Vietnam acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea in 1958

[NiceGuy]

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



2.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.

1.No, my GOvt.was Not, we strictly follow the International rules, and see who's the Liar first ?A man give you money and he wants to take your neighbour's house, I just simply said:" OK, give me your money, and take her house", so, who is the bad guy first ??

2.Yep, we're trying hard now, but the over sea VNese must understand that: we never sell any thing to any one, and we have new Democracy version fit for one party, so don't bring the Western Democracy in, it will slpit Vn to pieces

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

Read it ...

Read it ...

Read it ...

Hehe, you seem can understand alittle Vnese, but can you understand the true meaning on those stone board ??

bwt: it doesn't related to the border map

 

[akittya]

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

yes you are right , and I do not think gambit really did not know .Because it was simple as 1+1=2.
if he really did not know, I think he should see a doctor.

 

[akittya]

1.No, my GOvt.was Not, we strictly follow the International rules, and see who's the Liar first ?A man give you money and he wants to take your neighbour's house, I just simply said:" OK, give me your money, and take her house", so, who is they bad guy first ??

2.Yep, we're trying hard now, but the over sea VNese must understand that: we never sell any thing to any one, and we have new Democracy version fit for one party, so don't bring the Western Democracy in, it will slpit Vn to pieces

no one admit this is your neighbour's house, and you admit this is my house .

 

[akittya]

Even the Viet Cong opposed China's claim and invasion but China regard as they haven't opposed anything.

about Convention of San Francesco in 1951 already have Discussed, it can prove nothing, if you have a new discovery, you should put forward

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

no one admit this is your neighbour's house, and you admit this is my house .

It's Viet Cong's house, not North Vietnam's house. Sorry.

 

[gambit]

I think must Reiterate

The Final Declarations of the Geneva Conference July 21, 1954




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

You clearly do not know what that paragraph really mean. In that paragraph, the 1954 Geneva Conference stated that the 17th parallel partition does not intend to permanently partition Viet Nam but only a temporary measure to promote peace between warring sides. What it also mean is that neither side has authority over the territories that were being administered by the other under the same intention of promoting peace. This is so common sense that it is amazing that the Chinese boys here cannot grasp it.

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

Are you saying that your history books were made from FAKE?

You can LIE but you can't HIDE from the TRUTH, NiceGuy ...

Ai Nam Quan

There is 2 passes there: Nam Quan (china) and Pha Lũy (Vietnam).

Pha Lũy pass is usually mistaken with Nam Quan pass which is built by Ming dynasty, so some Vietnamese usually accuse the communist gov for "selling Nam Quan pass", but in fact no Nam Quan was sale, 'coz the Nam Quan pass already belong to China, the problem is only where the milestone in the south of Nam Quan pass is.

 

[akittya]

It's Viet Cong's house, not North Vietnam's house. Sorry.

You're funny, you already admit this is my house, why you can say it's Viet Cong's house. as you are a man and the same time can is a woman?
What's wrong with you.

 

[akittya]

You clearly do not know what that paragraph really mean. In that paragraph, the 1954 Geneva Conference stated that the 17th parallel partition does not intend to permanently partition Viet Nam but only a temporary measure to promote peace between warring sides. What it also mean is that neither side has authority over the territories that were being administered by the other under the same intention of promoting peace. This is so common sense that it is amazing that the Chinese boys here cannot grasp it.

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.

had to admire the people who Develop ”Final Declarations of the Geneva Conference“ ，they have know Some people will try to interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary by this Declarations .so special development of this terms.

yes ,you are some people. you are try to look for a way interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary！！！！
Sorry, this is expressly prohibited！！

 

[gambit]

The Final Declarations of the Geneva Conference July 21, 1954



had to admire the people who Develop ”Final Declarations of the Geneva Conference“ ，they have know Some people will try to interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary by this Declarations .so special development of this terms.

yes ,you are some people. you are try to look for a way interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary！！！！
Sorry, this is expressly prohibited！！

Correct...Some people did interpreted to mean that North Viet Nam had the authority to speak for Viet Nam.

Sorry, this is expressly prohibited！！

 

[akittya]

Correct...Some people did interpreted to mean that North Viet Nam had the authority to speak for Viet Nam.

Sorry, this is expressly prohibited！！

when 1977 Coalition government Prime Minister talked about 65 statement, we still call it "we statement ".
in 1979 coalition government's declare.
why Coalition government must explain for this note and statement if this isnt his note and statement?
why Coalition government have the right to explain the note and statement if this is not his note and statement?
Why not simply say " this is not my notes, this is not my statement" .

everything all support my point, this is not just North Vietnam‘s note and statement.also Coalition government's note and statement.

so you say "this is expressly prohibited！！ Obviously, even the coalition government does not agree with you.

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

You're funny, you already admit this is my house, why you can say it's Viet Cong's house. as you are a man and the same time can is a woman?
What's wrong with you.

Who admit it's your house? Who say it's Viet Cong's house? Do not make things up, troll

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

when 1977 Coalition government Prime Minister talked about 65 statement, we still call it "we statement ".
in 1979 coalition government's declare.
why Coalition government must explain for this note and statement if this isnt his note and statement?
why Coalition government have the right to explain the note and statement if this is not his note and statement?
Why not simply say " this is not my notes, this is not my statement" .

everything all support my point, this is not just North Vietnam‘s note and statement.also Coalition government's note and statement.

so you say "this is expressly prohibited！！ Obviously, even the coalition government does not agree with you.

Stop your stupid excuse "we" and "our" in some talking. It's not legal enough to use as evidence.

 

[gambit]

Stop your stupid excuse "we" and "our" in some talking. It's not legal enough to use as evidence.

Of course not. Here are the problems for the Chinese...

- The Chinese want to make North Viet Nam the legitimate authority for Viet Nam regarding the islands without explaining how South Viet Nam is not the legitimate authority for the islands when the 1954 Geneva Conference assigned such authority.

- The Phạm Văn Đồng 1958 letter to China was not about the Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa dispute but only a supporting statement to the PRC regarding US support for Taiwan.

- The 1951 peace treaty with Japan is an example of how nation-states concede territories. There should be no doubt what the Allies wanted but the legal burden was still upon Japan to clearly state what she would concede. Article 2 clearly stated so...

East Asian Studies Documents: 1951 Peace Treaty between Japan and the Allied Powers

(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.

(e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area, whether deriving from the activities of Japanese nationals or otherwise.

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

Concession automatically revert possession back to the immediate previous owner. For the islands, Viet Nam as a French colonial protectorate was the immediate previous owner.

- In 1951, the PRC was not the speaking authority for China, the ROC, meaning Chiang Kai-shek, was.

- From the end of WW II to 1958, China was in a civil war the same way Viet Nam was. So the legitimate speaker problem for Viet Nam because of a civil war also existed for China. If Viet Nam had no legitimate speaker because of civil war, then China had no legitimate claimant for the islands because of a civil war. Even worse for the Chinese argument regarding legitimacy is that the PRC did not became a UN member until 1971. So if the Chinese want to erase the distinction for China, the same erasure must be allowed for Viet Nam, which lead back to the 1951 peace treaty which granted possession of the islands to Viet Nam. Hence, the Phạm Văn Đồng 1958 letter to China is essentially meaningless regarding possession claim by China.

 

[Peter]

There is 2 passes there: Nam Quan (china) and Pha Lũy (Vietnam).

Pha Lũy pass is usually mistaken with Nam Quan pass which is built by Ming dynasty, so some Vietnamese usually accuse the communist gov for "selling Nam Quan pass", but in fact no Nam Quan was sale, 'coz the Nam Quan pass already belong to China, the problem is only where the milestone in the south of Nam Quan pass is.

Why are you lying? You even cut off the top section that provide information about that picture which is "Nam Quan" Pass and twisted it to suit your needs.

Here is the original picture:

Pha Luy is also called Nam Quan as "Nam Quan" Pass has had different names throughout history.

Ai Nam Quan (Wiki source)

You are an example of bad lying person among the decent Vietnameses.