Vietnam acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea in 1958

[gambit]

gambit's quote of Wiki:
This doctrine legalizes de jure the de facto transfer of sovereignty caused in part by the original sovereign's extended negligence and/or neglect of the area in question.

Since the latter part of the Qing Dynasty, China was continuously under attack from the West and Japan. It is not due to negligence but to its inability to protect its sovereign territories. Even sicne WW2 China had suffered from civil war and war in Korea and Vietnam which prevented it from exercising full control of these islands. But there is no statute of limitation on the reassertion of control over its sovereign islands. China ceded Taiwan to Japan for 50 years but ultimately recovered it by going to war.

It is also clear that it is futile to persuade Vietnam and the West that China owns these islands. It is always my personal opinion that it is foolish of the Chinese government to be so patient and forbearing with these Asian countries who have been killing and robbing ethnic Chinese in their countries. Therefore, it is time to stop using friendly persuasion of mutual beneficial developments and use military force to take back what rightfully belongs to China and let the chips fall where they may.

Then what other excuses and how far back in time must we grant latitudes to China? China experienced territorial divisions into multitudes of kingdoms, correct? If each era of such divisions caused China to lose control and eventual abandonment of a region, how is that others' fault if they took control of the newly terra nullius status regions?

While the ICJ and assorted scholarly studies regarding sovereignty is imprecise about the time span that a territory must be unoccupied and unmaintained by a claimant in order to render a territory abandoned and revert to terra nullius status, Vietnamese presence and administration on the islands for at least three hundred recordable years, Vietnamese and Europeans records, is non-disputable. The Viets do not need a formal declaration of prescription by the ICJ to have such a de facto adjudication in the court of public opinion.

Talk is cheap. Military force is what counts!

Then why is Taiwan still free? Talk is cheap. So stop talking about force and show the world what happens if China's will is defied: Take Taiwan.

You entered the debate with an admonition that we do not know the definition of 'sovereignty' and proceed to engage the debate into the intellectual realm. Now you found out to China's sorrow that we are not as ignorant as you expect so you resort to militaristic jingoism. Make up your mind.

 

[Liang1a]

I have wasted several hours here and have said all I want to say and have answered all questions. To say more would be just repeating myself. I've got better things to do. Most Asians still don't know the big changes that have made China very strong both economically and militarily. It can easily defend against the US or even the combination of the US and Japan. In another 5 to 10 years China would not only be able to defend against Japan and the US but to defeat them anywhere in the world given the projected much bigger economy and technology of China.

But as a Chinese-American I hope America would stop being so hostile to China and start a new ear of mutually beneficial relationship of economic and technological cooperation. In fact with China rising and the US falling, it is the US that needs a friendly relationship with China more than China needs it with the US. And by acknowledging the sovereignty of China over the S. China Sea archipelagos, America can begin this new relationship on a positive note. In the end, respect for China and peace in the S. E. Asian region will be the only way to go. Otherwise there will be inevitable war which will be bad for all but worst for the US and the ASEAN peoples.

That's all for now.

 

[gambit]

I have wasted several hours here and have said all I want to say. I've got better things to do. Most Asians still don't know the big changes that have made China very strong both economically and militarily. It can easily defend against the US or even the combination of the US and Japan. In another 5 to 10 years China would not only be able to defend against Japan and the US but to defeat them anywhere in the world given the projected much bigger economy and technology of China.

But as a Chinese-American I hope America would stop being so hostile to China and start a new ear of mutually beneficial relationship of economic and technological cooperation. In fact with China rising and the US falling, it the the US that needs a friendly relationship with China more than China needs it with the US. And by acknowledging the sovereign of China over the S. China Sea archipelagos, America can begin this new relationship on a positive note. In the end, respect for China and peace in the S. E. Asian region will be the only way to go. Otherwise there will be inevitable war which will be bad for all but worst for the US and the ASEAN peoples.

That's all for now.

Nonsense. Your presence is not wasted: You learned that Vietnamese and Vietnamese-Americans are not so stupid after all.

 

[NiceGuy]

You are decades out of date. China has everything America has. And what China does not have it can make up the difference with other equalizing weapons. For example, China has deployed DF-21D anti-ship missiles that can sink aircraft carriers up to 2,000 miles away which is outside of combat radius of carrier based fighters. So the American 7th fleet is useless or doesn't even dare to approach S. China Sea.

You are wishing China is scared to death of America. But that is no longer true. China had recently conducted a naval exercise that astounded the Japanese and the Americans with the number of ships and the advanced technologies displayed with UAV all around. There is no military technologies that the US has that China does not have. So be careful you don't walk into a hole.

.

China has everything America has

Sop making me laugh bro , your soldiers have No experience , that why you can not send any war ship to violate our EEZ

The need is clear. Despite introducing a wide range of new hardware in recent years, including jet fighters, helicopters, destroyers, submarines and a refurbished Russian aircraft carrier, China still lacks many of the basic systems, organizations and procedures necessary to defeat a determined, well-equipped foe.

China’s Plan to Beat U.S.: Missiles, Missiles and More Missiles | Danger Room | Wired.com

As to ASEAN, the only 2 countries that dare to look ****-eyed at China are the Philippines and Vietnam. The Philippines and Vietnam are 2 of the poorest countries in ASEAN and I may say the stupidest and the most anti-Chinese. The others are much more friendly and smarter than these 2. Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos are either friendly or neutral. Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia are also neutral. Brunei is simply too small to make any difference. So who is going to help Vietnam and Philippines to fight China? And to some degree you're right. Most people in ASEAN still think of China as it was 100 years ago. They don't realize the tremendous progress that has been made since the last 30 years. They also don't realize the change in Japan and the US that has rendered them much weaker both econmically and militarily relative to China.

This is why it would be a healthy thing for China to whack Vietnam and the Philippines. It would be much easier for China to work with ASEAN countries once it has demonstrated its new power. Pleading for friendship is not the best way to get friendship. Knock them down and kick them a few times may be the best way to establish a new friendly relationship.

We also have Laos-Cam willing to support VN against any enemies, so, at least 4 countries in ASEAN dare to face with CHina now. Malaysia, Thailand, SIngapore always listen to US, they will not refuse if US want them to build a strong association like NATO with VIet-Laos-Cam- Phil

You can not compare with US in ASEAN , so don't day dream too much, it will harm your mind

 

[hoangsa]

I have wasted several hours here and have said all I want to say and have answered all questions. To say more would be just repeating myself. I've got better things to do. Most Asians still don't know the big changes that have made China very strong both economically and militarily. It can easily defend against the US or even the combination of the US and Japan. In another 5 to 10 years China would not only be able to defend against Japan and the US but to defeat them anywhere in the world given the projected much bigger economy and technology of China.

But as a Chinese-American I hope America would stop being so hostile to China and start a new ear of mutually beneficial relationship of economic and technological cooperation. In fact with China rising and the US falling, it is the US that needs a friendly relationship with China more than China needs it with the US. And by acknowledging the sovereignty of China over the S. China Sea archipelagos, America can begin this new relationship on a positive note. In the end, respect for China and peace in the S. E. Asian region will be the only way to go. Otherwise there will be inevitable war which will be bad for all but worst for the US and the ASEAN peoples.

That's all for now.

You'd better go away. Who are you Chinese or USA ? If you live in US, then US is your homeland, she feed you up and support your family. Now you talk like a dirty betrayer.

You should consider US as your homeland and support it . If you are torn between China and US, it is understandable and you should stay out, don't say anything.

 

[hoangsa]

I have wasted several hours here and have said all I want to say and have answered all questions. To say more would be just repeating myself. I've got better things to do. Most Asians still don't know the big changes that have made China very strong both economically and militarily. It can easily defend against the US or even the combination of the US and Japan. In another 5 to 10 years China would not only be able to defend against Japan and the US but to defeat them anywhere in the world given the projected much bigger economy and technology of China.

But as a Chinese-American I hope America would stop being so hostile to China and start a new ear of mutually beneficial relationship of economic and technological cooperation. In fact with China rising and the US falling, it is the US that needs a friendly relationship with China more than China needs it with the US. And by acknowledging the sovereignty of China over the S. China Sea archipelagos, America can begin this new relationship on a positive note. In the end, respect for China and peace in the S. E. Asian region will be the only way to go. Otherwise there will be inevitable war which will be bad for all but worst for the US and the ASEAN peoples.

That's all for now.

You'd better go away. Who are you, Chinese or USA ? If you live in US, then US is your homeland, she feed you up and support your family. Now you talk like a dirty betrayer.

You should consider US as your homeland and support it . If you are torn between China and US, it is understandable and you should stay out, don't say anything.

 

[Vietnam.Duong]

South Vietnam only control these islands , no one admit these islands belong to he , your government recognition this island belong to china ,mean south Vietnam Invasion our territory， this is fact . so who control is unimportant。as if usa control Hanoi ，we also admit Hanoi belong to Vietnam. do you think Hanoi belong to the usa or Hanoi is china give you?

So stupid of history, return France and Qing agreement, Sanfrancesco 1951, Geneve 1954 that admitted South Vietnam control these two islands...

 

[Vietnam.Duong]

South Vietnam only control these islands , no one admit these islands belong to he , your government recognition this island belong to china ,mean south Vietnam Invasion our territory， this is fact . so who control is unimportant。as if usa control Hanoi ，we also admit Hanoi belong to Vietnam. do you think Hanoi belong to the usa or Hanoi is china give you?

So stupid of history, return France and Qing agreement, Sanfrancesco 1951, Geneve 1954 that admitted South Vietnam control these two islands...

 

[Vietnam.Duong]

South Vietnam only control these islands , no one admit these islands belong to he , your government recognition this island belong to china ,mean south Vietnam Invasion our territory， this is fact . so who control is unimportant。as if usa control Hanoi ，we also admit Hanoi belong to Vietnam. do you think Hanoi belong to the usa or Hanoi is china give you?

So stupid of history, return France and Qing agreement, Sanfrancesco 1951, Geneve 1954 that admitted South Vietnam controlled these two islands...

 

[Peter]

Yeah...We will leave you to tap-dance around this. I see no reason to continue this 'sovereignty' issue further. Enjoy yourself.

Of course, you don't have any reason left to continue this 'sovereignty' issue further - because all of your definitions pulled from the Internet only led to the fact that Vietnam did not have 'sovereignty' over the two archipelgos Paracel and Spratly. Sad, but it is the truth and you just got to walk away without murmuring "We will leave you to tap-dance around this 'sovereignty' issue further".

Don't worry Gambit, I enjoy seeing you have nothing more to say about the subject that you're lack of credibility regarding the issue of sovereignty.

 

[Peter]

1. administrative rights over the islands was given to South Vietnam - it was not, South Vietnam refused and did not sign the 1954 Geneva Accords

More stupidity. The 1954 Geneva Conference was also about a formal declaration of independence from France with the 17th parallel division and assignment of territories incidental to that declaration. Going by your simplistic argument, since South Viet Nam did not signed, which I doubt you know why, does that mean only North Viet Nam was independent?

Now .. now .. Don't let your anger and ignorance blind you further Gambit!

If you don't know, you can ask:

South Vietnam did not sign because 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. Apparently, South Vietnam was not independent.

As far as North Vietnam at the time, was not a puppet-government as in the South Vietnam but a self-government to be governed by Ho Chi Minh and his Communist Party. 1954 Geneva Conference was about independence from France but south Vietnam wasn't due to your argument:

This implication is even more absurd in light of the fact that France claimed ALL Indochina as colonial protectorate.

Too bad, but it is true for South Vietnam and like you and many viewed the South Vietnamese leadership as a French colonial and later an American puppet regime.

That mean North Viet Nam could not become independent unless South Viet Nam was as well. So I challenge you to provide a source that stated legally, only North Viet Nam was independent but not South Viet Nam.

So, are you saying that the independent of North Vietnam was ILLEGAL?

Since 1954 Geneva Conference was also about a formal declaration of independence from France with the 17th parallel division and assignment of territories incidental to that declaration, but the fact was, according to 1954 Geneva Accords:

An International Commission shall be set up for the control and supervision over the application of the provisions of the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet-Nam. It shall be composed of representatives of the following States: Canada, India and Poland.

did not be able to control or supervised Vietnam as a whole at all. So naturally, you have to be yourself independent as of in 1975 when North Vietnamese Army took over the South of Vietnam declaring INDEPENDENCE based on any International Treaty or Conference? NO.

You flunked again!

 

[gambit]

Now .. now .. Don't let your anger and ignorance blind you further Gambit!

If you don't know, you can ask:

South Vietnam did not sign because 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.

It really is amazing and entertaining at the same time to see someone so eager to make a fool out of himself.

South Viet Nam did not signed the 1954 Geneva Conference because South Viet Nam did not want a partition?

Kid, it was the Viet Minh who did not want partition.



Repeat -- IT WAS THE VIET MINH WHO DID NOT WANT PARTITION.



Kid, not only was I in South Viet Nam during the war, but as an adult, I probably read more Vietnam War books, from Vietnamese and American authors, than you have read books in your life so far. And that was before this Internet thingie.

It was the Soviets and China who wanted peace and persuaded the Viet Minh to accept partition in return for election in 1956. This fact is well known and in this Information Age, much more easily found than when I was growing up.

So for you to declare the opposite when the factual truth is so readily available tell the readers much about your incompetence at research and debate. I will not tell you why South Viet Nam refused to sign. There is no need to continue to refute the rest of your argument especially when you already made such a colossal blunder as highlighted.

Wooottt...That was hilarious...!!!

 

[Peter]

It really is amazing and entertaining at the same time to see someone so eager to make a fool out of himself.

South Viet Nam did not signed the 1954 Geneva Conference because South Viet Nam did not want a partition?

Kid, it was the Viet Minh who did not want partition.

Liar liar pants on fire dear Gambit!

It really is amazing and entertaining at the same time to see Gambit you so eager to make a fool out of yourself. Do you know who was the Chairman of Vietnamese Delegation to the 1954 Geneva Conference?

* the former South Vietnamese Minister of Foreign Affairs - Tran Van Do, whom refused to sign the 1954 Geneva Accords. Not the Viet Minh



Repeat -- IT WAS TRAN VAN DO FROM AND THE SOUTH VIETNAM THAT DID NOT WANT PARTITION.

Kid, not only was I in South Viet Nam during the war, but as an adult, I probably read more Vietnam War books, from Vietnamese and American authors, than you have read books in your life so far. And that was before this Internet thingie.

Between the Vietnam War and the 1954 Geneva Conference is quite some time and you're probably not even being born yet when Tran Van Do refused to sign the 1954 Geneva Accords. So you have read so many books but still have not known who represented the South Vietnam at the 1954 Geneva Conference and what did TranVan Do do ...

And also, who thwarted the Democratic nationwide elections mandated by the Geneva Conference of 1954? - President Ngo Dinh Diem ... (from the North Vietnam ?) hehehe...

It was the Soviets and China who wanted peace and persuaded the Viet Minh to accept partition in return for election in 1956. This fact is well known and in this Information Age, much more easily found than when I was growing up.

So for you to declare the opposite when the factual truth is so readily available tell the readers much about your incompetence at research and debate. I will not tell you why South Viet Nam refused to sign. There is no need to continue to refute the rest of your argument especially when you already made such a colossal blunder as highlighted.

Wooottt...That was hilarious...!!!

Of course, you dare not to continue in the discussion that why South Vietnam refused to sign.... Dude, in this Information Age, much more factual truth is easily to get how we, the U.S. had used South Vietnam as a PAWN on the International CHESS game.

Also, in the recent tension at Southeast Asia Sea between China and Vietnam, we U.S. will use Vietnam as CHESS's piece again - you'll see!

 

[gambit]

Liar liar pants on fire dear Gambit!

It really is amazing and entertaining at the same time to see Gambit you so eager to make a fool out of yourself. Do you know who was the Chairman of Vietnamese Delegation to the 1954 Geneva Conference?

* the former South Vietnamese Minister of Foreign Affairs - Tran Van Do, whom refused to sign the 1954 Geneva Accords. Not the Viet Minh

This is why I laugh at you, kid. Refusal to sign the 1954 Geneva Accords is NOT the same thing as not wanting partition. Of course it was true that South Viet Nam refused to sign it, but there were reasons and am not going to tell you why. Am going to leave you dangling in the wind about it.

And also, who thwarted the Democratic nationwide elections mandated by the Geneva Conference of 1954? - President Ngo Dinh Diem ... (from the North Vietnam ?) hehehe...

If South Viet Nam did not signed it, then how was South Viet Nam legally obligated to that provision? I take it you are still living at home with mommy and daddy, never signed a business contract before?

You are a goofball in this debate.

 

[Peter]

This is why I laugh at you, kid. Refusal to sign the 1954 Geneva Accords is NOT the same thing as not wanting partition. Of course it was true that South Viet Nam refused to sign it, but there were reasons and am not going to tell you why. Am going to leave you dangling in the wind about it.

Read it for yourself, Gambit

Lập trường của Quốc gia Việt Nam

* the former South Vietnamese Minister of Foreign Affairs - Tran Van Do, whom refused to sign the 1954 Geneva Accords. Not the Viet Minh that did not want partition.

Liar liar pants on fire

Therefore, liar will not be able to tell you why ... apparently! Don't worry, you can lie but you can't hide the truth dear Gambit!

If South Viet Nam did not signed it, then how was South Viet Nam legally obligated to that provision? I take it you are still living at home with mommy and daddy, never signed a business contract before?

South Vietnam was not legally obligated to that provision because SVN did not sign it. We, the U.S. interveined and aided South Vietnam illegally - that's all ....

You are a goofball in this debate.

There is no need of calling me a goofball while you are lying and can't defending your pointless argument, childist Gambit!