International recognition of China's sovereignty over Nansha (aka Spratly) Islands

[XiangLong]

The Soviet Gromiko has made a mistake with mentality of cold war, he didn't known that Vietnamese has been made a official administration from long time ago with Flotta to Controle Paracel and Spratly of Annam Empire long before Colonial time. The propose is rejected by voting in San Francisco Conference 1951.

Today, Soviet or Russian has been changed his mind in this dispute.

The Soviet Gromiko has made a mistake with mentality of cold war, he didn't known that Vietnamese has been made a official administration from long time ago with Flotta to Controle Paracel and Spratly of Annam Empire long before Colonial time. The propose is rejected by voting in San Francisco Conference 1951.

Today, Soviet or Russian has been changed his mind in this dispute.

For the VIETNAMESE, Chinese mistranslated the nature of letter of PVD, both China and North Vietnam signed in Geneva Accord 1954, it stated that Islands belong to South Vietnam. in the letter it does not mentioned about Islands Paracel and Spratly, it stated only 12 nm related to North Vietnam authorities only. Chinese is lying about nature of this letter.


The map of Vietnam in 1677, it stated that Paracel is part of Quangnam Province of Vietnam.

Western map, it demonstrated that Paracel and Spratly is part of Vietnam territory.

For the VIETNAMESE, Chinese mistranslated the nature of letter of PVD, both China and North Vietnam signed in Geneva Accord 1954, it stated that Islands belong to South Vietnam. in the letter it does not mentioned about Islands Paracel and Spratly, it stated only 12 nm related to North Vietnam authorities only. Chinese is lying about nature of this letter.

Are you seriously going to windle off Andrei Gromyko's claims to the treaty as simply a ''Cold War'' mentality? Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it entirely for argumentation. Of course he made his claims in the mindset of that time; it was simply a different era with different sentiments. But to dismiss them with a present mindset, is what we call determinism. Furthermore, the treaty didn't deal with the island disputes AT ALL, only Pratas islands was somewhat only transferred to UN control, but that is a completely different dispute between the ROC and PRC. So I don't know why you try to bring up this treaty in this discussion, which is otherwise completely irrelevant.

Also I have no idea what you are trying to prove with that screenshot from Vietnamese state TV... However, I do have something interesting to tell about those old maritime maps. These maps were made during a time in which universal measurements didn't even existed, and where to the closest thing to an actual map were provided by a gyroscope and a compass. You would get caught up in Tordesillas-like scenarios.

Here are some even older maps but this time from the Spanish conquistas who claim Spratly Islands as part of the Spanish Philippines... It shows you that these island disputes were taking place long LONG before. Just with different players. I can also throw in some older Chinese maps if you like, but like I said, any kind of so-called ''ancient mappings'' as a ground for claim should be taken with a grain of salt.

A 1770 European colonial map featuring claims to Spratly Islands

What I do agree upon however, was that these islands were under the last official ownership of the Republic of Vietnam AKA South Vietnam. However, as we all know, South Vietnam is an entity that no longer exist, and who's territory has been acquired through conquest by foreign powers. Legally, China would've have as much claim to the Spratlys as Vietnam would have to its southern territories, both have been obtained by force (albeit South Vietnam itself was a sovereign country up till 1975). Furthermore, a 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Paracel islands. In this regard, both the ROC and PRC also have a right to claim as the successor of the Qing Dynasty.

However what's more intriguing is not wat historical or even political sources seem to base, but rather just everyday maps in school books and atlasses, and then especially the then North-Vietnamese ones in the '70s, that were APPROVED by authorities, in which some South Vietnamese territories that were obtained by the PRC were actually briefly recognized as Chinese territory by North-Vietnam. One example is the Paracel Islands which is also the spill in another dispute between China and Vietnam.


Here is a map covering the Paracel Islands as part of the PRC, that was published by Vietnam's Educational Press in 1974

This one is somewhat of a plothole in this whole Sino-Viet islands dispute that I can't really figure out. Why supposedly recognizing some territories before retracting everything that has both formally and informally been said?

 

[Aepsilons]

Are you seriously going to windle off Andrei Gromyko's claims to the treaty as simply a ''Cold War'' mentality? Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it entirely for argumentation. Of course he made his claims in the mindset of that time; it was simply a different era with different sentiments. But to dismiss them with a present mindset, is what we call determinism. Furthermore, the treaty didn't deal with the island disputes AT ALL, only Pratas islands was somewhat only transferred to UN control, but that is a completely different dispute between the ROC and PRC. So I don't know why you try to bring up this treaty in this discussion, which is otherwise completely irrelevant.

Also I have no idea what you are trying to prove with that screenshot from Vietnamese state TV... However, I do have something interesting to tell about those old maritime maps. These maps were made during a time in which universal measurements didn't even existed, and where to the closest thing to an actual map were provided by a gyroscope and a compass. You would get caught up in Tordesillas-like scenarios.

Here are some even older maps but this time from the Spanish conquistas who claim Spratly Islands as part of the Spanish Philippines... It shows you that these island disputes were taking place long LONG before. Just with different players. I can also throw in some older Chinese maps if you like, but like I said, any kind of so-called ''ancient mappings'' as a ground for claim should be taken with a grain of salt.

A 1770 European colonial map featuring claims to Spratly Islands

What I do agree upon however, was that these islands were under the last official ownership of the Republic of Vietnam AKA South Vietnam. However, as we all know, South Vietnam is an entity that no longer exist, and who's territory has been acquired through conquest by foreign powers. Legally, China would've have as much claim to the Spratlys as Vietnam would have to its southern territories, both have been obtained by force (albeit South Vietnam itself was a sovereign country up till 1975). Furthermore, a 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Paracel islands. In this regard, both the ROC and PRC also have a right to claim as the successor of the Qing Dynasty.

However what's more intriguing is not wat historical or even political sources seem to base, but rather just everyday maps in school books and atlasses, and then especially the then North-Vietnamese ones in the '70s, that were APPROVED by authorities, in which some South Vietnamese territories that were obtained by the PRC were actually briefly recognized as Chinese territory by North-Vietnam. One example is the Paracel Islands which is also the spill in another dispute between China and Vietnam.


Here is a map covering the Paracel Islands as part of the PRC, that was published by Vietnam's Educational Press in 1974

This one is somewhat of a plothole in this whole Sino-Viet islands dispute that I can't really figure out. Why supposedly recognizing some territories before retracting everything that has both formally and informally been said?

@XiangLong ,

Great points. In the end, i would expect that a mature structured mechanism should be set in place to prevent maritime collisions in the South China Sea. Something similar to the Air and Maritime Mechanism Japan has with China. In regards to the context of this thread --- what definitely is needed is a binding Code of Conduct in the SCS, especially for the claimants. Differences in territorial claims is not something that is unique for this region of the world, its prevalent in Africa, Europe, the Americas as well as in Northeast Asia. The point is this -- having mechanisms set in place to prevent unwanted conflict. Given the nature of Southeast Asia's relatively 'industrializing' predicament, emphasis on their nations' respective governments was centered on national infrastructural development, not so much on political science theoretics and policy frameworks regarding claim and counter claims. This current predicament should be and is used as a current pretext to develop new systems.

I like to see things from a glass half full vantage point. One must think positively. What's your conjecture?

 

[LacViet]

Are you seriously going to windle off Andrei Gromyko's claims to the treaty as simply a ''Cold War'' mentality? Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it entirely for argumentation. Of course he made his claims in the mindset of that time; it was simply a different era with different sentiments. But to dismiss them with a present mindset, is what we call determinism. Furthermore, the treaty didn't deal with the island disputes AT ALL, only Pratas islands was somewhat only transferred to UN control, but that is a completely different dispute between the ROC and PRC. So I don't know why you try to bring up this treaty in this discussion, which is otherwise completely irrelevant.

Also I have no idea what you are trying to prove with that screenshot from Vietnamese state TV... However, I do have something interesting to tell about those old maritime maps. These maps were made during a time in which universal measurements didn't even existed, and where to the closest thing to an actual map were provided by a gyroscope and a compass. You would get caught up in Tordesillas-like scenarios.

Here are some even older maps but this time from the Spanish conquistas who claim Spratly Islands as part of the Spanish Philippines... It shows you that these island disputes were taking place long LONG before. Just with different players. I can also throw in some older Chinese maps if you like, but like I said, any kind of so-called ''ancient mappings'' as a ground for claim should be taken with a grain of salt.

A 1770 European colonial map featuring claims to Spratly Islands

What I do agree upon however, was that these islands were under the last official ownership of the Republic of Vietnam AKA South Vietnam. However, as we all know, South Vietnam is an entity that no longer exist, and who's territory has been acquired through conquest by foreign powers. Legally, China would've have as much claim to the Spratlys as Vietnam would have to its southern territories, both have been obtained by force (albeit South Vietnam itself was a sovereign country up till 1975). Furthermore, a 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Paracel islands. In this regard, both the ROC and PRC also have a right to claim as the successor of the Qing Dynasty.

However what's more intriguing is not wat historical or even political sources seem to base, but rather just everyday maps in school books and atlasses, and then especially the then North-Vietnamese ones in the '70s, that were APPROVED by authorities, in which some South Vietnamese territories that were obtained by the PRC were actually briefly recognized as Chinese territory by North-Vietnam. One example is the Paracel Islands which is also the spill in another dispute between China and Vietnam.


Here is a map covering the Paracel Islands as part of the PRC, that was published by Vietnam's Educational Press in 1974

This one is somewhat of a plothole in this whole Sino-Viet islands dispute that I can't really figure out. Why supposedly recognizing some territories before retracting everything that has both formally and informally been said?

My post is answered on thread created by your guy Martine2. Read his post again. Why I have to mentioned about Gromiko and San Francisco conference 1951, where claim of China is rejected by voting on general discussion. Note that in the conference is presented PM Tran Van Huu of Country mamed as " Vietnam State " headed by Bao Dai, he is also our last Majesty Emperor of Vietnam's Nguyen Dynasty kingdom. State of Vietnam is existed in Vietnam and controlled most of territory Vietnam from 1946 to 1956.

In the past there was no dispute between Annam Empire with Spain Colonial administration on Philippine before 1883, and also never was the dispute between France colonial in Vietnam with Spain Colonial before; and also later on Philippine was part of USA, until time Philippine became independent state from USA, Philippine occoupied some islands of Vietnam in Vietnam war. we will discuss with them base on rules of international law.

You lie, the Sino - France agreement as Constans 1887, limited to land border and Tonkin guft only, not mentioned about Paracel and Spraty.

after 1954, China and North Vietnam signed in to Geneva Accords, it stated that Islands below of Pararell 17th is belong to South Vietnam State. North Vietnam didn't have right over Islands of South Vietnam. So that every thing in North Vietnam, like that some one is saying some thing or text book could used Chinese name, but it doesn't mean that North Vietnam recognized there is China territory. It is very simply : North Vietnam doesn't have rights over Islands of South Vietnam. To day on this forum I can type "SCS" in English for understanding for all members on PDF, it doesn't mean I agree that there is territory of China.

After 1975, the inheritor of South Vietnam state is the South Vietnam Liberation front's Goverment, headed by Mr. Nguyen Huu Tho. and also after Unification in 1976, all Islands Paracel and Spratly belong to all Vietnamese citizen from North or from South Vietnam both.

 

[frequency]

not again..

/closed thread

 

[VALKRYIE]

Google Book

 

[Viet]

International recognition of China's sovereignty over Nansha (aka Spratly) Islands

Entering Uncharted Waters?: ASEAN and the South China Sea - Google Books

you don´t get it. Let me educate you a bit:

- china, be commie and other former imperial dynasties, has never controlled and administered the islands and the sea in the last 2,000 years. even today.
- controlling and administration of the islands and sea lanes mean occupying, populating and controlling, and if necessary using force to enforce the claim.
- drawing and naming the sea and islands mean nothing. do you think you are the one, who draws maps and names the islands? not your neighbors?
- international recognition only exists in some chinese delusional heads. or can you give me quotes of government statements of major powers: america, russia, canada, australia, japan, england, france, india, etc?
- the friendly visit of an eunuch zhenghe in vietnam does not imply, he can say to the world, from now on, vietnam belongs to him. otherwise I can say hongkong belongs to me as I visited it several times in the past.

 

[cirr]

Subi Island 03.04.2015

 

[Soryu]

All talk and bla bla bla .... but real thing:

What's bullsh*t 9-10-11-dash-lines map !? What's it base on !?

 

[Martian2]

All talk and bla bla bla .... but real thing:

What's bullsh*t 9-10-11-dash-lines map !? What's it base on !?

It's based on 2,000 years of Chinese historical discovery, claim, and use of the South China Sea.

Reference: Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines

 

[Viet]

It's based on 2,000 years of Chinese historical discovery, claim, and use of the South China Sea.

Reference: Position Paper of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines

this chinese government paper is nothing than shit. worthless.

discovery? are you the one who discovers the sea? can you prove it? are you living alone in the region? nobody else? even if true, when you discover something, you must take it under control and administer it. neither did you in the SC sea case.

claim? that implies nothing. worthless. everyone can claim he/she is god. that does not change the fact, he/she is not, unless he/she can prove it. flying like superman, turning water into wine. china never claimed ownership before drawing the fcking dots on fake maps recently. not 2,000 years ago.

use? are you retard? that implies that you can claim ownership of everything once you use it. I have a toyota car, can I claim ownership of the toyota factory?

 

[meanderer]

from a realism point of view, arguments like this do not change anything.

long term speaking, it's more important for VN to focus on it's internal problems, and gain bargaining chips through development.

for the time being I think diplomatic negotiation is still the best strategy. setting up some mechanism to avoid worst-case scenarios, as Nihonjin pointed out, seems necessary.

 

[LacViet]

World| Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:22am EDT
Related: WORLD, CHINA, INDONESIA

Indonesian president says China's main claim in South China Sea has no legal basis

Indonesian president says China's main claim in South China Sea has no legal basis| Reuters

 

[Rechoice]

from a realism point of view, arguments like this do not change anything.

long term speaking, it's more important for VN to focus on it's internal problems, and gain bargaining chips through development.

for the time being I think diplomatic negotiation is still the best strategy. setting up some mechanism to avoid worst-case scenarios, as Nihonjin pointed out, seems necessary.

Nihonjin is not Shinzo Abe.

 

[meanderer]

Nihonjin is not Shinzo Abe.

of course. what are you trying to say?

 

[Rechoice]

of course. what are you trying to say?

Japanese business man would like so softly handling with China. I think you do understand what is this..