publish your news

Do you need help with publishing?

/regional publish include --> /regional search include -->

World Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Server Appeal Radio Page Video Page Indymedia Cinema Offline Newsheet

secure Encrypted Page

You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.

If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech