GIBRALTAR (Reuters) - The United States has issued a warrant to seize an Iranian oil tanker caught in the standoff between Tehran and the West in a last ditch effort to prevent the vessel from leaving Gibraltar.
The name of Iranian oil tanker Grace 1 is seen removed as it sits anchored after the Supreme Court of the British territory lifted its detention order, in the Strait of Gibraltar, southern Spain, August 16, 2019. REUTERS/Jon Nazca
The Grace 1 was seized by British Royal Marines at the western mouth of the Mediterranean on July 4 on suspicion of violating European Union sanctions by taking oil to Syria.
Gibraltar lifted the detention order on Thursday after the British territory’s chief minister said he had secured written assurances from Tehran that the cargo would not go to Syria.
But with the vessel and its 2.1 million barrels of oil free to leave, the United States launched a separate legal appeal to impound the ship on the grounds that it had links to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which it designates as a terrorist organization.
A federal court in Washington issued a warrant to seize the tanker, the oil it carries and nearly $1 million.
“A network of front companies allegedly laundered millions of dollars in support of such shipments,” the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie Liu, said in a news release.
“The scheme involves multiple parties affiliated with the IRGC and furthered by the deceptive voyages of the Grace 1.”
The U.S. State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on how the warrant, which was addressed to “the United States Marshal’s Service and/or any other duly authorized law enforcement officer,” may be enforced.
The Pentagon declined to comment, as did Britain’s Foreign Office.
Asked on Friday about the U.S. intervention, Gibraltar’s chief minister, Fabian Picardo, said that would be subject to the jurisdiction of Gibraltar’s Supreme Court. “It could go back to the court absolutely.”
The Gibraltar Chronicle newspaper reported that the vessel was unlikely to sail before Sunday, citing an unnamed source who added that it was waiting for six new crew members including a captain to arrive.
The Grace 1 had its name erased and it was no longer flying a Panama flag.
Iranian state television had quoted Jalil Eslami, deputy head of the country’s Ports and Maritime Organisation, as saying the tanker would depart for the Mediterranean after being reflagged under the Iranian flag and renamed Adrian Darya.
The captain of an Iranian supertanker at the center of a diplomatic standoff no longer wants to keep command of the ship, which is in need of repairs that could impede its immediate departure from Gibraltar, the sailor's lawyer said Friday.
The tanker — and its 2.1 million tons of Iranian light crude oil — seemed to perform mild maneuvers on Friday but largely remained still, shrouded in heavy fog in waters off the British overseas territory a day after authorities ended its detention for allegedly breaching European Union sanctions on Syria.
The release Thursday, as the United States reportedly maneuvered to re-seize the tanker, came as the head of the Gibraltar government said that Iran had promised him not to deliver the fuel to a sanctioned refinery in Syrian territory, although an Iranian official later disputed that those assurances had been delivered.
Any delay of the vessel's departure could provide a window of opportunity for the U.S. to mount further legal action and try to again stop the tanker amid growing confrontation with Tehran.
A view of the Grace 1 supertanker is seen backdropped by Gibraltar's Rock, as it stands at anchor in the British territory of Gibraltar, on Thursday.
Tensions have escalated since President Donald Trump last year unilaterally pulled the U.S. out of the 2015 nuclear deal signed by Iran and other world powers.
The decision re-imposed sanctions on Iran, stopping billions of dollars in business deals, largely halting the sale of Iran's crude oil internationally and sharply depreciating Iran's currency, the rial. More recently, the Persian Gulf has seen attacks on oil tankers and other high-stakes confrontations.
In early July, Tehran seized the British-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero in apparent retaliation for the detention of the Grace 1. Analysts had said the release of the Grace 1 by Gibraltar could see the Stena Impero go free.
But that prospect remained up in the air on Friday with a lawyer representing three Grace 1 crew members who were released from detention on Thursday casting doubts on the vessel's immediate departure.
Richard Wilkinson told The Associated Press that the Indian national who commanded the oil tanker until it was detained in early July had asked his Iranian employers to replace him.
"He doesn't want to stay in command of the ship, he wants to go home, because he wasn't happy to go back and pick up the broken pieces," said Wilkinson. "But he's a professional skipper and needs to wait for a new crew to do a proper handover."
A stern view of the Grace 1 super tanker in the British territory of Gibraltar on Thursday.
The lawyer said the tanker had been due for repairs in Gibraltar even before it was seized, which impeded the replacement of certain parts, making the tanker unfit for an immediate long voyage.
Adding to the uncertainty, the next possible destination of the cargo became a point of contention as Iranian and Gibraltar authorities showed disagreement over the terms that led to the ship's release.
Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Abbas Mousavi on Friday said the country had made no commitments to gain the release of its tanker, while the chief minister of Gibraltar insisted on the written assurances it had received.
The captors of the vessel "raised the issue of commitment in a bid to make up for their humiliation caused by this illegal act and piracy," Abbas Mousavi said, according to the semi-official Tasnim news agency.
"We announced that Syria was not its destination and we have upheld the same ... and reiterated that it was nobody's business even if it was Syria," he added.
In response, the Gibraltar government issued a statement saying that "the evidence is clear and the facts speak louder than the self-serving political statements we are hearing today."
Authorities in the territory at the mouth of the Mediterranean Sea didn't reveal if the vessel was expected to leave any time soon. Chief Minister Fabian Picardo said it was now strictly a matter of the ship's agents and owners.
"She is able to leave as soon as she organizes the logistics necessary in order to sail a ship of that size wherever it is going next," Fabian Picardo told the BBC. "It could be today. It could be tomorrow. This is a matter now exclusively for the ship agents and ship owners."
Authorities in Gibraltar had said Thursday that the U.S. Department of Justice had requested to seize the ship and its cargo, but Picardo said that such a request should be made directly to the territory's judiciary and not the government.
No U.S. claim had been lodged by the end of business day on Friday, a spokesman from the Gibraltar Supreme Court told The Associated Press. The official was not authorized to be identified by name in media reports.
Wilkinson, the Grace 1 captain's lawyer, said it would be challenging for the U.S. to secure the detention under the argument of applying U.S. sanctions on Iranian oil exports.
"They seem to want to enforce American sanctions in British territorial waters. Good luck with that," Wilkinson said, adding that "the U.S. is pretty late in the day."
"You need to get a formal application to the court, just writing a letter to the government is not enough," he said.
Earlier, authorities in the U.S. had announced plans to revoke visas for the country of any crew member on the Iranian oil tanker. Wilkinson said that the measure wouldn't be problematic for most of the crew, who come from Southeast Asian countries, including India.
In a statement, the State Department accused the Grace 1 of assisting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps in evading U.S. sanctions on oil exports from the country. The Corps is designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. and subject to separate penalties.
President Trump’s idea of buying Greenland from Denmark probably has a slimmer chance of happening than hitting an iceberg at the equator. But the suggestion shows constructive, creative thinking, and it’s an intriguing idea.
At 836,330 square miles, Greenland is almost precisely the size of Alaska and California put together. It is rich in coal, zinc, copper, and iron ore. Perhaps even more important, it could have significant strategic military value by providing bases in the North Atlantic and particularly in the Arctic, where Russia repeatedly makes territorial claims (including to the North Pole itself) that are spurious but provocative and potentially destabilizing.
Granted, the United States already has a key military installation there, the Thule Air Base, which (to quote the Wall Street Journal) “includes a radar station that is part of a U.S. ballistic missile early-warning system. The base is also used by the U.S. Air Force Space Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command.”
There seems no danger of Denmark abrogating the treaty that gives the U.S. the right to operate Thule. But still, ownership makes things permanent, and of course it would allow the U.S. to create other bases in Greenland if needed.
The U.S. has intermittently expressed an interest in buying Greenland since 1867, and in 1946, President Harry Truman actually offered to purchase it for $100 million (the equivalent of $1.316 billion today).
While there is absolutely no sign that Denmark or the mostly autonomous Greenlanders themselves would be interested in becoming part of the U.S., it does make a certain sense for them. Greenland holds no military value for a nation as small as Denmark, which has no need to worry itself with “force projection” the way the U.S. does. And while the natural resources could be as valuable to Denmark as they would be to the U.S., Denmark right now spends nearly $600 million annually in subsidies to Greenland’s government. Ridding itself of those costs, plus getting a big lump-sump payment from its American allies to boot, could be a good deal for the Danes.
Each major time the U.S. has bought territory — the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Alaska in 1867, what are now the U.S. Virgin Islands in 1917 — has proved to be a good investment. This one might be just as wise.
The price would need to be negotiated. The wishes of Greenland’s current population should be considered. The structure of territorial governance would need to be worked out. These and other considerations might argue against the deal even if Denmark were willing to sell.
In sum, further consideration might show the purchase isn’t practical. We won’t know, though, until we explore and analyze the possibility. It is very much to Trump’s credit that he has an open mind about such a thing. Long-term American strategic interests could well benefit, so it certainly doesn’t hurt to take Truman’s idea off the ice and see if it will float.
Sources quoted in other media differed over whether the president was joking or seriously hoping to expand US territory.
How has Greenland reacted?
Officials in Greenland have insisted that the island is not on the market.
"Greenland is rich in valuable resources such as minerals, the purest water and ice, fish stocks, seafood, renewable energy and is a new frontier for adventure tourism. We're open for business, not for sale," the foreign ministry said in a statement shared on social media.
Greenland Premier Kim Kielsen repeated the comments in a separate statement. "Greenland is not for sale, but Greenland is open for trade and cooperation with other countries, including the USA," he said.
"No thanks to Trump buying Greenland!", she wrote on Twitter, adding that a "better and more equal partnership with Denmark" was the way forward.
Poul Krarup, editor-in-chief of Greenland's Sermitsiaq newspaper, told the BBC he "couldn't believe" Mr Trump's remarks.
"Greenland is an independent area in the Danish kingdom and must be respected as such," he said.
But he said he thought the chances of Mr Trump's reported ambitions being realised were unlikely.
"We'd like to cooperate with the US, no doubt about that, but we are independent and we decide who our friends are."
What about Denmark?
Politicians in Denmark have ridiculed the idea of a possible US acquisition.
"If he is truly contemplating this, then this is final proof, that he has gone mad," foreign affairs spokesman for the populist Danish People's Party, Soren Espersen, told national broadcaster DR.
"The thought of Denmark selling 50,000 citizens to the United States is completely ridiculous."
"Out of all things that are not going to happen, this is the most unlikely. Forget it," Danish Conservative MP Rasmus Jarlov wrote on Twitter.
Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who took office earlier this year, has not commented on the reports.
She is set to visit Greenland this weekend and has said she is "very much looking forward" to it.
Mr Trump is scheduled to visit Denmark in September but there is no indication that the possible acquisition of Greenland is on the agenda.
The WSJ reported that it was "unclear" how the US would go about acquiring Greenland if Mr Trump was serious.
Where is Greenland?
Greenland is the largest island in the world (after Australia, which is defined as a continent in its own right). It is an autonomous Danish territory, located between the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans.
It has a population of about 56,000 people concentrated around the coastline. Almost 90% are indigenous Greenlandic Inuit people. It has a limited self-government and its own parliament.
More than 80% of the island is covered by an ice cap. Global warming is feared to be causing the ice cover to melt increasingly quickly but has also increased access to its mineral resources.
Why would it be appealing to Trump?
Mr Trump has reportedly taken an interest in Greenland, in part, because of its natural resources, such as coal, zinc, copper and iron ore.
But while Greenland might be rich in minerals, it currently relies on Denmark for two thirds of its budget revenue. It has high rates of suicide, alcoholism and unemployment.
"The United States has a compelling strategic interest in Greenland, and this should absolutely be on the table," he tweeted.
Can countries buy territories?
Historically, countries have acquired territory not only through military conquest but also financial deals.
Under the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, the US acquired about 827,000 sq miles (2.1m sq km) of land from France for $15m (£12.3m). In 1867, the US reached a deal with Russia to purchase Alaska for $7.2m.
The US later purchased the Danish West Indies in 1917 and renamed them the US Virgin Islands.
However, law professor Joseph Blocher wrote in 2012 that the "market for sovereign territory seems to have dried up".
"To be sure, there is still an active market for proprietary interests in public land... But borders - sovereign territory, rather than property - do not seem to be for sale."
The idea of purchasing Greenland was first mooted during the 1860s under the presidency of Andrew Johnson.
In 1867, a report by the US State Department suggested that Greenland's strategic location, along with its abundance of resources, made it an ideal acquisition.
But no official move was made until 1946, when Harry Truman offered Denmark $100m for the territory.
He had earlier toyed with the idea of swapping land in Alaska for strategic parts of Greenland, according to AP.
After the Israeli government agreed to allow U.S. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib entry into the West Bank to visit her relatives during an overseas humanitarian trip, the Michigan Democrat says she's now changing her plans amid widespread outcry, slamming Israeli leadership for their initial ban.
"When I won, it gave the Palestinian people hope that someone will finally speak the truth about the inhumane conditions. I can't allow the State of Israel to take away that light by humiliating me & use my love for my sity" — grandmother — "to bow down to their oppressive & racist policies," Tlaib, who is Muslim and of Palestinian descent, tweeted of her planned visit with her grandmother.
She added, "Silencing me & treating me like a criminal is not what she wants for me. It would kill a piece of me. I have decided that visiting my grandmother under these oppressive conditions stands against everything I believe in — fighting against racism, oppression & injustice."
Trending News
Tlaib had posted on social media that she had planned to pick figs with her 90-year old grandmother and was exchanging messages with her cousin about making a welcome sign for her and fellow "Squad" member Rep. Ilhan Omar. She said in a later official congressional statement that her trip was contingent upon signing a letter by the Israeli government, something she says was "meant to humiliate me."
Representative Rashida Tlaib
Bloomberg
Tlaib's reversal in plans comes just after Israel said Friday that it had received and granted a request by Rep. Tlaib to visit the West Bank on humanitarian grounds. The move came a day after the Israeli government said it would bar Tlaib and Omar, who openly support a Palestinian-led boycott movement against Israel over its policies in the Palestinian territories, from entering the country.
Both Tlaib and Omar have been embroiled in controversy as of late after being targeted by President Trump in a string of inflammatory tweets. Mr. Trump had suggested Tlaib and Omar, along with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, should "go back" to where they came from. All of the congresswomen, of course, are American citizens.
Both Tlaib and Omar are also outspoken critics of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Tlaib's family immigrated to the U.S. from the West Bank. Omar has been accused of anti-Semitism for previous remarks about Israel, but has apologized for her comments.
On Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the country's interior minister had decided to deny entry to both Tlaib and Omar, who were scheduled to visit next week. He said he supported that decision, which drew swift rebukes from Democratic leaders in Congress as well as the leading pro-Israel lobbying group in the U.S.
Liu Yifei, the Chinese-born actress starring in Disney's upcoming live-action "Mulan" remake, waded into the Hong Kong protest controversy on Thursday by expressing support for the city's police, who anti-government demonstrators accuse of using excessive force to quell unrest.
"I support the Hong Kong police. You can all attack me now. What a shame for Hong Kong," she posted on Weibo, a Twitter-like Chinese social media platform.
Immediately, people began posting #BoycottMulan on Twitter -- which is banned in China. Hours later, the hashtag was trending in Hong Kong and the United States with 37,700 tweets posted at time of writing. Twitter users accused the actress of supporting police brutality, and called out the fact that she's an American citizen.
"Liu is a naturalized American citizen. It must be nice. Meanwhile she pisses on people fighting for democracy," one person tweeted.
On the flip side, she also received plenty of praise on Weibo, the dominant platform in China. Nearly all the comments on her post echoed support for the Hong Kong police and Beijing.
"Believe in the government, believe in the Chinese central (government), believe in the country," one comment wrote.
The protests, which began in June as largely peaceful mass demonstrations against a now-suspended extradition bill, have morphed into something much darker and more violent, with frequent clashes between protesters and police.
Liu isn't the only Chinese celebrity who's weighed in -- Jackie Chan, martial arts film icon and native Hong Konger, called for peace on Thursday in an interview with China's broadcaster CCTV. He, too, was blasted on Twitter for the nationalist tone of his message -- at one point, he says in Mandarin, "I feel the pride of being a Chinese everywhere. The five-starred red flag is respected everywhere."
Other public figures, actors and singers like Tony Leung Ka-fai and Daniel Chan have spoken out against protester violence and vandalism. Pop star Denise Ho came out in strong support of the protesters -- she even gave a speech about the protests at a United Nations meeting last month.
Celebrities outside of Hong Kong and China have also chimed in. Kim Eui Sung, a South Korean actor who starred in the cult 2016 zombie apocalypse film "Train to Busan," expressed support for the protesters on Instagram, writing, "We are watching you, praying for you. #freehongkong." After being bombarded with critical and pro-Beijing comments, he posted another photo -- the infamous Tank Man shot from the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Sports drinks brand Pocari Sweat was also cheered by protesters and boycotted by the opposition after the company pulled ads from a local broadcaster perceived as pro-Beijing. Even bubble tea has been caught in the mix, with a Taiwanese chain urging solidarity with protesters.
And with the unrest showing no end in sight, both sides are settling in for the long haul.
"So disappointed," said one Twitter user of Liu's Weibo post. "Was so excited for Mulan too."
