Vietnam acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea in 1958

[Peter]

1. hehe, all know we play tricked with China and South VN, but base on Internayional rules we strictly comply all process, so, China and the South can not complain about it and we're talking about International rules now, we Socialist of VietNam follow all the rules, bro

So, you admit that North Vietnam is a LIAR, CHEATER and a THIEF!?

2. Paracel and Spratly belong to VietNam, that the true and we have lost of envidence to prove it, SCS(esat sea) having important role for VietNAm coz if CHina can control it, we must knee down to CHina Naval force, it's not only about oil, but it's about Viet's future also, we can not knee down again after successfuly got rid of China 2000 years ago.

Nobody can prevent you to protect your beloved Vietnam. It is the patriotism within each one of you that need to be praised for. However, FACTs are FACTs and you must face it for a better of Vietnam and to unite both Vietnameses inside and outside of Vietnam.

 

[gambit]

Read it for yourself!

Don't twist it to suit your needs, dear Gambit!

A said, these islands belong to A.
B agreed to what A said.

Simple is that and you dare to say B did not even implied it?

I have and am not impressed. The problem that you have been avoiding is that what 'B' agreed to and upon examination, 'B' agreed to nothing more than a courteous diplomatic response. No names were mentioned. The English interpretation of the Phạm Văn Đồng's 1958 letter is available for all to see. Am I twisting? You bet. Am twisting you in the wind, buddy.

 

[Peter]

My reading comprehension is just fine, if not superior to yours.

Yes, IF but it is not ...

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

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


You need to address those points. Else you are nothing more than a mental hamster running in place cycling the same discredited arguments.

Let take one point at a time, okay.

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.

First of all, 1958 to 1961 is 3 years apart. Had President Ngô Đình Diệm's 1961 incorporation of the islands into Quang Nam province occured in 1958? NO

As I wrote earlier about how easy to acknowledge or even agree to something that is not yours to please someone through diplomatic political correctness to gain a certain benefits. That what PM Pham Van Dong did as most of you Vietnameses are now thinking, right? Also, PM Pham Van Dong, a Vietnamese, knew real well that those islands (Paracel & Spratly) are parts of Vietnam as a whole, although Vietnam was in the Civil war and yet he signed anyway to agree with what China's claims. That what made him, do you think? Like the old saying: What is written binds the writer.

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.

Yes, sure France conceded whatever territory she controlled at that time to the best available authority figure she believed to be most capable of assuming authority, Bao Dai - her colonial puppet, which was South Viet Nam!? Yes, also this government of South Vietnam resisted, successfully or else upon China's invasion and occupy the Paracels in 1956, but above all in 1974, then certain islets in the Spratlys in 1988 under the regime of Communist Socialist Vietnam nowadays. Let's look at the map:

What is the legality of a claim that shown in this picture and communist government of the unified Viet Nam have done to her presence on the islands? Let alone the meaning of sovereignity that Vietnamese Government seems to be at great pains not to allow this to become abandonment through the absence of signs of intent proclamation of the two archipelagos: Paracel and Spratly through the wars with China. Who asked PM Pham Van Dong to sign such a letter so that Vietnamese people to lose their lives over it? To ask is to answer, don't you agree - dear Gambit?

Moreover, even Vietnam is to follow UNCLOS 1982, it only show very little of EEZ that Vietnam has toward Paracel archipelago as well. Let alone Spratly archipelago where Vietnam's EEZ line is lack of the majority of those islands. It seems like either way Vietnam doesn't has much of a case! You can rest now.

 

[Peter]

I have and am not impressed. The problem that you have been avoiding is that what 'B' agreed to and upon examination, 'B' agreed to nothing more than a courteous diplomatic response. No names were mentioned. The English interpretation of the Phạm Văn Đồng's 1958 letter is available for all to see. Am I twisting? You bet. Am twisting you in the wind, buddy.

Too bad that you can't see what is. B was a Vietnamese who was well known of those two archipelagos: Paracel and Spratly belong to Vietnam and yet to agree with A's claim. It had nothing to do with twisted words of yours about "agreed to and upon examination." Courteous diplomatic response or not but we all known what is written binds the writer.

BTW, is this the English interpretation of the Phạm Văn Đồng's 1958 letter that you said "No names were mentioned."?

The content of Pham Van Dong's diplomatic note to Premier Zhou Enlai is as follows:

"Comrade Prime Minister,

We have the honour to bring to your knowledge that the Government of the DRVN recognizes and supports the declaration dated 4th September, 1958 of the Government of the PRO fixing the width of the Chinese territorial waters. The Government of the DRVN respects this decision and will give instructions to its State bodies to respect the 12-mile width of the territorial waters of China in all their relations in the maritime field with the PRC. I address to you, comrade Prime Minister, the assurance of my distinguished consideration".

Date 14 September 1958(1958-09-14)

 

[Peter]

1. Our history books were burned many time by CHina , so it's hard to find down what is True in history book before 1788 -the lats time of China's invasion and occupied Hanoi.

For you NiceGuy ... What is history of yours going to write about these incidents:

Read it ...

Read it ...

Read it ...

 

[gambit]

Yes, IF but it is not ...

Oh, yes it is...

First of all, 1958 to 1961 is 3 years apart. Had President Ngô Đình Diệm's 1961 incorporation of the islands into Quang Nam province occured in 1958? NO

If you want to bring time elapsed into this, it still render Chinese claim invalid because the 1954 Geneva Conference effectively grant South Viet Nam authority and custodial rights BEFORE China presented her claim.

As I wrote earlier about how easy to acknowledge or even agree to something that is not yours to please someone through diplomatic political correctness to gain a certain benefits. That what PM Pham Van Dong did as most of you Vietnameses are now thinking, right? Also, PM Pham Van Dong, a Vietnamese, knew real well that those islands (Paracel & Spratly) are parts of Vietnam as a whole, although Vietnam was in the Civil war and yet he signed anyway to agree with what China's claims. That what made him, do you think? Like the old saying: What is written binds the writer.

Here is where you and the other Chinese boys are wrong...

In principle, the 12-mile territorial limit should be respected by everyone and that was what Phạm Văn Đồng conceded to in his 1958 response to China. But there were contestant claims to the islands BEFORE the Chinese declaration and NVN's response. That mean while the contestant claims do not negate the general idea that someone's territorial waters should not be violated, the contestant claims do put in doubt the validity of the islands' sovereignty belonging to China.

So if NVN did not, or rather could not, concede something to someone else what it never had in possession in the first place, that response is exactly what it is: A gesture of courtesy between nation-states.

If your property is being claimed by someone else, as a third party, my opinion regarding sovereignty of that property has no legal value, especially when your claim to that property is much stronger than the second party's claim. I could make a general statement that property rights should be respected...blah...blah...blah...and that still would not have any effects on the contest.

An equally appropriate analogy is that of a divorce, and I have been through one. In a marriage, community properties are held in legal 'limbo' until both parties agreed upon whose authority and custodial rights can be conferred upon which item. If there is an external contestant claim on an item, in principle, the item's sovereignty still belongs to the couple in a marriage partnership. Not the husband's. Not the wife's. But the couple's. Both can unite to challenge said contestant claim to that item and the court would recognize their unity despite the fact that the court know they are going through a divorce. Both MUST unite because if the item is lost to the challenger, no one in this partnership benefits, especially if the item is of value from long time possession and development. Only after the divorce is finalized and the list of community properties itemized as belonging to who could either party separate each other's authority and custodial rights from the items and do with them as each see fit.

Both analogies are eminently applicable in this dispute. North Viet Nam never had authority and custodial rights over the islands, therefore, Phạm Văn Đồng conceded nothing to China except acknowledgement of respect to a general principle that everyone has to anyway. Both Vietnams were in a civil war so any diplomatic treaties produced by either sides are applicable only to the items that are directly under its controls. South Viet Nam could not give the US access to mainland China, right? Then could North Viet Nam give China access rights to US mainland? See how absurd those questions are?

France was colonial master in Indochina and asserted authority and custodial rights to the islands. The 1954 Geneva Conference assigned same authority and custodial rights to South Viet Nam as a temporary measure. If a husband and wife want a divorce, someone still has to live in the house to maintain it, to protect it from vandals, to repair damages from the weather, to protect other properties that the house shelters, and so on...That temporary authority and custodial rights does not give North Viet Nam the right to agree to any contestant claim by China or any other aspiring thief.

Yes, sure France conceded whatever territory she controlled at that time to the best available authority figure she believed to be most capable of assuming authority, Bao Dai - her colonial puppet, which was South Viet Nam!?

Get your history straight, not crooked from the Chinese view. By the time of the 1954 Geneva Conference, Bảo Đại no longer mattered but South Viet Nam was governed by Ngô Đình Diệm.

Yes, also this government of South Vietnam resisted, successfully or else upon China's invasion and occupy the Paracels in 1956, but above all in 1974, then certain islets in the Spratlys in 1988 under the regime of Communist Socialist Vietnam nowadays. Let's look at the map:

What is the legality of a claim that shown in this picture and communist government of the unified Viet Nam have done to her presence on the islands? Let alone the meaning of sovereignity that Vietnamese Government seems to be at great pains not to allow this to become abandonment through the absence of signs of intent proclamation of the two archipelagos: Paracel and Spratly through the wars with China. Who asked PM Pham Van Dong to sign such a letter so that Vietnamese people to lose their lives over it? To ask is to answer, don't you agree - dear Gambit?

Then the same question can be applied to China as well. If anything, successful resistance to contestant claims, especially if said resistance involved military means, claim of sovereignty are reinforced.

Moreover, even Vietnam is to follow UNCLOS 1982, it only show very little of EEZ that Vietnam has toward Paracel archipelago as well. Let alone Spratly archipelago where Vietnam's EEZ line is lack of the majority of those islands. It seems like either way Vietnam doesn't has much of a case! You can rest now.

This is absurd and it shows why the Chinese arguments should be laughed at. What has China done to the islands as far as the same EEZ goes? Nothing except making a claim. Your argument is inherently illogical. China's claim is absolute and immune from challenging evidences while contestant claims must be subjected to microscopic legal scrutiny.

 

[gambit]

Too bad that you can't see what is. B was a Vietnamese who was well known of those two archipelagos: Paracel and Spratly belong to Vietnam and yet to agree with A's claim. It had nothing to do with twisted words of yours about "agreed to and upon examination." Courteous diplomatic response or not but we all known what is written binds the writer.

BTW, is this the English interpretation of the Phạm Văn Đồng's 1958 letter that you said "No names were mentioned."?

When I said 'names' I was referring to the islands' names, not that the letter was devoid of ANY names.

As for whether Phạm Văn Đồng was referring to the Paracels and Spratlys, or more like 'not', here is the clincher...

Office of the Historian - Historical Documents - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958

Newport, Rhode Island, September 4, 1958.

STATEMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

I have reviewed in detail with the President the serious situation which has resulted from aggressive Chinese Communist military actions in the Taiwan (Formosa) Straits area. The President has authorized me to make the following statement.

1. Neither Taiwan (Formosa) nor the islands of Quemoy and Matsu have ever been under the authority of the Chinese Communists. Since the end of the Second World War, a period of over 13 years, they have continuously been under the authority of Free China, that is, the Republic of China.

2. The United States is bound by treaty to help to defend Taiwan(Formosa) from armed attack and the President is authorized by Joint Resolution of the Congress to employ the armed forces of the United States for the securing and protecting of related positions such as Quemoy and Matsu.

3. Any attempt on the part of the Chinese Communists now to seize these positions or any of them would be a crude violation of the principles upon which world order is based, namely, that no country should use armed force to seize new territory.

4. The Chinese Communists have, for about 2 weeks, been subjecting Quemoy to heavy artillery bombardment and, by artillery fire and use of small naval craft, they have been harassing the regular supply of the civilian and military population of the Quemoys, which totals some 125 thousand persons. The official Peiping radio repeatedly announces the purpose of these military operations to be to take by armed force Taiwan (Formosa), as well as Quemoy and Matsu. In virtually every Peiping broadcast Taiwan (Formosa) and the offshore islands are linked as the objective of what is called the “Chinese Peoples Liberation Army.”

5. Despite, however, what the Chinese Communists say, and so far have done, it is not yet certain that their purpose is in fact to make an all-out effort to conquer by force Taiwan (Formosa) and the offshore islands. Neither is it apparent that such efforts as are being made, or may be made, cannot be contained by the courageous, and purely defensive, efforts of the forces of the Republic of China, with such substantial logistical support as the United States is providing.

6. The Joint Resolution of Congress, above referred to, includes a finding to the effect that “the secure possession by friendly governments of the Western Pacific Island chain, of which Formosa is a part, is essential to the vital interests of the United States and all friendly nations in and bordering upon the Pacific Ocean.” It further authorizes the President to employ the Armed Forces of the United States for the protection not only of Formosa but for “the securing and protection of such related positions and territories of that area now in friendly hands and the taking of such other measures as he judges to be required or appropriate in insuring the defense of Formosa.” In view of the situation outlined in the preceding paragraph, the President has not yet made any finding under that Resolution that the employment of the Armed Forces of the United States is required or appropriate in insuring the defense of Formosa. The President would not, however, hesitate to make such a finding if he judged that the circumstances made this necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Joint Resolution. In this connection, we have recognized that the securing and protecting of Quemoy and Matsu have increasingly become related to the defense of Taiwan (Formosa). This is indeed also recognized by the Chinese Communists. Military dispositions have been made by the United States so that a Presidential determination, if made, would be followed by action both timely and effective.

7. The President and I earnestly hope that the Chinese Communist regime will not again, as in the case of Korea, defy the basic principle upon which world order depends, namely, that armed force should not be used to achieve territorial ambitions. Any such naked use of force would pose an issue far transcending the offshore islands and even the security of Taiwan (Formosa). It would forecast a widespread use of force in the Far East which would endanger vital free world positions and the security of the United States. Acquiescence therein would threaten peace everywhere. We believe that the civilized world community will never condone overt military conquest as a legitimate instrument of policy.

8. The United States has not, however, abandoned hope that Peiping will stop short of defying the will of mankind for peace. This would not require it to abandon its claims, however ill-founded we may deem them to be. I recall that in the extended negotiations which the representatives of the United States and Chinese Communist regime conducted at Geneva between 1955 and 1958, a sustained effort was made by the United States to secure, with particular reference to the Taiwan area, a declaration of mutual and reciprocal renunciation of force, except in self-defense, which, however, would be without prejudice to the pursuit of policies by peaceful means. The Chinese Communists rejected any such declaration. We believe, however, that such a course of conduct constitutes the only civilized and acceptable procedure. The United States intends to follow that course, so far as it is concerned, unless and until the Chinese Communists, by their acts, leave us no choice but to react in defense of the principles to which all peace-loving governments are dedicated.

On Sept 4, 1958, the US issued a PUBLIC statement declaring that the US will come to Taiwan's aid, as highlighted above.

If that was a public statement on the 4th, that meant China must have known of American intentions on previous days, and that meant the Sept 4, 1958 declaration by China was more in response to the US government and less about territorial rights in general, even though those rights were stated by China.

On Sept 15, 1958, the US and the PRC met...

Office of the Historian - Historical Documents - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958

Warsaw, September 15, 1958, 7 p.m.

408. USUN for Robertson. Following is text agreed announcement proposed by Wang today’s meeting.1

“In order to ease and eliminate tension in Taiwan area and safeguard peace in Far East and world, Ambassador Wang Ping-nan, on behalf of Government of People’s Republic of China, and Ambassador Jacob D. Beam, on behalf of Government of USA, agree to announce:

The two parties undertake to settle disputes between the two countries in Taiwan and other areas in Far East through peaceful negotiations without resorting to threat of use of force against each other, and have agreed on the following:

1. Government of People’s Republic of China declares that Taiwan and Penghu Islands are China’s territories and Quemoy, Matsu and other coastal islands are islands within China’s inland waters along mainland, that Government of People’s Republic of China has right to liberate these territories of China by all suitable means at suitable time, and that this is China’s internal affair which allows no foreign interference.

2. Government of USA undertakes to withdrawal its armed forces from Taiwan, Penghu Islands and Taiwan Straits.

3. Government of People’s Republic of China declares that Quemoy, Matsu and such other coastal islands which are occupied by Kuomintang troops and constitute immediate threat to Ports of Amoy and Foochow must be recovered. If Kuomintang troops are willing withdraw from these islands on their own initiative, Government of People’s Republic of China will not pursue them.

4. Government of People’s Republic of China declares that, after recovering Quemoy, Matsu and the other coastal islands, it will strive to liberate Taiwan and Penghu Islands by peaceful means and will, in a certain period of time, avoid using force to realize liberation of Taiwan and Penghu Islands.

5. Government of People’s Republic of China and Government of USA are of agreed opinion that freedom and security of navigation on and flight above high seas in Taiwan Straits must be ensured.”

What this really mean is that the Phạm Văn Đồng's Sept 14, 1958 letter to China was more about Taiwan than it was about the Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa islands. He was expressing communist solidarity with China about territorial rights and was lending moral support to China. Not that he was conceding any Vietnamese territory to China.

 

[Peter]

Oh, yes it is...

Oh, yes it is... what? Your reading comprehension need improvements ...

If you want to bring time elapsed into this, it still render Chinese claim invalid because the 1954 Geneva Conference effectively grant South Viet Nam authority and custodial rights BEFORE China presented her claim.

Funny wasn't it!? It was the victory of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 by the North Vietnam so that came the 1954 Geneva Conference and yet "These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bảo Đại." Bao Dai, was then the puppet of France. Therefore, according to NIDS Security Reports that "... with the French withdrawal in the mid-1950s, South Vietnam began claiming territorial rights over the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands, and put the western part of the Paracels and a part of the Spratlys under its effective control. Meanwhile, China took over the eastern part of the Paracels in 1956."

That was where you were wrong Gambit for China already made herself presence at Paracel Islands in 1956.

Here is where you and the other Chinese boys are wrong...

In principle, the 12-mile territorial limit should be respected by everyone and that was what Phạm Văn Đồng conceded to in his 1958 response to China. But there were contestant claims to the islands BEFORE the Chinese declaration and NVN's response. That mean while the contestant claims do not negate the general idea that someone's territorial waters should not be violated, the contestant claims do put in doubt the validity of the islands' sovereignty belonging to China.

You are wrong even further into this argument when saying that "there were contestant claims to the islands BEFORE the Chinese declaration and NVN's response." Why? Because those islands were not belong to Vietnam either due to many contestant claims. Apparently, China is one of many contestant claims, right!?

So if NVN did not, or rather could not, concede something to someone else what it never had in possession in the first place, that response is exactly what it is: A gesture of courtesy between nation-states.

Again, this childish analogy repeats its ignorance. PM Pham Van Dong, a Vietnamese, knew real well that those islands (Paracel & Spratly) are parts of Vietnam as a whole, although Vietnam was in the Civil war and yet he signed anyway to agree with what China's claims. You can make excuse for not having the possession of the islands in the first place, but it also shown how cruel NVN toward SVN during the Civil War. What is belong to the South VN's brothers can be used for diplomatic political's benefits.

SAD, but too bad - like the old saying: What is written binds the writer.

If your property is being claimed by someone else, as a third party, my opinion regarding sovereignty of that property has no legal value, especially when your claim to that property is much stronger than the second party's claim. I could make a general statement that property rights should be respected...blah...blah...blah...and that still would not have any effects on the contest.

What if that someone else eventually stole my property with the help of the third party? Do you consider someone else and the third party are thieves to me then?

An equally appropriate analogy is that of a divorce, and I have been through one. In a marriage, community properties are held in legal 'limbo' until both parties agreed upon whose authority and custodial rights can be conferred upon which item. If there is an external contestant claim on an item, in principle, the item's sovereignty still belongs to the couple in a marriage partnership. Not the husband's. Not the wife's. But the couple's. Both can unite to challenge said contestant claim to that item and the court would recognize their unity despite the fact that the court know they are going through a divorce. Both MUST unite because if the item is lost to the challenger, no one in this partnership benefits, especially if the item is of value from long time possession and development. Only after the divorce is finalized and the list of community properties itemized as belonging to who could either party separate each other's authority and custodial rights from the items and do with them as each see fit.

I am sorry to hear about your divorce but you don't have to bring your personal matter into this argument. However, the more analogy you want to make just turn out to be against you dearly ... As you said: "... in principle, the item's sovereignty still belongs to the couple in a marriage partnership. Not the husband's. Not the wife's. But the couple's. " Then how could you to keep saying that NVN did not have sovereignty over the item - which is the two archipelagos?

Both analogies are eminently applicable in this dispute. North Viet Nam never had authority and custodial rights over the islands, therefore, Phạm Văn Đồng conceded nothing to China except acknowledgement of respect to a general principle that everyone has to anyway. Both Vietnams were in a civil war so any diplomatic treaties produced by either sides are applicable only to the items that are directly under its controls. South Viet Nam could not give the US access to mainland China, right? Then could North Viet Nam give China access rights to US mainland? See how absurd those questions are?

If you said that North Viet Nam never had authority and custodial rights over the islands, then South Vietnam was equally had no authority and custodial rights over the islands either. Why? Because there was a Civil War in Vietnam as a divorce from your analogy.

About your absurd questions that I can help you clear your mind:

1. South Viet Nam could not give the US access to mainland China, right? - US doesn't need South Vietnam to give her access to mainland China.

2. Then could North Viet Nam give China access rights to US mainland? China doesn't need North Vietnam to give her access to US mainland either.

China and US have each other's embassy in its own country.

France was colonial master in Indochina and asserted authority and custodial rights to the islands. The 1954 Geneva Conference assigned same authority and custodial rights to South Viet Nam as a temporary measure. If a husband and wife want a divorce, someone still has to live in the house to maintain it, to protect it from vandals, to repair damages from the weather, to protect other properties that the house shelters, and so on...That temporary authority and custodial rights does not give North Viet Nam the right to agree to any contestant claim by China or any other aspiring thief.

France was nobody after 1954 Geneva Conference and Vietnam was in a divorce procedure. They both lived in the same house, but in different rooms. Those islands were like the sheds outside in the back yard. During the divorce procedure, the husband with the help from the next door neighbor overtook the whole house and everything and kicked the wife out by force. What do you call to that?

Get your history straight, not crooked from the Chinese view. By the time of the 1954 Geneva Conference, Bảo Đại no longer mattered but South Viet Nam was governed by Ngô Đình Diệm.

You need to get your history straight my dear Gambit!

BAO DAI - Emperor of Vietnam
Reign 8 January 1926 – 25 August 1945 (19 years, 229 days)
Predecessor Khai Dinh
Heir-apparent Bao Long

Head of State of South Vietnam
Reign 13 June 1949 – 30 April 1955

versus

NGO DINH DIEM
In office
26 October 1955 – 2 November 1963

So you tell me that by the time of the 1954 Geneva Conference, Bảo Đại no longer mattered but South Viet Nam was governed by Ngô Đình Diệm. How twisted you are, huh? BTW, the Geneva Conference took place during (April 26 – July 20, 1954). Still, you try to deny the fact that France conceded whatever territory she controlled at that time to the best available authority figure she believed to be most capable of assuming authority, Bao Dai - her colonial puppet, which was South Viet Nam!

Then the same question can be applied to China as well. If anything, successful resistance to contestant claims, especially if said resistance involved military means, claim of sovereignty are reinforced.

Well, you can fight to claim what is yours involved military means and that what happened in 1956. China got two big islands in Parcel archipelago and Vietnam got other smaller ones. Each one got some islands of sovereignty that they have been controlling since. Therefore, you can't say nothing about it.

This is absurd and it shows why the Chinese arguments should be laughed at. What has China done to the islands as far as the same EEZ goes? Nothing except making a claim. Your argument is inherently illogical. China's claim is absolute and immune from challenging evidences while contestant claims must be subjected to microscopic legal scrutiny.

Gambit, Gambit ... Aren't you and the Vietnamese posters using the EEZ line as a reason to show that China violated the UNCLOS 1982?

If you want to have sovereignty over the islands then how do you explain this map:

What is the legality of a claim that shown in this picture and communist government of the unified Viet Nam have done to her presence on the islands?

Remember, as you said: "there were contestant claims to the islands BEFORE the Chinese declaration and NVN's response."

 

[Peter]

When I said 'names' I was referring to the islands' names, not that the letter was devoid of ANY names.

As for whether Phạm Văn Đồng was referring to the Paracels and Spratlys, or more like 'not', here is the clincher...

In China's 1958 Declaration already mention the Islands' names. Pham Van Dong agreed and supported that declaration.

Office of the Historian - Historical Documents - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958

On Sept 4, 1958, the US issued a PUBLIC statement declaring that the US will come to Taiwan's aid, as highlighted above.

If that was a public statement on the 4th, that meant China must have known of American intentions on previous days, and that meant the Sept 4, 1958 declaration by China was more in response to the US government and less about territorial rights in general, even though those rights were stated by China.

On Sept 15, 1958, the US and the PRC met...

Office of the Historian - Historical Documents - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958


What this really mean is that the Phạm Văn Đồng's Sept 14, 1958 letter to China was more about Taiwan than it was about the Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa islands. He was expressing communist solidarity with China about territorial rights and was lending moral support to China. Not that he was conceding any Vietnamese territory to China.

Then Pham Van Dong could be clear in his statement that he only agreed and supported China's claim over Taiwan (only), instead he agreed to everything claimed in that declaration. Who fault was that?

 

[gambit]

In China's 1958 Declaration already mention the Islands' names. Pham Van Dong agreed and supported that declaration.

But Phạm Văn Đồng's letter has no names.

Then Pham Van Dong could be clear in his statement that he only agreed and supported China's claim over Taiwan (only), instead he agreed to everything claimed in that declaration. Who fault was that?

No...He does not need to be that explicit. China in response to the US had to be explicit. North Viet Nam need to be explicit only if the Chinese declaration was targeted at North/South Viet Nam. Events at that time drove the US and China more than they did for the Viet Nam civil war, which was rising and US involvement in Viet Nam was minor compared to Taiwan. Sorry, but not really sorry, history does not bear you out.

 

[grey boy 2]

Hey Peter, whoever you're, you been getting on the nerves of Chinese, viets members and now you driving our beloved "old vietcommie" blood pressure to perhaps to 180 however credits need to be deliver when its due, man, you got "some debating skills"

 

[Peter]

But Phạm Văn Đồng's letter has no names.

He does not need to be that explicit.

Isn't that what you try to defense for him below?

No...He does not need to be that explicit. China in response to the US had to be explicit. North Viet Nam need to be explicit only if the Chinese declaration was targeted at North/South Viet Nam. Events at that time drove the US and China more than they did for the Viet Nam civil war, which was rising and US involvement in Viet Nam was minor compared to Taiwan. Sorry, but not really sorry, history does not bear you out.

Did Pham van Dong not know that China's declaration was targeted at South Viet Nam's islands?

Gambit, you must be truthful at least to yourself man.

 

[gambit]

Oh, yes it is... what? Your reading comprehension need improvements ...

Am sure it does. But it is still superior to yours.

Funny wasn't it!? It was the victory of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 by the North Vietnam so that came the 1954 Geneva Conference and yet "These agreements separated Vietnam into two zones, a northern zone to be governed by the Viet Minh, and a southern zone to be governed by the State of Vietnam, then headed by former emperor Bảo Đại." Bao Dai, was then the puppet of France. Therefore, according to NIDS Security Reports that "... with the French withdrawal in the mid-1950s, South Vietnam began claiming territorial rights over the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands, and put the western part of the Paracels and a part of the Spratlys under its effective control. Meanwhile, China took over the eastern part of the Paracels in 1956."

That was where you were wrong Gambit for China already made herself presence at Paracel Islands in 1956.

A squatter's presence in an empty house is an illegal one. Your argument therefore is pointless.

You are wrong even further into this argument when saying that "there were contestant claims to the islands BEFORE the Chinese declaration and NVN's response." Why? Because those islands were not belong to Vietnam either due to many contestant claims. Apparently, China is one of many contestant claims, right!?

Pathetically wrong. No wonder why I laugh at these arguments. Suppose I put a lien (claim) on your house, does that mean my claim for a piece of your property is valid in the first place? So just because China submitted, in any manner, a contestant claim that does not mean the claim is valid. If anything, if Chinese claim to the islands are so solid, China would not have trotted out the Phạm Văn Đồng 1958 letter. Basically, China -- through you -- is straining at the proverbial gnat.

Again, this childish analogy repeats its ignorance. PM Pham Van Dong, a Vietnamese, knew real well that those islands (Paracel & Spratly) are parts of Vietnam as a whole, although Vietnam was in the Civil war and yet he signed anyway to agree with what China's claims. You can make excuse for not having the possession of the islands in the first place, but it also shown how cruel NVN toward SVN during the Civil War. What is belong to the South VN's brothers can be used for diplomatic political's benefits.

That argument is done for. Evidences are overwhelming that the Phạm Văn Đồng 1958 letter to China has no legal force and zippo diplomatic value. Anyone who has any experience in business know that nothing has legal implications until details are written down and all parties became signatories to the contract.

SAD, but too bad - like the old saying: What is written binds the writer.

Yes...It is sad that China has nothing from nothing. Sad for China, that is...

What if that someone else eventually stole my property with the help of the third party? Do you consider someone else and the third party are thieves to me then?

What a stupid question...!!! Am not going to bother with it...

As you said: "... in principle, the item's sovereignty still belongs to the couple in a marriage partnership. Not the husband's. Not the wife's. But the couple's. " Then how could you to keep saying that NVN did not have sovereignty over the item - which is the two archipelagos?

Because the 1954 Geneva Conference effectively assigned the islands to South Viet Nam. Was North Viet Nam a contestant? No. Was South Viet Nam a contestant? No. Was Viet Nam a contestant? Yes. If you cannot understand how, then you are out of your league here.

If you said that North Viet Nam never had authority and custodial rights over the islands, then South Vietnam was equally had no authority and custodial rights over the islands either. Why? Because there was a Civil War in Vietnam as a divorce from your analogy.

Wrong...The 1954 Geneva Conference effectively assigned the islands to South Viet Nam via the 17th parallel demarcation.

Dang...You are dense.

About your absurd questions that I can help you clear your mind:

1. South Viet Nam could not give the US access to mainland China, right? - US doesn't need South Vietnam to give her access to mainland China.

2. Then could North Viet Nam give China access rights to US mainland? China doesn't need North Vietnam to give her access to US mainland either.

China and US have each other's embassy in its own country.

Now that is just outright stupidity...How embarrassing. Ambassadorial grounds are not granted by third parties but by host countries.

France was nobody after 1954 Geneva Conference and Vietnam was in a divorce procedure. They both lived in the same house, but in different rooms. Those islands were like the sheds outside in the back yard. During the divorce procedure, the husband with the help from the next door neighbor overtook the whole house and everything and kicked the wife out by force. What do you call to that?

Viet Nam was not in any divorce procedure any more than Korea is divided. FYI...The Koreans do not consider themselves permanently divided but only temporary. The 1954 Geneva Conference made it clear that the partition was temporary and that responsibilities of territorial authority and custodial rights were divided at the 17th parallel. That mean South Viet Nam must maintain the islands but could not give them away. And if South Viet Nam could not give them away, then neither could North Viet Nam.

You need to get your history straight my dear Gambit!

BAO DAI - Emperor of Vietnam
Reign 8 January 1926 – 25 August 1945 (19 years, 229 days)
Predecessor Khai Dinh
Heir-apparent Bao Long

Head of State of South Vietnam
Reign 13 June 1949 – 30 April 1955

versus

NGO DINH DIEM
In office
26 October 1955 – 2 November 1963

So you tell me that by the time of the 1954 Geneva Conference, Bảo Đại no longer mattered but South Viet Nam was governed by Ngô Đình Diệm. How twisted you are, huh? BTW, the Geneva Conference took place during (April 26 – July 20, 1954). Still, you try to deny the fact that France conceded whatever territory she controlled at that time to the best available authority figure she believed to be most capable of assuming authority, Bao Dai - her colonial puppet, which was South Viet Nam!

Damn...!!! You are indeed dense. Ngô Đình Diệm was effectively South Viet Nam's leader by the time of the 1954 Geneva Conference. During the conference, no one cared about the outgoing emperor. Everyone knew that at best Bảo Đại could serve as a figurehead in a constitutional monarchy with Ngô Đình Diệm as Premier. That was what happened DURING the conference.

Well, you can fight to claim what is yours involved military means and that what happened in 1956. China got two big islands in Parcel archipelago and Vietnam got other smaller ones. Each one got some islands of sovereignty that they have been controlling since. Therefore, you can't say nothing about it.

Yes...We can call China a thief.

Gambit, Gambit ... Aren't you and the Vietnamese posters using the EEZ line as a reason to show that China violated the UNCLOS 1982?

If you want to have sovereignty over the islands then how do you explain this map:

What is the legality of a claim that shown in this picture and communist government of the unified Viet Nam have done to her presence on the islands?

Remember, as you said: "there were contestant claims to the islands BEFORE the Chinese declaration and NVN's response."

A legality of a claim does not rest SOLELY upon lines on a map. If so, then anyone can draw up any map he want and there would be chaos. The EEZ lines are supposed to be SUPPLEMENTARY to other arguments regarding sovereignty. So if China want to use the EEZ lines on a map, China must show that the islands belongs to China in the first place, which so far evidences do not support that claim.

 

[gambit]

He does not need to be that explicit.

Isn't that what you try to defense for him below?



Did Pham van Dong not know that China's declaration was targeted at South Viet Nam's islands?

Gambit, you must be truthful at least to yourself man.

No...Phạm Văn Đồng was only supporting China regarding the China-Taiwan issue.

 

[akittya]

I think must Reiterate

The Final Declarations of the Geneva Conference July 21, 1954

6. The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the Agreement relating to Viet-nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary. The Conference expresses its conviction that the execution of the provisions set out in the present Declaration and in the Agreement on the cessation of hostilities creates the necessary basis for the achievement in the near future of a political settlement in Viet-Nam.

so dont Look for a way interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary ，This is clearly prohibited