Vietnam acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea in 1958

[Peter]

Ya, the French had mistaken Nam Quan and Pha Luy

No, French did not mistaken Nam Quan as Pha Luy. If French did, then there was no reason for you not to post the original picture and corrected it. Instead, the top information portion got cut off to suit your need. That is a shame. It was stated in your history book. You can even read it here what Vietnamese scholar wrote and the saying: "Vietnam is tretching from Ai Nam Quan to Mui Ca Mau".

Ch?ng Minh L?ch S? ?i Nam Quan 1

(Việt Sử Toàn Th&#432 - wrote that the Mongolian troops stopped at Ai Nam Quan in 1284 to deliver the letter asking to pass by so that they could go through Vietnam to punish Chiem Thanh. If Ai Nam Quan was not Vietnam's then why would Mongolians requested to pass? Moreover, Mongolian period was prior to the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) in China.

You can read Vietnamese so check this:

(Đại Nam Nhất Thống Chí)

This Nguyen dynasty's ancient book said that Nam Quan pass was built by the Ming.

Read from that link to see historians did lie to hide the mistakes that your ancestors made. And now, you are trying to hide your government's mistake by giving up Ai Nam Quan to China.

We must discriminate what really belong to us (Paracel) and what really belong to those Chink (Nam Quan pass)

Nothing belongs to anyone, unless you have total power over it and to control it. Ask the Chiem Thanh people what really belong to them and what really belong to Vietnam ...

Pls remember that make things up to claim in utter disorder is Chinese style, not ours.

Vietnamese is no different than Chinese in make things up to claim or not to claim something.

 

[gambit]

you can not distinguish between amendment and declaration

This is absurd. In a legal document, an amendment or a declaration is still the same in the sense that both propose an item into the document. A declaration is an assertion of a fact. An amendment is a change to a condition that either exist inside or outside the document. Either way, no one make them unless they are proposing something. This is unbelievable that someone has the gall to say that they are not proposals...!!!

if othen country dont know Do not know whether your are right 。they can select no comment . this is they right show they do not know the fact by no comment.
you can't Interpreted as agree ,and we cant Interpreted as deny.that is why i say if you can said this no deny i can said this is no agree.

Hey, buddy...Exercise critical thinking much? The Soviets made a proposal that says to assign the islands to X country. That was EXPRESSEDLY rejected. The Viets made a proposal that says to assign the islands to Y country. No one objected. If any has any doubt as to their rightful possession to Y country, they would have expressed their objections as they did to X. Let us say that they have doubts that the islands may (or may not) belong to Z country. They could have expressed their objections that way as well. The islands then could be assigned to the UN to adjudicate their rightful sovereignty. Am willing to bet that you did not know that Indochina was originally proposed to be under UN trusteeship from France. So if countries can be under UN custodial responsibilities, why not islands whose sovereignty is under dispute? Yes, the islands could be under UN supervision.

In a legal document, no objections to a proposal or a declaration equals to consent to insert said proposal or declaration into the document.

This is incredible. The Chinese claims they are the 'superior' Asian race with oh-so-high-IQs, but here they are straining the arguments between a 'proposal' and a 'declaration' and they cannot see the same legal implication of no objections to expressed consent.

 

[Peter]

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 Government of Democratic Republic of Vietnam acknowledge and is in full agreement with the Declaration on 14th September 1958 of the PRC on its Resolution pertaining to its territorial waters.

Declaration on 14th September 1958 of the PRC - stated:


1. The breadth of the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China shall be twelve nautical miles. This provision applies to all territories of the People's Republic of China including the Chinese mainland and its coastal islands， as well as Taiwan and its surrounding islands， the Penghu Islands， the Dongsha Islands， the Xisha Islands (Hoang Sa)， the Zhongsha Islands， the Nansha Islands (Truong Sa) and all other islands belonging to China which are separated from the mainland and its coastal islands by the high seas.


As you said, the difficulty that PM Pham Van Dong faced and was "forced to support ally in war without harm his country could be understandable. Therefore, he signed something that denying Hoang Sa and Truong Sa belonged to Vietnam was possible. Understanding, but it is not to deny the facts - right Hoangsa?

If you know how wicked China is then you should have a righteous and clear-mind government to deal with China - instead of the current one.

 

[gambit]

The Government of Democratic Republic of Vietnam acknowledge and is in full agreement with the Declaration on 14th September 1958 of the PRC on its Resolution pertaining to its territorial waters.

Declaration on 14th September 1958 of the PRC - stated:


1. The breadth of the territorial sea of the People's Republic of China shall be twelve nautical miles. This provision applies to all territories of the People's Republic of China including the Chinese mainland and its coastal islands， as well as Taiwan and its surrounding islands， the Penghu Islands， the Dongsha Islands， the Xisha Islands (Hoang Sa)， the Zhongsha Islands， the Nansha Islands (Truong Sa) and all other islands belonging to China which are separated from the mainland and its coastal islands by the high seas.


As you said, the difficulty that PM Pham Van Dong faced and was "forced to support ally in war without harm his country could be understandable. Therefore, he signed something that denying Hoang Sa and Truong Sa belonged to Vietnam was possible. Understanding, but it is not to deny the facts - right Hoangsa?

If you know how wicked China is then you should have a righteous and clear-mind government to deal with China - instead of the current one.

This lead back to the original problem for the Chinese argument: That one cannot give away some thing that is NOT in one's possession.

Office of the Historian - Historical Documents - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969

Adm. Moorer: A South Vietnamese patrol in the area observed some Chinese ships headed for the islands, went in, and put about seventy-five men ashore at Duncan Island. That’s one of the southern islands of the Crescent Group. They were engaged by two companies of Chinese troops. The South Vietnamese were forced to withdraw to the other nearby islands. Four South Vietnamese ships and some eleven Chinese ships then engaged in a battle at sea as the South Vietnamese troops withdrew. The place has been an area of tension for some time. The Chinese have been sending regular MIG patrols over almost every day.

Mr. Colby: The key to the whole area is the Paracels. There are two groups of islands, the Crescent Group in the south, and the Amphitrite Group in the north.

Secretary Kissinger: What has North Vietnam’s reaction been to all of this?

Mr. Colby: They’ve ignored it, said it’s below the 17th Parallel and thus doesn’t affect them. In general, they didn’t take a position, didn’t come out on either side.

The above is a record of a conversation/briefing about Chinese landing onto some of the islands. Notice the highlighted: NORTH VIET NAM DID NOT CARE.

North Viet Nam defaulted back to the 1954 Geneva Conference where everything south of the 17th parallel is under South Viet Nam's authority and custodial rights and everything north of the 17th is under North Viet Nam's authority and custodial rights. That event was in 1974. If North Viet Nam really really really really wanted to give the islands (back) to China, North Viet Nam would have issued a statement of solidarity with China and called on South Viet Nam to concede the islands. North Viet Nam was adamant that the islands belong to China in 1958 but became wishy-washy in 1974? That make no sense.

What made the North Vietnamese changed their minds in that 20 yrs time span? If China was so confident that North Viet Nam 'gave' the islands (back) to China, then why in those 16 yrs time span (1958 to 1974) China have not produced a single document of additional support to throw it in the faces of the South Vietnamese and the Americans? Why have China not produced a single document of support for China's sovereignty of the islands from 1974 until now? And in 2011, all China has is a letter dated 1958 with nothing but vague support by an ally that had not authority and custodial rights to the property.

 

[Peter]

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...

From which Chinese posters that you have expected as the next incoming argument like that?

You have shown us your fabricated lies from one thing to another. You lied about administrative rights over the islands was given to South Vietnam when it was not. When I pointed it out your lies, you then tried to grap on the date of admission to UN that China became a member in 1971. Who cares, when China already took control to the two largest islands Phu Lam (Woody Is.) and Linh Con from Paracel archipelgo in 1956. Moreover, if you want to hang on to the UN's admission date as a right for China's claim then you need to look at this:

Member_states_of_the_United_Nations

to see when did Vietnam became a UN member.

Viet Nam - 20 September 1977

Is that mean China can make claims years before Vietnam can?

Can't believe you, Gambit, to pick up a childish reason to argue with me.... Case is closed!

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.

Do not make your poor understanding of the concept of 'sovereignty' on me like that, dear Gambit!
Violation of territorial integrity and have it under your control does strip away a state's sovereignty status over a territory. Was that how Vietnam did to Cham?

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?

Man, you are full of childish reasoning lately huh, dear Gambit!?

No, China did not gave North Viet Nam that permission ...
In God we trust - man - (get the sarcasm!)

The answer is: Laos was in a Civil War and North Vietnam Vietnamese Army occupied the area for use as the Ho Chi Minh Trail supply corridor and staging area for offensives into South Vietnam. As for Cambodia, supporting Communists units in South Vietnam, got benefits from large amount of rice being bought by the North Vietnamese Army from the government of Shianouk.

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?

After reading what I provided for you from Laos and Cambodia in regard of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, do you still want to ask such a foolish question above anymore?

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.

Apparently, you are the one who need to study more about the concept of 'sovereignty' if you want to continue this discussion further.

Did China has:

* supremacy of the state
* a sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction

over Taiwan yet??

Not yet, that is why U.S. can come and go to Taiwan as she pleases with no permission from the PRC. Basic stuff and dear Gambit know not of ...duh!

What I suggested you to look at is: If Vietnam has sovereignty over the two archipelgos, then Vietnam must have all of these:

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

over those islands. Unfortunately, not ...

 

[Peter]

This lead back to the original problem for the Chinese argument: That one cannot give away some thing that is NOT in one's possession.

Office of the Historian - Historical Documents - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969

The above is a record of a conversation/briefing about Chinese landing onto some of the islands. Notice the highlighted: NORTH VIET NAM DID NOT CARE.

Actually, NORTH VIET NAM ALREADY SIGNED OFF THOSE ISLANDS TO CHINA - thus, it shown how ignorance of Secretary Kissinger for asking such a question: What has North Vietnam’s reaction been to all of this?. Private Gambit, show Secretary Kissinger the letter of PM Pham Van Dong.

North Viet Nam defaulted back to the 1954 Geneva Conference where everything south of the 17th parallel is under South Viet Nam's authority and custodial rights and everything north of the 17th is under North Viet Nam's authority and custodial rights. That event was in 1974. If North Viet Nam really really really really wanted to give the islands (back) to China, North Viet Nam would have issued a statement of solidarity with China and called on South Viet Nam to concede the islands. North Viet Nam was adamant that the islands belong to China in 1958 but became wishy-washy in 1974? That make no sense.

Lied again huh Gambit! South Vietnam did not want to have the election to resolve the temporary 17th parallel issue. Be honest, dude!

What made the North Vietnamese changed their minds in that 20 yrs time span? If China was so confident that North Viet Nam 'gave' the islands (back) to China, then why in those 16 yrs time span (1958 to 1974) China have not produced a single document of additional support to throw it in the faces of the South Vietnamese and the Americans? Why have China not produced a single document of support for China's sovereignty of the islands from 1974 until now? And in 2011, all China has is a letter dated 1958 with nothing but vague support by an ally that had not authority and custodial rights to the property.

It is all because of OIL! Vietnam nowadays and China are greedy for this rich natural resources. BTW, China already got two largest islands from Paracel in 1956 - forget not, dear Gambit!

 

[NiceGuy]

It is all because of OIL! Vietnam nowadays and China are greedy for this rich natural resources. BTW, China already got two largest islands from Paracel in 1956 - forget not, dear Gambit

DO I need to say again and again, Mr.Peter ??we're not greedd for OIL, we can sell all oil in lowest price to China if they let us drill in deep water.

The most important thing we care is Sea sovereignity. We can not let China take control of SCS(East sea) to expand their Naval force, Viet's future will be thrown to Hell, we're surrounded by Hoa (over sea CHinese) in ASEAN such as Thailand,SIngapore,Malaysia now.

We Must keep SCS(East sea) with our life as a buffer zone with CHinese surrouding

 

[Đảo Bạch Long Vỹ]

No, French did not mistaken Nam Quan as Pha Luy. If French did, then there was no reason for you not to post the original picture and corrected it. Instead, the top information portion got cut off to suit your need. That is a shame. It was stated in your history book. You can even read it here what Vietnamese scholar wrote and the saying: "Vietnam is tretching from Ai Nam Quan to Mui Ca Mau".

Ch?ng Minh L?ch S? ?i Nam Quan 1

(Việt Sử Toàn Th&#432 - wrote that the Mongolian troops stopped at Ai Nam Quan in 1284 to deliver the letter asking to pass by so that they could go through Vietnam to punish Chiem Thanh. If Ai Nam Quan was not Vietnam's then why would Mongolians requested to pass? Moreover, Mongolian period was prior to the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) in China.

Read from that link to see historians did lie to hide the mistakes that your ancestors made. And now, you are trying to hide your government's mistake by giving up Ai Nam Quan to China.

Your evidences are as weak as China's evidence while they prove their "sovereignty" over Paracel.
No evidences ever said that "Dai Viet built Nam Quan pass" or "Nam Quan pass belong to Dai Viet", they are just some scholars said that someone go to China through Nam Quan pass and some Chinese invaders pass Nam Quan pass to enter Vietnam. In the other side, even Vietnamese ancient book from the dynasty said that "Nam Quan pass was built by Ming dynasty". You have to admit that they have stronger point.

Even your sentence "Vietnam is tretching from Ai Nam Quan to Mui Ca Mau", the big mistake is in fact Vietnam is tretching from Lung Cu (Ha Giang) to Mui Ca Mau, not from Nam Quan (Lang Son).

Nothing belongs to anyone, unless you have total power over it and to control it. Ask the Chiem Thanh people what really belong to them and what really belong to Vietnam ...

Vietnamese is no different than Chinese in make things up to claim or not to claim something.

Vietnamese said that Dai Viet invaded Champa and Champa was conquered by Vietnamese. Champa are not Viet.
Chinese said that Tibetan/Uighur/Mongolian/Baiyue are all Chinese or at least they join China "peacefully" [plus some fake history to prove their stupid points]

That's much different.

 

[houshanghai]

Vietnam member .come here

Chinese Defence Forum

 

[gambit]

Vietnam member .come here

Chinese Defence Forum

And be banned just because they can put up a challenge?

 

[gambit]

Actually, NORTH VIET NAM ALREADY SIGNED OFF THOSE ISLANDS TO CHINA - thus, it shown how ignorance of Secretary Kissinger for asking such a question: What has North Vietnam’s reaction been to all of this?. Private Gambit, show Secretary Kissinger the letter of PM Pham Van Dong.

Actually...It is only Chinese baseless interpretation that such a 'signed off' occurred. You cannot even explained what made North Viet Nam the legitimate authority of the islands in the first place. Going by your argument, anyone can give possession to anyone else any item not in his possession. There would be chaos in the world. You have a serious comprehension problem with this concept: Ownership.

Lied again huh Gambit! South Vietnam did not want to have the election to resolve the temporary 17th parallel issue. Be honest, dude!

No lies here, pal. If North Viet Nam was willing to accept authority and custody of territories north of the 17th, then South Viet Nam can accept the same authority and custody of territories south of the 17th regardless of whether South Viet Nam agreed to the conference or not. You seems to have another problem with another concept: Lies. What I demanded of the Chinese was not a lie by any definition. If China was so confident that North Viet Nam 'gave' away those islands back in 1954, then why did China have nothing to support Chinese claims to the islands in 1974 when Chinese troops landed on some of the islands? Why are there no such supporting documents for today's claim? If anything, the lack of such made China the liar when it comes to who possess the islands.

 

[gambit]

From which Chinese posters that you have expected as the next incoming argument like that?

From YOU. And you did made such an argument: Disqualification.

You have shown us your fabricated lies from one thing to another. You lied about administrative rights over the islands was given to South Vietnam when it was not. When I pointed it out your lies, you then tried to grap on the date of admission to UN that China became a member in 1971. Who cares, when China already took control to the two largest islands Phu Lam (Woody Is.) and Linh Con from Paracel archipelgo in 1956. Moreover, if you want to hang on to the UN's admission date as a right for China's claim then you need to look at this:

Member_states_of_the_United_Nations

to see when did Vietnam became a UN member.

Viet Nam - 20 September 1977

Is that mean China can make claims years before Vietnam can?

Can't believe you, Gambit, to pick up a childish reason to argue with me.... Case is closed!

This clearly shows you cannot keep track of the debate. You tried to disqualify South Viet Nam as authority and custodian of the islands by virtue of the fact that South Viet Nam did not signed the 1954 Geneva Conference. Then by the same method of disqualification, we can dismiss Chinese claim to the islands because:

- China was going through the same civil war,

- the ROC, not PRC, was China's representative in the UN,

- and the PRC did not became UN member until 1971.

You think I did not anticipate the argument of South Viet Nam not signing the 1954 Geneva Conference as a disqualifier use by the Chinese. I am at least two steps ahead of you, kid.

Do not make your poor understanding of the concept of 'sovereignty' on me like that, dear Gambit!
Violation of territorial integrity and have it under your control does strip away a state's sovereignty status over a territory. Was that how Vietnam did to Cham?

No, it does not. There are many instances of where violations of territorial integrity are condemned as violations of territorial integrity AND VIOLATION OF SOVEREIGNTY. Case in point is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No one recognized that Iraq became the new 'sovereign' of Kuwait. What are lost are 'authority' and 'custodial rights and responsibilities'. Dang...I have been using those words for how long now? Am willing to bet that this is the first time you learned of them.

No, China did not gave North Viet Nam that permission ...

Good...Then we can say that North Viet Nam was in the wrong for those violations of Laotian and Cambodian borders.

The answer is: Laos was in a Civil War and North Vietnam Vietnamese Army occupied the area for use as the Ho Chi Minh Trail supply corridor and staging area for offensives into South Vietnam. As for Cambodia, supporting Communists units in South Vietnam, got benefits from large amount of rice being bought by the North Vietnamese Army from the government of Shianouk.

So how do those things gave North Viet Nam the right to violate the borders of Laos and Cambodia?

After reading what I provided for you from Laos and Cambodia in regard of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, do you still want to ask such a foolish question above anymore?

After reading how you declared that violation of territorial integrity constitute a loss of sovereignty when in truth it is recognized as loss of 'authority' and 'custodial rights and responsibilities', I see no need to ask such questions to ignorant youngsters like you.

Chinese case dismissed. Chinese claim to the islands is flimsier than the worst quality toilet paper.

 

[akittya]

This is absurd. In a legal document, an amendment or a declaration is still the same in the sense that both propose an item into the document. A declaration is an assertion of a fact. An amendment is a change to a condition that either exist inside or outside the document. Either way, no one make them unless they are proposing something. This is unbelievable that someone has the gall to say that they are not proposals...!!!


Hey, buddy...Exercise critical thinking much? The Soviets made a proposal that says to assign the islands to X country. That was EXPRESSEDLY rejected. The Viets made a proposal that says to assign the islands to Y country. No one objected. If any has any doubt as to their rightful possession to Y country, they would have expressed their objections as they did to X. Let us say that they have doubts that the islands may (or may not) belong to Z country. They could have expressed their objections that way as well. The islands then could be assigned to the UN to adjudicate their rightful sovereignty. Am willing to bet that you did not know that Indochina was originally proposed to be under UN trusteeship from France. So if countries can be under UN custodial responsibilities, why not islands whose sovereignty is under dispute? Yes, the islands could be under UN supervision.

In a legal document, no objections to a proposal or a declaration equals to consent to insert said proposal or declaration into the document.

This is incredible. The Chinese claims they are the 'superior' Asian race with oh-so-high-IQs, but here they are straining the arguments between a 'proposal' and a 'declaration' and they cannot see the same legal implication of no objections to expressed consent.

you still can not distinguish between amendment and declaration.
In fact, representatives of the Attending countries is only authorized discussed the agenda of issues. Your declare is simply not the agenda, so they did not need and no the right respond to your declare. so they all is no comment for your declare .
this is why i say you use a amendments result compare with your unilateral declaration results is very absurd.

All the consensus reached during the meeting, will inevitably be reflected in the Treaty . if you want come to a conclusions that these two islands belong to Vietnam ,you must find Support Terms in the Treaty . Not according to your own preferences to add something else。
only one term referred to these islands

Article 2
(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.

Did not specify who should own these island. In fact the majority attending countries do not understand the these islands should belong to who , forcing them to vote, they will select against it. it is intentional not Indicate in this term , so there is no consensus on this issue.
and Japan as a country to renounces all right to these two islands. 1952 Japanese map shows these island is Chinese territory.
Anyway , must be recognized during the meeting did not reach a consensus on this issue .

 

[scuthan]

can't believe you guys debate with a few robots for several months, flooding the whole board with stupid thing. do you have work or school?

 

[gambit]

you still can not distinguish between amendment and declaration.
In fact, representatives of the Attending countries is only authorized discussed the agenda of issues. Your declare is simply not the agenda, so they did not need and no the right respond to your declare. so they all is no comment for your declare .
this is why i say you use a amendments result compare with your unilateral declaration results is very absurd.

All the consensus reached during the meeting, will inevitably be reflected in the Treaty . if you want come to a conclusions that these two islands belong to Vietnam ,you must find Support Terms in the Treaty . Not according to your own preferences to add something else。
only one term referred to these islands

You obviously have a hard time understanding business contracts.

A business contract, an inter-state treaty, a rental agreement, or an employment contract, all are documents that governs certain behaviors under certain conditions.

The 1954 Geneva Conference is such a document. BEFORE the document was finalized, all parties must agree to what are to be inserted. Amendments are usually AFTER a document have been finalized. Usually but not always. An amendment can be made to a proposal after it has been inserted into the document. A proposal is no different than a declaration or an assertion. That is what an amendment is: A proposal for a change. Which is a proposal by itself.

See if you can understand this: An amendment is a proposal for a change, which is a proposal in itself.

A declaration is also a proposal.

This is freaking unbelievably hilarious. The Chinese argument is so weak that they must resort to such petty parsimony.

Did not specify who should own these island. In fact the majority attending countries do not understand the these islands should belong to who , forcing them to vote, they will select against it. it is intentional not Indicate in this term , so there is no consensus on this issue.
and Japan as a country to renounces all right to these two islands. 1952 Japanese map shows these island is Chinese territory.
Anyway , must be recognized during the meeting did not reach a consensus on this issue .

Japan did not need to be that specific.

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.

Did Japan need to specify that Korean independence belongs to Korea? No. If Japan admit to recognizing the independence of Korea, then it is obvious that Korean lands should go back to Korea.

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

Who had Formosa and the Pescadores? Italy? Russia? Green men from Mars? How about China?

(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.

Who originally owned the Kuriles? Italy? Spain? Green men from Mars? How about Russia?

(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.

Since some Pacific Islands had uncertainty as to their original status, Japan was reasonable to concede them to the UN.

(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.

Who originally possessed Antartica? Portugal? The Mongols? Green men from Mars? How about nobody? In this case, all Japan could do was renounce possession and let the UN sort it out later.

So how many names did Japan actually stated regarding the original owners of certain territories?

So if we look at the final territorial concession from Japan...

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

Who else could it be but Viet Nam and France as original authority and sovereign power? If I stole from you and admit to the police that I will give up the item, do I need to spell it out in front of the judge your name? Of course not. Everyone would know who the item would go to: YOU.

Why is this so damn difficult to understand? Because it is so damn easy to understand that the Chinese MUST try to muddle the issue. The controversy is made up because the claim is weak to start.