Vietnam acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea in 1958

[Vietnam.Duong]

Read the words more carefully Vietnam.Duong ... Akittya wrote: "because you invaded our oil region"

That is sovereign......If Vietnam invaded China oil region that is 200 miles from base line of China

 

[Vietnam.Duong]

all Chinese are cleared about Pham Van Dong's letter now ?

 

[akittya]

1. MP Pham signed somthing did not belong to North VietNambefore 1976, so Ok VN government will say sorry for that mistake,and hope China should not ask new VietNam to accept any thing esle doen't belong to VN any more.

2. If China claim US belong to China and wanted Pm Pham accept it. PM Pham worte:" VN eccept that US belong to CHina coz CHina discoverd American continent earlier than the West", so pls tell me what responsibility should VietNam take for his mistake sir ??

1 .no your are not mistake, as China not own hanoi , if we recognize the Hanoi is belong to Vietnam. What's wrong? We will never say that Hanoi is belong to china ,Whether 20 years or 100 years, you not need worry.

2、 China recognizes the United States is an independent country, China will not declare the United States are belong to China, of course you may unilaterally announced that the U.S. belongs to China.
China does not recognizes that these two islands belong to Vietnam, China declared these two islands belong to China, you certainly can support China claim by recognizes china's claim.

 

[NiceGuy]

1 .no your are not mistake, as China not own hanoi , if we recognize the Hanoi is belong to Vietnam. What's wrong? We will never say that Hanoi is belong to china ,Whether 20 years or 100 years, you not need worry.

2、 China recognizes the United States is an independent country, China will not declare the United States are belong to China, of course you may unilaterally announced that the U.S. belongs to China.
China does not recognizes that these two islands belong to Vietnam, China declared these two islands belong to China, you certainly can support China claim by recognizes china's claim.

China is big country, and we're so small, China will threaten us with war if we don't accept some crazy idea from you .Those islands did not belong to North VN, so what the use if North VN agree with CHina some that did not belong to North VN ??

What happend if South VN with US's support succesfuly conquer North VN ??Do South VN have to responsible about Pm Dong's letter when they already denouce China ??

Pls note that New VN include South VN and North VN , South VN controlling those islands and denouced your violation in 1974, so New VN have the right to denouce you now.

 

[akittya]

China is big country, and we're so small, China will threaten us with war if we don't accept some crazy idea from you .Those islands did not belong to North VN, so what the use if North VN agree with CHina some that did not belong to North VN ??

Pls note that New VN include South VN and North VN , South VN controlling those islands and denouced your violation in 1974, so New VN have the right to denouce you now.

yes, China not own hanoi , we recognize the Hanoi is belong to Vietnam,what is wrong?

your can see your Coalition government statement 1979，if the note and statment is nothing to do with Coalition government ,then you government no need explain for the note and statment ,your government can simply to say "this is not my note ,this is not my statment".
why your government must explain ? and why your government have the right to explain the note and statment if this only is north Vietnam note and statment .

 

[NiceGuy]

yes, China not own hanoi , we recognize the Hanoi is belong to Vietnam,what is wrong?

your can see your Coalition government statement 1979，if the note and statment is nothing to do with Coalition government ,then you government no need explain for the note and statment ,your government can simply to say "this is not my note ,this is not my statment".
why your government must explain ? and why your government have the right to explain the note and statment if this only is north Vietnam note and statment .

We stated it in 1979 already, it's not New VN's note, it's not New VN statement, why do you try to ignore it and keep repeating again and again??

STATEMENT

BY THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIET NAM

ON THE HOANG SA AND TRUONG SA

ARCHIPELAGOES

(AUGUST 7, 1979)

On July 30, 1979, China made public in Peking some documents in an attempt to justify its claim of sovereignty over the Paracels and Spratly archipelagoes.

As regards this issue, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam declares:

1. The Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes are part of Vietnamese territory. The Vietnamese feudal states were the first in history to occupy, organize, control and exploit these archipelagoes in their capacities as Statees. This ownership is effective and in conformity with international law. We have sufficient historical and legal documents proving Viet Nam's indisputable sovereignty over these two archipelagoes.

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.

3. In 1965, the United States intensified its war of aggression in South Viet Nam and launched a war of destruction by air and naval forces against North Viet Nam. It declared that the combat zone of the U.S. armed forces included Viet Nam and an adjacent zone of about 100 nautical miles from Viet Nam's coast line. At that time. in their anti-U.S. struggle for national salvation the Vietnamese people had to carry out their fight in all forms to defend. their territorial integrity. Moreover, Viet Nam and China then maintained friendly relations. The May 9, 1965 Statement by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam had its raison d'être only with this historical background.

4. Since 1972, following the Shanghai Joint Communiqué, the Chinese rulers have colluded with the U.S. aggressors and betrayed the Vietnamese people, causing more and more obstacles to the war of resistance of Viet Nam. Early in January 1974. just before the Vietnamese people won complete victory in Spring 1975, China occupied by armed forces the Hoang Sa archipelago then administered by the Saigon administration.

The Republic of South Viet Nam then clearly stated its position as follows:

- Sovereignty and territorial integrity are questions sacred to every nation.

- As regards territorial border questions, there often exist between neighboring countries disputes left by history, which may extremely complicated and should be thoroughly studied.

- The countries concerned should consider this question in the spirit of equality, mutual respect, friendship and good neighborliness and settle it by negotiations.SRVN Statement79

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

 

[akittya]

We stated it in 1979 already, it's not New VN's note, it's not New VN statement, why do you try to ignore it and keep repeating again and again??
http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...vereignty-over-south-china-sea-1958-a-11.html

your cat't answer my question

your can see your Coalition government statement 1979，if the note and statment is nothing to do with Coalition government ,then you government no need explain for the note and statment ,your government can simply to say "this is not my note ,this is not my statment".
why your government must explain ? and why your government have the right to explain the note and statment if this only is north Vietnam note and statment .

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.

spirit and letter---->china's claim clear shown these island belong to china ,when your Prime Minister signed at the note show you recognition of China's ownership over the archipelagoes, spirit can't change the fact .

3. In 1965, the United States intensified its war of aggression in South Viet Nam and launched a war of destruction by air and naval forces against North Viet Nam. It declared that the combat zone of the U.S. armed forces included Viet Nam and an adjacent zone of about 100 nautical miles from Viet Nam's coast line. At that time. in their anti-U.S. struggle for national salvation the Vietnamese people had to carry out their fight in all forms to defend. their territorial integrity. Moreover, Viet Nam and China then maintained friendly relations. The May 9, 1965 Statement by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam had its raison d'être only with this historical background

It is stated in the lesson The People's Republic of China of a standard Vietnamese school textbook on geography published in 1974 that the islands from the Nansha and Xisha Islands to Hainan Island and Taiwan constitute a great wall for the defense of the mainland of China.
this show your excuse is can not be believe.

 

[NiceGuy]

your cat't answer my question




spirit and letter---->china's claim clear shown these island belong to china ,when your Prime Minister signed at the note show you recognition of China's ownership over the archipelagoes, spirit can't change the fact .

.

Hehe, so you still try to ignore New VN statement, right ?It's clearly that

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

or you don't understand what gross distortion means ???

 

[gambit]

If it is a promise, then you must have a PROMISSORY NOTE (usually in banking activities)- instead, PVD's letter is not like that. In his letter, he had not promised but to acknowledge or recognize what China had declared in 1958's declaration.

When I called the Phạm Văn Đồng 1958 letter to China regarding China's 12-mile territorial sea limit as a 'promissory note', I was being extremely generous on its context.

Here is the US 1972 interpretation of that declaration...Chinese members are welcomed to correct misinterpretations, if there are any...

We can see that item 4 is of interest.

What Phạm Văn Đồng did in his 1958 letter was not so much conceding authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty of those islands to China but to merely acknowledged to China that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, aka North Viet Nam, respect this declaration in spirit and in letter by doing their best not to violate that limit. China's declaration was broad. It cover not only geomorphological entities at seas, fancy words for islands, but also the Chinese mainland, as covered in paragraph 1.

If the DRV had any intention of conceding authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty of the islands to China, Phạm Văn Đồng would have stated specifically those islands. After all, he could not mention mainland China as a concession of authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty, could he? How absurd is that notion: Phạm Văn Đồng concede authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty of mainland China => China?

Imperial Japan was very specific in her concession...

Treaty of Peace with Japan

(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.

So what prevented Phạm Văn Đồng from doing the same? Nothing. He could be as specific or as vague as he wanted. And he did the latter.

So if Phạm Văn Đồng knew that he COULD NOT give away authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty of mainland China to...errr... China......That mean he knew that the DRV, despite its claim to represent all of Viet Nam, never had authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty of the islands but that the RVN, aka South Viet Nam, did...!!! And that it was the RVN who could give away authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty to the same.

What made this 1958 letter to China a 'promissory note' is that Viet Nam was in a civil war and the DRV needed all the help the PLA could provide. Phạm Văn Đồng was deliberately vague to give China the impression that Viet Nam, once unified under the banner of communism, would repay China for her assistance and if THAT were to happened, Viet Nam would have been as specific as Imperial Japan was regarding the same islands.

Sorry (but not really sorry) to our Chinese members here, but this 1958 note is worthless.

 

[akittya]

When I called the Phạm Văn Đồng 1958 letter to China regarding China's 12-mile territorial sea limit as a 'promissory note', I was being extremely generous on its context.

Here is the US 1972 interpretation of that declaration...Chinese members are welcomed to correct misinterpretations, if there are any...

We can see that item 4 is of interest.

What Phạm Văn Đồng did in his 1958 letter was not so much conceding authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty of those islands to China but to merely acknowledged to China that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, aka North Viet Nam, respect this declaration in spirit and in letter by doing their best not to violate that limit. China's declaration was broad. It cover not only geomorphological entities at seas, fancy words for islands, but also the Chinese mainland, as covered in paragraph 1.

If the DRV had any intention of conceding authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty of the islands to China, Phạm Văn Đồng would have stated specifically those islands. After all, he could not mention mainland China as a concession of authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty, could he? How absurd is that notion: Phạm Văn Đồng concede authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty of mainland China => China?

Imperial Japan was very specific in her concession...

Treaty of Peace with Japan

So what prevented Phạm Văn Đồng from doing the same? Nothing. He could be as specific or as vague as he wanted. And he did the latter.

So if Phạm Văn Đồng knew that he COULD NOT give away authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty of mainland China to...errr... China......That mean he knew that the DRV, despite its claim to represent all of Viet Nam, never had authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty of the islands but that the RVN, aka South Viet Nam, did...!!! And that it was the RVN who could give away authority, custodial rights, and sovereignty to the same.

What made this 1958 letter to China a 'promissory note' is that Viet Nam was in a civil war and the DRV needed all the help the PLA could provide. Phạm Văn Đồng was deliberately vague to give China the impression that Viet Nam, once unified under the banner of communism, would repay China for her assistance and if THAT were to happened, Viet Nam would have been as specific as Imperial Japan was regarding the same islands.

Sorry (but not really sorry) to our Chinese members here, but this 1958 note is worthless.

Simple back to you,
no need special instructions, when Phạm Văn Đồng agreed to China's declare ,because China's declare is clear description the territory included these two islands.
you admit that by the Prime Minister's letter .and you must Keep in mind ,you are admit not give.
As Hanoi , China admit Hanoi belongs to Vietnam . Do you think the Chinese give Hanoi to Vietnam?
This letter is in 1958, Vietnam was not in civil war, the Vietnamese civil war began in 1961.

 

[akittya]

Hehe, so you still try to ignore New VN statement, right ?It's clearly that or you don't understand what gross distortion means ???

Black and white, without any distortion

Example
I borrowed $ 1,000 from you, and I said this is a gross distortion, Is not really can become you borrowed $ 1000 from me.
Haha

 

[meocoi]

Thank you gambit, I think it is very clear here that Mr Dong was quite clever. He wanted to have the assistance from China but at the same time did not want to give up the sovereignty. Hence his solution was to send a vague note that could be interpreted in many different ways. This note can be divided into two part: part 1 acknowledged the declaration of China government; however, part 2 only mentioned about the part 1) of of this declaration, the one with 12 nautical miles. Other parts of the declaration was deliberately ignored (he could easily put them there like the first part but he did not). Now based on this note, Chinese could just cite part 1 of the note and said that Vietnamese government has acknowledged their rights through the declaration but Vietnamese could say that no, we only acknowledged the first part of this declaration but not other parts by citing part 2 of the note. Therefore, the validity of this note is very low since it does not possess the precise statements which can be clearly or somewhat uniquely interpreted. I could say that the Chinese government at that time was cheated by Mr Dong.

Now Chinese government surely realize that this note is a very weak proof in the international court. This is the reason why they keep insisting on the bilateral discussion where their overwhelming economic and military strength have major advantages over much smaller and weaker country like Vietnam. However, this note is still used by the government to educate many Chinese people e.g: akittya... to believe that China has indisputable sovereignty right over the islands.

 

[akittya]

Thank you gambit, I think it is very clear here that Mr Dong was quite clever. He wanted to have the assistance from China but at the same time did not want to give up the sovereignty. Hence his solution was to send a vague note that could be interpreted in many different ways. This note can be divided into two part: part 1 acknowledged the declaration of China government; however, part 2 only mentioned about the part 1) of of this declaration, the one with 12 nautical miles. Other parts of the declaration was deliberately ignored (he could easily put them there like the first part but he did not). Now based on this note, Chinese could just cite part 1 of the note and said that Vietnamese government has acknowledged their rights through the declaration but Vietnamese could say that no, we only acknowledged the first part of this declaration but not other parts by citing part 2 of the note. Therefore, the validity of this note is very low since it does not possess the precise statements which can be clearly or somewhat uniquely interpreted. I could say that the Chinese government at that time was cheated by Mr Dong.

Now Chinese government surely realize that this note is a very weak proof in the international court. This is the reason why they keep insisting on the bilateral discussion where their overwhelming economic and military strength have major advantages over much smaller and weaker country like Vietnam. However, this note is still used by the government to educate many Chinese people e.g: akittya... to believe that China has indisputable sovereignty right over the islands.

Here I only know the Vietnamese skill of deliberate distortion of the Original intention , know Vietnamese, dare say but not dare do .

As i say ,your note are acknowledged these island is belong to china. these two islands is not you give us .no one admit Vietnam any part own these islands.
aYou act as if china admit Hanoi is belong Vietnam .but after 20 years ,china turn to say Hanoi must belong to china .Do you think this is acceptable？
Chinese claim these islands is not based on this note, this note is just to make us evidence more convincing .

and look this Thread ，you can see that for this note or 1965 statement , whether you or your government all have a Despicable and weak excuse. this is is unacceptable.

 

[meocoi]

Here I only know the Vietnamese skill of deliberate distortion of the Original intention , know Vietnamese, dare say but not dare do .

As i say ,your note are acknowledged these island is belong to china. these two islands is not you give us .no one admit Vietnam any part own these islands.
aYou act as if china admit Hanoi is belong Vietnam .but after 20 years ,china turn to say Hanoi must belong to china .Do you think this is acceptable？
Chinese claim these islands is not based on this note, this note is just to make us evidence more convincing .

BTW, every time you talk about this issue, I hope you can show that you are Vietnamese.
Of course, you have a good criminal record, when someone pointed out that you are Vietnamese, you will recognize.
But if no one came to light you, you will succeed in misleading the other members.

I think that you want to concentrate on a personal attack rather on the discussion. If I wanted to hide my Vietnamese identity, I surely should take another nick name since "meocoi" could be easily seen as a Vietnamese word as many people here have discovered. I am now live in Dortmund, Germany, if you have doubts about this, ask the admin to check my IP address. Hence I think that I do not have to repeatedly mention about my identity in every post.

The approach in discussion here should come from an objective perspective (which I am trying to achieve and hop that I am not too subjective), hence, I prefer to cite more international research about this problem. From different sources throughout the world, of course excluding those from China, e.g: the one from Standford University which I have posted before, it can be seen that most people agrees that the claim of China is much weaker than that of other countries like Philippine, Vietnam... which is based on vague and questionable writings while it was very clear all the published official maps of China, at least until 19th centuries, showed that Hainan was their most southern part. This is the reason why Philippine is so confidential, recently, in asking China to resolve this dispute in the international court. Of course, China would refuse this suggestion since they know that their chance to loose is very high (from my opinion, it should be nearly 100%) and insist on bilateral discussion. My only doubt is: Philippine vs Vietnam, who has stronger evidence and can win the court.

 

[gambit]

Simple back to you,
no need special instructions, when Phạm Văn Đồng agreed to China's declare ,because China's declare is clear description the territory included these two islands.
you admit that by the Prime Minister's letter .and you must Keep in mind ,you are admit not give.
As Hanoi , China admit Hanoi belongs to Vietnam . Do you think the Chinese give Hanoi to Vietnam?
This letter is in 1958, Vietnam was not in civil war, the Vietnamese civil war began in 1961.

The internal conflict in Viet Nam began immediately after the end of WW II. By 1958, there was already a clear ideological and political division in the country. By the way, China was in Viet Nam long before the US was and China helped started the Vietnam War.