Subject: Re: Islands in dispute between USA and others
Date: Apr 16, 2005 @ 19:14
Author: aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> No, I have not seen the treaty. I based my statement on two web sites that saidyikes
> that Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo were covered by the treaty along with the others
> and the Office of Insular Affairs site that denies any other claims.
> However, now that I am searching for specifics on the treaty, I find nothingindeed
> solid on these two banks. There are plenty of rightist web sites decrying that
> they have been given away, but no proof. (One of these sites even lists Navassa
> and Palmyra as having been given away, which we know not to be true.)
>
> One seemingly scholarly paper in THE NORTH-SOUTH AGENDA (a publication of the
> University of Miami), September 2003, entitled "The Caribbean Security Scenario
> at the Dawn of the 21st Century; Continuity, Change, Challenge" by Ivelaw L.
> Griffith) is found at www.ciaonet.org/wps/gri03/gri03.pdf . (Mike, you should
> love this one!)
> maritime claims in the Caribbean area as of Spring 2003 on his pages eightwhat you mean we pale face
> through eleven. He says that Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Jamaica, and the US
> either claim or reserve the right to claim Seranilla and Bajo Nuevo.
>
> So, it appears that the USA has not formally repudiated its claim to these
> specks, but it is going out of its way not to assert any claim either. Perhaps
> the reason that we did not specifically name them in the 1972 treaty along with
> Roncador Cay and Serrana and Quita Sueño Banks was that we did not want to be
> seen by other claimants as endorsing the Colombian claim.
> More as/if I can dig it out.ABLOS01Folder/
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheia kallos" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 8:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Islands in dispute between USA and others
>
>
> >
> > well as i say
> > i dont know
> > but i do see martin mentions both of them here in 2001
> >
> > http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:b0juLLtsGgsJ:www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/
> > aka
> > http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/ABLOS01Folder/PRATT.PDF
> > footnote 3 on page 5
> > in the same breath with the 1972 treaty that you &
> > your apparently authoritative american web page
> > mention in order to dispose of them
> > & which you also seem to be not entirely satisfied
> > with
> > yet he seems to go so far as to deliberately avoid the
> > opportunity to connect them with that treaty
> >
> > so until & unless he honors us with an explanation for
> > his reserve
> > have you or anyone else actually seen this treaty
> >
> > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> >> The questions of Bajo Nuevo and Serranilla Banks
> >> have been substantially
> >> resolved, especially as far as the USA is concerned.
> >> They were covered in the
> >> same treaty (signed 1972, effective 1981) by which
> >> the US recognized Colombian
> >> sovereignty over Roncador Cay and Serrana and Quita
> >> Sueño Banks. They just
> >> don't get mentioned as often as the others because
> >> of their lesser significance.
> >> At that time, Honduras was still operating
> >> lighthouses on Bajo Nuevo and
> >> Serranilla, but they cleared out in 1986 in exchange
> >> for Colombia's recognition
> >> of Honduran sovereignty over a few islands closer to
> >> home. I cannot speak as to
> >> the current stands of Jamaica and Nicaragua relative
> >> to Bajo Nuevo and
> >> Serranilla.
> >>
> >> Most significantly as far as the USA is concerned,
> >> the US Office of Insular
> >> Affairs concludes its "Formerly Disputed" web page
> >> at
> >> http://www.doi.gov/oia/Islandpages/disputedpage.htm
> >> with the statement,
> >> "REMAINING US CLAIMS; None." Of course, this is
> >> after discussing Navassa and
> >> Wake as unquestionably ours. Of course, the dispute
> >> over Machias Seal Island
> >> and North Rock are entirely out of the purview of
> >> the Office of Insular Affairs.
> >>
> >> Lowell G. McManus
> >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> >> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 12:20 AM
> >> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Islands in dispute
> >> between USA and others
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> >> McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Fabio wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > It would be nice to discover if and which are
> >> the DISPUTED islands between
> >> >> > U.S. and the other Countries.
> >> >>
> >> >> The CIA World Factbook lists:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. Machias Seal Island and North Rock are
> >> disputed with Canada as part of
> >> >> maritime boundary disputes over the waters around
> >> them and elsewhere.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. Haiti claims Navassa.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3. The Republic of the Marshall Islands
> >> claims Wake.
> >> >
> >> > & many other sources add
> >> > variously
> >> > tho i dont know what to believe
> >> > 4 bajo nuevo bank aka petrel island or islands
> >> > &
> >> > 5 serranilla bank
> >> > naming in both cases jamaica nicaragua columbia &
> >> honduras
> >> > at least somewhat
> >> >
> >> > which if true is staggeringly fantastic news
> >> > since it elevates these banks to the level of
> >> louisa reef & perhaps a very few
> >> > other
> >> > individual spratleys that have so many as 5
> >> claimants each
> >> > & thus present at least a 3 way tie for most
> >> coveted individual speck in the
> >> > world
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Lowell G. McManus
> >> >> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Make Yahoo! your home page
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >