--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Smaardijk"
<smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "m06079"
<barbaria_longa@h...>
> wrote:
> > & thanx again peter now that i have really studied & appreciated
> this
> > seamless text
> >
> > but as you indicated
> > there still seems to be some question
> >
> > first they talk about a cnkp joint area
> > but then they talk about a tripoint
> >
> > & we know from the trilines of the delu condo areas
> > that there would be no single tricountry point
> > but a tricountry line with 2 bidominial tricountry points at its
> ends
> >
> > nor could i find the mentioned monument numbers on this probably
> > older map
> > & thus still cant visualize what the condo area might look like
> >
> > any ideas
> >
> > nevertheless
> > there certainly appears to be reason to hope this is a real deal
> > if i am not mistaken
> > our fifth or seventh in this rare international condo category
> > together with
> > 2 delu
> > 2 esfr
> > aeom &
> > eshoni
>
> The treaty deals with "the" tripoint, not with the condominium, and
> although I can see that you can't really deal with the tripoint
> without taking into account the condominium, the problem seems to
be
> that the condominium isn't very well - if at all - described. So
the
> only thing we can assume is that the condominium exists. The only
> point that can be located with certainty in that case is (CNKP)
KPRU.
> The line described in the agreement, which marks the end of the
> condominium, looks like to be only instrumental in defining this
> point (where it crosses the other line - the thalweg KPRU
boundary).
> I agree that (CNKP)KPRU is only half of the story, but it looks
like
> being the maximum attainable here. I suspect that the treaty was
more
> important to Russia than to the other two countries: Russia closed
a
> gap in its border. The gap consisted of 1) the last stretch of KPRU
> between KPRU marker pair no. 1 and (CNKP)KPRU and 2) the (CNKP)RU
> border between (CNKP)KPRU and CNRU marker no. 423.
>
> Whether that last marker is the other tripoint, CN(CNKP)RU, remains
> an open question. If the condominium border follows the river bank,
> it can't be, unless the marker is on the very edge of the land and
> half in the river. But I don't believe that is the case.
>
> Peter S.
In
http://www.pnp.ru/pg_nomers/20865.htm (Parlamentskaja gazeta), it
is mentioned that a draft "additional protocol-description" of the
CNRU border, eastern section, is approved by the Russian government.
It deals with CNRU in between CNRU marker no. 423 and the newly
established tripoint (by the tripartite agreement). There is no talk
of the condominium whatsoever here, and the protocol is presented by
the head of the Russian delegation to the joint Russian-Chinese
demarcation commission, so no mention of Koreans here.
This official, Genrich Kireev, says that the aim of the additional
protocol-description was to describe in detail, including the exact
co-oordinates, the location of the tripoint. "(...) the tripoint is
located in the middle of the main channel of the Tumannaja river,
306,9 m. from boundary marker no. 423".
Real information on the condominium is probably only available in
Chinese sources. Or someone could browse through all .kp websites on
the internet :-))
Peter S.