What the actual??

[harrytom 618]

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/mon-dieu-a-french-warship-spotted-off-the-new-zealand-coast/RM5YH5G3PJHZTBRHJ25PSVZAPA/

 

A volunteer coastguard crew was shocked to discover a French warship lurking in the Hauraki Gulf mist while searching for a stricken yachtie.

Kawau Volunteer Coastguard was called out to assist in the search and rescue of the yacht that had lost navigation and electronics amid a gale warning, with winds of 30 knots and heavy rain off Kawau Island last week.

[khayyam 61]

Much ado about nothing I suspect. The important people (NZDF) will have known all about it, but that doesn't include the CG Kawau crew.

[Guest 48]

Yip, passed us on way back from Rakino last Sat. morning. We were on port almost out of the channel by buoy 10 and a pilot boat sat on our port bow. Thought it was odd as he was blocking our exit. Frigate was still a km away. Long blast by the frigate for someone. Pilot finally buttoned off and let us pass out of channel. I guess I should have switched radio on and stated intentions. Like i am trying to get out of channel, wtf are you doing? Faux pās?

Hand signal worked tho.
Long live memory of RbW. 

 

[harrytom 618]

makes one wonder who is lurking off the coast ,above or under the water.

[Black Panther 1,496]

3 hours ago, harrytom said:

makes one wonder who is lurking off the coast ,above or under the water.

Whales

[ex Elly 161]

When asked by Stuff what Vendémiaire was doing in New Zealand waters, the Defence Force replied with a brief email which said: “You would be best to contact the French Embassy about this.” The French embassy was not available for comment.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300853963/sacre-bleu-coastguard-surprised-to-find-armed-french-warship-in-hauraki-gulf

 

[LBD 76]

Move along folks.... nothing to see here, just dropping off a couple of folk who want to clear NZ customs.. 

Shesh, a foreign warship close in NZ waters and no one will say why.... is it me or is this real odd?

[DrWatson 345]

They are NATO and a close security partner - invoking any parallel to RBW is misplaced and counterproductive. The rbw incident was wildly unpopular in France and toppled a government. 
 

They are the only nuclear armed eu country and their nuclear deterrent is not only a part of what keeps Western Europe from the expansionist revisionist aspirations of Putler, but also a significant deterrent across large swathes of the South Pacific - the area that I’m sure you would all like to see remain under the liberal democratic governance that allows and guarantees the freedoms we all take for granted.  
 

International waters are only 12nm away.

[Guest 48]

Pardon! Par manque de diplomatie. Langue lâche dans la joue. Dans un bar de marins, n'est-ce pas ?

[Psyche 528]

To be fair the fishing is pretty good around Tiri this time of year as well  

 

 

[CarpeDiem 355]

 

11 hours ago, DrWatson said:

International waters are only 12nm away.

I got the impression from the article that they were inside out territorial waters.

On 15/04/2023 at 1:29 PM, LBD said:

Shesh, a foreign warship close in NZ waters and no one will say why.... is it me or is this real odd?

Whether they were close to or inside our territorial waters is kind of moot.  They are perfectly entitled, just like any other foreign flagged ship, to transit through our territorial waters.

It just doesn't happen here very often because we're not much of a transit to anywhere, but if a French warship wants to nip through the inside of Barrier for a bit of island sight seeing on the way to New Cal after a training exercise in the South Pacific, they are perfectly entitled to do such.  Of course, in doing so they need to abide by our laws and regulations, that of course, would mean no nukes on board.  But the irony is we have no way of getting them to declare if they have nukes' on board or not, the most we could do, (short of declaring war), would be to politely ask them to leave our waters.

If you have a look at Marine traffic, you'll see French Military scattered all over the world.

So it's not odd at all, I agree, nothing to see here.

[harrytom 618]

The RNZN would of known about it's intention surely?

[LBD 76]

53 minutes ago, harrytom said:

The RNZN would of known about it's intention surely?

They should have known, at least out of curtesy

[CarpeDiem 355]

16 minutes ago, LBD said:

They should have known, at least out of curtesy

The only place that might have known - out of courtesy - would of been MFAT - MFAT are responsible for visiting military ships, not the navy, and they weren't visiting.

The Navy would only have found out if MFAT deemed it necessary to tell them.

I doubt even MFAT would of known, it's a well established principle that the worlds militaries don't share what they are doing with other nations unless it directly involves them.  Loose lips sink ships.

If you are concerned, you could submit an OIA to MFAT and ask them if they had been advised.

[DrWatson 345]

I highly doubt that a ship of and size could approach the NZ coast without being detected. Customs/Border control know if a vessel is approaching. They will know if you sail in to BOI in the wee hours of the morning after being 100miles out the night before; and you're not on a 4000 tonne Frigate. 

For a warship to enter the territory of another nation in peace it does require a bit more clearance and notification than sailing a merchant ship in. The respective NZ authorities would have been well aware of the presence of the FR vessel in our waters. As is usual, the purpose of the visit or transit is often classified. Not notifying and requesting permission from the host country and gaining clearance can be interpreted as an invasion. For example, Switzerland has accidentally invaded Lichtenstein on a number of occasions. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein–Switzerland_relations)
some of these incidents are technically invasions.

[CarpeDiem 355]

13 hours ago, DrWatson said:

For a warship to enter the territory of another nation in peace it does require a bit more clearance and notification than sailing a merchant ship in. The respective NZ authorities would have been well aware of the presence of the FR vessel in our waters. As is usual, the purpose of the visit or transit is often classified. Not notifying and requesting permission from the host country and gaining clearance can be interpreted as an invasion. For example, Switzerland has accidentally invaded Lichtenstein on a number of occasions. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein–Switzerland_relations)
some of these incidents are technically invasions.

The right of innocent passage through a coastal state's territorial seas without any prior notification or consent applies to all types of ships, including warships.

This is codified in the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea.  New Zealand's own legislation, which enforces UNCLOS, and signs UNCLOS into law for New Zealand is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Act 1996

Per UNCLOS, Warships may not enter "internal" waters.  Internal waters are defined as waters which fall inside the maritime baseline. 

It is worth mentioning that several UNCLOS signatories added codicils expressing their state's policies that imposed extra limitations on the entry of warships into their territorial waters and EEZs, (up to 200Nm out), but these do not hold any official status and are not the law of the sea, this is where the territorial sea limit starts.

When Peter Smith sailed Koa through the Northwest Passage during Covid Canada deemed him to be in Internal waters, Canada argued that he did not have the right to innocent passage via the Northwest Passage because Canada had closed their internal waters.  Various interpretations of the UNCLOS were either against him or with him.  The majority of articles about his passage, declared, that because he wasn't a warship, he had right of innocent passage irrelevant of if it was or was not internal waters. Nothing came of his excursion, which was unfortunate, because it was an excellent opportunity to define what control a Nation can have over internal waters that are also international straits.   (It would probably apply here to the Cook Straight).

The UNCLOS requires that submarines surface and fly their state flag when passing through territorial waters.  Whether they do that all the time is anyone's guess.

Innocent passage includes anchoring, but only so far as that anchoring is incidental to the passage or required for navigation.  Eg, Pete Smith anchored legally while waiting for the ice to clear.

This is one of the multitude of reasons why the USA is hell bent on preventing China from claiming the South China Sea as internal waters.  (Not that they are actually a signatory).

As I said above, the warship could of been asked to leave our territorial seas if they were not in compliance with our local laws and regulations.  Which means they probably were not carrying nukes'.

Article 30 Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State:

If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.

https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

I'd like to think it is unlikely that MFAT would not have been informed by the French of there intention to sail through our waters, but I really do not know.

I would also like to think that NZ has perfect control over it's borders and knows where every ship is, but the evidence of fishing boats illegally fishing within in our EEZ for weeks before being detected leads me to believe otherwise...

[harrytom 618]

Gather from the article ,somewhere between GT  Barrier and Kawau as they talk about entering north channel?

[CarpeDiem 355]

1 hour ago, harrytom said:

Gather from the article ,somewhere between GT  Barrier and Kawau as they talk about entering north channel?

Oh now you made me go and look up the definition of internal seas.  What a absolute rabbit hole... but none the less, very interesting!

Our internal waterways are mapped out by LINZ and I love how LINZ make everything freely available and downloadable, you just have to know what to search for.

These blue dots are our territorial sea base line.  So the landward side of this line is Internal water as defined by UNCLOS.

Up to 12Nm beyond that line is our territorial sea and after that is the EEZ.  So anything beyond that line is a free for all for innocent passage.

[harrytom 618]

I gather then the ship would of been internal waters.With or without our knowledge or permission?? Try it off the USA!china and see how they get on

[Psyche 528]

4 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

Up to 12Nm beyond that line is our territorial sea