The Cod Wars?

I came across this book, "The ROYAL NAVY IN THE COD WARS : Britain and Iceland In Conflict" by Captain Andrew Welch, which made me think of the conflicts the Norwegian Coast Guard has had with Icelandic trawlers.

But most of all it made me wonder how the mighty Royal Navy can have a war with a navy which doesn't exist? No offence intended, the Norwegian Coast Guard has fired sharp ammunition more than once against Icelandic trawlers, I was just amused by the information that the British had the same problem.

 

Some time ago there was a reportage on one german satelite channel about French non fishing zone in south pacific. French navy doesn't fool around. First signal to stop, if that doesn't work, then one shot across the bow if even that won't stop them or they try to run, then they start firing into the hull. Their main problems are with Japanese, S. Korean, Chinese and sometime Spanish fishing ships. Ships are confiscated and sold at an auction. It gets a bit frustrating for the sailors. One such ship seizure was filmed and french captain said that that particular ship was confiscated by him already 3 times.

Also Falkland/Malvinas war was basicly becouse of rich fishing seas in the vicinity. British basicly gave up Falkland up with a treaty in late 19th century.

 

I wish the Norwegian Coast Guard would adopt some of that French attitude. The Spanish trawlers doesn't respect anything, they are overfishing and dump damaged nets right into the sea which causes huge environmental damage. At least the conflict with the Icelandic trawlers are over fishing rights and national zones, the Spaniards just have no respect for anything.

 

A British warship ramming an Icelandic gunboat just before the end of the Cod War -

 

post subject

I remember it well, a few plaices got battered.

 

Not as far as the Islanders were concerned. How was the Falklands given up when it still had a Royal Marine detachment garrisoning it?

I live in the UK and I have yet to see any fish turn up in the local shops from the Falklands area, I can't see how with the distance involved it was anything to do with fishing... If you were to say it was more about the last kicks of a dying empire (As a German student managed to make himself unpopular by doing to a British A-Level history class ) I might agree, but fish, sorry it's just too far away to benefit Britain as a whole.

 

The British faught for the Falklands because Argentina invaded and they were British territory occupied solely by British citizens who did not want to be Argentinian and it would have been a very dangerous world precedent had they got away with it - as a side effect of winning the war Margaret Thatcher's government's waning popularity was restored.

The Argentinians wanted the islands because they believe they have a historical claim to them, to stake a claim on the future carve up of mineral rights in Antarctica and to draw attention away from an unpopular dictatorship - as a side effect of losing the war the dictatorship fell. Fishing is an issue down there but I don't believe it had anything to do with the war.

 

I have split the puns off into 'Fish puns' (with all the puns) and 'Punning - Seriously' (with the discussion on punning). Please keep withing the boundaries of those topics

Back to the Cod Wars...

 

i can see the British would be protective of their fish stocks. what would England be without Fish & Chips

 

i know some one that worked in the British Navel Intelligence and the SAS

 

I'd consider that unlikely since the SAS is Army and Naval Intelligence is obviously under the Royal Navy, two distinctly separate services with different rank and command structures.

In any case, and with the greatest respect so what? I've known people that have served in all three of the British services, including former members of the SAS and paratroopers who fought in the Falklands, but that doesn't offer anything at all to the debate here.

 

Varyag, I am in complete agreement with you. Remember the Russian trawler and the kidnapped inspectors last year? What a farce. A sharpening of the laws and some arrests would do much to cure the arrogance of these thieves.

As for the Cod Wars, it was another case of arrogant overfishing of one nation (Britain) on anothers (Icelands) fishing waters. The Royal Navy defended British fishing trawlers that were in the wrong in the first place. Bear in mind that fishing is the main economic activity of Iceland, a country of just a few hundred thousand people.

Icelands saving grace in the end was its strategic importance for NATO, not the moral authority of it's cause.

 

Ah, in 1972 Iceland unilaterally declared an Economic Exclusion Zone over waters that were outside its territorial waters, and promptly cut the nets of anybody who dared fish in this zone - which British fleets had been doing anyway since, uh, a long time ago.

In 1976 an agreement was reached which allowed 24 British trawlers to fish in this zone.

In 1994 this zone was recognised internationally - 32 years after it was declared.


So, hardly arrogant overfishing of another person's territory, more a case of 'we have decided that you can't fish in this chunk of the sea any more, so there!' Which, by my admittedly slim grasp of maritime laws is of dubious legality at best.

 

That's right. Iceland unilaterally extended its limit - British fishermen were fishing legally in, what were generally seen as, international waters. The Icelanders broke international law by cutting the nets. In the end Britain gave up because it was making them look very bad (as some of the opinions above illustrate) and Iceland is a key NATO ally. Actually - after the cod war the British fishing industry went into decline and a lot of British fisheries workers moved to Iceland for jobs - there being no ill feeling between the workers on either side who pragmatically recognised that each party was merely trying to protect their livelihood.

Think about this - if Britain had fishing limits to the extent that Iceland have we'd be well past Paris.

 

Amazing what kinds of things people will do in order to "protect" their "rights". :roll:

 

Now there's my topic, and free of silly puns as well!

Ricky's right. Iceland praticed a very expansible and not too legal territorial policy during those years. The Norwegian Coast Guard had to make a big hole in an Icelandic trawler at one point, the trawler actually fired on the Coast Guard ship. Not as dramatic as the photo above, but it's not every day the Coast Guard open fire at something.

 

And all of this over some fish... :roll:

I know, cod are a vital part of the economies of Iceland, Norway, and others, but still, to shoot at someone over them (referring to the Icelandic trawler shooting at the CG ship). :-?

 

.

from lone wolf

" that's right. Iceland unilaterally extended its limit - British fishermen were fishing legally in, what were generally seen as, international waters. The Icelanders broke international law by cutting the nets"

the icelander were taking full advantage of the then newly adopted 200miles exclusive economic zone ,
voted by the united nation and adopted by all signatories , including great britain ,
it was the basis for the british , norwegian and dutch claim on the north sea oil fields .
the trouble came with the reconised traditionnal fishing rights , a very nebulous affair , based pretty much on the principle of "if you can grab it it's yours "
all over the world conflicts errupted over this , countries usually claiming different rights at different places :smok:
The icelanders claim was full exclusivity within their zone due to the importance of cod fishing in their economy
the " war " was usually between hard swearing (and hard swerving ) trawlers ,
the RN send a couple of sleek frigates , they found themselves being bumped by arctic duty tugboats ,
the contest was a head-butting competition between a greyhound and a bush pig .
the icelander pig had the best of it


.

 

Only 'cause the British rules of engagement didn't allow them to sink any of them.



PS. Does this look like a tug boat to you ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V/s_Týr

(it's the ship being rammed in the picture above btw)

 

.

I've read the details on wiki with interest , it differ from my recollections , wich are proven inacurate as to the ships details
Still it was a very enjoyable stoush , great for the evening news while eating a glorious fish and chips , is there still some with cod in it or has it too ,gone extinct

.