What's new

Japan’s Anti-China Coalition Is Dangerous

Learn history, my friend.

During the 14th UNESCOIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), it was agreed upon that China would establish five observation posts, including one at the Spratly Islands, for worldwide ocean survey.[6] In March 1987, the UNESCO IOC commissioned China to build the observation post at the Spratly Islands.[6] In April 1987, after numerous surveys and patrols, China chose the Fiery Cross Reef as the ideal location for the observation post because the unoccupied reef was remote from other claims and it was large enough for the observation post.[6] Between January and February, Vietnamese forces began establishing a presence at surrounding reefs to monitor the Chinese activity.[6] That led to a series of confrontations as the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) began defending its position.[6]


Nope. I gave a very short and simple analogy and you're trying to be a smartass and interpret in ways nobody understands. LOL Next time, don't be a smartass and embarrass yourself.

Apparently, you don't have a logical mind so no need for further humiliation ... Okay!

However, you need to read your Chinese's September 4th, 1958 Declaration though:

a) Triton island claimed by the PRC is not clear.
b) South Vietnamese forces occupy Robert and Pattle islands (not yours [Chinese]) :D
c) These islands excluded from any system by the PRC ...


538d0f7ea2785_1958Declaration.jpg


Got it!? And we United States Government can protest anytime ... so beat it!

Furthermore, in your Chinese's May 15th, 1996 Declaration:

a) The Xisha (Paracel) Islands are also claimed by Vietnam.
b) The analysis in this paper of China's straight baseline claim around these islands does not necessarily reflect a recognition by the United States Government of China's sovereignty to these islands.


538d0e98293eb_1996Declaration.jpg


We don't recognize your Chinese's sovereignty over Paracel Islands and will tell you your rights, Xunzi ...when the time is right. Got that!? :) So who gives the S about North VN's PM Pham Van Dong or even the current Vietnamese Governemnt.
 
The Woody Island is the biggest island in Paracel and we administered with military Garrison dating to 1945 when Japan surrendered and return to us., before Geneva Accord took place. So this is enough evidence to debunk the theory that you own Paracel. Let also remember the France is the real occupying owner of the Southern half. You own nothing.

Don't try to be cute. Stick to fact.

Don't try to say WE here Xunzi since " we administered with military Garrison dating to 1945 " is not from the PRC but WE here is Chiang Kai-shek's governement and later withdrew from the Woody Island. They tried to rob but couldn't held on to it ... so it was never yours in the first place.

Yeah, stick to the FACTS .. Xunzi :police:
 
Apparently, you don't have a logical mind so no need for further humiliation ... Okay!

However, you need to read your Chinese's September 4th, 1958 Declaration though:

a) Triton island claimed by the PRC is not clear.
b) South Vietnamese forces occupy Robert and Pattle islands (not yours [Chinese]) :D
c) These islands excluded from any system by the PRC ...


538d0f7ea2785_1958Declaration.jpg


Got it!? And we United States Government can protest anytime ... so beat it!

Furthermore, in your Chinese's May 15th, 1996 Declaration:

a) The Xisha (Paracel) Islands are also claimed by Vietnam.
b) The analysis in this paper of China's straight baseline claim around these islands does not necessarily reflect a recognition by the United States Government of China's sovereignty to these islands.


538d0e98293eb_1996Declaration.jpg


We don't recognize your Chinese's sovereignty over Paracel Islands and will tell you your rights, Xunzi ...when the time is right. Got that!? :) So who gives the S about North VN's PM Pham Van Dong or even the current Vietnamese Governemnt.
Next time, don't be a smart *** and talk to me unless you have a deep understanding of what I'm talking and we are talking about. The stuff you mentioned, Triton, Robert and Pattle islands, have nothing to do with the Johnson Reef Skirmish Reef that take place at Spratly Island Chain.

Don't try to say WE here Xunzi since " we administered with military Garrison dating to 1945 " is not from the PRC but WE here is Chiang Kai-shek's governement and later withdrew from the Woody Island. They tried to rob but couldn't held on to it ... so it was never yours in the first place.

Yeah, stick to the FACTS .. Xunzi :police:
Fact, Chiang Kai-Shek's government KMT represented the REPUBLIC OF CHINA, a predecessor to the modern People Republic of China called PRC. Stick to FACTS, my Peter friend. LOL ROC and PRC are no different. We are under a "One country, two systems" doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Next time, don't be a smart *** and talk to me unless you have a deep understanding of what I'm talking and we are talking about. The stuff you mentioned, Triton, Robert and Pattle islands, have nothing to do with the Johnson Reef Skirmish Reef that take place at Spratly Island Chain.

Next time, if you see that you can't rebuke my undeniable argument about Paracel islands NOT belong to China then nicely ask me to move on to the Spratly Islands' topic about Johnson Reef, Skirmish Reef that take place at Spratly Island Chain blah blah ...

First of all, you don't have any logic in what you're saying
Secondly, from that inability you tend to jump off topic etc ...

How's sad!?
 
Next time, if you see that you can't rebuke my undeniable argument about Paracel islands NOT belong to China then nicely ask me to move on to the Spratly Islands' topic about Johnson Reef, Skirmish Reef that take place at Spratly Island Chain blah blah ...

First of all, you don't have any logic in what you're saying
Secondly, from that inability you tend to jump off topic etc ...

How's sad!?
Paracel Islands consist of many islands and reefs, we control most of it while France control the Southern half. That is why the world didn't completely recognized Paracel until 1974s when we completely control everything.

I want to remind you again to follow what I said and stay on topic. The Johnson Reef is a response to that guy who claimed we instigated the battle in 1988. You quote me on that, remember?
 
Fact, Chiang Kai-Shek's government KMT represented the REPUBLIC OF CHINA, a predecessor to the modern People Republic of China called PRC. Stick to FACTS, my Peter friend. LOL ROC and PRC are no different. We are under a "One country, two systems" doctrine.

ROC and PRC are no different. We are under a "One country, two systems" doctrine ... that is what you hope for though!

"This system has also been proposed by the PRC government for Taiwan, but the Republic of China (ROC) government has refused this suggestion (it has also been claimed that the system was originally designed for Taiwan)"

Why not stick to the FACT huh Xunzi? :police:
 
ROC and PRC are no different. We are under a "One country, two systems" doctrine ... that is what you hope for though!

"This system has also been proposed by the PRC government for Taiwan, but the Republic of China (ROC) government has refused this suggestion (it has also been claimed that the system was originally designed for Taiwan)"

Why not stick to the FACT huh Xunzi? :police:
Fact: Taiwan didn't refuse but to suggest a minor change to the interpretation of the one country, two systems. One is to change it to reflect the one country as being represented by "ROC" or "One country, two governments". However the current policy regarding on both side is to stick to the "one country, two systems". Fact! my friend.
 
Fact: Taiwan didn't refuse but to suggest a minor change to the interpretation of the one country, two systems. One is to change it to reflect the one country as being represented by "ROC" or "One country, two governments". However the current policy regarding on both side is to stick to the "one country, two systems". Fact! my friend.

Don't just say "Fact: ..." but provide the real facts etc ... not Xunzi's fabricated Facts! Please do show me the FACTs that Taiwan agree to "one country, two systems" ???

However, I do have RECENT fact about Taiwan's proposal that shot down by your Chinese Government though:

Beijing Rejects Taiwan’s ‘Greater One China’ Proposal
Mainland China continues to reject any proposal for reunification outside the “one country, two systems” framework.

j_michael_cole_q-36x36.jpg

By J. Michael Cole
June 03, 2014

The Taiwanese referred to them as the “Seven Dwarfs.” The group, led by a former defense minister, an ex-secretary-general of the National Security Council and a former chairman of the main opposition party, proposed a new “Greater One China” framework last week that, though not uncontroversial on the island, should have appealed to Beijing. And yet, within 24 hours China had shot it down, a reminder that in the Taiwan Strait, negotiations on Taiwan’s future status are more process than substance — and may be entirely futile.


If anything not “one country, two systems” framework" China won't accept and so Taiwan has never agreed thus refuse isn't a better word choice to you!? :haha:
 
Discreditable Vietnamese, Don't attack him, he just state the facts.



Show Geneva Accords, give me the proof, OK, don't just talk, even you deny before the letter you PM made, how could I believe a person from discreditable country?

The letter mention you admit and and aggree with the statement China made In 1958, and below is the website about that statements:
http://www.gov.cn/test/2006-02/28/content_213287.htm

Check it with Google traslator.

In front of these evidence, you quibble is very very cheap, hehe.

It is reported that he said uneducated words about Vietnam on press conference in Peking.

answer my question first : who signed in to Geneva Accords 1954 ? China (PRC) and North Vietnam (DRV) ? yes or no ?
 
Learn history, my friend.

During the 14th UNESCOIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), it was agreed upon that China would establish five observation posts, including one at the Spratly Islands, for worldwide ocean survey.[6] In March 1987, the UNESCO IOC commissioned China to build the observation post at the Spratly Islands.[6] In April 1987, after numerous surveys and patrols, China chose the Fiery Cross Reef as the ideal location for the observation post because the unoccupied reef was remote from other claims and it was large enough for the observation post.[6] Between January and February, Vietnamese forces began establishing a presence at surrounding reefs to monitor the Chinese activity.[6] That led to a series of confrontations as the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) began defending its position.[6]
The wiki page completely omitted the author's view point on China's action. Here are some more from the book by Koo, Min Gyo (2009) page 153 - 154 under the title "Initiation and escalation phase."
In the late 1970s and the early 80s, the presence of Soviet naval forces based at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam severely contrained China's trategic space in the South China Sea. Yet with the Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev's retrenchment policy from 1986, China became more assertive in the area. Chinese decision in early 1987 to extablish a permanent foothold on Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratlys was one of the early indications of China's aggressive maritine and territorial policy during the waning Cold War years...

...The UNESCO project provided diplomatic cover for China to move into the South China Sea.
Besides the point from the author that this is just a diplomatic cover for China to insert itself in the Spratlys, couple other points:
1) UNESCO's decision was not a mandate for China to take Fiery Cross Reef for itself. It's just to hire China as a contractor of this international observatory post. PRC has effectively broken UNESCO directive and taken the island for itself while built no international observatory. PRC was in blatant violation, disregarding the UNESCO but now you want to use it to talk justice with Vietnam? Showing more history only brings more Chinese skeletons out of the closet.
2) UNESCO's decision was not a mandate for China to take other island and reefs in the Spratly, which it did.
3) The article from the book and from your wiki quote clearly shows that PRC initiated the conflict by building something on another country's claimed territory. Peace time construction does not need naval vassals; and it must be halted under international law if it threatens a war with another country. The fact that China brought naval vassals instead of construction ships proves that China was ready for an arm conflict to take over another country's territory.

Fact: PRC has no territory and sufficient historical claims of the Spratly and had no business in the area until 1987.

1) No direct mention of Paracel and Spratly.
2) The Article SPECIFICALLY postulated that France force and South VN force shall be removed from said islands.
3) At the time, France occupied the Southern half of Paracel, while PRC/ROC administered the northern half of Paracel. Both continues to fight and dispute until we retake everything in 1974.

The Woody Island is the biggest island in Paracel and we administered with military Garrison dating to 1945 when Japan surrendered and return to us., before Geneva Accord took place. So this is enough evidence to debunk the theory that you own Paracel. Let also remember the France is the real occupying owner of the Southern half. You own nothing.

Don't try to be cute. Stick to fact.
1) Both French and South Vietnam troops were in the Spratlys and Paracels.
2) They STAYED on those islands after the article. Do you have trouble comprehending the idea of exchange control? No one was removed from "said islands" because both Paracels and Spratlys are perpendicular to South Vietnam's coast.
3) The "Northern half" that you said was only the woody island and Macclesfiled bank while France and South Vietnam controlled everything else. It happened when the PRC set foot on the island in 1949. So before that, China had had no actual control. Japan returned no territory. PRC took the woody island from the French by force.

You quoted Wikipedia so it's time for me to quote:
  • In 1930, France claimed the islands on behalf of its protectorate based on the fact that Emperor Gia Long had officially taken possession of the Paracel Islands in 1816, and that Emperor Minh Mạng had sent a mission to build a temple and erect steles there in 1835.[52]
  • In 1932, French Indochina and the Nguyen dynasty of Vietnam annexed the islands and set up a weather station on Pattle Island.[52]
  • In 1939, the Empire of Japan invaded and occupied the islands from the French. The official reason for the Japanese invasion was that the islands were Chinese territory and Japan was at war with China.[52]
  • After World War II, Nationalist China reaffirmed its sovereignty over the islands like other islands in the South China Sea, and dispatched patrol force to the islands, but this was challenged by the French.
  • After the fall of the nationalist regime in China in 1949, the Chinese gained control of the eastern half of the Paracel islands. Several small clashes occurred between the French and the communist Chinese naval forces during this period, but eventually a de facto line of control was established with the Chinese occupying Woody Island and the Macclesfield Bank while the remainder were held by Franco-Vietnamese forces.
  • In 1951, at the international Treaty of San Francisco conference, Vietnam's representative claimed that both the Paracels and Spratlys are territories of Vietnam, and was met with no challenge from all nations at the event. However, neither mainland China nor Taiwan participated at the conference. Separately, the Taiwan negotiated and signed its own treaty with Japan regarding the islands on April 29, 1952.[52]
  • In 1954, according to the Geneva Agreements, which was signed by a number of nations including China,[53][54] Vietnam was partitioned into two states, North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The 17th parallel was used as the provisional military demarcation line, which was effectively extended into the territorial waters. The Paracel archipelago lies below this line and belongs to South Vietnam accordingly.
  • In 1956, after the French's withdrawal, South Vietnam replaced the French to have control of the islands. Again, both China and Taiwan politically and diplomatically condemned the decision and reaffirmed their control over the islands. Although the South Vietnamese inherited the same French claim over the entire Paracel Islands, the period was marked by the peace and both sides held onto what was in their control without venturing into other's domain. At the same time, maps and other official documents of the North Vietnam government during this period had shown that the islands belong to China,[55] mainly due to the fact that China was the largest backer of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.
It's the exact same strategy the PRC used in the Spratly.

- Draw a ridiculous claim on a map.
- Propagandize that it was Chinese territory
- Use military force to make a foot hold on that territory.
- Making the said territory from undisputed to disputed by presence of the military
- Continue to expand and wait for an opportunity to take everything.
- Repeat

Example: Vietnam's Paracel islands, and Spratly islands.
 
Last edited:
Yes, NiceGuy ... don't lie like that man!

Yes, there was a political organization and army in South Vietnam and Cambodia that fought the United States and South Vietnamese governments during the Vietnam War called "Viet Cong" whom were trained and military supported from the North VN party.

Therefore, what NiceGuy said that "North and the South was united by general election. The North didnt invaded the South" is completely FALSE!!!

Taken "Tet Offensive" for instance, was one of the largest military campaigns of the Vietnam War, launched on January 30, 1968 by forces of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army against the forces of South Vietnam, the United States, and their allies.

So what, flag of Viet Cong or flag of North VN is not an issue but South VN was annexed by North Vietnam undeniable.

I believe in the US version of history in this matter :)
 
The Pham Van Dong statement has
a) No specific name for the ownership transfer. Vietnam has always called House B, Hoang Sa while its international name is Paracel, so the Chinese name does not match any Vietnam or international document.
Thus, the name China gave to house B
means nothing to both Vietnam and the international community so what China understands does not match everyone else's, making that statement useless.
b) Pham Van Dong was not authorized to transfer anything. The Vietnam General Assembly has the final say and Pham Van Dong is just their representative. Most country decide the matter of land transfer through their Congress as it should be.
c) House B in this lot was not owned by Vietnam General Assembly at the time either! They are just neighbors to house B while South Vietnam legally owned it. You cannot transfer or sell what you don't own.

a) - It was a diplomatic letter from the North top leader in reply to the Chinese declaration. The letter stated North recognized the Chinese claims in other word it means the North ceded all claims on the disputed islands to China.Your analogy of ownership, house B etc are off- target, the purpose of the letter was a stand/recognition not an asset transaction.

b) - Indeed most govt do go through their respective legislature for decision making however that is internal process of a country decision-making. Govt to Govt dealing is always through representative, in this case the highest govt representative replied to China. I cannot imagine that he had acted alone with such a major decision without the approval of the necessary legislature, if he did that's a despicable treacherous act of betrayal to the people of Vietnam.

c) - Again it is not an asset transaction it is a stand - a recognition.

Here is the Accords for you: Geneva Accords
I am afraid the link you have posted is incorrect the document was meant solely for the consumption of the Vietnamese forces then(The North and The South/France).. You should google for The Final Declaration of The Geneva Conference 1954 or read my post #171. For your convenience sake I will repost my points,

Clause 4 - The foreign troops were China for North, US for South/French. China signed the accord because of its assistance to the North, not because China/North were sorting out territorial dispute friends.

Clause. 6 - The demarcation line is solely for the North/South Vietnam forces to comply - sort of no crossing line, and the line did not constitute territorial boundary at all.
 
a) - It was a diplomatic letter from the North top leader in reply to the Chinese declaration. The letter stated North recognized the Chinese claims in other word it means the North ceded all claims on the disputed islands to China.Your analogy of ownership, house B etc are off- target, the purpose of the letter was a stand/recognition not an asset transaction.

Yes, North VN's letter recognized the Chinese claims and China's September 4th, 1958 Declaration said:

a) Triton island claimed by the PRC is not clear.
b) South Vietnamese forces occupy Robert and Pattle islands (not yours [Chinese]) :D
c) These islands excluded from any system by the PRC ...


538d0f7ea2785_1958Declaration.jpg

Now, get lost with that rubbish letter that the Chinese boys here keep hanging on ...
 
a) - It was a diplomatic letter from the North top leader in reply to the Chinese declaration. The letter stated North recognized the Chinese claims in other word it means the North ceded all claims on the disputed islands to China.Your analogy of ownership, house B etc are off- target, the purpose of the letter was a stand/recognition not an asset transaction.

b) - Indeed most govt do go through their respective legislature for decision making however that is internal process of a country decision-making. Govt to Govt dealing is always through representative, in this case the highest govt representative replied to China. I cannot imagine that he had acted alone with such a major decision without the approval of the necessary legislature, if he did that's a despicable treacherous act of betrayal to the people of Vietnam.

c) - Again it is not an asset transaction it is a stand - a recognition.
a - the letter doesn't mean anything and it doesn't recognize anything that can be applied in a legal sense or in any court. Please read again. The understanding of the two sides are different as I have said here. Vietnam doesn't have the name "house B," it call the thing "Hoang Sa/Paracel"

b - The government can say things without approval from the General Assembly, as happen with any other political system. Obama for example can negotiate on TPP deal and can make certain promises through diplomatic papers, but without the Senate's approval, that deal cannot become a treaty. Obama doesn't betray anyone since it is permissible in his job's description.

c - A general recognition of something without specifications (maps, detail description) is meaningless. There is no legal basis at all. You should stop beating the dead horse.

I am afraid the link you have posted is incorrect the document was meant solely for the consumption of the Vietnamese forces then(The North and The South/France).. You should google for The Final Declaration of The Geneva Conference 1954 or read my post #171. For your convenience sake I will repost my points,

Clause 4 - The foreign troops were China for North, US for South/French. China signed the accord because of its assistance to the North, not because China/North were sorting out territorial dispute friends.

Clause. 6 - The demarcation line is solely for the North/South Vietnam forces to comply - sort of no crossing line, and the line did not constitute territorial boundary at all.
Since you flagged yourself as a Korean, I would caution you that whatever you use here to support China may be used with similar logic path for China to claim the Socotra Rock or Japan to claim the Liancourt Rocks.

That fact that PRC is a signatory and it did not raise objection about the position of the force transfer on recognized Vietnamese territory implies that it complied with the basis of the Accords. It is the only time this issue had all parties presented at the negotiation table and PRC failed at the chance to raise objection. Thus, it has even more legal basis for the implication that PRC recognizes Vietnam ownership of both island chains than that Pham Van Dong letter.
 
Back
Top Bottom