Aletheia Kallos aletheiak@gmail.com [boundarypointpoint]
2018-05-07 16:21:31 UTC
dear professors st john & stuart fox
regarding the situation of the above named trijunction in the mekong river
about which you have written in ibru publications dating back to 1998 and
1996 respectively
& which refer to the tripartite agreement of 1994 ratified in 1995
i am writing to you in hopes of illuminating if not actually resolving a
difference of opinion i am enjoying with a friend of mine
the nub of the matter arises from a statement made in
the land boundaries of indochina cambodia laos & vietnam
https://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/publications/download/?id=213
near the bottom of original page 45 or pdf page 53 just before footnote 92
in text
for which it seems you may both be responsible to some extent
specifically
three countries.
my friend believes & maintains that this statement of yours was not meant
quite literally & should not be taken so
insofar as he supposes a marker rising in the middle of a river is bound to
be a navigation hazard
& would have been too difficult & costly to emplace in such a location
anyway
& too unlikely to survive for very long the regular flooding that occurs
there
& moreover he maintains that what your statement about 1 wet direct marker
must really mean is simply that the 2 dry indirect demarcation pillars that
are said in the subsequently published treaty
for example here http://www.law-lib.com/law/law_view.asp?id=77504
to stand on the respective banks of the mekong at precise distances &
azimuths from the true border junction point lying within the river
constitute the complete & sufficient demarcation & description of the
border junction
which he therefore supposes is not in fact demarcated directly at the
midriver location by any marker
& i might have been inclined to accept this otherwise sensible
interpretation or adjustment of your remark in light of his own later
researches
had i not found an eye witness account on the internet between 2004 & 2011
within this now expired link http://www.intgcm.thehostserver.com/diary2004_
245th.html that can no longer be resurrected today
telling of an approach made in some sort of light watercraft right up to
the side of a border marker that rose above the water in the middle of the
river
at exactly the expected location so far as i might tell from here
& because i took notes at the time
i can report with some confidence that the demarcation was credibly
described within a lengthy & generally believable travelog journal
specifically & verbatim
as a green triangular stone marker
i suppose this meant a prism shaped pillar or obeliskoid or a pyramidal
beacon covered with algae or moss etc
tho whether it was somehow embedded within & built up from the river bed or
somehow anchored or secured with buoys or cables fitted to a free floating
platform etc etc i have no idea
& it probably goes without saying to folks like yourselves that this
general tricountry area is known locally if not more broadly as
the green triangle
by analogy with the more famous golden triangle of the laos myanmar
thailand triborder area
& not to be confounded with the also rather well known emerald triangle of
the laos thailand cambodia trijunction
so it is possible that the writer was merely hallucinating a suitably green
suitably triangular marker to occupy the epicenter of the green triangle
area
or else was perpetrating a deliberate hoax on anyone like myself gullible
enough to believe such a possibly purely fantastical notion
or else he was faithfully witnessing & testifying to some local folk art
installation or other
as opposed to faithfully witnessing & testifying to an authentic worldclass
trinational boundary demarcation
etc etc
but my sense was & remains that this was a bona fide eye witness
observation & report
i might also add that
seeing as the full bed of the mekong between the vegetation lines just at &
above the nan la confluence appears from aerial photography to be a good
deal less than 100 meters wide
& has reportedly been dredged for shallow draft navigation tho only up to
the chinese port of guanlei located but a few miles above the trijunction
i should think modifications made within & upon the bed of such a river for
purposes of constructing & maintaining a durable direct triboundary
demarcation might not be so unthinkable after all
in any case i am delighted to have found email addresses for both of you &
have high hopes not only that you may somehow improve our understanding of
the situation
even if you cant at this late date definitely resolve the difference of
opinion we are having about your remarks published so long ago
but also that you may thus spare us from having to personally visit the
remote & forbidding location of the border junction itself
with great thanks for your kind attention & patience with this admittedly
arcane if not also frivolous question
sincerely
your great fan
ak
aletheia kallos
regarding the situation of the above named trijunction in the mekong river
about which you have written in ibru publications dating back to 1998 and
1996 respectively
& which refer to the tripartite agreement of 1994 ratified in 1995
i am writing to you in hopes of illuminating if not actually resolving a
difference of opinion i am enjoying with a friend of mine
the nub of the matter arises from a statement made in
the land boundaries of indochina cambodia laos & vietnam
https://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/publications/download/?id=213
near the bottom of original page 45 or pdf page 53 just before footnote 92
in text
for which it seems you may both be responsible to some extent
specifically
Under the terms of the agreement, the border junction in the middle of
the Mekong River was demarcated by a border marker jointly built by thethree countries.
my friend believes & maintains that this statement of yours was not meant
quite literally & should not be taken so
insofar as he supposes a marker rising in the middle of a river is bound to
be a navigation hazard
& would have been too difficult & costly to emplace in such a location
anyway
& too unlikely to survive for very long the regular flooding that occurs
there
& moreover he maintains that what your statement about 1 wet direct marker
must really mean is simply that the 2 dry indirect demarcation pillars that
are said in the subsequently published treaty
for example here http://www.law-lib.com/law/law_view.asp?id=77504
to stand on the respective banks of the mekong at precise distances &
azimuths from the true border junction point lying within the river
constitute the complete & sufficient demarcation & description of the
border junction
which he therefore supposes is not in fact demarcated directly at the
midriver location by any marker
& i might have been inclined to accept this otherwise sensible
interpretation or adjustment of your remark in light of his own later
researches
had i not found an eye witness account on the internet between 2004 & 2011
within this now expired link http://www.intgcm.thehostserver.com/diary2004_
245th.html that can no longer be resurrected today
telling of an approach made in some sort of light watercraft right up to
the side of a border marker that rose above the water in the middle of the
river
at exactly the expected location so far as i might tell from here
& because i took notes at the time
i can report with some confidence that the demarcation was credibly
described within a lengthy & generally believable travelog journal
specifically & verbatim
as a green triangular stone marker
i suppose this meant a prism shaped pillar or obeliskoid or a pyramidal
beacon covered with algae or moss etc
tho whether it was somehow embedded within & built up from the river bed or
somehow anchored or secured with buoys or cables fitted to a free floating
platform etc etc i have no idea
& it probably goes without saying to folks like yourselves that this
general tricountry area is known locally if not more broadly as
the green triangle
by analogy with the more famous golden triangle of the laos myanmar
thailand triborder area
& not to be confounded with the also rather well known emerald triangle of
the laos thailand cambodia trijunction
so it is possible that the writer was merely hallucinating a suitably green
suitably triangular marker to occupy the epicenter of the green triangle
area
or else was perpetrating a deliberate hoax on anyone like myself gullible
enough to believe such a possibly purely fantastical notion
or else he was faithfully witnessing & testifying to some local folk art
installation or other
as opposed to faithfully witnessing & testifying to an authentic worldclass
trinational boundary demarcation
etc etc
but my sense was & remains that this was a bona fide eye witness
observation & report
i might also add that
seeing as the full bed of the mekong between the vegetation lines just at &
above the nan la confluence appears from aerial photography to be a good
deal less than 100 meters wide
& has reportedly been dredged for shallow draft navigation tho only up to
the chinese port of guanlei located but a few miles above the trijunction
i should think modifications made within & upon the bed of such a river for
purposes of constructing & maintaining a durable direct triboundary
demarcation might not be so unthinkable after all
in any case i am delighted to have found email addresses for both of you &
have high hopes not only that you may somehow improve our understanding of
the situation
even if you cant at this late date definitely resolve the difference of
opinion we are having about your remarks published so long ago
but also that you may thus spare us from having to personally visit the
remote & forbidding location of the border junction itself
with great thanks for your kind attention & patience with this admittedly
arcane if not also frivolous question
sincerely
your great fan
ak
aletheia kallos