I have been extremely displeased by the media reporting regarding the ongoing Iran-Britain “detainee” crisis. The boundaries questons surrounding the Shatt/Arvand River are hardly of recent vintage. They are instead a crtical flash-point of contention that goes back centuries. Insuring access to world seaways via the disputed area is a vital interest, not just to Iraq, but to Iran also. And Iranians of all political persuasions have reasons to be deeply suspicious of “perfidious Albion” — on this issue.
It has been a crisis waiting to happen – or be manufactured. More on my views, a backgrounder, and cautions in another post.
For now, here’s a few stunning excerpts from the extraordinary blog of Craig Murray, the dissident former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and a onetime “Head of the Maritime Section of the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.”
As he did before, he’s blowing the whistle on “sexed-up” Blair-spin — and on the incredibly lazy reporting in the mainstream media (here in the US and in the UK):
Today (March 28th):
“The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.
But there are two colossal problems.
A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.
B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.”
Well imagine that. Should we be surprised? Who was it that invented the art of artificial line drawing in the Middle East?
Murray’s blog entries since March 23 are all worth considering – and comparing with what we’re reading in the media. To be sure, Murray sees room for blame on all sides
“None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only harden the Iranian position.”
I share Murray’s wish that this be resolved rapidly, before ideological hotheads on both sides (AN & TB) turn this into something bigger and more difficult to unwind.
And will somebody please get Helena’s hotline suggestion – e.g., Colonel Lang’s “deconflict mechanism” – working and stat!?
Comments?
Ahmadinejad is a one trick pony. He cut his teeth holding American hostages and now he is at it again. Does anybody doubt that the brits were inspect shipd to prevent smuggling? Or are you Scott arguing that it was a hostile operation against Iran? If negative you what all rational actors do, you let them know they stranded and see them away with a kiss.
But heck no, Iranian Mofos rather kidnap, parade on TV, have them say things against their will, and play games.
As the UK press says, it is shame that England is so pusilanimous, and probably so because they have no real strength to do anything else. Maybe send her Quaker do gooder to talk to the Mullahs into all getting along…
My prediction is that Iran will get away with the proctology manoeuver to the Brits again.
Hi Scott,
This is very interesting indeed. There are two other elements which may add insight in this event :
1) It’s not the first time that the Iranians stop a UK ship because it was in Iranians waters. At that time the case was resolved more rapidly and it came out that there were disagreements as to where the Iraqi waters stopped and where the Iranian waters begun.
2) If there is disagreement about the border, then, I’m sure it’s not the only times that the UK crossed the limits admitted by the Iranians. So the question remaining is why did the Iranians catch the Brittish troops right now.
3) A commenter at Juan Cole’s blog had an interesting remark : he remembered that right now the US has too Iranian prisonners, one being an Iranian diplomate catched in Kurdistan and another whose whereabouts I forgot. This commenter suggested that, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Iranians may be looking for a deal to free these two Iranians. Let’s hope that things don’t escalate like in Lebanon last summer.
4) I didn’t remember about the two Iranians prisonners, but I was surprised that no MSM quoted the conflict existing between Iraqi/Iranian waters.
Regardless of where the border may or may not be, let’s not forget it was the Iranians who decided to make a move they knew was provocative, when they might just as well not have.
I think the Iranians are much better chess players than their opponents (Britain, Israel, and the U.S.) so they must have calculated the options and decided that whatever the possible countermove (including a dramatic escalation) they would hold the advantage.
This is eerliy similar to Hezbollah’s seizure of Israeli soldiers last summer, also in disputed territory. To everyone’s surprise except Hezbollah, they were the winners of that conflict both morally and strategically.
We need to consider that Iran is essentially daring the West to strike back, because they are sick of American bluster and want to move to the endgame. They know that if they end up in a shooting war, they will hold several advantages. In most of the possible scenarios, they won’t even need to reveal all their hidden weapons in order to win.
In that regard, what’s up with the recent Saudi-Iranian détente, the apparent Saudi-Syrian détente at the Arab summit, and the Saudi withdrawal from a dinner date at the White House next month? All of these developments seem to show that the American grand plan to set Sunni against Shia across the Middle East has precisely backfired.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=80736&session=dae.25194862.1175169063.Xpg0IX8AAAEAABtEXpkAAAAG&modele=jdc_1
fyi, here’s the link to the “fake” British map & dossier that Murray questions.
By the way, I’m not commenting here, per se, on the precise triggers/motivations might be on this crisis. (Murray does that in earlier posts) The standard interpretations of Iran’s presumed motives may be plausible, but not necessarily certain. (One could just as easily speculate on just why Blair might have wanted to do one last “duty” for the neocons before he’s “retires” to the lecture circuit) Heck of a lot of “crosscurrents” afoot here, and shame on the media for once again becoming “the poodle” to just one side of the crisis…..
Who was it that invented the art of artificial line drawing in the Middle East?
This one’s easy: the Sumerians. Artifical lines have divided states ever since the concept of statehood was invented. In other news Colorado is a PERFECTLY RECTANGLE and therefore less authentic than Hawaii.
Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf
A fair point, and Murray is also correct to note that now the Iranian government is being very foolish, and itself acting illegally, by not releasing the men having made its point.
A wise guy, eh? Of course you knew I was referring to the “modern” state lines in the region. How about a contribution on the substance of the matter at hand?
Here’s Murray’s latest:
March 29, 2007
Both Sides Must Stop This Mad Confrontation, Now
There is no agreed maritime boundary between Iraq and Iran in the Persian Gulf. Until the current mad propaganda exercise of the last week, nobody would have found that in the least a controversial statement.
Let me quote, for example, from that well known far left source Stars and Stripes magazine, October 24 2006.
‘Bumping into the Iranians can’t be helped in the northern Persian Gulf, where the lines between Iraqi and Iranian territorial water are blurred, officials said.
“No maritime border has been agreed upon by the two countries,” Lockwood said.’
That is Royal Australian Navy Commodore Peter Lockwood. He is the Commander of the Combined Task Force in the Northern Persian Gulf.
I might even know something about it myself, having been Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1989 to 1992, and having been personally responsible in the Embargo Surveillance Centre for getting individual real time clearance for the Royal Navy to board specific vessels in these waters.
As I feared, Blair adopted the stupid and confrontational approach of publishing maps ignoring the boundary dispute, thus claiming a very blurred situation is crystal clear and the Iranians totally in the wrong. This has in turn notched the Iranians up another twist in their own spiral of intransigence and stupidity.
Both the British and the Iranian governments are milking this for maximum propaganda value and playing to their respective galleries. Neither has any real care at all for either the British captives or the thousands who could die in Iran and Basra if this gets out of hand.
Tony Blair’s contempt for Middle Eastern lives has already been adequately demonstrated in Iraq and Lebanon. His lack of genuine concern for British servicemen demonstrated by his steadfast refusal to meet even one parent of a dead British serviceman or woman, killed in the wars he created. He is confronting an Iranian leadership with an equal lust for glory and lack of human concern.
It is essential now for both sides to back down. No solution is possible if either side continues to insist that the other is completely in the wrong and they are completely in the right. And the first step towards finding a peaceful way out, is to acknowledge the self-evident truth that maritime boundaries are disputed and problematic in this area.
Both sides can therefore accept that the other acted in good faith with regard to their view of where the boundary was. They can also accept that boats move about and all the coordinates given by either party were also in good faith. The captives should be immediately released and, to international acclamation, Iran and Iraq, which now are good neighbours, should appoint a joint panel of judges to arbitrate a maritime boundary and settle this boundary dispute.
That is the way out. For the British to insist on their little red border line, or the Iranians on their GPS coordinates, plainly indicates a greater desire to score propaganda points in the run up to a war in which a lot of people will die, than to resolve the dispute and free the captives. The international community needs to put heavy pressure on both Britain and Iran to stop this mad confrontation.
The British people must break out of the jingoism created by their laudable concern for their servicemen and woman, and realise that this is just a small part of the madness of our policy of continual war in the Middle East. That is what we have to stop.
At least there are a few “sane” professionals out there….
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/29/unwise_brinkmanship_in_iran.php
These retired intel professionals cite almost the exact same passages I highlighted here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329762707-103677,00.html
And all thisoutrage over the “disgusting mistreatment and parading of the brave British marines and sailors at the hands of their Iranian captors”, while our own benevolent liberation goes on:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_O5OuU90ru-Y/Rgyrw-uT1MI/AAAAAAAAAZA/5ltoAgawUIo/s1600-h/aaa.jpg
[Link from As’ad Abu-Khalil, dated March 29, 2007]
Thanks David. No discussion of human rights abuse is complete here on JWN without a knee-jerk comparison to the United States and/or Israel.
Scott, I agree with much the substance of your post (that the framing of the dispute glosses over the meaningful issue of the long contested maritime border.) Which only shows that “the West” isnt responsible for age-old political fissures (a JWN leitmotif your “line-drawing” remark evoked).
fyi, more interesting comments from Richard Schofield, a London based geographer (who has written helpful & and edited book on the subject)
This is an AP report, (w/ several quotes of interest) filed late Tuesday….
http://news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/ap/o/51/03-27-2007/2fef0026edb7514b.html
“If this happened south of where the river boundary ends, knowing the coordinates wouldn’t necessarily help us,” said Richard Schofield, an expert on the waterway at King’s College in London. “We have to accept the British claim with as much salt as the Iranian claim.”
and this:
“There’s a lot of room for making mischief, if that’s what you want to do,” Schofield said.
But of course, Mr. Blair is “absolutely certain” of his version of the facts…. alas.
I found this BBC link to a BBCWS radio interview they did with Schofield…. (no date indicated – my guess is this was from Monday) Schofield’s views thus were “out there” — and yet Blair’s government went ahead anyway with its “fake” map…
So part of the interview are dated already, yet it’s a good “backgrounder”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6490000/newsid_6497200/6497265.stm?bw=nb&mp=rm
This could have been easily defused earlier, if only there had been a good bit less “certainty” proclaimed at the outset…!
Today, we have Blair belatedly saying that Britain isn’t looking for a military confrontation over this crisis…. but can he somehow back off his earlier obvious over-statement about the border? similar problem in Tehran….
“No discussion of human rights abuse is complete here on JWN without a knee-jerk comparison to the United States and/or Israel.”
So, the United States and/or Israel should be allowed to throw all the stones they like without anyone daring to point out what we all see going on within the walls of THEIR glass houses?
It really is irksome, I guess, to have the depth of one’s own hypocrisy exposed so frequently. :o}
“Today, we have Blair belatedly saying that Britain isn’t looking for a military confrontation over this crisis”
And how do we know he is not lying? He does not exactly have a sterling record for truthfullness in these kinds of matters, does he? And after all, the master he serves in these kinds of matters is exceptionally prone to mendacity, even for a bunch of politicians.
It really is irksome, I guess, to have the depth of one’s own hypocrisy exposed so frequently. :o}
Well Gee Shirin, since I think publishing photos of captives is in all cases a breach of the Geneva conventions, I don’t see where the hypocrisy lies. Why do you think the actions of the United States are pertinent in any way to Iranian transgressions against British soldiers?
This could have been easily defused earlier
It could be defused immediately if the Iranians simply returned their hostages, and used the mechanism of the UN to air their border grievances in the future.
btw Shirin, tu quoques could keep us busy all day. It would be entertaining to lecture you on the human rights abuses of your friends in Iraq’s deposed Baathist government, and use this to discredit your arguments on behalf of Palestinians. The Islamic states in general compare unfavorably to the United States, the UK and Israel in every category of human rights abuse, in women’s rights, in freedom of the press, political freedom, etc. Should this rebut their grievances with the United States? It’s the logic of a five year old.
“…since I think publishing photos of captives is in all cases a breach of the Geneva conventions, I don’t see where the hypocrisy lies.”
Really? You REALLY don’t see anything hypocritical about the United States and Israel screaming bloody murder when their troops are shown in relatively relaxed situations while they at the very same time publish the most humiliating photos of the (mostly civilian) Iraqis, Palestinians, etc. that they sweep up, admittedly often indiscriminately, by the thousands?
“Why do you think the actions of the United States are pertinent in any way to Iranian transgressions against British soldiers?”
Why do you find it inappropriate to be reminded that those who are screaming the loudest about others’ sins habitually commit far more egregious sins of the same nature?
Vadim, your childish attempt to implicate me in the human rights abuses of Saddam Hussein’s regime does not deserve any response beyond “grow up!”.
Wow, what an observation. Governments (ie thousands of people with different goals, standards of behavior etc, persisting across centuries) behave “hypocritically” How deep!
No Shirin, governments aren’t people but social institutions. They exhibit hypocrisy (a human trait) no more than they catch cold or brush their teeth in the morning.
Vadim, Governments are composed of people who make decisions. It is the people who comprise the government who are hypocritical. Where the people who make up the government are elected by the people of the country, they are a reflection of the character of the people of the country.
They say people get the government they deserve. This is certainly true of a government that is freely elected by the people.
So, Vadim, DO tell us what you find so inappropriate about being reminded that those who are screaming the loudest about others’ sins habitually commit far more egregious sins of the same nature.
DO tell us what you find so inappropriate about being reminded that those who are screaming the loudest about others’ sins habitually commit far more egregious sins of the same nature.
All governments are equally ‘hypocritical’ and ‘sinful’ and harping on this banal observation would be a waste of time (for me, though maybe for you it’s therapeutic: where you by any chance brought up a Catholic?) The more democratic a government the more likely it is to exhibit contradictions. I agree it’s ridiculous that the Islamic governments with their dismal human rights records also scream loudest about the abuses of Israelis, but rehashing this banality on every thread wouldn’t prove very much. It’s tu quoque, a diversionary fallacy.
Here’s some more on tu quoque branch of the ad hominem family we all know and love. I hope you find it enlightening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_tu_quoque
Political discussion and logical discussion are not the same. For example, an “appeal to authority” is perfectly legitimate in the conditions of profoundly imperfect knowledge prevailing in a political discussion, where the object is merely to win people to your point of view, whereas it is an irrelevance in a strict logical debate, where the object is to establish or refute a position incontrovertibly.
In logic, “tu quoque” is a fallacy where what is in question is the accuracy or otherwise of the original accusation. It is only a fallacy when it is claimed that it directly refutes the original accusation.
There are at least three circumstances where “you do it too” might be a perfectly legitimate point to make in a political discussion.
First (as in the case of the original useage here by David above), where the object is to knock down an implied assertion of higher moral standing.
Second, where the object is to establish a context that changes the nature of the act in question (eg, into a tit for tat rather than an act of aggression).
Third, where the object is to call into question the credibility of an accusing party. Eg, if the US and UK governments assert that Saddam is lying about possession of WMD – it is legitimate and relevant to point out that the US and UK governments are known to lie when it suits them (and therefore any claims they make in accusing Saddam of lying have reduced credibility).
If it gets boring hearing constant reminders of the moral failings of the US and UK regimes, well it cannot be more so than the ever-present claims (both express and implied) of moral superiority for the same nations that we all have to endure.
Excellent Randal. I would add that in most cases here at JWN, we are not really discussing the relative merits of different political systems – we are discussing issues of war and peace. This affects the bounds of legitimate debate, as well as the burden of proof. To my knowledge, no one here has ever argued that the political systems in the US, UK or Israel are “just as bad” as Saddam Hussein’s rule over Iraq. However, the US and UK invaded Iraq, with Israel’s support. This is, among other things, an assertion of moral superiority, which invites refutation by just the sort of “tu quoque” argument that offends Vadim.
This is, among other things, an assertion of moral superiority
Well I don’t think moral consistency was touted as grounds for invasion, but I’m not clear on yr point here John. Is Iraq under Hussein “as moral” as the US/UK or less so? How about Iran? Are they more or less hypocritical than the US government, and how does either opinion have any bearing on whether the soldiers should have been taken, how to avoid future border disputes or any other issue of substance? Wouldn’t it be boring and unproductive for the Israelophiles to rabbit on about Arab HR abuses in every discussion, even those having nothing to do with the Mideast? “It’s about their credibility you see!”
“Well I don’t think moral consistency was touted as grounds for invasion”
No, moral superiority was touted as grounds for invasion. To pick one of many examples, here is Bush announcing the start of the war:
“The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honourable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict America faces an enemy that has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality.”
Pretty standard stuff for war starters. The only point I was trying to make is that if you claim the right to take such extreme action on the grounds of moral superiority, then it is fair and reasonable for opponents to point out your moral failings. This is not any kind of fallacy, logical or otherwise.
No, moral superiority was touted as grounds for invasion.
Your soundbite dates from 3/30/03. Its unlikely Bush is by that late date laying out grounds for invasion. In context, it seems he’s commenting on Husseins tendency to place military targets among civilians. No different from any other political leader denouncing any other foe.
if you claim the right to take such extreme action on the grounds of moral superiority
You’re inferring a claim that was never made. WMDs, ethnic persecution and democratisation were touted as grounds for invasion, not moral invincibility.
If obfuscation were actually an art form, some of us would have our own gaurded vitrine at the Louvre, bronze plaque and all.
“Its unlikely Bush is by that late date laying out grounds for invasion”
Ha ha ha ha! Bush is STILL trying to lay out grounds for invasion!!!
“You’re inferring a claim that was never made.”
You and I both know that I could dig up any number of quotes of the “God is on our side because we’re good and they’re bad” variety. Claims of moral superiority are an essential ingredient in any campaign to convince groups of humans to start murdering other humans en masse. Which is why it is important and justified to poke as many holes in those claims as possible. I really don’t understand why you are disputing this, other than for the sake of argument.
“Claims of moral superiority are an essential ingredient in any campaign to convince groups of humans to start murdering other humans en masse”
Indeed. That, I think, is what “casus belli” has always been all about, really.
To slightly misuse a famous quote, in human conflicts, the moral is to the physical as three is to one.
Remember the “moral equivalence” slur the democracy uber alles ideologues used to sling around a few years ago? Not sure if that’s survived Iraq and the Palestinian elections.
Claims of moral superiority are an essential ingredient in any campaign to convince groups of humans to start murdering other humans en masse.
Claims of moral superiority abound in any political conflict. Obviously they’re a symptom of other causes. The wrongness of Hussein’s invasion of Iran or Kuwait doesn’t hinge in the slightest on his government’s “moral virtue” or turpitude, or the Iranians. It’s a shallow mode of analysis. Sorry you still dont get it
FYI (tip to As’ad Abukhlalil) for catching this Philly Inquirer cartoon:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_O5OuU90ru-Y/RhA-nuuT1RI/AAAAAAAAAZo/9QS4PkNowVw/s1600-h/aaaaaaa.JPG
yeeeow.
Make that “AbuKhalil” = oops.
Craig Murray’s blog continues to be a treasure…. What Murray and Schoffield are saying is quite accurate – Keikobad is the one “missing the point.” (But at least the LATimes has dared to even touch the bald faced “gap” here)
Murray also noted the ending paragraph of the following Oberver story today:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2047590,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1
But the Ministry of Defence hinted for the first time it may have made mistakes surrounding the incident. An inquiry has been commissioned to explore ‘navigational’ issues around the kidnapping and aspects of maritime law.
———-
It indeed is “a start” to unwinding this mess. Alas, the ideological firebrands (AN & TB) are both still mouthing off – and now Bush has “weighed” in…. (gasp)
“Claims of moral superiority abound in any political conflict. Obviously they’re a symptom of other causes. The wrongness of Hussein’s invasion of Iran or Kuwait doesn’t hinge in the slightest on his government’s “moral virtue” or turpitude, or the Iranians. It’s a shallow mode of analysis. Sorry you still dont get it”
What certainly is a “shallow mode of analysis” is claiming to be able to determine the rights and wrongs of an action in international affairs without taking into account the context. Even if you share my own very strict view on the use of force – that it is only ever justified in necessary defence – the context is fundamental because only the context can tell you if an action is defensive or not. Most people instinctively understand the need to take account of context, they just are misled in particular cases by complexity, by propaganda, or by emotional attachments.
Thus, to use the example raised by vadim, Iraq’s invasions of Iran and Kuwait were essentially, in practical foreign affairs terms, the same action as the US’s invasion of Iraq – a unilateral invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. But most people look to the contexts, and reach different conclusions as to the moral status of the various invasions (wrongly, in my own view).
Even if this discussion were strictly limited to the rights and wrongs of the Iranian detention of the British operatives, vadim’s assertion would be incorrect. It would be a legitimate point to raise examples of the US or UK taking Iranian hostages, because if the Iranians are engaging in tit for tat in response to a US kidnapping (as, in fact, they may well be in this case) then it is arguable that this is a different moral case than if the Iranians did it for other reasons. This is exactly a situation where the “tu quoque” fallacy does not apply. The domestic analogy is potentially misleading in this regard.
“Wouldn’t it be boring and unproductive for the Israelophiles to rabbit on about Arab HR abuses in every discussion, even those having nothing to do with the Mideast? “It’s about their credibility you see!” ”
The issue is whether the point made is relevant in the particular case. An attempt to reject all such arguments as examples of “tu quoque fallacy” is itself fallacious, as has been pointed out above.
“The wrongness of Hussein’s invasion of Iran or Kuwait doesn’t hinge in the slightest on his government’s “moral virtue” or turpitude, or the Iranians.”
It would appear vadim has misunderstood the point being made.
It would appear vadim has misunderstood the point being made.
It would appear that Randal thinks “US hypocrisy” is an all-purpose motif that fits nicely into any context. Randal either hasn’t understood my complaint or thinks US hypocrisy IS relevant to every discussion including this one (a post about Iran and British hostages, not the USA.) It would also appear that “tit for tat” is a loose synonym for “tu quoque” but even so the Iranian government hasn’t employed either pseudo-argument, and if they had, it would have nothing to do with “moral virtue” or hypocrisy. Clearly they know better.
Randal may be upset that I havent addressed his points. So herewith, a thorough exigesis:
where the object is to knock down an implied assertion of higher moral standing
Any such implication is
a.)very weak, and
b.)immaterial, since the USA is no longer part of the United Kingdom. Its moral standing is irrelevant to the entire discussion!! I pointed this out in my first remark. You weren’t listening.
Second, where the object is to establish a context that changes the nature of the act in question ,
Obviously logical fallacies have no place in the vocabulary of brute force or realpolitik. But the Iranian agents in Iraq were captured by the US, not the UK. As a strategic gesture this reprisal seems horribly misdirected. Nor have the Iranians claimed it was a strategic reprisal. THEY are arguing from principal – sovereign integrity! But if you’re assuming on their behalf an unprincipled, strategic motive, it would still be misdirected, and couldn’t be countered with any formal argument other than arbitrary appeals to self-interest (“Give them up or else…” or maybe “give them up and we’ll do what you want..”) That’s not a dialectic argument, but an exchange of threats.
Whereas Scott’s suggestion: that the debate concentrate on meaningful issue of international law, is both principled and pertinent. Isn’t that more effective than more knee-jerk anti-US sloganeering?
“Whereas Scott’s suggestion: that the debate concentrate on meaningful issue of international law, is both principled and pertinent. Isn’t that more effective than more knee-jerk anti-US sloganeering?”
No. Knee-jerk sloganeering is more effective. See, this is what you don’t understand about political debate. 😉