Am sure it does. But it is still superior to yours.
You are entitled to your opinion, dear Gambit
but it is not as you think ...
A squatter's presence in an empty house is an illegal one. Your argument therefore is pointless.
Empty house without owner or anyone to claim for it, so a squatter's presence in it and control it since 1956 is the legal owner.
Also, you are trying to avoid a valid point (not pointless) of argument because you don't have a case according to the 1954 Geneva Conference.
The United States and South Vietnam did not sign the 1954 Geneva Accords. Why? South Vietnam did not agree to have Vietnam divided into two zones and the U.S. had other motive that later on aided Ngo Dinh Diem into power. Therefore, what rights or sovereignty over the two archipelgos that South Vietnam had back then? In addition, there was a last document from 1954 Geneva Accords request an internationally supervised free elections to be held in July 1956 in Vietnam. However, this internationally supervised free elections was not happen and U.S. aided Ngo Dinh Diem to become the first South Vietnam President because the U.S. feared that Vietnam would vote for the Communist Party.
Yes, if it wasn't for that who would have had either administration or even administrative rights over the islands, North Vietnam or South Vietnam.
Remember this FACT dear Gambit, South Vietnam did not sign the 1954 Geneva Accords so to spare the audience with your pointless argument that 1954 Geneva Conference effectively granted South Viet Nam authority and custodial rights
BEFORE China presented her claim.
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.
It kind of sad that not many people find your pathetic laugh amusing.
Let's look at this map again. If Vietnam has sovereignty over the islands then how do you explain this map:
You are so naive and other Vietnamese posters too. You don't even understand the word:
sovereignty mean either. How many islets that Vietnam has:
* territorial integrity
* border inviolability
* supremacy of the state
* a sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction
over the two archipelgos. After 1954 Geneva Conference, those two archipelgos: Paracel & Spratly are available for grap and that what South Vietnam and China did. In 1956, two largest islands Phu Lam (Woody Is.) and Linh Con had been taken by China before South Vietnamese forces were able to send their troops to the islands to establish what you would called:
sovereignty. Recent incidents of Binh Minh 02 and Viking 02 did not show Vietnam has either administration or even administrative rights over the islands at all. Therefore, do you think these powerless Chinese posters who bring this letter of Pham Van Dong up in this forum reflect their government's only thing to have trotted out of?
Pham van Dong's 1958 letter is neither worth it nor not in the eyes of super-power countries but a proverbial gnat through you. Unfortunately, Vietnam is not one of those countries.
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.
Really!?
Didn't have U.S. and South Vietnam became signatories to the 1954 Geneva Accords. Yet, PM Pham Van Dong had his signature signed in the name of Democratic Republic of Vietnam.
Yes...It is sad that China has nothing from nothing. Sad for China, that is...
Wrong again! Look at the map above to see if China has nothing ...
What a stupid question...!!! Am not going to bother with it...
There are no stupid question. It is obvious! The ANSWER to "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?" IS:
YES and you afraid to admit it so ...
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.
Wrong...The 1954 Geneva Conference effectively assigned the islands to South Viet Nam via the 17th parallel demarcation.
Dang...You are dense.
You are not keeping up with the TRUTH, dear Gambit. By now, you would know the TRUTH - right!? I allow you time to re-examine the facts about 1954 Geneva Conference then you can come back to the league. South Vietnam did not sign the 1954 Geneva Accords, dude.
Now that is just outright stupidity...How embarrassing. Ambassadorial grounds are not granted by third parties but by host countries.
Look who's talking?
You asked: 1. South Viet Nam could not give the US access to mainland China, right?
I said: US doesn't need South Vietnam to give her access to mainland China.
You asked: 2. Then could North Viet Nam give China access rights to US mainland?
I said: China doesn't need North Vietnam to give her access to US mainland either.
Duh!!! Don't you see I am twisting you in the wind, buddy hehehe....
Got it?
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.
Dear Gambit, how temporary Vietnam was divided at the 17th parallel till? 1975
Vietnam was in a divorce procedure until U.S. withdrew ... duh! The TRUTH is, those two two archipelgos: Paracel & Spratly are available for grap.
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.
How naive you are! Who aided Ngo Dinh Diem to be the President of the South Vietnam? Who did not sign the 1954 Geneva Accords? During the Geneva Conference was in 1954 and when did Ngo Dinh Diem became President? If you like to lie - go ahead ...
Yes...We can call China a thief.
Vietnam is not a thief in the Cambodian's eyes? Please, grow up dear Gambit with that name calling non-sense hehehe ...
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.
Duh!! Can you not read the map? Furthermore, those islands are still under disputes so you can't say they are yours!