Posted on 08/17/2008 8:48:13 PM PDT by kristinn
Just your assumption?
I agree ... (if McClatchey’s not making this up), and I despise those diarrhea-mouthed turncoats in govt. They’re freakin’ everywhere !!!
Thanks for that.
Your quote is right out of the Montreux Convention, generally limiting free passage through the straits to merchant vessels and military vessels less than 15000 tons. Here’s the thing, however: the USA has never been a signatory to the Montreux Convention. By US law, the straits are open water, though the US has, in the past, acted as if it’s a signatory to the Montreux Convention.
The President is within his US legal powers and treaty obligations to send whatever he wants into the Black Sea. If the Turks want to engage in extortion, then there is, of course, an argument to be made to pay them off. There’s a stronger argument, in my opinion, to simply ignore the Turkish government if they don’t help with this effort, or to destroy any Turkish forces that might try to oppose the US Navy.
Either way, however, the idea that the President has some legal or treaty barrier to sending ships into the Black Sea is bunk. The only question is whether he wants to use money or missiles to keep the Turks out of the way.
Has allowed the USAF to use an old Soviet base in Bishkek, their capital, (called Frunze in the Soviet era.) Not exactly the act of a country hostile to the US. Manas Air Base, Kyrgyz Republic
Turkey Shuts Bosporus, Dardanelles Straits on Fog
06 Feb 2008
Turkey shut the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits because of fog, temporarily closing a key export route for Russian and Caspian crude oil. Both straits, on opposite ends of the Sea of Marmara, have been closed to tanker traffic since yesterday, shipping center officials said by telephone. The Bosporus, which bisects Istanbul, was open to northbound traffic to the Black Sea briefly yesterday, before being completely shut at 7 p.m. local time, according to an Istanbul- based official, who declined to be identified. It was unclear when it would open, he said. The Dardanelles have been closed in both directions since early yesterday, according to an official in Canakkale, who also asked not to be identified.
The Bosporus and Dardanelles provide the only maritime access for Black Sea and Caspian countries to the Mediterranean. Delays through the channels reduce the supply of vessels and raise freight costs for refineries.- Bloomberg
Yes, I remember hearing that. I was thinking more along the lines of how Turkey might be reacting to events.
You are obviously more on top of this than I am.
~~PING!
In GWII I think we learned a valuable lesson about waiting on permission from the Turks and dammit, GWB would fight his way in now if necessary.
Turkey does control the straits, and they are militarized.
Under the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits of July 1936, which is still in practical force as of 2008, the straits are treated as an international shipping lane... but Turkey does retain the option to restrict the naval traffic of non-Black Sea nations.
So a Georgian flagged or Russian flagged vessel can transit through Istanbul (the straight splits the city in two)...but vessels under other flags *might* be stopped from transiting.
Another flub by McClatchy. The last one was on Thursday saying that we’ll leave Georgia to the Russians:
U.S. ‘no’ to intervention leaves Russia in control
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/48287.html
Their analysis seems reckless and weak.
More like Who the Hell! I would love to hear the leakers got caught and fired!
... The U.S. officials requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly, because the issue is diplomatically sensitive or because the administration takes a dim view of officials who reveal its internal deliberations.
On the other hand, some U.S. officials in speaking to the press without authorization are violating assorted rules and regs in order to interfere in US foreign policy in pursuit of their own agendas, even knowing that diplomacy often as not must consist of considerable amounts of bluffing that may be and probably is "above their pay grade."
So true — whichever anonymous weasels are leaking this stuff, even if accurate, have shown that they do not have their country’s interest at heart. Dare I question their PATRIOTISM?
They would rather try to damage President Bush than preserve the confidentiality of a sensitive discussion between the USA and Turkey.
It’s quite likely that these weasels do not even KNOW what they are talking about anyway!!! Do such anonymous weasels really know what discussions may or may not have transpired between Secy. Rice, Secy. Gates, and their counterparts in Turkey? Do they really KNOW that neither Pres. Bush nor VP Cheney nor anyone else in the WH or Depts. of State or Defense had placed a call or had a confidential meeting with someone from Turkey’s govt. who (speculation) may have assured that the request would be no problem once a formal govt. to govt. request was made??
All we know right now is that some anonymous treasonous lib weasel(s) are leaking and potentially damaging (further) our relations with Turkey. But we don’t have any idea whether said anonymous weasels are just spewing out of their ass(es) or whether they actually know something. Either way, whether they are accurate or inaccurate, this “leak” is contemptible.
Wasn’t there a Deep Purple tune about this?
This tune is going over in my mind..
As someone else pointed out earlier, we’re not a signatory to the Montreaux Convention. The President certainly does have the authority to send US warships through the straights whether Turkey gives permission or not. As a courtesy we have gone through the formalities in the past and probably will now, and Turkey is unlikely to risk looking bad by trying to deny the passage of humanitarian assistance. The anonymous meddlers are getting their panties in a wad over a nonissue; I suppose it makes them feel important to have some little scrap of info to give to the press. Perhaps it gives their life meaning.
There was a suggestion on another thread that their are physical limitations on the size of ships that can enter the Black Sea from the Mediterranean.
Does anyone know if this is true? How big a war ship could the U.S. navigate into the Black Sea? I'm sure the Russians know. I'd like to know too.
AFAIK, there are virtually no size limitations on ships going through the strait. The strait is 700m wide at it’s narrowest. I know that Soviet and Russian carriers have transited the strait in the past.
As far as treaty obligations, the strait is certainly part of Turkish territorial waters. Turkey is a signatory to the Montreux Convention. In this Convention, Turkey agrees to allow uninhibited passage of all commercial traffic within the limitations of safety. This, in effect, makes the Bosporus an International Waterway. The United States doesn’t have to be a signatory to the Montreux Convention to be bound by it’s effects. The only nation that must agree to the treaty to keep it in force is Turkey. If a nation wishes to treat the Convention as not-operative, then the Bosporus would revert to being a Turkish territorial waterway. It would then require the legal permission of Turkey to enter it. The U.S. would be bound by this.
Being only 700m wide, Turkey is quite capable of denying passage through military means if they so wish. Ships in the strait have to travel very slowly and make extremely tight turns to transit safely. The strait is militarized and literally passes through the heart of a major city. Short of an invasion or complete destruction of Istanbul, there is no way for any navy to pass ships through the strait if Turkey would wish to deny access militarily.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Most_Bosfor_Istambu%C5%82_RB1.jpg
This should demonstrate the problem that would be involved in forcing the Bosporus Strait.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
