There was such a hue and cry over the AMAZ enclaves
over the last two weeks or so that I probably should
have e-mailed earlier. But I am lazy and here is what
I want to say. If it seems like I am trying to say
Mike is wrong, it is only because I believe he had the
last word and this subject deserves a cloudiness that
a last word does not provide. Both sides argued with
a certainty that I don't think the subject deserved.
To me, unless two countries say so AND shows it so on
their maps, the existence or non-existence of an
enclave is somewhere in the middle. That means I am
not willing to say that the enclaves exist but neither
does it surely mean they don't exist. It is even
suggested that the Berlin enclaves were not true
enclaves and somewhat validly so as Germanies and
Berlins were zones and not countries until reunited.
I still considered them enclaves but it wouldn't be
wrong to think they wre not. I think Mike is putting
way too much insistence on what is his vision to the
exclusion of all others on the subject of its
existence.
I especially thought the idea that it didn't exist in
certain recent maps means it doesn't exist anymore
glaringly wrong. American and Western European maps
have clouded Mike and almost everybody else's mind on
the subject that what maps draw are imaginary lines
and not statements of facts. These lines can be
imagined by different countries according to their own
thought. I have seen enclaves appear and disappear
from Bangladeshi maps two or three times knowing full
well that they did exist. Just because it didn't show
up on a map does not mean it didn't exist. I wouldn't
be surprised if such uncertain boundary mapping was
the norm instead of the exception outside the Western
countries.
Much more valid is the point that the enclaves
disppeared in the heat of war. However, we should not
also take that as gospel. Many countries have taken
over areas that were later identified as not belonging
to them. Most countries still do not agree to make
Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel even though de
facto it has been the capital since taken over in a
war. Taiwan still exist in many eyes but not de jure
so. For a long time, Western Sahara was seen as part
of Morocco in many maps and was de facto so until it
reverted back in existence later.
We should not however discount Mike's contention that
in many cases not hearing about a certain geographic
object may mean it may be going out of existence.
Geographers can be notoriously slow at moments,
especially involving colonial fragments that the AMAZ
enclaves kind of are. I will give the example of
Junagadh. This fragment of Pakistan existed in
Pakistani maps for quite a long time after Pakistan
and India became independent. In truth, they didn't
exist and after the war in 1965, it was formalized to
be so. There is a good chance a similar thing may be
happening in AMAZ.
In conclusion, whether an enclave exists or not exist
is really a person's decision unless there really is
no evidence the other way. Most enclaves over time in
history probably have been thought about enclaves by
some, but most likely not everybody.
Arif
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail