South China Sea Forum

[cnleio]

Play dance with us, we r CHINA COAST GUARD
(Some China Cost Guard ships)

 

[sweetgrape]

A country with a very strong military challenges a country with a very weak one, and makes it look like it is the one being aggrieved. This is the best display of cowardice in the history of mankind. Bravo China, for adding another shame to your own existence and for showing the world your true colors!

You mean, you are weak, China is strong, so even you steal our island, China shouldn't do something?

Keep crying, idiot, who care you, hehe!

 

[cnleio]

Play dance with us, we r CHINA COAST GUARD
(Some China Cost Guard ships)

 

[VietHome]

Your EZZ? why it is your EZZ? there is much closer to China xisha islands than to Vietnam.

The Paracel islands are not owned by China, it was taken by force from Chinese in 1974 while Vietnam has a mountain of documents from Vietnamese, intentional and Chinese sources. Both Vietnam and international sources show maps that Vietnam has own these islands for several hundred years. Vietnam sources have both maps and old documents from bureaucrats reporting from their administration of the islands. Both old Chinese and international maps show China's territory stops at Hainan islands. France and Japan after administrating the islands returned it to Vietnam and South Vienam had been administrating them until China took Paracel in 1974. Whatever Chinese source showing that Japan was forced to return the islands to China was invalid on the mere fact that China had not own the islands prior to Japan's occupation of Vietnam. Therefore, the islands could not be given to a third unrelated country but Vietnam. South Vietnam was given control of the islands later with the Geneva Accords in 1954 in which the PRC was a signatory, so this point is effectively moot. The document from North Vietnam's leader Pham Van Dong in 1974 is invalid on the mere fact that the Paracel was not under North Vietnam control at the time so it could not give away what it does not own. There are also two other points making the document invalid: the document did not say specifically about giving away any territory; and North Vietnamese Constitution at the time required the General Assembly vote on any territory alteration. Thus, this point is also moot. China's sole claim of the islands is the fact that they are controlling it, but China also claims the Senkaku controlled by Japan at the moment. So by making this point, PRC is talking on both sides of the mouth, worthy of ridicule from the intentional audience.

Even with the assumption that China now controls the Paracel, Trition island, the one in question that China uses the 17 nm argument is not habitable and is not big enough under UNCLOS to warrant a 200 nm EEZ, only 12 nm around it's edges. Thus, packing an oil rig outside of Triton at 17 nm is still outside of Chinese territorial water under this assumption. With this action, China has broken UNCLOS, a document it signed.

Even with the assumption that China can now claim Triton is worthy of 200 nm EEZ because of magic, China is still in violation of the 2002 agreement with Asean which discourages all parties unilaterally raising the tension in the SCS. PRC did exactly that by moving the oil rig in and building an airfield in the Spratly islands. Although this agreement is not legally binding, this action shows that China has broken all agreement it has signed with the be it the UN or ASEAN to reach this point. It is the proof that China is not a trust worthy and reasonable party to work with in the conflict, in layman term, China is a liar.

if you stop a car on a runway when an airplane is taking off, you will get crushed so dont blame it on the plane.
a boat is easier to turn, accelerate and decelerate while a moving ship cannot. It clearly shows boats were playing hookie with ship so they get a hickey.

You watch the video again. The fishing boat was trying to run away from Chinese ships and was breaking away a couple times until the much bigger ship caught up and rammed it. Small wooden boat cannot out-run a steel ship so you implication that the fishing ship "intentionally" slowed down to get hit from the Chinese ship is both baseless and hilariously sad at the same time. I'm not sure if I'm sad at our attempt to defense the indefensible or that you, as an Pakistani's flagged person would go all out to defense a tricky and aggressive nation like China. Is Chinese's yuan and military toys so important for Pakistan that people there accept to be Chinese shills so that they can bully a nation that has no connection or done nothing wrong to Pakistan; and a nation that actually treats Muslim well unlike what China is doing in Uyghur? Is a person's conscience that cheap to buy?

That question goes to all the Pakistan's posters here. In addition, to what extent will the Pakistani people continue to support China? Will you still cheer for China if Chinese ships shoot at innocent fishermen tomorrow?

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

China again rejects legal challenge
Thursday, June 5th, 2014


MANILA, Philippines –The United Nations arbitral tribunal has ordered China to defend its territorial claims in the South China Sea by submitting evidence within six months despite Beijing’s refusal to respond to the Philippines’ legal challenge to those sweeping claims.

The UN Permanent Court of Arbitration said in a statement issued in The Hague on Tuesday that the arbitral tribunal had directed China to submit by Dec. 15 its response to the Philippine memorandum submitted on March 30, detailing its case that seeks to nullify the Chinese claims and clarify maritime entitlements in the disputed waters.
It was the first international case filed against China related to territorial disputes in the 3.5-million-square-kilometer sea where islands, islets, reefs and shoals are believed to be sitting atop vast oil and gas reserves.

China has rejected the order, saying it has no plans to take part.

Aside from China and the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan and Vietnam claim overlapping parts of the South China Sea, with Beijing saying it has sovereignty over virtually all of the resource-rich waters. China’s disputes with the Philippines and Vietnam have worsened recently, especially after it deployed an oil rig early last month in waters also claimed by Hanoi, sparking violent anti-China protests in Vietnam.

Next armed conflict

There have been fears the territorial disputes could spark Asia’s next armed conflict, although analysts say a major fight is unlikely given that major instability could shatter the region’s bullish economies.

Beijing’s aggressive moves in the disputed waters, which straddle one of the world’s busiest sea lanes, were “dangerous conduct and intimidation” that rachets tension and could undermine the economically vibrant region, said US Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzky, who is visiting Manila with American business executives.

China has warned the United States to stop meddling.

It has said all along it will not participate in the arbitration proceedings initiated by the Philippines in January last year, preferring a bilateral approach to resolve the conflicts.

Beijing informed the tribunal on May 21 that it “does not accept the arbitration initiated by the Philippines” and that its issuance of a comment on the case should “not be regarded as China’s acceptance of or participation in the proceedings.”

Philippine officials on Wednesday reiterated a call to China to join the arbitration as a peaceful and durable solution to resolve the long-raging territorial disputes.

China’s stance unchanged

Charles Jose, spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs, said, “We continue to urge China to reconsider its decision not to participate in the arbitration proceedings. We also wish to reiterate that arbitration is a peaceful, open and friendly resolution mechanism that offers a durable solution to the disputes in the South China Sea.”

But China’s foreign ministry said on Wednesday that Beijing’s “stance of not accepting and not participating in the relevant Philippines’ arbitration case has not changed.”

The Philippines is seeking confirmation of its right to exploit waters within a 370-km exclusive economic zone, as allowed under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, its lawyers have said.

In giving China time to respond to the Philippines’ filing, the tribunal said on Monday that it was fulfilling its obligation to assure each party “a full opportunity to be heard and to present its case.”

The UN tribunal issued the order after a meeting at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands, on May 14 and 15, or a month and a half since Manila submitted its memorandum.

Tribunal’s jurisdiction

As the tribunal described it, the document covers “matters relating to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, the admissibility of the Philippines’ claim, as well as the merits of the dispute.”

Noting China’s May 21 rejection, the tribunal suggested it would continue hearing the Philippine complaint even without Beijing’s involvement.

“The arbitral tribunal will determine the further course of the proceedings, including the need for, and scheduling of any other written submissions and hearings, at an appropriate later stage, after seeking the views of the parties,” the tribunal said.

The Philippine case asks the UN tribunal to invalidate China’s “nine-dash-line” claim over the South China Sea. That refers to a rough Chinese demarcation on its official maps of its territorial claims that cover virtually the entire South China.

The Philippines charges that the nine-dash-line claim is an “excessive declaration of territory” that extends well beyond China’s exclusive economic zone, encroaching on the West Philippine Sea, part of the South China Sea within Manila’s own economic exclusion zone.

If China continues to shun the arbitral panel, the tribunal is likely to schedule a hearing and rule based solely on the Philippines’ pleading.

“China has a right to be heard, that’s why the court issued the procedural order. If they will still refuse to participate, the court might decide based on the Philippines’ submission,” Jose said.

International support

The Philippines’ legal action has gained support from the international community, including allies the United States and Japan, for being a peaceful means to resolve the increasingly tense territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

The Philippine arbitration case is closely watched by the other claimant states, including Vietnam, which last month said it was considering legal action against China after Beijing moved a deep-water oil rig into the East Sea, part of the South China Sea within Hanoi’s exclusive economic zone.

China earlier said that the Philippine legal action has “seriously damaged” relations between Manila and Beijing.–With a report from AP

UN court tells Beijing: Prove your sea claims | Inquirer Global Nation

------------------------------------------

China is clearly a coward for backing out in the international tribunal. They want to settle the issue by bullying and brute force not through the peaceful means of arbitration based on international law. They are trying to deceive the world by claiming excessive territories based on their own flimsy historical accounts. China knows their deceitful claim could not win in international arbitration and obviously, would not want to participate to lose. Especially because if it lose the case to the Philippines, it will automatically lose to the other claimants.

Strongly agree with you.

China has only big mouth . The historical evidences are not on their side. So, they are very afraid of the international court.

This is a Chinese map published by the Shanghai Publishing House, in the Qing Dynasty.

On the map, Where is the Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands? Where is so-called "nine dotted line"?

 

[sweetgrape]

The Paracel islands are not owned by China, it was taken by force from Chinese in 1974 while Vietnam has a mountain of documents from Vietnamese, intentional and Chinese sources. Both Vietnam and international sources show maps that Vietnam has own these islands for several hundred years. Vietnam sources have both maps and old documents from bureaucrats reporting from their administration of the islands. Both old Chinese and international maps show China's territory stops at Hainan islands. France and Japan after administrating the islands returned it to Vietnam and South Vienam had been administrating them until China took Paracel in 1974. Whatever Chinese source showing that Japan was forced to return the islands to China was invalid on the mere fact that China had not own the islands prior to Japan's occupation of Vietnam. Therefore, the islands could not be given to a third unrelated country but Vietnam. South Vietnam was given control of the islands later with the Geneva Accords in 1954 in which the PRC was a signatory, so this point is effectively moot. The document from North Vietnam's leader Pham Van Dong in 1974 is invalid on the mere fact that the Paracel was not under North Vietnam control at the time so it could not give away what it does not own. There are also two other points making the document invalid: the document did not say specifically about giving away any territory; and North Vietnamese Constitution at the time required the General Assembly vote on any territory alteration. Thus, this point is also moot. China's sole claim of the islands is the fact that they are controlling it, but China also claims the Senkaku controlled by Japan at the moment. So by making this point, PRC is talking on both sides of the mouth, worthy of ridicule from the intentional audience.

Even with the assumption that China now controls the Paracel, Trition island, the one in question that China uses the 17 nm argument is not habitable and is not big enough under UNCLOS to warrant a 200 nm EEZ, only 12 nm around it's edges. Thus, packing an oil rig outside of Triton at 17 nm is still outside of Chinese territorial water under this assumption. With this action, China has broken UNCLOS, a document it signed.

Even with the assumption that China can now claim Triton is worthy of 200 nm EEZ because of magic, China is still in violation of the 2002 agreement with Asean which discourages all parties unilaterally raising the tension in the SCS. PRC did exactly that by moving the oil rig in and building an airfield in the Spratly islands. Although this agreement is not legally binding, this action shows that China has broken all agreement it has signed with the be it the UN or ASEAN to reach this point. It is the proof that China is not a trust worthy and reasonable party to work with in the conflict, in layman term, China is a liar.

Bored to read such much boring hollow word from discreditable Vietnamese, Show the proof, OK.

 

[ephone]

If we put China's fate on a so-called court, China should just put her hands up surrendering.

Remember, the korean war was authorized and sponsored by the so-called u.n.

Remember the court from WTO?

China has absolute legal and clear reason for reduce rare earth output due to its heavy pollution to our land. In addition, other countries also have them in plenty. You know what we got:It says China violates international policies and need keep producing them, while other countries can stop doing the dirty work and China need keep polluting herself.

What kind of fxxked-up justice is here??? Of course, when we see those judges, no wonder the result since they are all from the west!!!

So those courts need get themselves fxxk-off before I see Chinese judges there.

China always using historical claim. This is the 20th century, you can use history but to claim what is you thought was yours before is totally BS. War changes the face of the earth many times. Unless China wanted to start one, then let it be and hope China will be the same after that.

That is why nations need international laws to follow.


Philippine claims are based on UNCLOS stupid dimwit. Historical records not recognized by the international community remains a fiction.. wake up...go to school and let your mind evolve... you're just too fed up by your Commie government.

 

[VietHome]

Bored to read such much boring hollow word from discreditable Vietnamese, Show the proof, OK.

It's your fault for not reading my piece as I've talked about this letter already. If you want to read a longer explanation, here it is:

Situation:

On September 4, 1958 Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai declared to the world China’s decision regarding the 12 nautical mile territorial waters from mainland China, which also included a map clearly depicting sea borders and sea territories (which also included the two archipelagos Paracel and Spratly or Hoang Sa and Truong Sa).

Prime Minister Pham Van Dong representing the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) affirmed this declaration from China regarding Chinese ownership of the archipelagos in the Eastern Sea (South China Sea). The diplomatic note was written on September 14 and was publicized on Nhan Dan newspaper on September 22, 1958.

The content of the letter is as follows:

We would like to inform you so that you may be clear that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam has noted and support the September 4, 1958 declaration by the People’s Republic of China regarding territorial waters of China. The government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision and will direct the proper government agencies to respect absolutely the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of China in all dealings with the People’s Republic of China on the sea. We would like to send our sincere regards.


Analysis in Modern Journal:

The above declaration is not valid because before 1975, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) did not control these islands. At that time, these islands were under the control of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) who always asserted Vietnamese sovereignty over these two archipelagos. The Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Vietnam also made no declaration that jeopardized this sovereignty. According to the lawyer and author Monique Chemillier-Gendreau:
“In this context, declarations or any viewpoints given by the North Vietnamese government is not effective when it comes to sovereignty. This was not a government that had authority over these archipelagos. One may not renounce what one has no authority over….”

A second reason from a legal perspective is that at that time North Vietnam was not a party in the conflict. Before 1975, the countries and territories involved in the conflict included: China, Taiwan, South Vietnam, and the Philippines. Therefore, declarations made by North Vietnam may be seen as declarations of a third party, which had no effect on the conflict itself.

Supposing that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North) and the Republic of Vietnam (South) were one country, then based on international law, this declaration is also invalid. However, some has espoused the doctrine of “estoppel” in order to argue that this declaration has validity and Vietnam cannot go back on its words.

According to international law, there is no other legal bar that creates obligation for those who make unilateral declaration other than “estoppel”. Estoppel is a principle in which a country cannot say or do in contrast to what was said or done before. In other words, “one cannot at the same time blow hot and cold.” However, estoppel does not mean that a country is obligated to whatever it declares.

The estoppel doctrine had its beginning in English law, and was later brought into international law. The main purpose is to prevent countries from benefitting from its dishonest actions, and hurting other countries. Therefore, estoppel must meet the following criteria:

1. The declaration or action must be taken by a representative of a country in a clear and unequivocal manner.

2. The country that claims “estoppel” must prove that based on that declaration or action, there are actions or inactions being carried out by that country which constitutes “reliance”, as is called in English and American law.

3. The country claiming “estoppel” also has to prove that based on the declaration of the other country, it has suffered damage, or that the other country has benefitted when making that declaration.

4. Some judgments demand that this declaration must be made in a continous manner over time.

In addition, if the declaration has the characteristic of a promise, which means that the country declares that it will or will not do something, it must have true intention of wanting to be obligated by that promise, and truly wants to execute that promise.

The estoppel doctrine has many precedents in international courts and countries who have made certain declarations have found to not be obligated to follow them because not all the conditions are met.

Applying these criteria of estoppel to the declaration of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, we can see that conditions 2 and 3 are missing. In the years 1956, 1958, and 1965, China did not have any attitude or make any changes in its attitude based on North Vietnam’s declaration. China also cannot prove that it suffered damage for relying on that declaration. North Vietnam did not benefit in any way from making that declaration. At that time, Vietnam and China saw themselves as close comrades and friends. The declaration made by PM Pham Van Dong was based on that friendship. Moreover, the wording of the declaration does not clearly and unequivocally affirm Chinese ownership of the Paracel Islands. The letter only states: “The government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision (the decision to determine the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of China), and will direct the proper government agencies to respect absolutely the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of China….”

The declaration of PM Pham Van Dong may also be understood as a unilateral promise, a declaration of intention. In fact, this is a promise to respect the decision of China in its determination of sea territories, and a promise to order national agencies to respect Chinese territories.

If it is a mere promise, then it is even more difficult to obligate a country to follow that promise. The International Court has provided one more condition to make a promise obligatory: the true intention of the country making that promise. That is, whether that country really wants to be obligated to its promise or not. In order to determine this intention, the court examines every event surrounding the declaration, to see in what context and circumstances was the declaration made. Moreover, if the court sees that the country can obligate itself through signing agreements with the other country, then the declaration is not needed, and the court will conclude that the country making the declaration does not truly want to be obligated to that declaration. Therefore, the declaration does not have an obligatory characteristic.

----------------------------------------------

In this case, when PM Pham Van Dong declared that Vietnam will respect Chinese sea territories, he did not intend to speak of ownership of the Paracel and Spratly Islands. He made this declaration in urgent circumstances, in which the war with the United States was escalating, American Fleet 7 was carrying out activites on the Taiwan Strait threatening China. He had to immediately voice support of China in order to counter against American threat.

The 1965 declaration of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was in the same manner. The motivation for that declaration was an urgent situation of danger in Vietnam. This is a declaration that has political not legal characteristics.

Even the condition of making declaration continuously and over time is not satisfied when it comes to the three declarations of North Vietnam. Estoppel doctrine is only applied if we consider North Vietnam and The Socialist Republic of Vietnam as one; and even France during the colonial period, and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) as the same entity as the present Vietnam. If we consider the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) as a separate country, then estoppel cannot be applied because, as stated above, the declaration will be seen as a declaration made by a country that does not have authority over territories being disputed. Therefore, if Vietnam is seen as one single entity from history until the present, then the three declarations made by North Vietam are only statements that carry political meaning during wartimes, compared to the attitude and viewpoint of Vietnam in general from the 17th century until the present.

In summary, the declaration that we are analyzing is missing many factors that allow for estoppel to be applied. The factors of reliance and intention are very significant. If the reliance factor does not exist in order to limit the application of estoppel, countries will be prevented in making their foreign policies. They will be forced to follow out-dated ways to execute their foreign policies. When conditions change, the foreign policy of the other country changes, the foreign policy of this country must also change. It is normal for countries to be friends one moment and then turn into enemies the next.

As for unilateral promises without true intention of following, they are no more than empty promises, similar to those of politicans and candidates in political elections. In the international arena, the principle of sovereignty is very important. Outside international procedures and the articles of Jus Congens, there is no law that obligates a country contrary to its wishes, when it is not causing damage to another country. Therefore, the intention of the country has a decisive role in determining obligation of a unilateral promise.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

I am not enough time to read all comments here, but it's a big mistake if we Vietnamese talk to the chinese about int'l justice. In the history of Vietnam, we just forced them to abandon their intention ONLY when we killed more than half of chinese troops.
I think now it is not different.

 

[GR!FF!N]

This dispute is completely beyond the jurisdiction of the Hague-based PCA, which isn't even related to the UN or its subordinate institutions like the ICJ. OP's article must have been fact-checked by a monkey or something.

actually no.its true that PCA doesn't determine "Sovereignty".but this is the platform which is used to solve any kind of dispute,including international dispute resolution, encompassing territorial, treaty, and human rights disputes between states, as well as commercial and investment disputes, including disputes arising under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties..so,they've the authority to solve,if China wish it to solve.


read this..................................


"We wish to reiterate that arbitration is a peaceful, open and friendly resolution mechanism that offers a durable solution to the disputes in the South China Sea," Foreign Affairs Spokesman Charles Jose told a press briefing.

"We continue to urge China to reconsider its decision not to participate in the arbitration proceedings."

At a press conference, presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said they leave it to China whether or not it will comply with the order.

"This is a process that all parties are abiding by. So, whether China responds or not... we leave it with them," he said.

Tribunal orders China to respond to PHL’s complaint over sea row | News | GMA News Online

they couldn't enforce any ruling on you.so,probably no harm will be done for China if they have any case to present.but then,there is a big "IF".

and yes,"Right by Discovery" (which is China's much lauded logic) can't be presented as a logic in PCA.USA lost a case to Netherland,where USA presented this logic.

3 important ruling on that case by PCA..............

• Firstly, title based on contiguity has no standing in international law.
• Secondly, title by discovery is only an inchoate title.
• Finally, if another sovereign begins to exercise continuous and actual sovereignty, (and the arbitrator required that the claim had to be open and public and with good title), and the discoverer does not contest this claim, the claim by the sovereign that exercises authority is greater than a title based on mere discovery.

 

[xyxmt]

You watch the video again. The fishing boat was trying to run away from Chinese ships and was breaking away a couple times until the much bigger ship caught up and rammed it. Small wooden boat cannot out-run a steel ship so you implication that the fishing ship "intentionally" slowed down to get hit from the Chinese ship is both baseless and hilariously sad at the same time. I'm not sure if I'm sad at our attempt to defense the indefensible or that you, as an Pakistani's flagged person would go all out to defense a tricky and aggressive nation like China. Is Chinese's yuan and military toys so important for Pakistan that people there accept to be Chinese shills so that they can bully a nation that has no connection or done nothing wrong to Pakistan; and a nation that actually treats Muslim well unlike what China is doing in Uyghur? Is a person's conscience that cheap to buy?

That question goes to all the Pakistan's posters here. In addition, to what extent will the Pakistani people continue to support China? Will you still cheer for China if Chinese ships shoot at innocent fishermen tomorrow?

Yes I watched the video and saw first the boat stopped in front of the ship and when ship came very close then they try to run away but if you a little bit of physics you would know that its impossible to run away from that distance because the displaced water from a huge ship will pull the tiny boat in. My opinion was not biased towards anyone i expressed my opinion as i saw it in the video. you cant show me the video and expect me to follow your line of thinking.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

All the reasons for rejection the court of the chinese, that is just sophistry.

Simply, chinese does not have any evidence to prove their baseless claim in SCS.

Perhaps before a death, Chiang Kai Shek did not tell CCP that why he drawn "11 dash line map"

 

[VietHome]

I am not enough time to read all comments here, but it's a big mistake if we Vietnamese talk to the chinese about int'l justice. In the history of Vietnam, we just forced them to abandon their intention ONLY when we killed more than half of chinese troops.
I think now it is not different.

This is not a battle field, thus all this talk about war and killing is just fantasy talk for now. Doing that solves nothing but just to trade insults day by day. Showing that Vietnam is in the right both regally and in our actions during the conflict is the only way to make sure the international community, including some Chinese friends, understand the extent in which PRC has gone to brainwash a generation toward conflict with Vietnam, an good friend of China until last month.

Yes I watched the video and saw first the boat stopped in front of the ship and when ship came very close then they try to run away but if you a little bit of physics you would know that its impossible to run away from that distance because the displaced water from a huge ship will pull the tiny boat in. My opinion was not biased towards anyone i expressed my opinion as i saw it in the video. you cant show me the video and expect me to follow your line of thinking.

Show me the exact minute in the first video when the Vietnamese boat stops please.

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

This is not a battle field, thus all this talk about war and killing is just fantasy talk for now. Doing that solves nothing but just to trade insults day by day. Showing that Vietnam is in the right both regally and in our actions during the conflict is the only way to make sure the international community, including some Chinese friends, understand the extent in which PRC has gone to brainwash a generation toward conflict with Vietnam, an good friend of China until last month.

Nothing change unless we have to decoy the chinese into a trap, such as "Battle of Bach Dang River", then killing at least half of their troops. ONLY that case, they accept to abandon the idea of invading Vietnam.
Talking about justice with the chinese that is just wasting your time.

 

[GreenFalcon]