Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [borderpoint] Re: Fragments, enclaves, exclaves

Expand Messages
  • Peter Smaardijk
    The river/sea arm is called Westerschelde in the Netherlands, and Schelde (Scheldt in English) in Belgium. The river is tidal not only in the Netherlands, but
    Message 1 of 314 , Jun 9, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      The river/sea arm is called Westerschelde in the Netherlands, and Schelde (Scheldt in English) in Belgium. The river is tidal not only in the Netherlands, but also way up inside Belgium, beyond Antwerp. There is even an old tidal mill at Rupelmonde (the only one in the Benelux that is still functioning). So, since it is very difficult to say where the river stops and the sea (arm) begins, the base line is of some importance here. It is only for some years now that Zeeuws-Vlaanderen is connected to the rest of the Netherlands by a road tunnel. Prior to that, it depended on ferries or making the detour via Antwerp. The people there did feel enclaved.

      After WW1, there even was a political movement in Belgium that demanded Zeeuws-Vlaanderen to be annexed by Belgium.

      Peter

      --- On Wed, 6/10/09, George H <geoh88@...> wrote:

      From: George H <geoh88@...>
      Subject: [borderpoint] Re: Fragments, enclaves, exclaves
      To: borderpoint@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 12:39 AM

      --- In borderpoint@ yahoogroups. com, Peter Smaardijk <smaardijk@. ..> wrote:
      >
      The Westerschelde is Dutch internal water. Cf. http://www.hydro. nl/zonegrens/ pdfs/en/zomer200 8_116_en. pdf for the straight baseline across the mouth of the Westerschelde, from Westkapelle to the BENL western terminus.
      >
      > > Peter

      Peter, I just realized that I left out one thing from my recent response.

      Your link above is to the map showing the external baseline and maritime zones.

      If you look on any map at the international boundary which crosses the river Scheldt just upstream from where it transitions to become the tidal Westerschelde, you will see that you can cross in a straight line from Netherlands territory to Netherlands territory by crossing only the river. You need not cross either Belgian territory or the Westerschelde.

      George


    • Lowell G. McManus
      The notion that a river makes a natural boundary is peculiar to certain societies and certain kinds of rivers. Rivers are often just the opposite. The
      Message 314 of 314 , Aug 31 9:20 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        The notion that a river makes a "natural" boundary is peculiar to certain
        societies and certain kinds of rivers. Rivers are often just the opposite.
        The greatest rivers are sometimes the unifying highways and even the raisons
        d'ĂȘtre of nations. Egyptians would hardly think of the Nile as a natural
        boundary. Nor is the Indus one for Pakistan, the Ganges for India or
        Bangladesh, the Tigris or the Euphrates for Iraq, the Yangtze for China, the
        Amazon for Brazil, or the Gambia for The Gambia. I could go on.

        Let's look at the Mississippi River as an example. In its upper and middle
        reaches, the river is seen as a the divide between the eastern and western
        USA. It was a barrier to settlement, and it has become the boundaries
        between and among states. Louisiana, however, near its mouth occupies both
        banks. Not only that, but below Baton Rouge the Mississippi River almost
        entirely ceases even to be a boundary between parishes (county equivalents).
        There are eight parishes that occupy both banks of the river--and not just
        due to meanderings of the channel. They are Iberville, Ascension, St.
        James, St. John the Baptist, St. Charles, Jefferson, Orleans, and
        Plaquemines. The civil parishes developed out of the Catholic church
        parishes of French and Spanish colonial times and often still bear the same
        names. So, it becomes obvious that the river was anything but a natural
        boundary, but rather a unifying force--even in the flocks of individual
        priests!

        Lowell G. McManus
        Eagle Pass, Texas, USA



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "anton_zeilinger" <anton_zeilinger@...>
        To: <borderpoint@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 4:16 AM
        Subject: [borderpoint] Re: Waters around Point Roberts


        > Roger,
        >
        > --- In borderpoint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger McCutcheon" <rogerdwmac@...>
        > wrote:
        >>
        >> "Any international border is an imaginary line" is clearly true, but if
        >> it
        >> follows the centre of a river or of a mountain range it makes more sense.
        >
        > This argument may have been valid in history, but I do not believe it is
        > tenable anymore today. With today's advances in technology and
        > engineering, a mountain or a river is no longer a "natural" boundary in
        > the sense that it "naturally" divides living spaces of people.
        >
        > Bridges are easily and numerously contructed, tunnels are dug in every
        > imaginable length and direction, and planes can cross any divide.
        >
        > Rivers in particular, but also mountains, are in no way a "natural" limit
        > for societies anymore.
        >
        > Cheers,
        >
        > Anton
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.