The event took place in an area near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, which forms part of the border between Iran and Iraq, where Iranian naval vessels seized 15 members of the British Royal Navy on the morning of Friday, March 23. Iran has claimed that the British crew was in Iranian territorial waters when they were captured by the Revolutionary Guard, claiming it as natural for Iran to protect its sovereignty. In contrast to the Iranian claim, the UK has said the naval personnel -- who were using inflatable boats launched from HMS Cornwall to, as the British say, carry out a routine inspection of a civilian ship sailing under an Indian flag -- were in Iraqi waters, on a patrol at the invitation of the Iraqi government and under UN declarations. In order to support that claim, the British Ministry of Defence also set forward GPS information showing that their soldiers were within what are claimed to be Iraqi territorial waters. It is reported by the British government that even the first Iranian report on the location of 15 soldiers supported their position. They also said that Iran later realized its mistake and corrected the claimed location of the boat’s seizure, claiming that the British crew was 500 meters inside Iranian waters.
In response, Iranian Col. Setareh, commander of the Arvand Coast Guard base, has stated that according to information recorded on the British sailors’ GPS, “their entrance and stay in Iranian waters is clear.” Tehran further said British naval boats had previously violated Iranian waters in 2004 and had given a commitment at that time not to repeat it.
A source close to the Revolutionary Guards gave a different account. Not only had the British patrol strayed into Iranian waters, he claimed, but it was at least the fourth such incursion in three months. “They came into our waters before ... at least three times,” the Iranian source said. “We gave them notice that they shouldn’t be here. We didn’t use aggressive methods. We didn’t shoot [across the British bows]. Both sides know the sensitivity of the current atmosphere.”
During the war of propaganda between the two sides, Iran decided to broadcast video images of the operation to prove that captives were in its waters, despite protests from London that this was against the Geneva convention on the treatment of prisoners. And then Tehran broadcasted some of the captives confessing that they were sorry for having trespassed in Iranian waters and apologizing for their mistake. British officials claimed that the confessions were due to “psychological pressure”, while the Iranian president, who pardoned the captives, said he had asked UK Prime Minister Tony Blair “not to punish” the crew for “telling the truth.”
Meanwhile, the English press criticized both the incompetence of the Royal Navy in providing insufficient protection to the naval personnel, as they were in lightly armed inflatable boats, and the seized personnel’s rush to admit to having trespassed and to apologize. The Daily Telegraph’s editorial underlined that the old military practice of giving only one’s name, rank and serial number and no more, has obviously been abandoned.
After all the confusion, it is time to analyze what the parties gained from the captives’ drama. Although the British government has claimed that there was no deal, and Ahmadinejad said the release of the 15 Britons was a “gift” to the British people to celebrate both the birth week of the Prophet Mohammed and the upcoming Christian holiday of Easter, it is clear that Iran gained some concrete concessions, albeit in a fog of secret diplomacy and informal talks.
Tehran’s unexpected announcement to free the captives came a day after the mysterious release of an Iranian diplomat, Jalal Sharafi, who was kidnapped in Baghdad at the beginning of the year by gunmen in Iraqi government uniforms. It also came two hours after an American general revealed the US might allow Iranian diplomats to visit five countrymen arrested in Iraq three months ago. Through the event, Iran also gave a clear message to the world that they are serious and able enough to protect their national interests, and at the same time they are flexible enough to negotiate a reasonable settlement.
Though they change their words after arriving in London, Iran’s seemingly generous treatment of the captive naval personnel was also an important message, especially at a time when we see how Muslim and Arab captives are being treated at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib by those who often claim superiority on moral and democratic grounds.
London did not accept that it had made a mistake, but it is reported that they have pledged “that the incident will not be repeated.” But the case was a humiliation for the British government in both military and diplomatic terms, since the 15 soldiers were not able to defend themselves, and Britain was not able to obtain the tough Security Council decision it wanted.
Let’s hope that the settlement of the standoff will be seen as an encouraging model for ending the nuclear dispute with Iran as well.
