It's Always Easier To Escalate

After a couple of days where it seemed that both sides genuinely wanted to resolve, by diplomatic means, the stand-off over 15 British sailors captured by Iran - the rhetoric and actions seem to have turned sour again.

The Associated Press covers the bases well in its report today. Iran has reneged on a promise to release the single woman sailor, Faye Turney, and various Iranian officials including the military chief and the chief negotiator have upped the ante by saying that Britain's "wrong behaviour" means the prisoners ``may face a legal path'' - presumably putting them on trial.

The UK is asking the UN, EU and individual European governments to back them in putting diplomatic pressure on Iran and hopefully the international consensus will have an effect in pushing Iranian feelings back towards concilliation. If not, that same consensus will come in handy for later, tougher measures of coercion such as sanctions on EU exports. The EU nations account for something in the region of 40% of all Iranian trade.

But things like British soldiers allegedly surrounding the Iranian consul in Basra and firing in the air, or demonstrations in Iran calling for the prisoners to be hanged don't help one whit. It's always easier to escalate than to calm things down.

And have you noticed that the Right in the UK and US are all up in arms about Iran having contravened the Geneva Conventions when there's no actual declared conflict or even shooting without a declared war? Nice double standards there. They have no trouble with the US and UK contravening the Geneva Conventions with torture or illegal imprisonment without trial during the "war on some terror". Either get on the Geneva train for the whole ride or get off, folks. It's obvious that signatories to the Conventions should live by them at all times and no matter the enemy or the circumstances. If it's reprehensible for Iran then the same goes for the US.

There's still an easy out to this developing crisis, if only Iran and the UK's leaders could put down their pride long enough.

In London, Vice Adm. Charles Style said the British boats were seized at 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north latitude and 48 degrees 43.08 minutes east longitude. He said that position had been confirmed by an Indian-flagged merchant ship boarded by the sailors and marines.

But the position, outside the Shatt el-Arab waterway in the Gulf, is an area where no legal boundary exists, leaving it unclear whose territory it lies in, said Kaiyan Kaikobad, author of ``The Shatt al-Arab Boundary Question.''

``What we do have is a de facto state practiced boundary - a line both countries have been observing on the spot,'' he said. ``The problem is that though the British have drawn a line where they claim the de facto line is, we haven't seen an Iranian version.''

Let both nations admit that the area is disputed and that neither can claim ownership of the whole truth in this matter. Let Iran return their prisoners to the UK or even a neutral third party. Let Britain then undertake to use its up-coming position as chair of the UN Security Council to push its allies, including Iraq and the US, to once-and-for-all resolve the territorial disputes in the Shatt al-Arab with a sympathetic ear for Iran's opinions. Everyone wins, the world becomes more stable, such diplomatic steps would have a beneficial knowck-on into many other areas of tension in the region.