You are descending into a personal abyss.
It's all very real - it only depends on who you are, on what side of
the fence you sit and what your paradigm is.
You have to decide for yourself, for example, if a coup d'etat where a
republic is overthrown and the perpetrator declares the new state to
be a monarchy, if it is effectively a legal transition - whether or
not a legitimate successor took over - i.e., should be "recognized".
I suggest a really good book about this - "Recognizing Foreign
Governments - the Practice of the United States", by Thomas Galloway,
American Enterprise Institute - Studies in Foreign Policy.
It covers the old "de jure vs. de facto" arguments - which is exactly
what you are wrestling with in your mind vis-a-vis enclaves. "Grey"
enters into an equation only in situations where fewer than all
incvolved parties agree that something exists anymore or doesn't - for
all or only some purposes. For one party - by itself - the situation
remains black and white - for a third party, like BPt members looking
at Kowloon, for example, some of us might take the Chinese point of
view - that it never ceased to exist as an leased Chinese possession.
Some of us might take the British official position - it existed only
outside British jurisdiction for a year or so. Some might take the
Japanese position, and say "we had it for four years along with
everything around it - at it wasn't an exclave of anyone's at the time".
All the rest of the banter about this is impractical philosophy.
LN
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
>
> & i think what you have proved in effect len
> by simply observing that there is neither clave black nor clave white
> but only a wide array of clave grays
> is that any & all supposedly or apparently dead claves cant really be
> dead & so cant really be reborn
>
> rather
> if they seem so
> it is just that they have become somewhat more or less gray than they
> used to be
>
>
> & moreover
> in view of all this grayness rather than any blackness or whiteness
> unless & until an apparently dead or even confirmed ghost clave is
> ever noticeably revived
> then it must be presumed not to be dead but to continue to exist
>
> yikes
>
> somewhat like a dormant volcano or a living ghost perhaps
>
> so any rebirth of any clave
> whether enclave or exclave or both
> is purely imaginary
>
> yikes
>
> or at least that appears to be the logical extension of your
> observation
>
>
> & so
> this line continues
> my saying exclave rebirths arent the same as enclave rebirths does
> indeed need to be corrected
> albeit not as you suppose here below
> but by simply saying
> supposedly born again claves of any sort arent really born again but
> may only seem so since they never really died in the first place
>
>
> admittedly this creates more problems than it solves
> since for example nobody expects steinstuecken to return to life
> yet karki & company which have been effectively dead just as long
> are considered by some people to be somehow in suspended animation
>
> of course we can blame this one entirely on the cia & its followers
> & anyone who trusts cia intelligence deserves what they get
> but not all dead claves can be so easily revived just like that
>
>
> oops
> did i say dead again
>
> but there is no such thing as dead
> nor death nor dying nor any of that
> for all that is an illusion
>
> there is only everlasting life
>
> i must keep correcting myself
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
> > <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is no "black and white"
> >
> > aha
> > good point
> >
> > & even the amaz claves must have been permeable in some ways
> > because even active military fronts are porous
> >
> > good point
> >
> > & clave borders are no more black & white than any other borders
> >
> > so this was an impossible quest precisely because nature busts a
> > vacuum & a monopoly in every way she can
> >
> > & there is no rule nor any exception to prove or disprove it
> >
> > but just a tendency toward dissolution or entropy
> >
> > - even Büsingen, a pure enclave/exclave
> > > if ever there was one was occupied during the aftermath of WWII,
> > today
> > > it is under Swiss customs jurisdiction (after having vacillated
> > > between the two), Swiss state postbusses route through it, the
> > Swiss
> > > nationalized health insurance is used to pass claims from
> > residents to
> > > the German system, Swiss telephones are installed there alongside
> > > German. The same applies to Campione d''Italia. Even Campione's
> > > stamps were not issued until the Switzerland gave its approval.
> > > Sovereignty is seemingly divisible in all these cases. Exclaves
> > are
> > > exclaves only for certain purposes.
> > >
> > > "it may be worth reminding ourselves that rebirth of enclaves
> isnt
> > > the same thing as rebirth of exclaves". I think what you meant
> to
> > > write is "it isn't NECESSARILY the same thing...". In the case of
> > > Kowloon, it was an exclave and an enclave simultaneously. An
> > exclave
> > > isn't necessarily and enclave (a la Dubrovnik), and an enclave
> > isn't
> > > always an exclave (a la San Marino).
> > >
> > > LN
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> <aletheiak@y...>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
> > > > <lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > After a lapse of a few days, here, for your revived
> > consideration,
> > > > is
> > > > > a presentation of another enclave that went away and came
> > back.
> > > > you
> > > > > didn't like the pope's possession as an example, so how about
> > this
> > > > one?
> > > > >
> > > > > The Walled City of Kowloon inside British leased Hong
> Kong
> > New
> > > > > Territories.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's a short history:
> > > > >
> > > > > June 9, 1898 Convention Respecting an Extension of the Hong
> > Kong
> > > > > Territory signed in Peking, provided that:
> > > > >
> > > > > - with respect to the walled city (Kowloon) "...Chinese
> > > > officials
> > > > > now stationed there shall continue to exercise jurisdiction
> > except
> > > > as
> > > > > may be inconsistent with the military requirements for the
> > defense
> > > > of
> > > > > Hong Kong. Within the remainder of the newly-leased
> territory
> > > > Great
> > > > > Britain shall have sole jurisdiction. Chinese officials and
> > people
> > > > > shall be allowed as heretofore to use the road from Kowloon
> to
> > > > Hsinan."
> > > > >
> > > > > - "It is further agreed that the existing landing-place
> > near
> > > > > Kowloon City shall be reserved for the convenience of Chinese
> > > > > men-of-war, merchant and passenger vessels which may lie
> there
> > and
> > > > > come and go at their pleasure; and for the convenience of
> > movement
> > > > of
> > > > > the officials and people within the city."
> > > > >
> > > > > August 6, 1898, Ratifications exchanged in London.
> > > > >
> > > > > October 20, 1898 New Territories Order in Council (Court at
> > > > Balmoral)
> > > > > ordered (in its paragraph 4):
> > > > >
> > > > > - Notwithstanding anything contained herein, the Chinese
> > > > > officials now stationed within the City of Kowloon shall
> > continue
> > > > to
> > > > > exercize jurisdiction therein except in so far as may be
> > > > inconsistent
> > > > > with the military requirements for the defense of Hong Kong.."
> > > > >
> > > > > December 27, 1899 Walled City Order in Council (Court at
> > Windsor)
> > > > ordered:
> > > > >
> > > > > - "...Article 4 of the Order of Her Majesty in Council
> of
> > the
> > > > > 20th day of October, 1898, is hereby revoked... The City of
> > > > Kowloon
> > > > > shall be, and the same is hereby declared, for the term of the
> > > > > lease... part and parcel of Her Majesty's Colony of Hong
> > Kong..."
> > > > >
> > > > > "After the war the Chinese government planned to restore her
> > > > > administration and the provincial authorities announced
> > intention
> > > > to
> > > > > establish Chinese civil courts there" [Hong Kong Telegraph
> > Dec. 6,
> > > > > 1947].
> > > > >
> > > > > During its occupation of Hong Kong (24 Dec 1941 - Aug 1945),
> > Japan
> > > > > evicted people from the city; during the Japanese occupation
> > the
> > > > area
> > > > > was sparsely populated. In 1943 the walls were demolished to
> > > > provide
> > > > > material for Kai Tak Airport improvements. After Japan's
> > surrender,
> > > > > squatters (whether former residents or - more likely -
> > newcomers)
> > > > > began to occupy the Walled City, resisting several attempts
> by
> > > > Britain
> > > > > in 1948 to drive them out. "The exact boundaries of the
> Walled
> > City
> > > > > cannot now be determined". (Wesley-Smith, Unequal Treaty).
> > With no
> > > > > wall to protect it (initially), the Walled City became a
> haven
> > for
> > > > > crooks and drug addicts, as the Hong Kong Police had no right
> > to
> > > > enter
> > > > > the City (and mainland China refused to take care of it).
> > > > >
> > > > > The 1949 foundation of the Peoples' Republic of China added
> > > > thousands
> > > > > of refugees to the population, many from Guangzhou, and by
> > this
> > > > time,
> > > > > Britain had had enough, and simply adopted a 'hands-off'
> > policy. A
> > > > > murder that occurred in Kowloon in 1959 set off a small
> > diplomatic
> > > > > crisis, as the two nations each tried to get the other to
> claim
> > > > > responsibility for a vast tract of land now virtually ruled by
> > > > > anti-Manchurian Triads. (The Triad is a collective term that
> > > > > describes many branches of the underground society based in
> > Hong
> > > > > Kong). The Triads' rule lasted up until the mid-1970s, when
> > a
> > > > series
> > > > > of over 3,000 police raids occurred in Kowloon. With the
> > Triads'
> > > > power
> > > > > diminished, a strange sort of synergy blossomed, and the
> > Walled
> > > > City
> > > > > began to grow almost organically, the square buildings
> folding
> > up
> > > > into
> > > > > one another as thousands of modifications were made,
> virtually
> > > > none by
> > > > > architects, until hundreds of square metres were simply a
> kind
> > of
> > > > > patchwork monolith. Labyrinthine corridors ran through the
> > > > monolith,
> > > > > some of those being former streets (at the ground level, and
> > often
> > > > > clogged up with trash), and some of those running through
> upper
> > > > > floors, practically between buildings. The only rules of
> > > > construction
> > > > > were twofold: electricity had to be provided to avoid fire,
> > and the
> > > > > buildings could be no more than about fourteen stories high
> > > > (because
> > > > > of the nearby airport). A mere eight municipal pipes somehow
> > > > provided
> > > > > water to the entire structure (although more could have come
> > from
> > > > > wells). By the early 1980s, Kowloon had an estimated
> > population of
> > > > > 35,000 - with a crime rate far below the Hong Kong average,
> > despite
> > > > > the notable lack of any real law enforcement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Over time, both the British and Chinese governments found this
> > > > > massive, anarchic city to be a bit much - despite the low
> > crime, if
> > > > > the 'Black Market' ever had a physical location, this would
> > have
> > > > been
> > > > > it, and needless to say, the sanitary conditions were, well,
> a
> > bit
> > > > > wanting. [Some Post WWII History above from the "Free
> > > > Dictionary.com".]
> > > > >
> > > > > April 24, 1975, Hong Kong officials quoted as saying "Walled
> > City
> > > > is
> > > > > not under the jurisdiction of the [Hong Kong] government"
> > (South
> > > > China
> > > > > Morning Post).
> > > > >
> > > > > After the Joint Declaration in 1984 The Sino-British Joint
> > > > Declaration
> > > > > on the Question of Hong Kong (The Joint Declaration), was
> > signed by
> > > > > the Prime Ministers of the People's Republic of China (PRC)
> > and the
> > > > > United Kingdom (UK) governments on December 19, 1984 in
> > Beijing.
> > > > The
> > > > > Declaration entered into force with the exchange of
> > instruments of
> > > > > ratification on May 27, 1985 and was registered by the PRC
> and
> > UK
> > > > > governments at the United Nations on June 12, 1985. After the
> > joint
> > > > > declaration in 1984, China allowed British authorities to
> > demolish
> > > > the
> > > > > City and resettle its inhabitants. The mutual decision to
> tear
> > down
> > > > > the walled city was made in 1987.
> > > > >
> > > > > Summary:
> > > > > From the De Jure standpoint:
> > > > >
> > > > > a. From the HKK-British paradigm, the enclave existed
> for
> > > > about
> > > > > 14 months (a little longer from the British home government
> > that
> > > > was
> > > > > not dependent upon the New Territories Orders), 1898-99.
> > > > >
> > > > > b. From the Chinese standpoint, it started to exist as
> > non-
> > > > leased
> > > > > enclave within leased New Territories at start of lease 1898;
> > it
> > > > > ceased to exist as sovereignly differentiatable from
> > surrounding
> > > > > occupied territory only during Japanese occupation 1941-5 and
> > it
> > > > > returned to exist as non-leased territory surrounded by leased
> > > > > trerritory in 1945 when GB power returned so that exercise of
> > lease
> > > > > terms could be resumed.
> > > > >
> > > > > From the de facto standpoint, Kowloon existed as enclave
> > within the
> > > > > leased area under British sovereignty from beginning of the
> New
> > > > > Territories lease until revocation in 1899, was in limbo
> > because
> > > > the
> > > > > weak Chinese government of the time could not exercise
> > objections
> > > > to
> > > > > British actions until the Japanese took it in 1941 when it
> > ceased
> > > > to
> > > > > be either under British or Chinese control. It formed again
> > when
> > > > the
> > > > > Japanese left and lease terms resumed, but was under nominal
> > > > Chinese
> > > > > "control" until lease ended with British exercising minor
> > > > > administrative power when defense (civil and military) of the
> > > > leased
> > > > > territory required (under the original provision of the lease
> > from
> > > > 1898).
> > > > >
> > > > > One can say that sovereignty was shared in certain aspects at
> > > > certain
> > > > > times,
> > > >
> > > > ok all very nice stuff len
> > > > but it seems to me that the fact that one can say what you say
> > here
> > > > plus the fact that there were always clear indications of who
> > was
> > > > primarily in charge
> > > > as expressed in wordings like
> > > > insofar as is not inconsistent with the defense of such & such
> > > > etc
> > > > etc
> > > > means
> > > > again
> > > > close but no obvious cigar yet
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > also
> > > > it may be worth reminding ourselves that rebirth of enclaves
> > isnt
> > > > the same thing as rebirth of exclaves
> > > >
> > > > political changes could renew or revive a nonexclave enclave
> > border
> > > > approximately or even precisely i suppose
> > > > whether anything was actually revived or not
> > > > since there is no enduring entity that this supposed renewal
> > keeps
> > > > belonging to
> > > > but it comprises only itself each time it comes up
> > > > & is thus a new & distinct entity at the time of each
> incarnation
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > so i at least dont see anything in kowloon yet that is even
> > remotely
> > > > like the former amaz exclave enclaves
> > > > which we were considering
> > > > & which were a case of first black & then white but never gray
> > > > & which occasioned this quest or question
> > > >
> > > > nor is anybody denying or disliking anything
> > > > but just looking for real evidence of a quite definite &
> > specific
> > > > thing
> > > >
> > > > proof of an exception that proves a rule
> > > > by actually going from black to white
> > > > & then back to black again
> > > >
> > > > unless this really is the nonesuch & impossibility i imagine
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > but as an international enclave that existed and that came and
> > > > > went and returned (from at lease someone's official sovereign
> > > > > standpoint) can't be denied.
> > > > >
> > > > > LN