What's new

South China Sea: China Drops a Bombshell

He's a Vietnamese historian.

My translation of the document is superior. My version is word for word, without the political spin.


Im no expert on Chinese language, but in the "contract" i see 19 lines of Chinese characters describing Chinese side of the deal and as translation we are offered something that has close to 100 lines.

Some stuff been added for better effect Martian?

#edit:

Funny thing happened, i ran it through a translator. lol....and everything from here on below and including this:

6. The entire Vietnamese government admitted to Chinese sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and territory.

....isnt even present in the contract (not written in Chinese characters) as far as i can tell.

Any comments on creative editing? And "no political spin"? :rofl:
 
.
So there is a translation from the document published by Hanoi and another one is the annoucement from China. The annoucement is what details the islands claimed by China where as the document from Hanoi does not say anything about the disputed islands.
 
.
Mate - I am little bit lost here. Is this the one you were quoting as the translation?

Translation of Vietnamese government's diplomatic document (shown above) into English:

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

Sincerely,

Hanoi 14-9-1958.

Firstly, Vietnam agreed to respect China's islands and an absolute 12-mile sovereign zone.

Secondly, the only fair way to divide the seabed is to draw a mid-line between China's islands in the South China Sea and the Vietnamese coastline. Guess what the map looks like? China's nine-dashed line map.

So there is a translation from the document published by Hanoi and another one is the annoucement from China. The annoucement is what details the islands claimed by China where as the document from Hanoi does not say anything about the disputed islands.

Yes it does. Nansha Islands = Spratlys. Xisha Islands = Paracels.

The Government of the People's Republic of China declares:

  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,the Zhongsha Islands,the Nansha Islands and all other islands belonging to China which are separated from the mainland and its coastal islands by the high seas.
 
.
Firstly, Vietnam agreed to respect China's islands and an absolute 12-mile sovereign zone.

Secondly, the only fair way to divide the seabed is to draw a mid-line between China's islands in the South China Sea and the Vietnamese coastline. Guess what the map looks like? China's nine-dashed line map.



Yes it does.

When you say China's islands here above, you mean Spratly and Paracel?
 
.
When you say China's islands here above, you mean Spratly and Paracel?

All of them, including Spratlys and Paracels. There's also Dongsha, Zhongsha, and more in the Chinese imperial historical records.
 
.
Have you seen China's military arsenal lately? We're long past the Pol Pot days. You're living half a century in the past.

China has modernized spectacularly. I suggest you bring your information up to date from the 1970s.
:lol: china hasn't got a real carrier yet( let alone super nuclear carrier like US during 1970s), so why must we care about your cheap copy military arsenal ??:lol:

Show us a super nuclear carrier first, and we may have a look at your cheap military arsenal after that:coffee:
 
.
Im no expert on Chinese language, but in the "contract" i see 19 lines of Chinese characters describing Chinese side of the deal and as translation we are offered something that has close to 100 lines.

Some stuff been added for better effect Martian?

#edit:

Funny thing happened, i ran it through a translator. lol....and everything from here on below and including this:



....isnt even present in the contract (not written in Chinese characters) as far as i can tell.

Any comments on creative editing? And "no political spin"? :rofl:

The literal translation stopped when I thanked Frank Lau in the "note." You weren't paying attention.

:lol: china hasn't got a real carrier yet( let alone super nuclear carrier like US during 1970s), so why must we care about your cheap copy military arsenal ??:lol:

Show us a super nuclear carrier first, and we may have a look at your cheap military arsenal after that:coffee:

The U.S. needs carriers, because it is half a world away. China is right next door. The J-10s, J-11s, Su-27s, Su-30s, WZ-10s, and H-6Ks can reduce Vietnam to rubble without an aircraft carrier.
 
.
The U.S. needs carriers, because it is half a world away. China is right next door. The J-10s, J-11s, Su-27s, Su-30s, WZ-10s, and H-6Ks can reduce Vietnam to rubble without an aircraft carrier.
Then where were all of your air crafts when our Mig-27 conducted a patrol in disputed zone ?? Do your low IQ pilots know how to fight in real air combat ?? or they're just a bunch of cowards like those china's pilot during VN-sino conflict ??
 
. .
China’s sovereign claims in East Sea groundless: int’l scholars

International scholars have affirmed that there is no legal foundation for China’s declaration of sovereignty over almost all of the East Sea area and that its U-shaped line is unreasonable.

They emphasised this at a seminar entitled “The East Sea and Asia Pacific in Transition: Exploring Options for Managing Disputes” in Washington DC on June 28.

The event, held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), focused on recent developments in the East Sea, the East Sea in the ASEAN-US-China relations, and assessment of significance of the East Sea in a changing regional landscape.

The role of international laws and norms in resolving and managing disputes as well as resolution and policy recommendations to boost security and cooperation in the East Sea were also considered.

Professor Carlyle Thayer from the Australian Defence Force Academy said oil and gas blocks in the area that China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) has recently advertised for international tender in fact belong to Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

He said the Vietnam National Assembly’s recent adoption of the Law on the Sea is a positive development as it is necessary for the country to exploit their offshore resources. He affirmed that Vietnam required the new laws because marine industries will make up 50 percent of its GDP by 2025.

According to the senior expert, China’s U-shaped line, created in 1948, is not legal because it was drawn before the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was signed in 1982.

At the seminar, Dr. Tran Truong Thuy, Director of the Centre for East Sea Studies under the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, presented a map of the nine blocks in the East Sea, reaffirming that it is within Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone and is not a disputed area.

Dr. Bonnie Glasser, a CSIS expert in Asia, urged that any company which wants to submit a bid for developing resources through a Chinese proxy operating within Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone should think twice before making up their mind because it may raise concerns and these companies are likely to face high risks.

For his part, Kunt Campell, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, stressed that the US opposes any use of force to handle disputes in the East Sea.

Scholars shared the view that ASEAN should play an important role in settling disputes in the East Sea.

VietNamNet - China
 
.
Firstly, Vietnam agreed to respect China's islands and an absolute 12-mile sovereign zone.

Secondly, the only fair way to divide the seabed is to draw a mid-line between China's islands in the South China Sea and the Vietnamese coastline. Guess what the map looks like? China's nine-dashed line map.



Yes it does. Nansha Islands = Spratlys. Xisha Islands = Paracels.

This is wrong.

First, PM North Vietnam only recognized claims territorial waters 12 nautical miles of China.

Second, In 1958, two archipelagoes of Hoang Sa (Paracels) and Truong Sa (Spratlys) under the sovereignty of South Vietnam.
China was a signatory to Geneva1954 which recognized the sovereignty of South Vietnam and North Vietnam as two separate countries. So in 1958, only PM South Vietnam had jurisdiction over the two archipelagos.
 
.
There are different radars on the Type 052C destroyer for different purposes. Which one are you asking about specifically? Are you asking about the S-band, A-band, or some other band?

----------

Type 052C destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Radar

The ship is the first Chinese ship fitted with a multifunction Active Phased Array Radar with four antenna arrays, with a reported name Type 348 Radar. China originally imported a Ukrainian C-band active phased array radar for evaluation, but decided that the radar did not meet the Chinese requirement. Instead, China adopted a domestic S-band multifunction active phased array radar with four antenna arrays. The radar is developed by the Research Institute of Electronic Technology (also more commonly known as the 14th Institute) at Nanjing, Jiangsu province, and it is a successor to the 14th Institute's earlier developed Type H/LJG-346 SAPARS (Shipborne Active Phased Array Radar System) that was completed in 1998. Chinese discovered that the S-band adopted by the American AN/SPY-1 passive phased array could be better suited for the requirements for the active phased array radar as well. The radar has reported name of Type 348 Radar and a maximum range of 450 km, and a maximum resolution of 0.5 metres. However, under an earlier but completely different contract, Ukraine did provide cooling technologies for the antenna to China. According to many Chinese claims on the internet, the name assigned for Type 348 radar is Sea Lion, but others claim the name only applies to the export version."

----------

Type 517 Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Type 517 radar is believed to be an A-band/VHF air search radar widely deployed on PLA-N surface vessels with 4 antennas in two crossed-brace supported pairs, one above the other, pair mounted on each side of a single tublar support carried on the turning gear.

Similar to the Russian P-8 'Dolphin'/KNIFE REST radar which PRC manufactures and deploys for the HQ-2 surface to air system complex, it is believed that the Type 517 have similar capabilities and specifications.

The system is manufactured by the Beijing Leiyin Electronic Technology Development Company (北京雷音电子技术开发有限公司).
Specifications

(Specs based on P-8 KNIFE REST)
A - band (70 - 73 MHz)
Range: 300 KM (est)
Power: 100 kW
Pulse width: 4 - 12 us
Other reported names:
Spider (export)
SUR17B"
I am asking for 1 goddamn link which says Chinese naval aesa radar has 400km range. No claims & reportedly source. A confirmation is necessary.
 
.
This is wrong.

First, PM North Vietnam only recognized claims territorial waters 12 nautical miles of China.

Second, In 1958, two archipelagoes of Hoang Sa (Paracels) and Truong Sa (Spratlys) under the sovereignty of South Vietnam.
China was a signatory to Geneva1954 which recognized the sovereignty of South Vietnam and North Vietnam as two separate countries. So in 1958, only PM South Vietnam had jurisdiction over the two archipelagos.

So it essentially negates whatever the document signed by North Vietnam as of 1958 for territories which was under South Vietnam or disputed territories.

But at the end of day all these documents will not be helpful as no international court will be able to resolve these issues. Vietnam and China on a bilateral basis need to come to an agreement but because the stakes are high, not sure how this is going to happen.
 
.
Chinese South China Sea sovereignty is based on:

1. China's historical first discovery and claim in 618 A.D.

South China Sea belongs to China because they discovered and claimed it.

Vietnamese and Filipinos should stop encroaching on thousand-year-old Chinese territory in the South China Sea.

[Source: Wikipedia article on Paracel Islands with primary sources listed in footnotes]

"The coast belonged to the Kingdom of Cauchi China."

"China
618~1279

* There are some Chinese cultural relics in the Paracel islands dating from the Tang and Song dynasty eras[12][note 1], and there is some evidence of Chinese habitation on the islands in these periods.[13]."

2. Unchallenged Chinese dominion for over a thousand years.

The South China Sea islands and territory were claimed by the Tang, Song, and countless other Chinese dynasties. Vietnamese and Filipinos lacked ocean-faring boats and were not even aware of the existence of the Paracel and Spratly Islands from the 7th century to the 17th century.

3. Historical written Chinese imperial records.

Tang, Song, and countless Chinese dynasties describe the Paracel and Spratly Islands as part of China.

4. Physical proof of Chinese inhabitants

Our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather's bones and belongings are buried on the South China Sea islands. Our Chinese human remains and artifacts are similar to sacred Native American burial grounds of ancestors. The proof of dominion cannot be more clear.

The human remains of which country are found on South China Sea islands? China
The artifacts of which country are found on South China Sea islands? China

[Source: Wikipedia article on Paracel Islands with primary sources listed in footnotes]

5. Vietnamese ceded any legal claim to the Paracel and Spratly Islands on September 14, 1958.

North Vietnam won the civil war against South Vietnam. Therefore, the diplomatic document signed by Vietnam Premier Pham Van Dong on September 14, 1958, which ceded Paracel and Spratly Islands to China, is in effect and legally binding.

pp68O.jpg
Vietnam diplomatic document signed by Vietnam Premier Pham Van Dong

Translation of Vietnamese government's diplomatic document (shown above) into English:

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

Sincerely,

Hanoi 14-9-1958.

-----

Translation of Vietnamese government's diplomatic document (shown above) into Mandarin/中文:

越南民主共和国承中华人民共和国在1958年9月4日关于中国领海主张的各项条款。越南民主共和国尊重,并且将要求所有越南部门尊重中华人民共和国在东海(我南海)12海里的领海的领海。

敬礼

河内,1958年9月14日

----------

"Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea (September 4,1958)" in Chinese as follows:

文中所提到的中华人民共和国在1958年9月4日关于中国领海主张的各项条款如下:

中华人民共和国政府宣布

  (一)中华人民共和国的领海宽度为12海里。这项规定适用于中华人民共和国的一切领土,包括中国大陆及 其沿海岛屿,和同大陆及其沿海岛屿隔有公海的台湾及其周围各岛、澎湖列岛、东沙群岛、西沙群岛、中沙群岛、 南沙群岛以及其他属于中国的岛屿。

  (二)中国大陆及其沿海岛屿的领海以连接大陆岸上和沿海岸外缘岛屿上各基点之间的各直线为基线,从基线 向外延伸12海里的水域是中国的领海。在基线以内的水域,包括渤海湾、琼州海峡在内、都是中国的内海、在基 线以内的岛屿,包括东引岛、高登岛、马祖列岛、白犬列岛、乌岳岛、大小金门岛、大担岛、二担岛、东碇岛在内 ,都是中国的内海。

  (三)一切外国飞机和军用船舶,未经中华人民共和国政府的许可,不得进入中国的领海和领海 上空。

  任何外国船舶在中国领海航行,必须遵守中华人民共和国政府的有关法令。

  (四)以上(一)(二)两项规定的原则同样适用于台湾及其周围各岛、澎湖列岛、东沙群岛、西沙群岛、南 沙群岛以及其他属于中国的岛屿。

  台湾和澎湖地区现在仍然被美国武力侵占,这是侵犯中华人民共和国领土完整的和主权的非法行为。台湾和澎 湖等地尚待收复,中华人民共和国政府有权采取一切适当的方法在适当的时候,收复这些地区,这是中国的内政, 不容外国干涉。

-----

Translation:

Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on China's Territorial Sea (September 4,1958)

  The Government of the People's Republic of China declares:

  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,the Zhongsha Islands,the Nansha Islands and all other islands belonging to China which are separated from the mainland and its coastal islands by the high seas.

  2. China's territorial sea along the mainland and its coastal islands takes as its baseline the line composed of the straight lines connecting bas-points on the mainland coast and on the outermost coastal islands; the water area extending twelve nautical miles outward from this baseline is China's territorial sea. The water areas inside the baseline,including Bohai Bayand the Chiung chow Straits,are Chinese inland waters. The islands inside the base line,including Tungyin Island, Kaoteng Island,the Matsu Islands,the Paichuan Islands,Wuchiu Island,the Grater And Lesser Quemoy Islands,Tatan Island,Erhtan Island and Tungting Island,are islands of the Chinese inland waters.

  3. No foreign aircraft and no foreign vessels for military use may enter China's territorial sea and the air space above it without the permission of the Government of the People's Republic of China.

  While navigation Chinese territorial sea,every foreign vessel must observe the relevant laws of the People's Republic of China and regulations of its government.

  4. The principles provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) apply also to Taiwan and its surrounding islands,the Penghu Islands,the Dongsha Islands,the Xisha Islands,the Zhongsha Islands,the Nansha islands, and all other islands belonging to China.

  The Taiwan and Penghu areas are still occupied by the United States armed force. This is anunlawful encroachment on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the People's Republic of China. Taiwan,Penghu and such other areas are yet to be recovered,and the Government of the People's Republic of China has the right to recover these area by all suitable means at a suitable time. This is China's internal affair,in which no foreign interference is tolerated.

[Note: Thank you to FrankLau for the post and translation.]

6. The entire Vietnamese government admitted to Chinese sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and territory.

On June 15, 1956, Vice Foreign Minister of the DRV (North Vietnam) Ung Van Khiem admitted Chinese sovereignty over the Spratly and Paracel Islands.

Another DRV official, Le Loc (Temporary Head of the Asian Mission), concurred in Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea islands.

In their civil war, North Vietnam (i.e. Democratic Republic of Vietnam or DRV) conquered South Vietnam and became the government of an unified Vietnam. Let's hear it directly from the DRV's mouth with regards to Chinese sovereignty over the Paracel Islands.

"Truong Nhan Tuan: Based on a number of documents from Peking, on 15/6/1956 the Vice Foreign Minister of the DRV Ung Van Khiem, at the time of hosting a visit from the Chinese temporary ambassador in Vietnam, spoke the following: “According to documents that Vietnam has presently, historically speaking, Tay Sa and Nam Sa islands belong to China.”

Nguyen An: Tay Sa and Nam Sa means the Paracel and Spratly islands?

Truong Nhan Tuan: Yes, the Paracel and Spratly islands....China also presents other evidence, such as the incident of Le Loc (Temporary Head of the Asian Mission) also present at that time adding that: “From a historical perspective, the archipelagos of Xi Sa and Nan Sa (Tay Sa and Nam Sa) belonged to China since the T’ang dynasty.

Nguyen An: Le Loc is a person of China or of the DRV?

Truong Nhan Tuan: An official of the DRV."
...
"Nguyen An: Are there other evidence from the DRV presented by China regarding sovereignty?

Truong Nhan Tuan: Yes. The famous one is the diplomatic note of Pham Van Dong, written on 14/9/1958 which admits the territorial waters declared by China a few days before. The Chinese declaration was that the archipelagos of Hoang Sa, Nam Sa, and Truong Sa belonged to China.

Nguyen An: So it was an admittance of Chinese sovereignty over these islands?

Truong Nhan Tuan: In reality, there is nothing in the content of the letter that explicitly states admittance of Chinese sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly islands becaue the letter only states that Vietnam “make notes and admits the declaration of China regarding territorial waters of China” but does not mention about sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos.

What makes the justification somewhat weak is because during the war, when the Chinese navy invaded the Paracel islands in 1974, there was no objection from the DRV. This silence becomes a weighty piece of evidence for China to claim that Vietnam had admmitted Chinese sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos already.

Nguyen An: Based on what you just presented, is this the reason why Qin Gang (Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson) commented that Vietnam’s position regarding sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos changed over different periods of time?

Truong Nhan Tuan: This is correct. But the legal significance is not simple. Declarations made by officials in North Vietnam at that time may be a reality. The fact that Peking presents them without protestations or justifications from Hanoi tells us that it is probably true."

Reference: [Source: Vietnamese historian's research into Paracel Islands]

Next he will claim kerala was part of china,bcoz it hav communism.
quoting wikis...what a genuine false flagger :hitwall:
Didn't knew they teach you Chinese in school.:D
 
.
6. The entire Vietnamese government admitted to Chinese sovereignty over the South China Sea islands and territory.

On June 15, 1956, Vice Foreign Minister of the DRV (North Vietnam) Ung Van Khiem admitted Chinese sovereignty over the Spratly and Paracel Islands.

Another DRV official, Le Loc (Temporary Head of the Asian Mission), concurred in Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea islands.

In their civil war, North Vietnam (i.e. Democratic Republic of Vietnam or DRV) conquered South Vietnam and became the government of an unified Vietnam. Let's hear it directly from the DRV's mouth with regards to Chinese sovereignty over the Paracel Islands.

"Truong Nhan Tuan: Based on a number of documents from Peking, on 15/6/1956 the Vice Foreign Minister of the DRV Ung Van Khiem, at the time of hosting a visit from the Chinese temporary ambassador in Vietnam, spoke the following: “According to documents that Vietnam has presently, historically speaking, Tay Sa and Nam Sa islands belong to China.”

Nguyen An: Tay Sa and Nam Sa means the Paracel and Spratly islands?

Truong Nhan Tuan: Yes, the Paracel and Spratly islands....China also presents other evidence, such as the incident of Le Loc (Temporary Head of the Asian Mission) also present at that time adding that: “From a historical perspective, the archipelagos of Xi Sa and Nan Sa (Tay Sa and Nam Sa) belonged to China since the T’ang dynasty.

Nguyen An: Le Loc is a person of China or of the DRV?

Truong Nhan Tuan: An official of the DRV."
...
"Nguyen An: Are there other evidence from the DRV presented by China regarding sovereignty?

Truong Nhan Tuan: Yes. The famous one is the diplomatic note of Pham Van Dong, written on 14/9/1958 which admits the territorial waters declared by China a few days before. The Chinese declaration was that the archipelagos of Hoang Sa, Nam Sa, and Truong Sa belonged to China.

Nguyen An: So it was an admittance of Chinese sovereignty over these islands?

Truong Nhan Tuan: In reality, there is nothing in the content of the letter that explicitly states admittance of Chinese sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly islands becaue the letter only states that Vietnam “make notes and admits the declaration of China regarding territorial waters of China” but does not mention about sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos.

What makes the justification somewhat weak is because during the war, when the Chinese navy invaded the Paracel islands in 1974, there was no objection from the DRV. This silence becomes a weighty piece of evidence for China to claim that Vietnam had admmitted Chinese sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos already.

Nguyen An: Based on what you just presented, is this the reason why Qin Gang (Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson) commented that Vietnam’s position regarding sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos changed over different periods of time?

Truong Nhan Tuan: This is correct. But the legal significance is not simple. Declarations made by officials in North Vietnam at that time may be a reality. The fact that Peking presents them without protestations or justifications from Hanoi tells us that it is probably true."

Reference: [Source: Vietnamese historian's research into Paracel Islands]
It would be nice for the readers to have the source instead of you merely copied/pasted in and edited to suit.

Paracel and Spratly Islands Forum: The History of Sovereignty Dispute between Vietnam and China

Here is the missing paragraph that you dishonestly omitted...

Nguyen An: Le Loc is a person of China or of the DRV?

Truong Nhan Tuan: An official of the DRV. This is why the issue is complicated and weighty. However, after this, Vietnamese scholars conducted research to see what history books from the T’ang dynasty mentioned this. As a result, a set of documents was made available, and they found out that the information in those documents were completely contrary to the truth. Information was cut and paste, and content was altered to produce those ideas.
Basically, the Viets did their own research and found the documents presented by the Chinese to be bogus.

Why did you omitted that paragraph and the link?

Further, here is the relevant section that you did not have the courage to highlight...
Truong Nhan Tuan: In reality, there is nothing in the content of the letter that explicitly states admittance of Chinese sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly islands becaue the letter only states that Vietnam “make notes and admits the declaration of China regarding territorial waters of China” but does not mention about sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos.
North Viet Nam may have made a huge mistake back then with that letter but ultimately that letter of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT does not constitute CONCESSION. There is a world of difference. The fact that you omitted that paragraph where the Viets challenged China's claim mean you know that challenge to be valid and potentially negate China's claim in the court of public opinion. The omission of that paragraph and the link is indicative of you willing to be intellectually dishonest and deceitful.

You are busted. As usual.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom