Vietnam acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea in 1958

[NiceGuy]

I believe that all the countries along the SCN should form a company and divide the profits of the oil extracted from the ocean.

Malay, Brunei, Phil have No envidence for sovegeignty in SCS(Esat sea), so they will have NO oil there, EEZ for them is good enough .CHina also have No envidence, CHina have EEZ only also.

We will resolve the problem with ASEAN countries peacefuly, coz they will listen to US. we will sell oil in cheap price to CHina , but we can not let you drill our in our EEZ.

 

[NiceGuy]

If Phạm Văn Đồng's 1958 letter to China constitute concession, then what are we to make of President Ngô Đình Diệm's 1961 incorporation of the islands into Quang Nam province? How did that North Viet Nam's 1958 letter overrode South Viet Nam's resistance to China's claim to the islands? Not only common sense but international law recognizes that only the claimant -- or 'the State' -- that has effective custodial controls of a territory have the right to do with the territory as it see fit. To exploit or to give away if it want to. Did North Viet Nam had such effective custodial controls of the islands to give it away to China? No.

In another way of looking at any moral value and legal force of this 1958 letter, when France withdrew from the region, she conceded whatever territory she controlled at that time to the best available authority figure she believed to be most capable of assuming authority, exercise proper custodial duties, and establish visible sovereign claims on the islands: South Viet Nam. This government then resisted, successfully or else is besides the point, plans and attempts by foreigners to establish their own authority upon the islands. Should we not consider that resistance to be as equally valid an attempt to deny Chinese possession of the islands as North Viet Nam's alleged concession of the same? And if that resistance is equally valid, then should they morally cancel each other out? And if we agree that they canceled each other out, then should we place any value, moral and/or legal, of the current Chinese presentation of that 1958 letter from Pham Van Dong? No, it has no moral value and no legal force. Then and today.

So while Viet Nam was suffering through a civil war, any external claim to the islands should be suspect and view as the foreigner was trying to exploit the situation for his own advantage, in effect, any Chinese claim to the islands should qualify as outright theft with the victim -- Viet Nam -- temporarily incapacitated. No different than a looter who steal whatever he can BECAUSE the neighborhood is storm damaged and temporarily emptied of people. No different than a man who come upon an unconscious woman and sexually take advantage of her BECAUSE she is unable to resist his immorality and criminal molestation.

Phạm Văn Đồng's 1958 letter to China is a wash. A non-issue. It is like an inflated balloon animal at children's parties, eminently attractive but ultimately devoid of any substance. And the Chinese members here are like gullible children at those parties and eagerly lapped it up. Still...The Viets should be guarded with this letter. The Chinese will turn it around and say among themselves that even though they know that 1958 Phạm Văn Đồng letter is ultimately devoid of any moral substance and legal force, they will strive to make that balloon animal as attractive as possible to distract as many as possible away from legitimate challenges. The more gullible people to the Chinese side, the easier it will be for China to effect the typical 'mob mentality' to violently steal from the Viets.

The Viets will regret the day they give up these islands to the Chinese. Least painful is when we know that a loss came to be because we abandon something. Was it because we no longer care or were we too incompetent to exploit it for our benefits? More painful is when a possession was taken despite best efforts to resist, but at least we can say we expended blood and treasure to resist. The worst pain and shame is when something was given for nothing in return. Unless we consider contempt from the other side as something worthwhile receiving.

If the islands are to be in Chinese hands, the exchange of possession must not be from concession but from outright violent theft. Expose China for the rapist and thief that it is of the 'inferior' Asians the Chinese always believe the rest to be. The Yamatos taught Asia, from the Korean peninsula all the way to India, a hard and bloody lesson when they had the chance. Do not let their arrogant equal -- the Chinese -- repeat the same now that China have the opportunity.

1. You must understand that: SOuth VIetNam govt. was US's bogey only, Mr.President Ngo DInh DIem did not listen to US. he was assasinated by CIA , after that US. send 500,000 soldiers to SOuth VN and killed our people. SO all patriot VNese must kick US out and unify North and Shouth VietNam.

Without 500,000 US soldier, without the assasination of President Diem, we're United before 1976 already.

2. We give CHina Nothing but we kicked them out of Cambodia also,l pls don't keep misunderstanding about it. Many VNese died for the Great future of Mother land already. We VietNamese should not keep the hatred bcz of misunderstand any more, don't let any one take advantage on your misunderstanding.

 

[gambit]

1. You must understand that: SOuth VIetNam govt. was US's bogey only, Mr.President Ngo DInh DIem did not listen to US. he was assasinated by CIA , after that US. send 500,000 soldiers to SOuth VN and kill our people. SO all patriot VNese must kick US out and unify North and Shouth VietNam.

No more or less than how North Viet Nam was China's puppet. And no, the US did not send troops into Viet Nam just to kill Vietnamese. You are ignoring the reason why South Viet Nam came to be and existed in the first place. If you object to US troops in South Viet Nam, then you should object to Chinese troops in North Viet Nam and may be you do not know it, but the Chinese were in North Viet Nam long before the US was in the South. Chinese troops were abusing Vietnamese peasants with no fear of even a reprimand from Ho. China's land reform caused famine in a land where agricultural knowledge goes back thousands of years. If the US was no good for Viet Nam, then neither was China. I survived the 1968 Tet Offensive. My family fled and I have been back several times. For the last twenty years, I have been sending money back to support relatives, making their lives just a little bit easier. I have been to Japan and South Korea and wish the Vietnamese are as free and prosperous as they are. Why do you think Viet Nam had to change? Because they have seen the same things as I have: that communism is a failed ideology with nothing but misery and poverty to offer the people. After WW II with Imperial Japan, communism was the next worst thing to happen to the Viets.

 

[NiceGuy]

No more or less than how North Viet Nam was China's puppet. And no, the US did not send troops into Viet Nam just to kill Vietnamese. You are ignoring the reason why South Viet Nam came to be and existed in the first place. If you object to US troops in South Viet Nam, then you should object to Chinese troops in North Viet Nam and may be you do not know it, but the Chinese were in North Viet Nam long before the US was in the South. Chinese troops were abusing Vietnamese peasants with no fear of even a reprimand from Ho. China's land reform caused famine in a land where agricultural knowledge goes back thousands of years. If the US was no good for Viet Nam, then neither was China. I survived the 1968 Tet Offensive. My family fled and I have been back several times. For the last twenty years, I have been sending money back to support relatives, making their lives just a little bit easier. I have been to Japan and South Korea and wish the Vietnamese are as free and prosperous as they are. Why do you think Viet Nam had to change? Because they have seen the same things as I have: that communism is a failed ideology with nothing but misery and poverty to offer the people. After WW II with Imperial Japan, communism was the next worst thing to happen to the Viets.

1. CHina-Soviet sent NO troop to kill any VNese, so North could not be their puppet.Give me any envidence to prove that : China soldiers kill VIetnamese and Ho CHi minh did Nothing to stop it.

2. We're not Communist, that why we dare to fought with CHina. you never dare to fight with US. when they killed lots of VNese, right . US govt. wanna boost relationship ties with VN now, you wanna change your mind or not, your choice, but we will not like you: scare of US even when they killed lots of VNese.

Land reform was HCM mistake, he admit it, no men have no mistake bro.

 

[gambit]

1. CHina-Soviet sent NO troop to kill any VNese, so North could not be their puppet.Give me any envidence to prove that : China soldiers kill VIetnamese and Ho CHi minh did Nothing to stop it.

The Soviets did not need to send troops to Viet Nam because Viet Nam was China's responsibility. As for China, Ho sent a delegation to China to ask for combat troops the same way American soldiers were sent into combat. In public, China expressed communist solidarity but in private, Mao refused the Vietnamese. Mao did not want, not even a chance of, Chinese troops to engage in combat against the Americans. So if North Viet Nam was willing to invite Chinese troops into combat, we can be assured that Mao would have no problems killing Vietnamese IF the Americans were not there.

As for Chinese troops in North Viet Nam before the Americans...

Amazon.com: Following Ho Chi Minh: The Memoirs of a North Vietnamese Colonel (9780824822330): Bui Tin: Books

Colonel Bui Tin has details of how Ho was afraid of the Chinese.

2. We're not Communist, that why we dare to fought with CHina. you never dare to fight with US. when they killed lots of VNese, right . US govt. wanna boost relationship ties with VN now, you wanna change your mind or not, your choice, but we will not like you: scare of US even when they killed lots of VNese.

Yes, you are. China was communist but dared to make friendly gestures to the US with President Nixon. When it comes to land, China will not hesitate to slaughter Vietnamese communists to get to those land.

Land reform was HCM mistake, he admit it, no men have no mistake bro.

When you claimed to be more knowledgeable than everyone else and kill them if they dare to challenge you, then you have no excuse. You are not allowed to make mistakes and of course when you do make a mistake, you must try to blame it on someone else.

 

[NiceGuy]

The Soviets did not need to send troops to Viet Nam because Viet Nam was China's responsibility. As for China, Ho sent a delegation to China to ask for combat troops the same way American soldiers were sent into combat. In public, China expressed communist solidarity but in private, Mao refused the Vietnamese. Mao did not want, not even a chance of, Chinese troops to engage in combat against the Americans. So if North Viet Nam was willing to invite Chinese troops into combat, we can be assured that Mao would have no problems killing Vietnamese IF the Americans were not there.

As for Chinese troops in North Viet Nam before the Americans...

Amazon.com: Following Ho Chi Minh: The Memoirs of a North Vietnamese Colonel (9780824822330): Bui Tin: Books

Colonel Bui Tin has details of how Ho was afraid of the Chinese.


Yes, you are. China was communist but dared to make friendly gestures to the US with President Nixon. When it comes to land, China will not hesitate to slaughter Vietnamese communists to get to those land.


When you claimed to be more knowledgeable than everyone else and kill them if they dare to challenge you, then you have no excuse. You are not allowed to make mistakes and of course when you do make a mistake, you must try to blame it on someone else.

1. HCM never ask for any CHina troops,HCM only need the advisor on how to use CHina-SOviet weapon, all CHinese here know that, don't try to lies bro .Give any link if you have to prove your point , bro .Give me the link with CHina-Soviet leader's comment.

2.Hehe, OK, we're communist if you want, but US govt. wanna boost relationship ties now, and stop re-designated VN as a “country of particular concern,” . hope you won't make trouble for VietNam-US relationship.

3.US killed VNese, US said : that my mistake, and you dare not accuse them , and now, you try to accuse your Viet people, it's unfair bro . Are you scare of White men ??

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

As for Chinese troops in North Viet Nam before the Americans...

Amazon.com: Following Ho Chi Minh: The Memoirs of a North Vietnamese Colonel (9780824822330): Bui Tin: Books

Colonel Bui Tin has details of how Ho was afraid of the Chinese.

Colonel Bùi Tín? He said that Hoàng Văn Hoan is a patriot because he help China to attack the Vietnamese Communist

Anyway, the Vietnam war is over, now we can become good partners, we should throw those trash to the dustbin.

 

[Martian2]

The Vietnamese are still making excuses to try and squirm their way out of Premier Pham Van Dong's 1958 signed diplomatic document to China (see VietNamNet - Diplomatic Note 1958 with Vietnam). The arguments presented are not very convincing. Fundamentally, North Vietnam was succeeded by unified Vietnam. Unified Vietnam, as the successor state, CANNOT disavow prior diplomatic documents and obligations of North Vietnam.

I have already mentioned that Premier Pham Van Dong served as Premier of North Vietnam for 20 years and then Premier of unified Vietnam for another 10 years. The continuity in government from North Vietnam to unified Vietnam is clear. Similarly, the legal effect of the diplomatic documents of North Vietnam is continuous as well.

The national flags of North Vietnam and unified Vietnam exhibit the same continuity in government from North Vietnam to unified Vietnam. The government of unified Vietnam was exactly the same as North Vietnam, except it covered a larger territory. Therefore, we can only conclude the successor state (i.e. unified Vietnam) cannot disavow the Diplomatic Document of 1958, which China had relied upon for 53 years in her foreign relations.

Under the legal principle of "detrimental reliance," Vietnam must be estopped from denying the factual admissions in the 1958 diplomatic document by Premier Pham Van Dong.

Detrimental reliance legal definition of Detrimental reliance. Detrimental reliance synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

"A legal principle that bars a party [Vietnam] from denying [1958 Premier Pham Van Dong's diplomatic document] or alleging a certain fact owing to that party's previous conduct [acquiescence for 53 years], allegation, or denial."

----------

The flags of North Vietnam and unified Vietnam are one and the same. The Vietnamese government was continuous.

"The flag of Vietnam, also known as the 'red flag with yellow star', was adopted as the flag of the Vietminh (Communist army) in 1941. It was adopted by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (the future North Vietnam) in 1945, and by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (united Vietnam) on July 2, 1976, following the end of the Vietnam War"

Source: Wikipedia

 

[Sin Pateh]

That **** NiceGuy is so annoying , why nobody give that sh.t a fraction so its stinky flexible mouth will not open again?

 

[rcrmj]

That **** NiceGuy is so annoying , why nobody give that sh.t a fraction so its stinky flexible mouth will not open again?

he got quite few before, and has several other accounts all got banned once`

 

[gambit]

The Vietnamese are still making excuses to try and squirm their way out of Premier Pham Van Dong's 1958 signed diplomatic document to China (see VietNamNet - Diplomatic Note 1958 with Vietnam). The arguments presented are not very convincing. Fundamentally, North Vietnam was succeeded by unified Vietnam. Unified Vietnam, as the successor state, CANNOT disavow prior diplomatic documents and obligations of North Vietnam.

I have already mentioned that Premier Pham Van Dong served as Premier of North Vietnam for 20 years and then Premier of unified Vietnam for another 10 years. The continuity in government from North Vietnam to unified Vietnam is clear. Similarly, the legal effect of the diplomatic documents of North Vietnam is continuous as well.

On the surface, that may be true. However, the problem for the Chinese is proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the Phạm Văn Đồng 1958 response to China even qualify as a legal document in the first place, let alone a diplomatic treaty between nation-states.

The Chinese need to address the counter-arguments put forth here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...er-south-china-sea-1958-a-14.html#post1962530

...And here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...er-south-china-sea-1958-a-15.html#post1967500

If Phạm Văn Đồng's 1958 letter to China constitute concession, then what are we to make of President Ngô Đình Diệm's 1961 incorporation of the islands into Quang Nam province? How did that North Viet Nam's 1958 letter overrode South Viet Nam's resistance to China's claim to the islands? Not only common sense but international law recognizes that only the claimant -- or 'the State' -- that has effective custodial controls of a territory have the right to do with the territory as it see fit. To exploit or to give away if it want to. Did North Viet Nam had such effective custodial controls of the islands to give it away to China? No.

In another way of looking at any moral value and legal force of this 1958 letter, when France withdrew from the region, she conceded whatever territory she controlled at that time to the best available authority figure she believed to be most capable of assuming authority, exercise proper custodial duties, and establish visible sovereign claims on the islands: South Viet Nam. This government then resisted, successfully or else is besides the point, plans and attempts by foreigners to establish their own authority upon the islands. Should we not consider that resistance to be as equally valid an attempt to deny Chinese possession of the islands as North Viet Nam's alleged concession of the same? And if that resistance is equally valid, then should they morally cancel each other out? And if we agree that they canceled each other out, then should we place any value, moral and/or legal, of the current Chinese presentation of that 1958 letter from Pham Van Dong? No, it has no moral value and no legal force. Then and today.

Failure to do so make the Phạm Văn Đồng 1958 letter nothing more than a nice gesture from one communist ally to another.

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

The Vietnamese are still making excuses to try and squirm their way out of Premier Pham Van Dong's 1958 signed diplomatic document to China (see VietNamNet - Diplomatic Note 1958 with Vietnam). The arguments presented are not very convincing. Fundamentally, North Vietnam was succeeded by unified Vietnam. Unified Vietnam, as the successor state, CANNOT disavow prior diplomatic documents and obligations of North Vietnam.

I have already mentioned that Premier Pham Van Dong served as Premier of North Vietnam for 20 years and then Premier of unified Vietnam for another 10 years. The continuity in government from North Vietnam to unified Vietnam is clear. Similarly, the legal effect of the diplomatic documents of North Vietnam is continuous as well.

The national flags of North Vietnam and unified Vietnam exhibit the same continuity in government from North Vietnam to unified Vietnam. The government of unified Vietnam was exactly the same as North Vietnam, except it covered a larger territory. Therefore, we can only conclude the successor state (i.e. unified Vietnam) cannot disavow the Diplomatic Document of 1958, which China had relied upon for 53 years in her foreign relations.

Under the legal principle of "detrimental reliance," Vietnam must be estopped from denying the factual admissions in the 1958 diplomatic document by Premier Pham Van Dong.

Detrimental reliance legal definition of Detrimental reliance. Detrimental reliance synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

"A legal principle that bars a party [Vietnam] from denying [1958 Premier Pham Van Dong's diplomatic document] or alleging a certain fact owing to that party's previous conduct [acquiescence for 53 years], allegation, or denial."

----------

The flags of North Vietnam and unified Vietnam are one and the same. The Vietnamese government was continuous.

"The flag of Vietnam, also known as the 'red flag with yellow star', was adopted as the flag of the Vietminh (Communist army) in 1941. It was adopted by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (the future North Vietnam) in 1945, and by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (united Vietnam) on July 2, 1976, following the end of the Vietnam War"

Source: Wikipedia

Unified Vietnam have Paracel from Viet Cong, not because North Vietnam vanquish South Vietnam

Anyway, your "flag" argument is stupid and meaningless

 

[akittya]

On the surface, that may be true. However, the problem for the Chinese is proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the Phạm Văn Đồng 1958 response to China even qualify as a legal document in the first place, let alone a diplomatic treaty between nation-states.

The Chinese need to address the counter-arguments put forth here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...er-south-china-sea-1958-a-14.html#post1962530

...And here...

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...er-south-china-sea-1958-a-15.html#post1967500


Failure to do so make the Phạm Văn Đồng 1958 letter nothing more than a nice gesture from one communist ally to another.

If war as a legitimate excuse can deny the fact, it is unacceptable. If this excuse can be set up. means you can do anything During the war and not need responsibility.If this excuse to be established, mean a poor man can kill other man but not need responsible , because he is poor.mean no one will believe what he say When a country or person during difficulty Period .


So i think not only China not accept this excuse , other countries also do not accept.

China and South Vietnam in the dispute in two islands, and no country recognized South Vietnam sovereignty over these islands , including North Vietnam. So even you unifies the Vietnam. Can not say that these two islands is give to China. You acknowledge China's sovereignty over these islands , which just means you recognize these two islands should be belong to Chinese, not belong to South Vietnam. It represents the views of Vietnam govemment, and it should have legitimacy for Vietnam .

Other countries's attitude for this note and 1965 statement , such as the U.S , whether Consider legitimate is another matter. but for Vietnam ,it should have legitimacy.

 

[akittya]

Unified Vietnam have Paracel from Viet Cong, not because North Vietnam vanquish South Vietnam

Anyway, your "flag" argument is stupid and meaningless

this not only is north Vietnam note and statment,but also Coalition government's note and statment .so don't continut make such despicable excuse.

your can see your Coalition government statement 1979，if the note and statment isn't Coalition government's note and statment ,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 .

do you think Coalition government Does not include Viet Cong！！

 

[gambit]

If war as a legitimate excuse can deny the fact, it is unacceptable. If this excuse can be set up. means you can do anything During the war and not need responsibility.If this excuse to be established, mean a poor man can kill other man but not need responsible , because he is poor.mean no one will believe what he say When a country or person during difficulty Period .


So i think not only China not accept this excuse , other countries also do not accept.

China and South Vietnam in the dispute in two islands, and no country recognized South Vietnam sovereignty over these islands , including North Vietnam. So even you unifies the Vietnam. Can not say that these two islands is give to China. You acknowledge China's sovereignty over these islands , which just means you recognize these two islands should be belong to Chinese, not belong to South Vietnam. It represents the views of Vietnam govemment, and it should have legitimacy for Vietnam .

Other countries's attitude for this note and 1965 statement , such as the U.S , whether Consider legitimate is another matter. but for Vietnam ,it should have legitimacy.

Buddy...I have tried to make heads or tails out of what you said but am not going to spend any more time on this.