South China Sea Forum

[Minjitta]

Picture failure.uploading again.


September.4.1958,China government was declared Chinese territorial waters included Xi sha Islands(Paracel Islands ) and Nan sha Islands(Spratly Islands ).

September.14.1958,Vietnam government was present a note to China government. declared"agree and support".

Why would China needed PND letter when China claim spartly islands since 1948. If PVD letter that much value to China, then China needed to go to the UN Court with that letter as a proof.
so when China going to the UN Court with PND letter?

 

[Eliter]

Why would China needed PND letter when China claim spartly islands since 1948. If PVD letter that much value to China, then China needed to go to the UN Court with that letter as a proof.
so when China going to the UN Court with PND letter?

越南总理范文同致周恩来总理的外交文书

　　“Comrade Prime Minister,

　　We have the honour to bring to your knowledge that the Government of the DRVN recognizes and supports the declaration dated 4th September, 1958 of the Government of the PRC fixing the width of the Chinese territorial waters. The Government of the DRVN respects this decision and will give instructions to its State bodies to respect the 12-mile width of the territorial waters of China in all their relations in the maritime field with the PRC. I address to you, comrade Prime Minister, the assurance of my distinguished consideration”.

 

[Rechoice]

Ok, first, if you gonna quote someone's letter, please refer to his title correctly. Pham Van Dong was not Vietnam Primer, he was Vietnam Prime Minister during the times that letter was written. Since you seems awfully unfamiliar with Soviet's style of governance, I will tell you right now that Prime Minister is not the representative head of Vietnam, nor the actual person yielding the most power. The representative head of Vietnam is the President of Vietnam, who at the time was Truong Chinh. The group yields the most power in Vietnam is the Politburo. The group that has any power of passing laws or approving Treaties is the National Assembly (or Congress)

So given that lay out of the land, my first point are in order:

1) Pham Van Dong has no authority to approve the concession of lands nor he can proactively
conceded future lands acquired. That power rest solely on National Assembly according to Democratic Republic of Vietnam's (North Vietnam) Constitution. Thus, that letter bare no legality in under Vietnam's law.

2) North Vietnam did not have the power of give away lands it does not own under international laws. This is common sense. A person cannot sell what he/she does not own. Nations relationship are the same way. North Vietnam cannot give away Paracel or Spratly islands because those belonged to South Vietnam under the Geneva Convention. It's like North Korea cannot give away Seoul to the China because it's not North Korea to give. Thus that letter bare no legality under International law.

3) Finally, the letter is not a Concession Declaration and the texts in this short letter never mention the give away of Paracel or Spratly islands. In case you think the above two points are not convincing enough. The letter is not a Concession Declaration because it did not have definitive words such as "abandon claims," "concede." "acknowledge ownership of" those specific islands. "Respecting claim" is tame and does means much anyways. PRC's spoke man always parroting the same lines that 'PRC respects other nations' territories,' yet they violate those territories on the daily basis.

In conclusion, the Pham Van Dong's letter that you used as utmost proof is illegitimate under Vietnam Laws, illegitimate under International Laws, and not a Concession Declaration of anything let alone naming specific give-away territories.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...tween-taiwan-philippines-8.html#ixzz2UMirebzh

越南总理范文同致周恩来总理的外交文书

　　“Comrade Prime Minister,

　　We have the honour to bring to your knowledge that the Government of the DRVN recognizes and supports the declaration dated 4th September, 1958 of the Government of the PRC fixing the width of the Chinese territorial waters. The Government of the DRVN respects this decision and will give instructions to its State bodies to respect the 12-mile width of the territorial waters of China in all their relations in the maritime field with the PRC. I address to you, comrade Prime Minister, the assurance of my distinguished consideration”.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...a-sea-news-discussions-165.html#ixzz2UMnw3giu

12 miles of coustline of maindland China only, which related to North Vietnam.

 

[Minjitta]

Ok, first, if you gonna quote someone's letter, please refer to his title correctly. Pham Van Dong was not Vietnam Primer, he was Vietnam Prime Minister during the times that letter was written. Since you seems awfully unfamiliar with Soviet's style of governance, I will tell you right now that Prime Minister is not the representative head of Vietnam, nor the actual person yielding the most power. The representative head of Vietnam is the President of Vietnam, who at the time was Truong Chinh. The group yields the most power in Vietnam is the Politburo. The group that has any power of passing laws or approving Treaties is the National Assembly (or Congress)

So given that lay out of the land, my first point are in order:

1) Pham Van Dong has no authority to approve the concession of lands nor he can proactively
conceded future lands acquired. That power rest solely on National Assembly according to Democratic Republic of Vietnam's (North Vietnam) Constitution. Thus, that letter bare no legality in under Vietnam's law.

2) North Vietnam did not have the power of give away lands it does not own under international laws. This is common sense. A person cannot sell what he/she does not own. Nations relationship are the same way. North Vietnam cannot give away Paracel or Spratly islands because those belonged to South Vietnam under the Geneva Convention. It's like North Korea cannot give away Seoul to the China because it's not North Korea to give. Thus that letter bare no legality under International law.

3) Finally, the letter is not a Concession Declaration and the texts in this short letter never mention the give away of Paracel or Spratly islands. In case you think the above two points are not convincing enough. The letter is not a Concession Declaration because it did not have definitive words such as "abandon claims," "concede." "acknowledge ownership of" those specific islands. "Respecting claim" is tame and does means much anyways. PRC's spoke man always parroting the same lines that 'PRC respects other nations' territories,' yet they violate those territories on the daily basis.

In conclusion, the Pham Van Dong's letter that you used as utmost proof is illegitimate under Vietnam Laws, illegitimate under International Laws, and not a Concession Declaration of anything let alone naming specific give-away territories.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...tween-taiwan-philippines-8.html#ixzz2UMirebzh

There are no point to argue with these twisted, double standard, and brain washed human.

 

[Martian2]

This is what he said

but I can't find anything on him on any of the media outlet, where are your "Noticeable Present"??

So, you comment on some Article and make you a "Noticeable Person"?? How does that work??

Then I am an international sensation as I post my comment on different platform, Swedish and Danish Nu, Chinese News Media outlet and Espanol speaking outlet.

I can make a difference sometimes

You are not looking hard enough. Here are more citations (see below). The most prominent is the screen-grab from USA Today. I'm pretty sure the whole United States saw my comment on USA Today.

My effect on the mainstream media is indirect. For example, the media claimed China was manipulating its currency. I challenged the mainstream media with my comment that China's currency had appreciated by 30% in six years.

Within 18 hours of my comments being posted on UPI and many other sites (which I can't remember anymore), Reuters modified their story to mention that the Chinese currency had appreciated 30% in six years. This happened across all major newspapers. The lone holdout was CNN. CNN reported that China's currency had appreciated more than 20% in five years.

I can make a difference sometimes.

With regard to the Taiwan-Philippine dispute, I'm pretty sure I was the first person to point out that the Philippine murder of the Taiwanese fisherman occurred within Taiwan's 200-mile EEZ. It took a few days, but major news organizations started pointing that out too.

Finally, I think you're delusional in comparing your posts on Swedish and Danish Nu to my posts on major American newspapers like BusinessWeek, Reuters, Bloomberg News, UPI, USA Today, CNN, ABC News, CNBC, etc.

----------

Year 2011 in retrospective

I would say that the two most important China-related issues (where I interjected my opinions) were the Chinese currency debate in October and the South China Sea in June of this year.

To clarify, I didn't just post on USA Today. I also posted on UPI (United Press International), CNN, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Stree Journal, NASDAQ, and a lot of other mainstream websites. I was virtually everywhere in the mainstream press under my pseudonyms "Martian" and "China Lee."

From my October 28, 2011 post:

I indirectly challenged the American Media's credibility

Earlier this month, I indirectly challenged the American media's credibility. If you want a good laugh, read the article by USA Today (link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/st...56/1?csp=34news) as they bashed China:

"We cannot continue to let China flaunt the rules," Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, said. If action isn't taken, "we may never recover as a country. This is serious stuff."

Economists agree that the yuan is undervalued by 25% to 30% against the dollar; some put it as high as 40%. The result is that Chinese goods are increasingly cheaper in the United States and U.S. products more expensive in China.

If I was ignorant of the truth, I would be pretty upset too! My God, according to USA Today, those Chinese are cheating and undervaluing their currency! It is a pretty upsetting article until you read the second comment (reproduced below), which is located at the end of the article. Ooops! Never mind! Ha ha ha. I posted the truth for the entire country to see.

USA Today forgot to tell its readers that China's currency has already appreciated 30% in the last six years.

I thought I would share the story before I forget it in another few weeks.

I also posted in the comment section of YouTube videos regarding China's currency. See example below.

Senate Votes to Consider Anti-China Bill - YouTube

I should tell you the rest of the story. For days prior to my posts, the Western Media only printed stories about China undervaluing its currency by 25 to 40% and there were a few sporadic articles that mentioned China had appreciated its currency by 7% since 2010.

Eighteen hours after I posted my comment everywhere (that China's currency had appreciated by 30% in the last six years), Reuters published its first story that China had appreciated its currency by 30% since 2005. After Reuters, major publications also published the fact that China's currency had appreciated by 30%. The exception was CNN. CNN wrote that China's currency had appreciated by "over 20%."

The Western media have a choice. They can tell their readers the truth or I'll do it for them.

----------

My posts in the mainstream media on the South China Sea were relevant to the debate. After I pointed out that the South China Sea and islands were discovered and claimed by China for 1,400 years, the mainstream media changed their articles and incorporated this historical fact.

Within 12 hours after my first batch of posts, I noticed the Guardian was the first to acknowledge the Chinese side of the story. Reuters followed. Next was CNN. After that, all major news publications started printing that the Chinese had a thousand-year-old claim to the South China Sea islands.

From my June 24, 2011 post:

Checkmate

Peter, you and all of the China-haters are too late. I have posted everywhere in the mainstream media (e.g. Boston Globe, CNBC, CNN, Miami Herald, NASDAQ, Reuters, Sacramento Bee, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Washington Times, etc.) and YouTube over the last 12 days.

This is my reaction to the stubborn Vietnamese posters that came into the Chinese sub-forum and raised a ruckus.

Look in the comment section and the number of "China Lee" comments. Who do you think had the last laugh? You or me?

-----

Here is an example:

Rivals push to rename the South China Sea – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs

-----

I am also on foreign websites, such as this one in India.

http://www.2point6billion.com/news/2011/06...1#comment-97287

-----

On The Hill's Congress Blog, Senator Inhofe makes his point and I make mine in the first comment.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/for...ot-be-tolerated

-----

Senator McCain makes his point in an article and I present the counterpoint in the first comment. Where have you been Peter? You missed the party.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blo...ost.aspx?ID=452

----------

From my June 25, 2011 post:

The mouse that roared

I forgot to mention something important. On 10% of the Western news sites, I was censored. San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Times, and a few other newspapers deleted my comment on China's 1,400-year-old first discovery of Paracel Islands. Also, Reuters decided to ban me from commenting after I posted a different comment on a second China-Vietnam article.

Nevertheless, I cannot be censored. I simply move to other news services, such as The Diplomat or Foreign Policy. The more that some newspapers try to censor me (by deleting my comment or refusing to post it), the more determined I become to be heard. The Long Island Press held my comment for review by a moderator for four days and then quietly deleted my submission request.

It is ironic that every time they censored my comment, I received a boost in energy and determination to post on ten more websites. I think I have made over two hundred posts on news sites and YouTube during the last 12 days.

The moral of the story is that if you try to censor this mouse, I will roar!

-----

See fifth full comment (e.g. don't count the replies to original comments):

China to US: Keep Out | China Power

See second full comment:

South China Sea or me? | Prestowitz

 

[gambit]

started to lose interest talking sense to this guy...........

By the way, I should be more clarified on my point, Convicted Felon are disenfranchisement for voting are limited by some form of "retribution" being pays or paid.

Say for an example, some states in the US recognise a convicted felon to have voting right as long as he pays for his crime committed. However each states does have their unique "recovery" process and some states forbid Felon in different degree from "Recovering" their right to vote. Some states literally ban all type of felon outright. While some listed the extreme crime or crime related to sexual misconduct as a reason of non-recovery.

This simply means Marty is utterly incompetent in this debate when he confused sovereignty with governance. The two ideas are related but not the same. The diversity equals the freedom granted by a sovereign power -- the US -- to each entity in this federation. No different with the association with Puerto Rico.

 

[cirr]

China Transmission won an order for 31 propulstion systems for government law enforcement vessels:

???31???ö_??_??????

It must be fun seeing hundreds of CCG vessels banishing baboons and monkeys in the SCS in a couple of years.

 

[EastSea]

can not seen nothing, propaganda trashes fail.

 

[Soryu]

Picture failure.uploading again.


September.4.1958,China government was declared Chinese territorial waters included Xi sha Islands(Paracel Islands ) and Nan sha Islands(Spratly Islands ).

September.14.1958,Vietnam government was present a note to China government. declared"agree and support".

“Comrade Prime Minister,

　　We have the honour to bring to your knowledge that the Government of the DRVN recognizes and supports the declaration dated 4th September, 1958 of the Government of the PRC fixing the width of the Chinese territorial waters. The Government of the DRVN respects this decision and will give instructions to its State bodies to respect the 12-mile width of the territorial waters of China in all their relations in the maritime field with the PRC. I address to you, comrade Prime Minister, the assurance of my distinguished consideration”.

Correct for you, Kid. ( since you didn't know Vietnamese and was brain wash by your Government )

“Comrade Prime Minister,

　　We have the honour to bring to your knowledge that the Government of the DRVN recognizes and supports the declaration dated 4th September, 1958 of the Government of the PRC declaration about the Chinese territorial waters. The Government of the DRVN respects this decision and will give instructions to its State bodies to respect the 12 nautical mile of the territorial waters of China, in all relations (between Vietnam - China PRC ) in the maritime field with the PRC. We (I) address to you, comrade Prime Minister, the most respectfully greeting”.

 

[Eliter]

Correct for you, Kid. ( since you didn't know Vietnamese and was brain wash by your Government )

This official political map was published by Vietnam(DRVN) Government 1958.
Everybody can't find Hoàng Sa and Trưong Sa.

 

[Minjitta]

This official political map was published by Vietnam(DRVN) Government 1958.
Everybody can't find Hoàng Sa and Trưong Sa.

simple because it made in China look at the right bottom corner prints in Chinese

 

[Soryu]

This official political map was published by Vietnam(DRVN) Government 1958.
Everybody can't find Hoàng Sa and Trưong Sa.

This map was printed by PRC Government who was want take Islands from Vietnam. Can we expect our Islands's name appear on this map!?

 

[EastSea]

Old atlas affirms Vietnam’s sovereignty over Hoang Sa, Truong Sa

The Vietnam Buddhist Sangha Central Committee on August 28 announced an atlas under the Guangxu reign of the Chinese Qing dynasty, proving Hainan Island to be the last Chinese strip of land in the region.

The book was kept in the Phuoc Trang bookcase at the house of Tran Dinh Ba (1867-1933), who copied it when he worked as the Minister of Justice under the Khai Dinh reign (1916-1925).

The book is now preserved by Ba’s descendant, researcher Tran Dinh Son, who is currently living in Ho Chi Minh City .

Researcher Tran Dinh Son debuts the book (Source: VNA)


The “Dia du do khao” (geographical and administrative atlas) has a hardback covered with red silk. It includes 65 pages with Chinese characters on both sides and is divided into 20 sections with 20 detailed maps attached.

Prof. Cao Huy Thuan, lecturer of Law and Politics at the French Picardi University , described researcher Son’s contributions as providing new evidence to affirm Vietnam ’s sovereignty over Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes and that China itself recognised Hainan Island as the last strip of its border.

According to Son, there are still big rocks in Yu Lin, the southern most point of Hainan Island, carved with the words “ends of the world” and “boundless sea and sky” proving that the Chinese government, since the Qing dynasty, did not recognised Hoang Sa (called Xisha by China) as its territory.-VNA

http://en.vietnamplus.vn/Home/Old-atlas-affirms-Vietnams-sovereignty-over-Hoang-Sa-Truong-Sa/20128/28234.vnplus

 

[Zero_wing]

Well they love more resources because the chinese are greedy f@cks stealing from allies and foe alike is not enough for them so they claim wholes seas next time they claim the whole world

 

[Eliter]

simple because it made in China look at the right bottom corner prints in Chinese

That Words was a Chinese reader take notes by himself who was studied Vietnamese language.

Vietnamese! Can you take me a official map was published by Vietnam(DRVN) before 1972 included Hoàng Sa and Trưong Sa?

you can't take them.That maps nothingness.

This official map was published by Vietnam(DRVN) Government 1966.
Everybody can't find Hoàng Sa and Trưong Sa.