Dear Colleagues,

In a recent email JRV Prescott refer to a sleeper at the western end of the
East Timor [Oecussi] - Indonesia boundary as follows:

> It was defined in the 1904 Dutch-Portuguese treaty as 'Proceeding
> from the mouth of the Noel [River] Besi where the summit of Pulu
> [island] Batek [belonging to Indonesia] can be sighted on a  30 degree 47
> minute NW bearing astronomical azimuth ...'

> If the mouth has moved and no
> longer is located on that bearing there is a problem. If it has moved west
> East timor might argue that since the boundary follows the talweg of the
> Noel Besi the river mouth and not the bearing takes precedence. If the
> river mouth  moves east Indonesia might use the same argument!

I am presently investigating this segment of the boundary and came to some
preliminary conclusion that there could be something wrong with the treaty.
On the surface it seems there is no ambiquity in the formulation of the
treaty, but a serious question came up when the Amfoang communal society
claimed that the delta in the treaty map belongs to them and that this could
be verified with the Ambenu communal society in the Oecussi enclave. They
claimed that the Noel (River) Besi is not the one referred to in the treaty
map but the large and real river in the east forming the delta. . The main
question will be that if the geographical name Noel Besi is admittedly
wrongly used in the map, which one should have legal validity, the azimuth
fixing the mouth of a small stream, which is claimed to be the border, or
the real Noel Besi. Next I present my investigation and preliminary
conclusion. Comments are very welcome.

Klaas Villanueva
________________________________________________________________

1.      Article III, point 1. of the 1904 - Treaty relating to the border
segment to the mouth of the Noel Besi, was formulated as follows:
Proceeding from the mouth of the Noel (river) Besi, from where the summit of
Pulu (Island) Batek can be sighted, on a 30o 47' NW astronomical azimuth,
following the thalweg of the Noel Besi, that of Noel Niema and of the
Bidjael Sunan, up to its source.

2.      A map of the border line was attached to the 1904-Treaty, showing
the line of azimuth 30o 47' NW to the Batek island, from the mouth of a
river which was named Noel Besi.

3.      A careful study of the attached map raised a question of its
validity, as the Noel Besi seems to be wrongly placed (toponimy error?), not
at the end of the real Noel Besi. The river it represents does not represent
a Noel (a large river with permanent flowing water), but rather a Nono (a
small stream of some 2 m width), which the local community used to refer as
Nonomna (a dried out stream).  This could also be regarded as a topographic
naming error. The term nono is also used in the treaty. This small dried out
stream, but watered during rainy seasons, forms a delta with the large river
continuing to the east from the south to the coast, the real Noel Besi,
while the Nonomna, wrongly named Noel Besi, is on the west side of the river
delta.

4.      The most decisive factor which back-up the findings as described in
point 3. is information from the Amfoang people, which society claimed that
the delta belongs to the Amfoang communal society , and that the Noel Besi,
the large river, is the border between Amfoang and Ambenu (Oecussi). This
can and should be verified with the Ambenu Communal Society. This
information conforms to the 1859 border agreement between Portugal and The
Netherlands, which stated that the boundaries of the Oikoussi Enclave
include the borders between Ambenu and Amfoang.

5.      The discussion above brought to the foreground the question of the
numerical value of the astronomical azimuth which truly shows a direction
from the mouth of Nonomna to Batek Island. Based on the wrong naming of the
small frequently dried out stream (Nonomna) one can conclude that the
azimuth measured to Batek island have been done from a wrong river mouth.
With this argument the value of the astronomical azimuth of  30o 47' NW
loses its validity. So from the Article III point 1 only the Noel Besi,
representing the large river east of the river delta, is legally valid
representing the real border.

6.      A weighting of the validity of the treaty map brings the following
argument forward, i.e. although the treaty map was signed by the two parties
involved, if the map does not conform with the topography and conditions in
the field and common geographic naming as known by the communal societies in
the border zone, meaning containing blunders, the treaty map loose its
validity, and also the border delineated on the map.

7.  The 1904 treaty delineates the border line for the most parts in terms
of natural boundaries. About 60% of the length of the border line is
delineated by the thalweg of rivers. The treaty used geographical names to
refer to the natural features related to the thalwegs and watershed
boundaries forming the border line. Noel Besi is a very important
geographical name and represent a very important natural feature for the
Amfoang and Ambenu communal societies. There is no indication that the Noel
Besi has meandered from the position drawn on the map attached to the treaty
to its present position. On the same map the large river was not drawn. Only
the name Sutrana represented the large river which the local communtiy refer
to as Noel Besi.   Note: A river could be referred to with different names
at different segments, mostly related to nearby villages. Neil Deely (IBRU
'BOUNDARY & TERRITORY BRIEFING Volume 3 Number 8) did also a comprehensive
evaluation on the The International Boundaries of East Timor.

8.      The need the consult the communal societies of Amfoang and Ambenu is
of utmost importance as to the role of the Noel Besi bordering both old
kingdoms (Amfoang and Ambenu). Besi has the meaning of 'benteng'
(fortification/bastion) or 'klewang' (or sword / sabre) referring to the
word 'besi' which translated also means iron. The Noel Besi is also known by
the communal society as 'Sungai Benteng Perdamaian' (Peace Fortification
River). Before the Amfoang people were denied to enter the delta, yearly
brotherly meeting between the Amfoang and Ambenu societies took place in a
place called Tepas in the delta, which belongs to the Amfoang community.
This can and should be verified with the Ambenu people.

________________________________________________________________________