--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
<lnadybal@c...> wrote:
>
> You are descending into a personal abyss.
ahhh
then please forgive me len
as i hadnt meant to enter your inner space
> 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 claves cant
really be
> > & 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 or even confirmed ghost clave
is
> > ever noticeably revived
> > then it must be presumed not to be 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 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 claves can be so easily revived just like that
> >
> >
> > oops
> > did i say again
> >
> > but there is no such thing as
> > nor 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 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
> > > > > > 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