Thanks for the humorous and interesting reply.
Re: "> it is still real dmz tho as far as both shores, and
> it is still part of the dmz"
It's clear to me from both the government maps and the treaty, that
the estuary neutral zone is not part of the DMZ. The treaty paragraph
you cited makes that clear by treating the estuary in para. 5
distinctly and separately from the DMZ it addresses in three preceding
paras., 2-4. Access, use, nature and administration of these two
entities are very different from one another - for instance nobody is
allowed in the DMZ without advance permission of the armistice
commission, but commercial shipping is allowed in the neutral zone
without formality. Koreans can step in the neutral zone water, but
they can't step into the DMZ. The DMZ is marked, but this bi-mutual
use zone isn't. The practicalities of the access to and use of this
zone is no different than the two possibly former neutral zones across
the Arab Peninsula. The practicalities and uses of the DMZ are vastly
different than that of the zone - on both practical and legal terms,
one is not an "extension" of the other or "more of the same with a
different flavor".
Re: "> the dmz as a whole is the actual neutral zone" isn't true at
all. The southern half of the demilitarized zone is South Korean
totally except at Panmunjom, the area they agree to keep their troops
out of. The half north of the armistice line is North Korean, the
area they agree to keep their troops out of. So, the DMZ is only, for
the MOST part, not neutral, but empty of people. The neutral zone of
the estuary can have people in it... that alone makes it a lot
different an entity than the DMZ. Pls don't argue that "empty" by the
very nature of the condition, makes it "neutral". I can have my
property emptied, keep it under my sway, and other than neutral by
keeping under my jurisdiction, an aspect of which is protecting it to
make sure nobody violates the emptiness.
At Panmunjom, a little square about a mile on each side, is the only
part where the UN and North Koreans are inside the DMZ, and the UN is
a beligerant on behalf of the south, not neutral. Just SW of
Panmunjom, inside the DMZ but on the South Korean side, is a South
Korean town, and the residents are not neutral, either. Somewhat to
the east of Panmunjom, there are the enclaves of the Neutral Nations
Observers (Swiss, Finns and Poles plus one another I think; a couple
on the north half in the zone and the others on the south side). They
are to be neutral, and their areas are really small.
Regards
LN
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
> <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I just created a new album in the Photos database, entitled
> "Neutral
> > Zones". I populated it with two Korean military maps.
> >
> > On the Han River, from the point where the Demilitarized
> Zone's
> > western end meets the river, there is a Neutral Zone extending
> > westward to a UN Zone separating Korea from China.
>
> wait len
> china is totally in foul territory
> so you cant mean china
>
> & the bases werent loaded anyway
> but i agree you are out of the ballpark
>
> what you have here is just the wet extension of the dmz that is
> open to innocent shipping
>
> it is still part of the dmz
>
> please see article 1 paragraph 5 of the 1953 dmz treaty
>
> a true no mans land
> or rather a true neithers land
>
> & this exceptional so called neutral zone of the dmz is the one
> part of the dmz that isnt quite so neutral as the rest
> for it is actually more like a joint zone
> insofar as both parties have the right of innocent passage
>
> it is still real dmz tho as far as both shores
>
> & i agree there could well be dmz claves anywhere the united
> nations is present whether as an actual buffer or not
> for real clave freaks
> tho i dont know about that or them
>
>
> anyway
> there are of course numerous multipoints in all this mess
> because the lines distinguishing the various parts do of course
> meet at various places
> but it is just a lot of whiffleball in relation to real multipointing
>
> by contrast
> the 4 de facto tripoints on cyprus
> where the united nations buffer zone meets 2 of the 3 other
> entities actually present there
> whether greco or turko or anglo
> are at least really multipartite
> in every case
>
>
>
>
> The map sections
> > show the SW and NE ends of the Zone.
> >
> > For you tri and quadpoint freaks, the eastern end of the Neutral
> Zone
> > ends at the demarcation line in the center of the demilitarized
> zone
> > separating north and south Korea. The Quadpoint there
> separates
> > international entities as follows:
> >
> > |
> > NK DMZ | UN DMZ
> > |
> > ------ ------- River bank
> > |
> > Neutral | SKorea
> > |
> >
> >
> > West of the Neutral Zone there are islands either within the
> North
> > Korean waters or international waters (in any case north of the
> DMZ)
> > that other maps also show with international borders around
> them.
> > inside the marked sea borders, there are annotations "Island
> Under UN
> > Control".
> >
> > So now we have the concept of sovereign south Korea with
> enclaves
> > within it showing as under UN control (By "within", I mean ther
> are
> > UN compounds on land in South Korea - I can post a couple of
> maps for
> > those expressing interest. The nature of this presence seems
> to be
> > more than just "bases".
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > LN