Russia sinks Chinese Ship

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
The pursuing ship fired at least 500 rounds, forcing it to turn back to port, but it sank on the way.
-
500 rounds of what or are they just really bad shots?
 
#3
I can't imagine that China is particularly bothered. The only person that is, is a scare-mongoring journalist that linked this incident to a Russian-Chinese alliance that isn't happy with America....?? Rubbish story.
 
#4
snothead said:
I can't imagine that China is particularly bothered. The only person that is, is a scare-mongoring journalist that linked this incident to a Russian-Chinese alliance that isn't happy with America....?? Rubbish story.
Better?

It said the New Star had arrived in Nakhodka at the end of last month to deliver a consignment of rice, but that the purchaser had refused to accept it, saying it was poor quality, and demanded compensation.

The company said officials in Nakhodka had dragged their feet giving the vessel clearance to leave, prompting the ship to depart without permission on Sunday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7899662.stm
 
#8
I'm still not convinced, of course they're going to respond, but to start with a title saying "China has called on Russia to carry out a full investigation after a shooting incident" is over-stressing what China actually said, that's what the owner of the brilliantly named J-Rui Lucky Shipping pretty much demanded.
It still seems like an effort to scrape something together that may spark the imaginations of people. (In my opinion!)
 
#9
Taffnp said:
snothead said:
I can't imagine that China is particularly bothered.
Well there are still a lot of them left :)
The potential for a rare sighting of the Outrage Rickshaw is there, but it depends if the Outrage Lada can cut it off at the junction first.
 
#10
I'm sure the wiley Chinese will file this incident away, to use at some future date to get their way in some deal with Russia. :wink:
 
#11
snothead said:
I'm still not convinced, of course they're going to respond, but to start with a title saying "China has called on Russia to carry out a full investigation after a shooting incident" is over-stressing what China actually said, that's what the owner of the brilliantly named J-Rui Lucky Shipping pretty much demanded.
It still seems like an effort to scrape something together that may spark the imaginations of people. (In my opinion!)
Better Still?

China on Thursday again lodged urgent representations to the Russian Minister Counsellor to China in regards to the sinking of a Chinese cargo ship in Russian waters.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/20/content_10852238.htm

Yes, granted it's currently not listed as an international incident that will stop the Royal Mail getting through:

http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content1?catId=400033&mediaId=3800088

But it is non the less an incident requiring diplomacy.
 
#12
In-Limbo said:
snothead said:
I'm still not convinced, of course they're going to respond, but to start with a title saying "China has called on Russia to carry out a full investigation after a shooting incident" is over-stressing what China actually said, that's what the owner of the brilliantly named J-Rui Lucky Shipping pretty much demanded.
It still seems like an effort to scrape something together that may spark the imaginations of people. (In my opinion!)
Better Still?

China on Thursday again lodged urgent representations to the Russian Minister Counsellor to China in regards to the sinking of a Chinese cargo ship in Russian waters.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/20/content_10852238.htm

Yes, granted it's currently it's not listed as an international incident that will stop the Royal Mail getting through:

http://www.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content1?catId=400033&mediaId=3800088

But it is non the less an incident requiring diplomacy.
Ha ha, looks like the rest of the world is more bothered than I am! The facts are always more convincing than when the press gets hold of something and puts a spin on it. Well found!
 
#13
snothead said:
I can't imagine that China is particularly bothered. The only person that is, is a scare-mongoring journalist that linked this incident to a Russian-Chinese alliance that isn't happy with America....?? Rubbish story.
I beg to differ. Chinese public opinion is always pretty touchy about the thought of foreigners killing Chinese, particularly in the case of the Russians. It brings up bad old memories of the 100 Years Humiliation. I doubt we'll see blood spilled in the Black Dragon, but you can guarantee they won't let it go as stands.

I'm most curious to know about the whole 'permission to leave' bit: not being a nautical type, is it standard practice for ship-drivers to get fed up and piss off if the port authorities drag their feet over the paperwork?
 
#14
smartascarrots said:
I'm most curious to know about the whole 'permission to leave' bit: not being a nautical type, is it standard practice for ship-drivers to get fed up and urine off if the port authorities drag their feet over the paperwork?
Apparently it wasn't just paperwork.
"On February the 12, a vessel owned by the Hong Kong shipping company, came into the port of Nakhodka: New Star brought poor quality rice, the purchaser filed a claim and a local court of arbitration has imposed a security arrest on the vessel, but the captain decided to leave the port for China."
http://censor.net.ua/go/offer--ResourceID--114082
 
#15
smartascarrots said:
I beg to differ. Chinese public opinion is always pretty touchy about the thought of foreigners killing Chinese, particularly in the case of the Russians. It brings up bad old memories of the 100 Years Humiliation. I doubt we'll see blood spilled in the Black Dragon, but you can guarantee they won't let it go as stands.

I'm most curious to know about the whole 'permission to leave' bit: not being a nautical type, is it standard practice for ship-drivers to get fed up and urine off if the port authorities drag their feet over the paperwork?

Wouldn't have thought so dear chap, until a matelot turns up and clarifies maritime law with authority, I’d have thought the tub would have remained under the harbor masters authority until such time as it's relinquished. Doing a runner without clearance would I suspect be a bit like trying to make a mad random dash for the runaway in a 747 in some shipping areas.

Of course, the "dragging the heels bit", could easily translate as an order to detain, and then's the question about state of preparedness to give chase and all that.

And the small issue of concern that if you see a Naval wessel in the rear view mirror, and you're in a rusty tug, you better do what you're bloody well told if they ask you 500 times with the deck gun.

Let the Gun Boat Diplomacy commence.
 
#16
Domovoy said:
smartascarrots said:
I'm most curious to know about the whole 'permission to leave' bit: not being a nautical type, is it standard practice for ship-drivers to get fed up and urine off if the port authorities drag their feet over the paperwork?
Apparently it wasn't just paperwork.
"On February the 12, a vessel owned by the Hong Kong shipping company, came into the port of Nakhodka: New Star brought poor quality rice, the purchaser filed a claim and a local court of arbitration has imposed a security arrest on the vessel, but the captain decided to leave the port for China."
http://censor.net.ua/go/offer--ResourceID--114082
Rice is the new Opium in the Far East, dontcha know.

[Edit] My Ruskie is a little rusty, but I got the "500 раз" bit ;)
 
#18
It appears that the subject vessel was under 'security arrest', traditionally implemented by nailing a writ to the mast. Although China is not a signatory of the 1952 International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships, otherwise known as the 1952 Brussels Convention, the Russian Federation is (link). The following explanation should therefore be relevant (link):

International Agreement?

It is only “legally” possible to arrest a ship for security for a claim made or to satisfy a judgment if certain criteria are met...Arrest of vessels has long been the subject of international debate with two international conventions being the outcome. Countries which accept (ratify) a convention agree the requirements and procedure to arrest making the process more standardised. The 1952 Brussels Convention is in force and has been adopted by 70 nations (including France, Italy and the UK)....The second convention concerned with arrest is the 1999 Arrest Convention... This convention... has effected a change which is likely to result in many nations moving away from the 1952 convention ... although to date the 1999 convention is not yet in force as not enough countries have ratified it...

Can you arrest?

The claims for which an arrest can be made are numerous and cannot be detailed in the scope of this paper suffice it to say the SCA and the two conventions above have similarities in respect to many of the categories. If the claimant has a maritime lien a vessel can be arrested. In summary such liens include; damage done to a ship; salvage; seaman’s wages and one other which is practically obsolete. Outside such liens non exhaustive categories include a claim as to ownership, a claim for towage, claims for personal injury or death, collision, pollution and mortgage of any ship. Effectively if you are looking to arrest a ship the requirements for arrest to be allowed in that jurisdiction depend upon which convention (if any) that State applies.
Not only would one expect the application of minimum force but it should also be noted that Article One of the 1952 Brussels Convention contains this clause:

(2) "Arrest" means the detention of a ship by judicial process to secure a maritime claim, but does not include the seizure of a ship in execution or satisfaction of a judgment.
Although the Convention does not specifically preclude sinking a ship, I'm not sure this is quite what it has in mind. :scratch:
 
#19
Can you imagine the Andrew having a spare vessel in a fit state to go to sea at no notice and carry out such an interception?
 
#20
In-Limbo said:
Taffnp said:
snothead said:
I can't imagine that China is particularly bothered.
Well there are still a lot of them left :)
The potential for a rare sighting of the Outrage Rickshaw is there, but it depends if the Outrage Lada can cut it off at the junction first.
Nopw I'm not outraged. 500 rounds of 30mm seems a bit steep. Oh I know lets get all the apologists out ans start using the word proportionate. Like the Russkies give a feck :twisted:
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top