--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
<lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> 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.
you are welcome
i was joking in earnest
& you may be clear
indeed i wish you would be clear
but the text of the agreement flatly contradicts you
http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/Links/about/papers/SAND97-0583/ap
p-abc.html
article 1 is entitled
military demarcation line & dmz
so naturally all 11 of its paragraphs legally refer to this rubric
& not just some of them
other articles have different rubrics
to which all their paragraphs legally apply
& i will leave the arguing to you
not only because you are so prodigious at it
but because it has no bearing on the multipartite multipointing
significance of all this
which remains nil
so far as i can see
no more than 2 entities actually meet anywhere in korea
south of cnkpru
perhaps our embedded clavers or zoners will eventually wake up
tho to hail or at least look into your supposed discoveries here
tho oddly they all seem to be sleeping in or zoning out today
but anyway carry on
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