Vietnam acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea in 1958

[NiceGuy]

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.

So can you give any detail and clear map of Vn-China land border before 2008 ??where're Nam Quan pass on the map , bro ??

 

[Peter]

So can you give any detail and clear map of Vn-China land border before 2008 ??where're Nam Quan pass on the map , bro ??

So, you know your fellow man lied, right ...

 

[Peter]

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!

 

[Peter]

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

Then clearly stated so that his Communist Party oly supported China regarding the China-Taiwan issue instead agreed to every China claims in the Declaration of 1958. No matter what you try to defense his reckless mistake, it already made and done. Case is closed!

 

[Peter]

1.No, my GOvt.was Not, we strictly follow the International rules, and see who's the Liar first ?

Did Vietnam has:

* territorial integrity
* border inviolability
* supremacy of the state
* a sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction

over every islets of the two archipelgos????

The answer is NO. So Vietnam doesn't have any sovereignty to Islands that are not controlled by Vietnam. Now, who is lying?

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 ??

You are not keeping the story as you have said before:

I need to borrow you money, you want me to deposit my neighbour house, Ok I deposit her house and take money, but you can not take my neighbour house away, that all

BTW, it is called "collateral" when you borrow money. So, look at your story thatyou can't keep it straight. Who is the liar?

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

So, you are the victim of media-censorship from your one party Communist government!

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

Which stone board?

 

[hoangsa]

Then clearly stated so that his Communist Party oly supported China regarding the China-Taiwan issue instead agreed to every China claims in the Declaration of 1958. No matter what you try to defense his reckless mistake, it already made and done. Case is closed!

Show us the words of Pham Van Dong which agreed to every China claims in the Declaration of 1958. Liar. He only accepted 12 nautical miles, not mention any single word about islands Hoang Sa and Truong Sa. This is a difficult case for him when be forced to support ally in war without harm his country. Think about his situation at that time, he is forced to give out support. This difficult case one more time to prove how wicked " friend " China is. By all mean, by all way, in all situation , in war or peace, China always plan (not for now but future) to rob or occupy her neighbor's land & sea.

 

[gambit]

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.

Good...Just as I expected as the next incoming argument from the Chinese. If you want to disqualify South Viet Nam that way, then we can dismiss China's claim to the islands because the PRC was not even a member of the UN, let alone a recognized representative for China, until 1971. Case dismissed...

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?

Now that is a very poor understanding of the concept of 'sovereignty'. Violation of territorial integrity does not strip away a state's sovereignty status over a territory. A good example of this is during the Vietnam War when North Viet Nam violated the territorial integrity of Laos and Cambodia to create the famous Ho Chi Minh Trail. Who gave North Viet Nam the right to violate the territorial integrity of TWO countries? Did China gave North Viet Nam that permission? Did God? Going by your flawed understanding of the concept of 'sovereignty', does that mean North Viet Nam took sovereignty of Laos and Cambodia away from those governments? If so, then the PRC should back off Taiwan because the PRC claimed that island as sovereign soil but the US come and go to Taiwan as we please with no permission from the PRC. Take a few days off and study up on the concept of 'sovereignty' if you want to continue this discussion.

 

[akittya]

Show us the words of Pham Van Dong which agreed to every China claims in the Declaration of 1958. Liar. He only accepted 12 nautical miles, not mention any single word about islands Hoang Sa and Truong Sa. This is a difficult case for him when be forced to support ally in war without harm his country. Think about his situation at that time, he is forced to give out support. This difficult case one more time to prove how wicked " friend " China is. By all mean, by all way, in all situation , in war or peace, China always plan (not for now but future) to rob or occupy her neighbor's land & sea.

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam's Government agreed to terms of China's public statment in 9-4-1958 about China's sea territory claim.The Democratic Republic of Vietnam Government respect it, and will direct all Agencies to absolute respect the 12 nautical miles sea territory of China in all matters with the People's Republic of China in the East Sea.

sincerely.

Hanoi 14-9-1958.

Yes, not mention any single word about islands Hoang Sa and Truong Sa, but he mentioned ”agreed to terms of China's public statment in 9-4-1958 about China's sea territory claim“，he alredy tell you If you want to know the name, you can check China's public statment in 9-4-1958about China's sea territory claim ，and you wil see really included xisha(Hoang Sa) and nansha(Truong Sa).and you must Special attention is ”all matters “。

you admit these island belong to china continus about 20 years . therefore we have enough reason to believe that this represents a real idea of ​​your government, is that these islands should belong to China.

even after your government make a Unreliable explain for this note ,only dare to say is you need our help .not dare to say is we force you to admit our claim.
and at that time the war of resistance to usa aggression had not yet occurred in vietnam

 

[NiceGuy]

So, you know your fellow man lied, right ...

hehe, can you read VNese, this is the Map after 2008.I need the Map before 2008, in Nguyen Dynasty or French colony time for example, where is Nam Quan pass ??

 

[NiceGuy]

1.Did Vietnam has:

* territorial integrity
* border inviolability
* supremacy of the state
* a sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction

over every islets of the two archipelgos????

The answer is NO. So Vietnam doesn't have any sovereignty to Islands that are not controlled by Vietnam. Now, who is lying?


2.You are not keeping the story as you have said before:

I need to borrow you money, you want me to deposit my neighbour house, Ok I deposit her house and take money, but you can not take my neighbour house away, that all

BTW, it is called "collateral" when you borrow money. So, look at your story thatyou can't keep it straight. Who is the liar?



3.So, you are the victim of media-censorship from your one party Communist government!



4.Which stone board?

1. We declared and sentd troops to protect those islands from 1836, untill 1974, we still kept Paracel .So, they belong to VN.

Minh Mệnh thứ 17 (1836), năm Bính thân, Thuỷ quân Chánh đội trưởng suất đội Phạm Hữu Nhật, vâng mệnh đi Hoàng Sa trông nom đo đạc đến đây lưu dấu để ghi nhớ”

??c m?c b?n tri?u Nguy?n kh?ng ??nh ch? quy?n Hoàng Sa - Bee - Khoa h?c & ??i s?ng Online
The 17th of the reign of Minh Mạngby the royal ordinance commander of the navy Phạm Hữu Nhật came here to Hoàng Sa for reconnaissance and protect to make topographical measurements and leave this stele as record thereof.

2.SO who is liar first ??borrowing money can consider as a liar ??

3.Hehe, you're US citizen, you don't understand VN, so no need to say who is victim of Whom

4.the link you sent me related to stone board , you don't know it ???Oh, so why do you try to send VNese link to me ??

 

[akittya]

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

North Vietnam‘s note and statement.also Coalition government's note and statement. your Coalition government's agree with this viewpoint

A brief diplomatic history of Viet Nam

from 1945 to date , Vietnamese diplomacy is continuous.

 

[hoangsa]

Yes, not mention any single word about islands Hoang Sa and Truong Sa, but he mentioned ”agreed to terms of China's public statment in 9-4-1958 about China's sea territory claim“，he alredy tell you If you want to know the name, you can check China's public statment in 9-4-1958about China's sea territory claim ，and you wil see really included xisha(Hoang Sa) and nansha(Truong Sa).and you must Special attention is ”all matters “。

you admit these island belong to china continus about 20 years . therefore we have enough reason to believe that this represents a real idea of ​​your government, is that these islands should belong to China.

even after your government make a Unreliable explain for this note ,only dare to say is you need our help .not dare to say is we force you to admit our claim.
and at that time the war of resistance to usa aggression had not yet occurred in vietnam

1951, at San Frarancisco, the world denied claim of China about Hoang sa and Truong Sa. While Vietnam did claimed Hoang sa and Truong sa belong to Vietnam, no nation denied. It means from 1951 Hoang sa and Truong sa belonged to Vietnam and accepted by the world.

1955 Geneve, which China is one of full members, admitted Hoang sa and Truong sa belonged to Vietnam.

1958 PM Pham Van Dong only accepted issue "12 nautical miles" of China in his confirm letter, not mention any single word about Hoang sa and Truong sa. Although in China 's claim issue "12 nautical miles" including islands bla...bla...as you quoted. It did not mean the PM accepted to give up Vietnam territory.

I think China's leaders at that time wanted to trapped PM Pham Van Dong to take Vietnam territory but he trapped them back.
To give up or sales off or whatever a territory of a nation is not simple as you though, it needs more procedure (for example, a formal letter which is approved by a legal Parliament to declare clearly Vietnamese from that time to give up these island....or we, Vietnamese agreed to offer these island...to someone...etc... and more paper works, more procedure, not only that), more than a single simple letter which is full of blur words and issued in a very messy situation.


Công hàm 1958 v?i ch? quy?n Hoàng Sa và Tr??ng Sa c?a Vi?t Nam

 

[akittya]

1951, at San Frarancisco, the world denied claim of China about Hoang sa and Truong Sa. While Vietnam did claimed Hoang sa and Truong sa belong to Vietnam, no nation denied. It means from 1951 Hoang sa and Truong sa belonged to Vietnam and accepted by the world.

1955 Geneve, which China is one of full members, admitted Hoang sa and Truong sa belonged to Vietnam.

1958 PM Pham Van Dong only accepted issue "12 nautical miles" of China in his confirm letter, not mention any single word about Hoang sa and Truong sa. Although in China 's claim issue "12 nautical miles" including islands bla...bla...as you quoted. It did not mean the PM accepted to give up Vietnam territory.

I think China's leaders at that time wanted to trapped PM Pham Van Dong to take Vietnam territory but he trapped them back.
To give up or sales off or whatever a territory of a nation is not simple as you though, it needs more procedure (for example, a formal letter which is approved by a legal Parliament to declare clearly Vietnamese from that time to give up these island....or we, Vietnamese agreed to offer these island...to someone...etc... and more paper works, more procedure, not only that), more than a single simple letter which is full of blur words and issued in a very messy situation.


Công hàm 1958 v?i ch? quy?n Hoàng Sa và Tr??ng Sa c?a Vi?t Nam

let me tell your the truth,haha

1951, at San Frarancisco, the world denied claim of China about Hoang sa and Truong Sa. While Vietnam did claimed Hoang sa and Truong sa belong to Vietnam, no nation denied. It means from 1951 Hoang sa and Truong sa belonged to Vietnam and accepted by the world.

- 1951 - September - Opening of the San Francisco Conference. China was not represented.35

Mr Gromyko at the plenary meeting of 5 September proposed 13 amend-
ments. The first of these envisaged the recognition by Japan of the sover-eignty of the Chinese People's Republic over the Paracels and other islands
further south. This amendment was rejected by 48 votes to 3.
On 7 September, the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of
the Vietnamese Government of Bao Dai solemnly declared that the two
archipelagos fell within Vietnamese territory. This declaration elicited no comment from any delegate.
There was thus no precise attribution of the islands by agreement at the end of this Conference. :

You are laughable,
You use the amendment vote results compare with Vietnam's Unilateral declaration results. and this declaration only elicited no comment from any delegate ,you can say "no nation deny" ,i can say "no nation agree".

why do not you propose an amendment?
I think you not dare to propose it because the result must is rejected by 51 votes to 0.

silence is not admitted, but you think silence is recognized. I think for you the word "silence" is not necessary existence

but this word only not existence at you, you cant Force others give up this word。
for a claim, other countries have three choose, admitted or oppose or silent ,this is their Right。 why you can cut their three choose to two choose ,who give you right ?

so there was thus no precise attribution of the islands by agreement at the end of this Conference.

1955 Geneve, which China is one of full members, admitted Hoang sa and Truong sa belonged to Vietnam

i think you are point the 1954 Geneve Conference

first ,cant find any word show chind admitted nansha and xisha belonged to Vietnam
haha ,but we know you admit these island belong to china in the 1958 note.

two:
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！！

1958 PM Pham Van Dong only accepted issue "12 nautical miles" of China in his confirm letter, not mention any single word about Hoang sa and Truong sa. Although in China 's claim issue "12 nautical miles" including islands bla...bla...as you quoted. It did not mean the PM accepted to give up Vietnam territory.

PM Pham Van Dong already tell you where you can find the island name .
and your are not give up Vietnam territory,because no one admit these island is you territory. your PM only admit the fact ,is these islands should belong to china.Not complicated things，as china admit Hanoi is belong to Vietnam,because Hanoi should belong to Vietnam

 

[gambit]

- 1951 - September - Opening of the San Francisco Conference. China was not represented.35

Mr Gromyko at the plenary meeting of 5 September proposed 13 amendments. The first of these envisaged the recognition by Japan of the sovereignty of the Chinese People's Republic over the Paracels and other islands further south. This amendment was rejected by 48 votes to 3. On 7 September, the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Vietnamese Government of Bao Dai solemnly declared that the two archipelagos fell within Vietnamese territory. This declaration elicited no comment from any delegate. There was thus no precise attribution of the islands by agreement at the end of this Conference. :

You are laughable,
You use the amendment vote results compare with Vietnam's Unilateral declaration results. and this declaration only elicited no comment from any delegate ,you can say "no nation deny" ,i can say "no nation agree".

why do not you propose an amendment?
I think you not dare to propose it because the result must is rejected by 51 votes to 0.

silence is not admitted, but you think silence is recognized. I think for you the word "silence" is not necessary existence

Actually...The one who is laughable is YOU, who clearly have no experience in business contracts.

The Soviets made a proposal that was rejected. The Viets made another proposal, regardless of whether it is called an 'amendment' or a 'declaration', it is still a proposal in a business contract. No one objected to the Vietnamese proposal. In business, prior to formalization of a contract, only objections matter, and silence equate to consent. So for you to say that silence equals to objections is absurd and reveals your ignorance.

 

[meocoi]

I think China's leaders at that time wanted to trapped PM Pham Van Dong to take Vietnam territory but he trapped them back.
To give up or sales off or whatever a territory of a nation is not simple as you though, it needs more procedure (for example, a formal letter which is approved by a legal Parliament to declare clearly Vietnamese from that time to give up these island....or we, Vietnamese agreed to offer these island...to someone...etc... and more paper works, more procedure, not only that), more than a single simple letter which is full of blur words and issued in a very messy situation.

Công hàm 1958 v?i ch? quy?n Hoàng Sa và Tr??ng Sa c?a Vi?t Nam

I agree with you, you can not give up a territory by just using a very blur and vague note as I have already shown in this topic. It needs a formal long and complex procedure. However, this note seems to be the only proof for Chinese here like an buoy for a man in the middle of ocean. This is the reason why they keep talking and talking about this note which will not make much sense in the international court.

For Paracel Islands (only between China and Vietnam), the claim of Vietnam is much stronger than that of China. We still keep many official documents of the government in 16th-19th centuries which described in details the date, the number of soilders sent to Paracel Islands each year and the fees paid to them, what they brought back... This is easy to understand since Paracel Islands is very close to the capital of Vietnam at that time. There are also many evidences kept by foreign countries. For example in the "Journal de Batavia" published by the Dutch East Indian Company, there is the record: 20/7/1634, 3 trade ships registered at the Neitherland started from Batavia (Indonesia) to Tuoranne (Da Nang-Vietnam) and then together went to Taiwan. In 21/7, at the position of approximately 15o N and 115oE, 3 ships met a storm and lost the way. One ship sunk near that position and the survivor reached the Paracel Islands. From there, they got the helps from Vietnamese goverment to get on a Japan ship back to Batavia. Another example is the report from baron D' Estaing vice-admiral of French navy to the king of France in 1759 which stated that Vietnamese government at that time has around 400 pieces of artillery, all of them are taken from sunk ships in Paracel Islands. Such records can be consistently found through many publications from Western countries that operated in South East Asia at that time like France, the Netherland, Portugal, Spain,... A truth that can be seen from such publications is whenever these countries had problem in Paracel Islands e.g: sinking ships... they would find the help and judgement from Vietnamese government but not Chinese government. Can Chinese here show the same proof like this or just keep insisting on a note which legality is much in doubt?