Ada tambahan dibawah ini dari Prof Jacub Rais yang menyebutkan batas tersebut adalah batas rendah, bukan batas terendah. UN tidak peduli apakah itu LAT. Yang penting bagi UN adalah asalkan tidak ada yg "terinjak kakinya". Buat kita (Indonesia) pasti akan keinjak ... bukan hanya nginjek kaki, tetapi nginjek muka. Karena kita menakan dirinya negeri maritim, jadi soal maritim harus tegas dan jelas. Selain itu tentunya HARUS ada kesepakatan bersama dan yang penting buat kita saat ini secara definitif, "dimana koordinat batas-batas itu saat ini" ditentukan, apapun metode, aturan dan kesepakatan yang dipakainya.
rdp On 4/8/07, Jacub Rais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jakarta 8 Pril 2007 Pak Andi Arsana dan Pak Parluhutan. Dalam UNCLOS disebut "low waterline, bukan "the lowest low waterline". Dalam bahasa Indon seharusnya garis air rendah bukan garis air terentah sehingga ada yang usul pakai LAT (pak Klaas yang pernah menyampaikannya ini). LAT saya katakan harus ditentukan melalui pengamatn pasut selama 18,7 tahun, satu periode nutation. Ini terlalu lama. Ini juga saya tidak setuju. Dalam praktek di lapangan kita lihat air rendah bervariasi tiap detik karena air tiap diam dan tergantung pada tempat dimana anda berdiri. . Saya pilih air terendah dalam satu hari. Saya pernah usulkan di ITB tempoh haris agar coba hitung dampaknya terhadap koordinat titik batas yang dihitung dari berbagai macam variasi muka air laut di pulau Jawa dan juga muka air yang extreem di Papua bagian selatan, antar berbagai pasut rendah.. Dampaknya hanya pada koordinat second. Kalau 1 second di ekuator = 30 meter, maka 20 second baru 60 m. Kalau anda plot diatas peta 1:50.000 maka 1 mm dipeta adalah 50 meter maka haslnya tidak signifikan. Kemudian hari ketika pada tahun 2004 kebetulan Kepala BAKO, pak Matindas, bersama pak Klaas dan saya di New York, menghadiri pertemuan UN Group of Experts on Geographical Names, kami bertiga mengadakan pertemuan dengan Komisi UNCLOS 1982 di New York. Ketika kami tanya mengenai low waterline apakah harus LAT. Mereka mengatakan PBB tidak care apakah low water line atau the lowest low water line,karena penentuan titik dasar adalah unilateral, dan PBB tidak memeriksa bagaimana titik dasar ini ditetapkan oleh suatu negara, kecuali jika anda menginjak kaki orang lain artinya berbenturan dengan garis batas teritorial negara lain. Jadi mengapa kita mesti susah-susah menentukan titik dasar karena makin lama kita mengamati akan makin mahal karena garis batas harus segara ditentukan, apalagi untuk garis batas kewenangan laut daerah (provinsi, kabupaten/kota). Dalam praktek, saya tetapkan garis air terendah dalam satu hari, sebagai low water line. Salam, Jacub Rais
On 4/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Seingat saya, di dalam UNCLOS juga tertulis, koq,.... bahwa base-line harus berupa "natural" feature/land-mark, bukan "man-made" feature/landmark. Tidak seperti Pak Made Arsana yg kuatir, saya yakin "technical experts involved in the negotiation have been aware of this matter". Sejak 2003 (4 tahun yang lalu) ketika saya mewakili IAGI bicara di rapat2 khusus Dewan Maritim menyangkut soal batas Singapore-Indonesia dalam kaitan dg penambangan pasir di Riau BTW, saya melihat para ahli teknis dari Bakosurtanal, Dishidros, BPPT, DepLu dll sudah sangat "aware dengan masalah tersebut. Meskipun demikian salut juga buat usaha Pak Made Arsana yang melemparkan isu tersebut di media, supaya tetap membuat para ahli tersebut terjaga. Thx untuk RDP yang posting beritanya Salam adb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rovicky Dwi Putrohari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]>; "Himpunan Ahli Geofisika Indonesia (HAGI)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 4:58 PM Subject: [iagi-net-l] Indonesia-Singapore talks on maritime borders making progress > Singapore berjanji tidak mengunakan "reclaimed" shoreline sebagai > batas claim... CATET dulu ... > Nah yang harus diperhatikan, peta yang mana (kapan) yang akan dipakainya ? > > rdp > ============================================== > Indonesia-Singapore talks on maritime borders making progress > > Opinion and Editorial - April 05, 2007 > > I Made Andi Arsana, Wollongong, Australia > > Indonesia and Singapore have been recently conducting serious talks > concerning their pending maritime boundary delimitation. The third > round of negotiations ended on March 29, with both delegations > declaring the discussions friendly and fruitful. > > Apart from formal negotiations that have been conducted by Indonesia > and Singapore regarding their maritime boundaries, Singapore, on the > other hand, has been actively reclaiming its shoreline. With regard to > this reclamation, there is a serious concern among people in Indonesia > that Singapore will use the reclaimed shoreline to decide its borders. > As I wrote in the Feb. 28, 2007, edition of The Jakarta Post, the > concern makes sense as such practices might be possible for Singapore, > in reference to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea > (UNCLOS). It is also supported by the statement in the Manual on the > Technical Aspects of the UNCLOS (TALOS). > > Several similar articles have been published, including one in The > Strait Times on March 17, 2007, titled Jakarta fears S'pore will use > reclaimed shoreline to decide border. > > After the third round of negotiations were completed in Singapore, the > said worry for the Indonesian side should now be unnecessary. It has > been clearly asserted by Singaporean Minister for Foreign Affairs > George Yeo that its land reclamation works are conducted within > Singapore's territorial waters. According to a spokesman, Singapore > has stated that land reclamations "would not be a factor in ongoing > maritime boundary negotiations with Indonesia". This statement was > made when Yeo spoke in Parliament on Feb. 12, 2007. > > Provided that Singapore is consistent with said statement, it shows > significant progress regarding the negotiations, at least from the > Indonesian perspective. The two neighboring states can now move onto > other essential issues to finalize the pending 1973 agreement. As > mentioned in their joint press release, the two states have agreed on > several technical issues for the delimitation of boundaries. This > should have been a productive achievement reached by the two > delegations. > > In addition, the joint statement said that the "two sides also > presented their views on the principles of delimitation to be used in > territorial sea boundary delimitation". However, it was not clearly > mentioned whether the views included technical aspects and options for > boundary lines to the west and east of the existing 1973 boundary > line. > > After observing the latest development in the Indonesia-Singapore > negotiations, there are at least two other issues to be considered. > The first issue regards the statement that Singaporean land > reclamation will have nothing to do with the ongoing negotiations. It > is worth recalling the principle of maritime boundary delimitation > that the construction of boundary line will involve the existence of a > baseline. In this regard, the change of the baseline will definitely > cause impact on maritime boundary delimitation. > > On the other hand, reclamation can be viewed as an action that could > possibly change the baselines. If it is confirmed that the reclamation > will not affect the delimitation of maritime boundaries, this means > that the delimitation will consider Singapore's original coastline > prior to reclamation. This should be treated as an important note to > both Indonesia and Singapore as it will consequently influence > technical aspects to consider. This, in particular, includes the > identification of geographical features depicted on a nautical chart > used in the delimitation. Geographical features shown on the nautical > chart used in delimitation must depict Singapore's original coastline. > Technical experts involved in the negotiation must have been aware of > this matter. > > The second issue concerns the use of geodetic datum in defining the > positions of border points. It should be noted that the 1973 agreement > does not specifically mention the geodetic datum used. In fact, the > coordinates of latitude and longitude without specific geodetic datum > tell us nothing. Such coordinates do not refer to any specific > location on earth, meaning that the maritime boundary lines they > delineate do not really exist. > > It is theoretically impossible to identify border crossing, for > example, without specific geodetic datum. A patrolling officer will > not be able to identity how long a ship has trespassed a boundary line > for since the boundary could not be precisely located in the field. In > such a case, the use of modern navigational aid such as a Global > Positioning System (GPS) would not help much as a GPS has specific > geodetic datum, while border points do not. > > Simply speaking geodetic datum is a frame by which coordinates are > defined and referenced on earth. It is therefore the responsibility of > the technical experts such as geodetic surveyors to avoid such > blunders in the ongoing maritime boundary negotiation. > > The two issues are probably only parts of all other issues to take > into account. The upcoming negotiation will be conducted in Indonesia, > where more other important concerns will be addressed. Let's see and > support delegations from the two neighboring states to achieve > equitable solutions for all parties. > > The writer is a lecturer at the Department of Geodesy and Geomatic > Engineering at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta and currently a > UN-Nippon research fellow in Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea at > the Centre for Maritime Policy, University of Wollongong, Australia. > The views expressed here are his personal opinion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hot News!!! CALL FOR PAPERS: send your abstract by 30 March 2007 to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joint Convention Bali 2007 - The 32nd HAGI, the 36th IAGI, and the 29th IATMI Annual Convention and Exhibition, Bali Convention Center, 13-16 November 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to: iagi-net-unsubscribe[at]iagi.or.id To subscribe, send email to: iagi-net-subscribe[at]iagi.or.id Visit IAGI Website: http://iagi.or.id Pembayaran iuran anggota ditujukan ke: Bank Mandiri Cab. Wisma Alia Jakarta No. Rek: 123 0085005314 Atas nama: Ikatan Ahli Geologi Indonesia (IAGI) Bank BCA KCP. Manara Mulia No. Rekening: 255-1088580 A/n: Shinta Damayanti IAGI-net Archive 1: http://www.mail-archive.com/iagi-net%40iagi.or.id/ IAGI-net Archive 2: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iagi ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- http://rovicky.wordpress.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hot News!!! CALL FOR PAPERS: send your abstract by 30 March 2007 to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Joint Convention Bali 2007 - The 32nd HAGI, the 36th IAGI, and the 29th IATMI Annual Convention and Exhibition, Bali Convention Center, 13-16 November 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to: iagi-net-unsubscribe[at]iagi.or.id To subscribe, send email to: iagi-net-subscribe[at]iagi.or.id Visit IAGI Website: http://iagi.or.id Pembayaran iuran anggota ditujukan ke: Bank Mandiri Cab. Wisma Alia Jakarta No. Rek: 123 0085005314 Atas nama: Ikatan Ahli Geologi Indonesia (IAGI) Bank BCA KCP. Manara Mulia No. Rekening: 255-1088580 A/n: Shinta Damayanti IAGI-net Archive 1: http://www.mail-archive.com/iagi-net%40iagi.or.id/ IAGI-net Archive 2: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iagi ---------------------------------------------------------------------
