Vietnam acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea in 1958

[akittya]

We never talk about oil here, we are talking about Pham Van Dong letter......perhaps Chinese are thirsty of oil ?

Why lack of oil？because you invaded our oil region.

 

[akittya]

Nothing is new here, I have told that I am Vietnamese in this forum before, I am now in Germany and I was too lazy to change the flags when I registered. Please concentrate into the discussion and dont tell something about private stuffs, it does not make any sense here.

When no one expose you, you are successful, success misleading others member.
When you have been expose you are Vietnamese, you will recognize. This is better than many Vietnamese do not admit that he is Vietnamese even dead ,

 

[happycanuck]

to add that any party in Vietnam did not have SOVEREINGTY over the Island（Including South Vietnam）.

If you read the history of Vietnam which was under direct occupation of France through them the Islands were under the Vietnam control before it was split in two parts North and South. The sovereignty of those two Islands was passed on to South Vietnam only. Now in todays date you come on the internet and do blahblah over the issue is not going to change the history.

Relax and spend some time in digesting the history as it is rather than making up your own facts.

 

[happycanuck]

Some interesting parts which can be found from the research:

"Neither can Beijing demonstrate that Chinese ever permanently inhabited the Spratly or Paracel Islands, because they are uninhabitable. Many are wholly or intermittently submerged. The ones that are mostly dry lack sources of fresh water, and these low features are seasonally exposed to the monsoons. Today, the only human populations of these islands and reefs are military garrisons maintained at immense expense to their respective governments and at great personal risk to their members. They can by no means be said to have “an economic life of their own” and consequently are not able to generate their own eez under Article 121 of unclos.

China also cites various vague, questionable, and off-point historical writings dating back more than 2,000 years in its attempt to document its claimed sovereignty over the South China Sea.4 Without doubt, Chinese explorers and fisherman sailed the South China Sea for two thousand years, and some recorded their exploits, but it is equally clear that the Chinese traditionally have viewed Hainan Island as the southernmost outpost of their civilization, certainly until the end of the 19th century.5

Ancient Chinese records do not disprove the claims of Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, or Indonesia. There is substantial archeology showing that today’s Southeast Asians lived on those archipelagos long before written Chinese history. Several waves of settlers arrived in the Indonesian and Philippine archipelagos as far back as 250,000 years. These early peoples sailed or paddled the South China Sea to arrive where their descendents are living today. Although the Spratly and Paracel Islands were too small for permanent habitation, peoples of all the littoral countries fished and economically exploited them before China existed.

For countries that are littoral to the South China Sea, China’s claims are analogous to one of your neighbors claiming that the entire street in front of your home is his personal property. Furthermore, he claims that your sidewalk, driveway, and front yard clear up to the doorstep also belong to him. His armed guards park their cars in your driveway and he picks flowers out of your garden. If you or your neighbors protest he denies the validity of your title and refuses to settle in court. If someone insists on his property rights then the guards beat him."

The one in bold is the statement which I find most accurate to describe the current situation.

Thank you for explaining in details that China's logic has no validity if it is contested in the International Courts. The China fisherman visiting the Islands in my opinion does not pass the test either as you have explained.

I have been accused of being coward and from Vietnam where as in one of my post I have clearly stated my origional birth country. I think this is the best these individuals can do is launch personal attacks rather than dealing with the truth because it hurts.

I hope this is resolved in a peaceful manner for the sake of humanity.

 

[happycanuck]

North Vietnam did not have the sovereignty，so south Vietnam must have the sovereignty?
What is the logic？
the fact is no other coutry recognized Vietnam has sovereignty over these two island Whether any party in Vietnam

When two countries have dispute then third country party have right to admit One party‘s declaration, in order to support one party.


I have always said that you recognize our statement I never said that you have sovereignty, but also did not say these two islands is that you gave us, in fact, the Vietnamese do not have sovereignty over these two islands no matter any side , so you can no give us these island。
Has always been our stuff, do not need you give, you just admit the fact.
Not self-contradictory. All you own fantasies out.

I will make it very easy for you since you cannot stick to one answer which has to be truth because it hurts. Why in this world you need a letter from North Vietnam only to admit that the Islands sovereignty belongs to China? Does that make your case stronger in the eyes of the world. Did China ever inhabit those Island till the natural resources were found in the areas near the Island. Why not request the letter from rest of the countries in the SCS? I do not have fantasies but just the facts and logic that should make sense to iindividuals who have common sense.

When two countries have dispute then third country party have right to admit One party‘s declaration, in order to support one party.

If I was to accept your above argument than my question to you is would your country resolve the other boundary disputes with 16 countries by obtaining the letter from their enemy state for example your dispute with India can be solved by obtaining a letter from Pakistan.

If you have read any material regarding the boundary dispute between the countries it is resolved in the International courts only if not that can lead to conflicts which is not the right way of solving the situation.
But if the smaller countries are bullied by stronger ones the world community is not going to sit back and let that happen.

 

[Peter]

You're right at one thing and wrong at the other.

You're right about this:

You too right, Vietnamese Prime Minister certainly agree with your logic , according to your logic he chose to recognize the Chinese statements, Continued for about 20 years to recognize China's sovereignty over these two islands until find oil at South China Sea。I think the Vietnamese believe oil more than your logic.

But you're wrong about the statement from Pham Van Dong in regard of recognizing China's sovereignty over those two islands. Do you know why? Because, such diplomatic letter is not a TREATY that Vietnam must be obligated to it.

Accept the facts that both of Vietnam and China are greedy about the rich oil resource in those two islands and not smart enough to share the wealth peacefully. Think about it ...

 

[akittya]

I will make it very easy for you since you cannot stick to one answer which has to be truth because it hurts. Why in this world you need a letter from North Vietnam only to admit that the Islands sovereignty belongs to China? Does that make your case stronger in the eyes of the world. Did China ever inhabit those Island till the natural resources were found in the areas near the Island. Why not request the letter from rest of the countries in the SCS? I do not have fantasies but just the facts and logic that should make sense to iindividuals who have common sense.

When two countries have dispute then third country party have right to admit One party‘s declaration, in order to support one party.



If I was to accept your above argument than my question to you is would your country resolve the other boundary disputes with 16 countries by obtaining the letter from their enemy state for example your dispute with India can be solved by obtaining a letter from Pakistan.

If you have read any material regarding the boundary dispute between the countries it is resolved in the International courts only if not that can lead to conflicts which is not the right way of solving the situation.
But if the smaller countries are bullied by stronger ones the world community is not going to sit back and let that happen.

Taiwan also claims sovereignty over these two islands, so you should know that China claims these two island not based on your letter. But this letter is make us evidence more credible . But you have deliberately said China claims these two island is based on your letter.
To completely clear the entire chain of evidence is a big project, so this thread is only relevant debate for the this letter

 

[akittya]

You're right at one thing and wrong at the other.

You're right about this:



But you're wrong about the statement from Pham Van Dong in regard of recognizing China's sovereignty over those two islands. Do you know why? Because, such diplomatic letter is not a TREATY that Vietnam must be obligated to it.

Accept the facts that both of Vietnam and China are greedy about the rich oil resource in those two islands and not smart enough to share the wealth peacefully. Think about it ...

Although such diplomatic letter is not a TREATY 。but about decision on Broken promises ,International court already have some case decision to Broken promises, result is Broken promises party lost the case .
overall how to decision on the Broken promises there is no a uniform opinion.

you can see ,for this letter.even Vietnamese coalition government has admitted this is Broken promises，but PDF's Vietnamese with a variety despicable excuses to deny this fact.
This is unacceptable.

Ungrateful（Alias​​: Vietnamese）definition：
who promise something X belong to someone
but X is controlled by someone's enemy at then
who get something X from someone's enemy
who changed idea, say :" X should belong to me".

 

[NiceGuy]

Although such diplomatic letter is not a TREATY 。but about decision on Broken promises ,International court already have some case decision to Broken promises, result is Broken promises party lost the case .
overall how to decision on the Broken promises there is no a uniform opinion.

you can see ,for this letter.even Vietnamese coalition government has admitted this is Broken promises，but PDF's Vietnamese with a variety despicable excuses to deny this fact.
This is unacceptable.

Ungrateful（Alias​​: Vietnamese）definition：
who promise something X belong to someone
but X is controlled by someone's enemy at then
who get something X from someone's enemy
who changed idea, say :" X should belong to me".

Promised ?? Social republic of VietNam have No promise with CHina. Democratic Republic of Viet Nam promise some thing with CHina,but she had NO soveriegnty to those islands

2. The Chinese interpretation of the September 14, 1958 note by the Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam as recognition of China's ownership over the archipelagoes is a gross distortion since the spirit and letter of the note only mean the recognition of a 12 -mile limit for Chinese territorial waters.

 

[akittya]

Promised ?? Social republic of VietNam have No promise with CHina. Democratic Republic of Viet Nam promise some thing with CHina,but she had NO soveriegnty to those islands

If you have not full read the whole thread, you should not comment here, because your question has already answered in this thread. Maybe you was intentional. Pretend dont know.

Let me remind you

check it
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...ver-south-china-sea-1958-a-7.html#post1937251

and
Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea （September 4， 1958）

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...-over-south-china-sea-1958-a.html#post1818564

 

[NiceGuy]

If you have not full read the whole thread, you should not comment here, because your question has already answered in this thread. Maybe you was intentional. Pretend dont know.

Let me remind you

check it
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...ver-south-china-sea-1958-a-7.html#post1937251

and
Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea （September 4， 1958）

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...-over-south-china-sea-1958-a.html#post1818564

You did not see what Socialist republic of VN stated in 1979 ?? Socialist republic of VN promised No thing China, it's the Fact, we sent this statement to CHina already

2. The Chinese interpretation of the September 14, 1958 note by the Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam as recognition of China's ownership over the archipelagoes is a gross distortion since the spirit and letter of the note only mean the recognition of a 12 -mile limit for Chinese territorial waters

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...vereignty-over-south-china-sea-1958-a-11.html

 

[akittya]

You did not see what Socialist republic of VN stated in 1979 ?? Socialist republic of VN promised No thing China, it's the Fact, we sent this statement to CHina already

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...vereignty-over-south-china-sea-1958-a-11.html

Socialist republic of VN stated in 1979---》1979 declaration can not deny the existence of the 1958 note and 1965statement.

completely Opposite between the contents of this note and 1979 statement show this is Broken promises.

So this is the most appropriate to describe the Vietnamese

Ungrateful（Alias​​: Vietnamese）definition：
who promise something X belong to someone
but X is controlled by someone's enemy at then
who get something X from someone's enemy
who changed idea, say :" X should belong to me".

 

[NiceGuy]

Socialist republic of VN stated in 1979---》1979 declaration can not deny the existence of the 1958 note and 1965statement.

completely Opposite between the contents of this note and 1979 statement show this is Broken promises.

So this is the most appropriate to describe the Vietnamese

Ungrateful（Alias​​: Vietnamese）definition：
who promise something X belong to someone
but X is controlled by someone's enemy at then
who get something X from someone's enemy
who changed idea, say :" X should belong to me".

S.VN controlling those islands disagree with your statement .that's enough. If you claim the sovereignty over Seoul, South Korea oppose is enough, no need North Korea.

 

[akittya]

S.VN controlling those islands disagree with your statement .that's enough. If you claim the sovereignty over Seoul, South Korea oppose is enough, no need North Korea.

you can see explanation from the Vietnam coalition government , just to explain why do so, and not dare say this statement and note nothing to do with coalition government , it is enough to prove, the behavior of your government is Broken promises.

2. The Chinese interpretation of the September 14, 1958 note by the Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam as recognition of China's ownership over the archipelagoes is a gross distortion since the spirit and letter of the note only mean the recognition of a 12 -mile limit for Chinese territorial waters.

the spirit and letter ---》》do you believe your Prime Minister not see the statment (Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea （September 4， 1958&#65289 when he Signed
the statment is clear the two island belong to china

 

[akittya]

S.VN controlling those islands disagree with your statement .that's enough. If you claim the sovereignty over Seoul, South Korea oppose is enough, no need North Korea.

yes S.VN controlling those islands disagree with out statement
that's enough prove behavior of your government not is Broken promises.?

Ungrateful（Alias​​: Vietnamese）definition：
who promise something X belong to someone
but X is controlled by someone's enemy at then
who get something X from someone's enemy
who changed idea, say :" X should belong to me".