Canadian Navy in action

Greg McCarty · Post by **Greg McCarty** » Mon Aug 07, 2000 8:43 am

Um, just a thought. St Vincent and or the
Grenadenes? The flag of registry is the important thing here, not that the owners
happen to be American. I'm geographically
ignorant here. Just WHOSE flag of registry
(country) is it flying? Those are the folks
who are supposed to be cranky about it.

Sounds to me like the ship owners are lousey
businessmen to have gotten into this sort of
jam anyway. My brother always says: "Get the money up front."

Greg.

[This message has been edited by Greg McCarty (edited August 07, 2000).]

Exnur · Post by **Exnur** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 7:34 am

This isn't SPWAW related, but I was wondering what the Forum thought about this current event.

The Canadian Navy just took control of a freighter owned by a U.S. company (but registered in St. Vincent and the Grenadines). The owners of the vessel were arguing with their client about money, so they were holding the cargo hostage by staying in international waters. The ship is loaded with 500 AFVs, weapons & equipement to outfit 1000 men, communications equipement, etc. (basically 10% of the Canadian Army's stuff).

In the contract, all disagreements were supposed to be settled in a neutral court (England), but the owners of the freighter didn't want settle for that. So, the Canadian Armed Forces boarded the ship and took control.

I'm curious, what do you guys think? Are you Americans pissed that the ship was boarded? Or do you sympathise with the Canadian Armed Forces?

Exnur

Desert Fox · Post by **Desert Fox** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 8:02 am

Finally!
Now we have an excuse to impose American rule on the Canadians (like they would know the difference).
They take our ship, we take their land.
Ok, not Quebec, that would just be too icky.

But seriously, we did start a war over this kind of thing before.
I guess there are arguments for both sides, but for Canadian forces to simply storm the ship, well that seems a little unreasonable. Sounds a lot like what most European folks would expect the US to do in that kind of situation.
Is there an article on this somewhere? More information is definitely needed.

JohnPC · Post by **JohnPC** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 8:18 am

Here a article about it. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/000803/1/af0rz.html

Wallymanowar · Post by **Wallymanowar** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 8:46 am

LOL Our navy -storming- a ship. What a concept!!

First of all you have to understand that I'm in the Canadian Navy and actually used to be part of my ship's boarding party at one point. Unless you assault it from a helicopter, or fire on it with your main gun, if another ship want's to stop you from boarding it's virtually impossible to get on board. The most likely scenario in this actual event is that our navy (after thorough discussion with Ottawa and with the American State Department) contacted the ship and told them we were boarding it. And the ship (after it's head office talked to their lawyers - who consulted the State Department who would most likely tell them to comply) allowed our boarding party on board. And then they would all sail happily into Quebec City (I believe their intended destination). By the way, there were 3 Canadian soldiers onboard the ship who were returning with the cargo as 'guards'.

Ah, there's nothing like a little melodrama from the press to grab a few headlines Eh!!

------------------
'Bitter Mike'

Exnur · Post by **Exnur** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 9:05 am

You're right about the helicopter "Bitter Mike", but not the co-operative reception from the vessel. It seems the ship took evasive manoeuvres and called out a mayday as if pirates were boarding it. The Canadian officials thought they were being a bit melodramatic. It took an hour to actually complete the take-over by a 14-man boarding party.

Exnur

Desert Fox · Post by **Desert Fox** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 9:18 am

Hmm, well I read that article, and I think it was definitely more of a matter for the courts to decide. The cargo should have been delivered, but the ship also should not have been boarded.
I gotta side with the shipping company on this one. The article did not give any reason for them not to be paid, so I really can only wonder why they were not paid as the contract stipulated.
I also do not understand why the ship was boarded. The equipment wasn't going anywhere, and unless the Canadians were getting ready to invade the US, I don't see how important it could have been. And also, according to the article, the ship was already moving to Quebec when they boarded it.
Now its not a US ship, so there is not much point in getting worked up about it.

McGib · Post by **McGib** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 2:49 pm

I'm ex Canadian Navy and no Mike its not the first time we've boarded a ship to capture. This is the first time I've heard of this particular story, and it would not surprise me in the least if the CF were in the wrong. Our Officers making bad judgments? No say it isnt so!

McGib
Ready Aye Ready ..... NOT

McGib · Post by **McGib** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 3:04 pm

Ok I've read the article. I dont blame our goverment for boarding the ship, after all would any other goverment do something different? If that ship was holding american or british equipment I would imagine the article would be the same, just with the country names being changed.

David F. Wall · Post by **David F. Wall** » Mon Aug 21, 2000 5:34 pm

According to the story I heard, according to maritime law, a shipowner who dooesn't get paid can do pretty much whatever he wants with the cargo UNLESS the cargo is the property of a soverign government.

Apparently, everyone is trying to be reasonable. The Canadians boarded the ship not so much to keep the ship owner from running off with a significant fraction of their stuff, but to make sure NOBODY ELSE does while they figure out where the chain of contracting and subcontracting broke down. The shipowner doesn't really have a problem with this, either -- the last thing he wants is somebody getting grabby for a ship with 4000 containers, a lot of which have ammunition in them.