Taiwan to boost forces in disputed Spratly Islands

[below_freezing]

At the end of the day, China is willing to use thermonuclear weapons to defend its thousand-year-old claims to the South China Sea. Who believes that the United States is willing to do the same? If not, the United States will have to back down and lose face in the final showdown over the South China Sea. Otherwise, everyone should get ready for World War III, global thermonuclear war.

Come on, talking about nukes with Vietnam is nonsense.

We are peaceful peoples who do not need to resort to war to persuade Vietnam to give back our islands.

Environmental accidents like cutting off Vietnam's water supply might happen though.

If we talk war, what separates us from animals like the US military?

China is a high class, civilized and honorable country. Whites that punch Chinese in the subway are merely held down and arrested by police. At worst, the Chinese fights back. Can you imagine if a Chinese punched a white in the New York subway? He would be lynched by a gang of skinheads on the spot! But nor are we white worshippers like certain Southeast Asian countries. If a white man punched someone in Vietnam what would happen?

 

[HongWu]

Some assert that Vietnam will be able to defeat China in a guerilla war. Let's examine the proposition.

It is true that America is not making any headway in Iraq or Afghanistan. While the locals are absorbing tremendous losses, after almost ten years, the Americans are no closer to achieving a victory against Iraqi insurgents or Afghan Talibans.

By analogy, Vietnamese nationalists argue that Vietnamese guerilla warfare will bog down the Chinese military. Does the analogy make sense? The answer is clearly "NO."

America is technologically powerful, but a soft country. It has a hammer, but lacks the will to use it. Unlike the United States, China will not follow American rules of engagement.

For the American soldier, you cannot shoot a male suspect unless you clearly see that he is holding a gun. This is called idiotic liberal doctrine that is guaranteed to ensure a loss in any war.

China follows Chinese rules. Chinese soldiers will shoot any Vietnamese male suspect first and ask questions later. This is a war, not a police action. Furthermore, China has observed the effects of American military strategy during the Vietnam War. If hostilities break out between Vietnam and China, I predict that China will start with three months of unrelenting "Rolling Thunder" and pulverize every military and strategic asset in Vietnam.

After Vietnam is on her knees, the PLA (backed with air power and attack helicopters) will swoop in and eliminate every potential Vietnamese male soldier or suspected soldier. If hostilities broke out in January, the war will be over by June. After China has devastated Vietnam, it will take the Vietnamese 50 years to rebuild.

I don't see how China's strategic position is disadvantaged by a Vietnam-China war. The downside is that China's global image takes a temporary dip. Aside from that, the Chinese military will have an excellent opportunity to test the effectiveness of inter-service cooperation. China may learn valuable lessons to improve its war machine.

In conclusion, though it may seem ironic, I agree with the Vietnamese nationalists that Vietnam and China should settle this border dispute once and for all. "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war."

The best way is to take Hanoi and Ho Chi Min and unleash "the three all's policy" 三光政策 in both cities. I wouldn't mind participating in the "festivities." There could be so many fun activities involving Chinese males and Vietnamese locals. I hear the flavor in Ho Chi Min is quite different from Hanoi.

 

[NiceGuy]

Come on, talking about nukes with Vietnam is nonsense.

We are peaceful peoples who do not need to resort to war to persuade Vietnam to give back our islands.

Environmental accidents like cutting off Vietnam's water supply might happen though.

If we talk war, what separates us from animals like the US military?

China is a high class, civilized and honorable country. Whites that punch Chinese in the subway are merely held down and arrested by police. At worst, the Chinese fights back. Can you imagine if a Chinese punched a white in the New York subway? He would be lynched by a gang of skinheads on the spot! But nor are we white worshippers like certain Southeast Asian countries. If a white man punched someone in Vietnam what would happen?

Yep, before threaten by Nuke boom , Just take a look again poor Chinese pocket, do they have enought money to buy such so high Oil price like that .^^.Why the powerful Gov can not drill more oil for them ??

 

[Martian2]

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.

Please ignore the revisionist excuses and convoluted re-interpretations offered by a mere Vietnamese researcher, Mr. Truong Nhan Tuan, to personally invalidate the statements and actions of the government of the DRV. Focus on the facts and the DRV statements.

The important point is that it is ridiculous for the Vietnamese government to pretend that its former admissions and acknowledgments of Chinese sovereignty over the Paracel Islands didn't happen because it is inconvenient for the current Vietnamese plan of grabbing territory from China. Out of their own mouths, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam agreed that the Paracel Islands belong to China. Here are the most important excerpts.

"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."

http://paracelspratlyislands.blogspot.com/...te-between.html

"The History of Sovereignty Dispute between Vietnam and China

21/12/2007
Nguyen An
Radio Free Asia

The issue of sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos is creating a lot of discussions among the Vietnamese people in as well as outside Vietnam. While Vietnam has established sovereignty over these archipelagos for a long time, other countries also declare their sovereignty as well. As for China, it not only uses military force to gradually take over a number of islands, but recently, it also decided to establish an administrative city to oversee these islands.

In order to contribute to a deeper understanding of the present situation, RFA Vietnamese reporter Nguyen An has had an exchange with the researcher Truong Nhan Tuan. He is presently living in France and is the author of the book entitled “Chinese and Vietnamese Borders, 1885-2000: History of development and disputes” published by Diem Chau Publishing Company. The book has 860 pages and is judged as a valuable work of research.

Geographical location and sovereignty

Nguyen An: Greetings to you Mr. Truong Nhan Tuan. The first question I would like to ask you is about the geographical location of the Paracel and Spratly islands. These two archipelagos are located in the Eastern Sea, but where are they in respect to China and Vietnam, the two countries who are disputing over sovereignty?

Truong Nhan Tuan: I would like to first extend my greetings to the RFA listeners. The distance from the Paracel islands to Hainan (China) and from the Paracel islands to Da Nang (Vietnam) is approximately equal. As for the Spratly islands, there are many countries involved in the dispute.

The Spratly archipelago lies to the South of Paracel islands. It is composed of very small islands scattered on the sea 500km wide, and E-W more than 1000km long. This means that it is very difficult to speak in terms of who is closest to these islands.

Nguyen An: Indeed, it is too spread out. Nevertheless, different from what most people think, there is not an issue of whichever country closest to the islands have the right to the islands?

Truong Nhan Tuan: This is an issue that we have to affirm.


Nguyen An: Returning to the main topic of our discussion today, which is sovereignty over the Spratly and Paracel archipelagos. Before 1975 Vietnam was divided at the 17th parallel. South Vietnam was called the Republic of Vietnam while the North was called the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Before 1975 how did the positions of the two sides differ with regards to China declaring sovereignty over both archipelagos.

Truong Nhan Tuan: There are many points of disagreement, which are the same issues that lead to the negative impact on Vietnam in the present. In the theory of national continuity we see that Vietnam has discovered, occupied, and carried out effective sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos since a very long time.

History books as well as historical maps of Vietnam have recorded clearly that long ago, people called these islands “Golden Sandbanks,” which was Hoang Sa, Van Ly Hoang Sa or Dai Truong Sa or Van Ly Truong Sa. These are the Vietnamese names for the islands. These localities and islands had been Vietnamese territories for a long period of time.

If we speak of sovereignty, we need to have historical evidence to prove our position. Vietnam indeed has many historical evidence. It is difficult to list all these now because of the lack of time. For example, our historical books from the 17th century had already mentioned of Vietnamese sovereignty over the Paracel islands.

Nguyen An: Do these evidence tell us that Vietnam has occupied and administered these islands since a long time ago?

Truong Nhan Tuan: Vietnam has administered and exploited these islands since a long time ago.

Dispute between Vietnam and China

Nguyen An: China also says that it has sovereignty. Does it provide evidence the same as the Republic of Vietnam?

Truong Nhan Tuan: This issue is somewhat complex. The evidence that China provides are evidence provided by [North Vietnam], for example….

Nguyen An: You mean from the side of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam at that time.

Truong Nhan Tuan: Yes. There is a somewhat weighty piece of evidence that China makes use of.

Nguyen An: Can you explain more clearly about the evidence made use by China provided by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam?

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. But I would like to open a parenthesis right here to say that we don’t know what history books Ung Van Khiem was reading, because all our history books before that never had the names Tay Sa and Nam Sa.

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. 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.

Diplomatic Note of Pham Van Dong

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. Nevertheless, this fact does not mean that Chinese sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos has been proven.

The issue is like this. Based on the theory of national continuity, which is the issue of inheritance, we see that inheritance lies with the Republic of Vietnam (S. Vietnam). On 6/4/1975 the Temporary Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam declared liberation of the Spratly islands.

By September 1975, the Temporary Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam in its meeting regarding meteorological stations in Colombo also declared that the Paracel islands belonged to Vietnam and ordered for the obtaining of weather information to be continued on the Paracel islands.

Based on this data, on the perspective of inheritance, and on the theory of national continuity, the entity that took over from the Republic of Vietnam never delcared the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos as belonging to China.

At the same time, the declarations made by officials in the DRV, in my opinion, are made without due authority. They can be said as merely personal opinions. We cannot say that these are opinions of the country of Vietnam.

China, being a strong opponent would certainly make use of these things, and call them evidence. Unfortunately, the Vietnamese government has not found a way to go against them because it puts the Vietnamese leadership in a very difficult position. But how it turns out in the end is still an open issue.

Nguyen An: Thank you Mr. Truong Nhan Tuan"

 

[Martian2]

"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."

Pham Van Dong Biography

"Born March 1, 1906
Quang Ngai province, Vietnam

Premier of North Vietnam, 1955–75, and of the reunited Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 1975–86

Pham Van Dong served as the premier of North Vietnam both before and during the Vietnam War. He was recognized as one of three most powerful leaders of North Vietnam during these years, along with Ho Chi Minh (see entry) and General Vo Nguyen Giap (see entry). In fact, these three men were sometimes referred to as the "iron triangle." When Ho died in 1969, Pham Van Dong emerged as the main spokesman for the Communist government of North Vietnam. After North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam and reunited the two halves of the country in 1975, Pham Van Dong served another decade as premier of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam."

Pham Van Dong Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Pham Van Dong

"Pham Van Dong

Encyclopedia of World Biography | 2004 | COPYRIGHT 2004 The Gale Group Inc.

Pham Van Dong

Pham Van Dong (born 1906) was the longtime Hanoi premier, first in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) government and then, after reunification in 1976, of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) government. He was considered to be one of the members of the inner "circle of five" top political power holders in Vietnam.

Pham Van Dong, a charter member of the Indochinese Communist Party in 1930, distinguished himself over the years primarily as administrator and organizer of thegovernment bureaucracy (as opposed to the party bureaucracy). Much of his career success was traceable to the fact that he early associated with Ho Chi Minh and served him well, always seeking to emulate Ho's dedication and zeal but in a loyal and self-deprecating manner so as never to upstage Ho. To this Ho reciprocated by publicly calling Dong "my best nephew" and "my alter ego." Indeed, the two did work well as a team, in the marriage of Ho's organizational skill with Dong's managerial ability. They also shared a common philosophic outlook that put pragmatism over ideology.

In many ways Dong was a typical first generation Asian revolutionary: that is, a well-educated member of the upper class who early in life was moved to political activism by nationalist sentiment. His background was Mandarin, which means he was born into affluence and raised in a Confucian tradition of strong cultural value placed on intellectual superiority rather than social origin as the proper basis forgovernment, education, and behavior in life in general . His radicalization was in spite of, not because of, his early years. However, there were alternate political roads that Dong could have traveled, various nationalist movements which were in fact larger and more attractive than Stalinism. Dong apparently chose Marxism-Leninism as the proper outlet for his political energies not because of the inherent appeal of Marxist thought but because of the influence of the personality of Ho Chi Minh.

Dong was born March 1, 1906, in Mo Duc village of Quang Ngai province in Central Vietnam. His father was a high ranking official in the Imperial Court in Hue and served as court secretary to Emperor Duy Tan. The emperor was deposed by the French in 1916 for being too nationalistic, which also resulted in loss of status for Dong's father and probably began his alienation from the existing colonial arrangement.

Student Activist Turned Revolutionary

Dong received a good French lycee education in Hue. In 1925 he enrolled in the University of Hanoi and soon ran into trouble with the authorities by leading a student strike during the funeral of Phan Chu Trinh, a famed nationalist leader. Within a year he was expelled and left for Canton,China, where he spent a year at the Chinese Nationalist run Whampoa Military Academy, met Ho Chi Minh, and joined Ho's proto-communist revolutionary movement, the Vietnam Revolutionary Youth League (Thanh Nien).

From Revolutionary Prisoner to Guerrilla Warrior

Ho sent Dong back to Hanoi in 1927 to do revolutionary organizational work. Dong was subsequently arrested by the French and jailed at Poulo Condore, Vietnam's famed prison island. He remained there from 1929 to 1936 when a new government in France ordered general amnesty for political prisoners in French colonial jails. Dong resumed organizational work in Hanoi and Saigon for three years, then fled to China to escape the 1939 roundup of Vietnamese leftists came with the start of World War II. In 1941 he joined Ho and others at the China border for the conference which created the Viet Minh league, the united front organization (and guerrilla force) that was to lead the struggle against French colonialism.

When the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) was formed in 1945 Dong was named its first finance minister. In the late 1950s he returned to his home province of Quang Ngai and took field command of a guerrilla force about which little is known. Also during this time he was involved in the bloody purge of non-communist nationalists from Viet Minh ranks, a dark episode for which he was never forgiven by many early Vietnamese nationalist revolutionaries. In 1951 he was named vice premier. In 1954 he became acting foreign minister and was sent to Geneva as the head of the DRV delegation to the Geneva Conference that ended the Viet Minh war. In 1955 he was named premier , a post he continued to hold until December 1986. Over the years Dong held other important governmental posts such as vice chairman of the National Defense Council, member of the National Assembly, and, within party ranks, member of the all-powerful Politburo.

International Negotiator and Party Organizer

During the Vietnam War Dong's central task was to mobilize material support for the war effort. This involved organization of the general population of North Vietnam, working through the mechanism of the National Assembly, and efforts abroad to assure the necessary flow of arms from socialist countries. He made frequent trips outside the country and is said to have been particularly effective in dealing with the former U.S.S.R.

After the end of the war in 1975 Dong concentrated his energies on the nation-building task, particularly on the vastly ambitious "district building" reorganizational effort that sought to eliminate the village in Vietnam and replace it with the giant agroville at the district level. He continued to pursue tirelessly a heavy schedule of public events. For months on end he averaged a speech or more a week, chiefly involving education or technical training activities, in between attending a variety of semisocial activities such as diplomatic receptions and tree planting ceremonies.

Dong also continued trips abroad. He was probably the most travelled member of the ruling Politburo and certainly had longer experience in diplomatic negotiations than any other Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) official. In later years his external activities in the international arena tended to be goodwill visits rather than tough negotiations. He was believed by many to have remained the dominant influence on SRV foreign policy, superior to Foreign Minister Nguyen Co Thach.

Dong's personality was described by those who knew him or worked closely with him as sophisticated, self-assured, and somewhat imperious. He was said to have been highly articulate and a smooth diplomatic negotiator.

Defeated by Poor Health and Economy

Dong was known to have suffered from tuberculosis in early life. In the 1980s his health began to deteriorate. He was not seen in public as often as he once was, and his travel abroad was curtailed. Reportedly he had a heart pacemaker implanted in mid-1979 by surgeons in Moscow, and he returned there again in 1982 for extensive medical treatment of an unknown nature. In late December, 1986, at the Sixth Party Congress in Hanoi, Dong resigned as premier because of "advanced age and bad health." He was one of the last top members of the Politburo to have led the Communist defeat of the Japanese, the French, and finally the United States' soldiers in war.

In addition to his failing health, growing impatience over the country's long economic crisis was felt to have prompted his resignation along with two other top officicals, General Secretary Truong Chinh (79) and Politburo member Le Duc Tho (76). In an interview with Time magazine in November 1985, Dong emphasized that economic development to rebuild the country was the government's primary task. Newsweek also later quoted him as saying, "Waging war is simple, but running a country is very difficult." His war record was far more impressive than his success in improving economic conditions, which had reached a crisis stage when he stepped down. Vietnam could ill afford its invasion of Cambodia in 1978, and the continued engagement had adversely affected the already strained economy. Some speculated that Dong's willingness (in 1985) to discuss the long unresolved MIA dispute with the United States was prompted by the economic turmoil.

Little is known about Dong's private life. He was married late, when he was about 40, to a 20-year-old girl who, according to some reports, was later confined to an institution with mental illness, or, according to other reports, died. They are believed to have had two children, a boy and a girl. Dong was never known to have discussed his personal life with foreigners.

Further Reading

There are no full length biographies of Pham Van Dong available in English. His various writings make autobiographical references from which the facts of his life can be pieced together. A short biographical sketch was written by the French scholar Jean Lacouture in The New York Times Sunday Magazine (May 19, 1968). See also a short biography in the Baltimore Sun (September 12, 1967). The basic collection of his writings in English, published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House, Hanoi, in 1977, is titled Pham Van Dong: Selected Writings and contains six of his major articles written between 1954 and 1977. He also published a biography in English, President Ho Chi Minh (Hanoi, 1960). Dong published at least nine other books in Vietnamese between 1945 and 1985, which are mostly collections of his articles, speeches, and interviews. Periodical articles including information on Pham Van Dong are: Newsweek (December 29, 1986), Time (November 11 and 25, 1985), Scholastic Update (March 29, 1985), and The New Yorker (November 1985). □"

 

[Martian2]

1. China discovered and claimed the South China Sea islands and territory. Chinese burial grounds and remains (archeological evidence) and Chinese artifacts dating back over a thousand years are irrefutable proof.

2. China has a historical written record claiming the South China Sea. The Tang Dynasty written record is an example.

3. Vietnam leaders have admitted in writing that China rightfully owns the South China Sea.

4. China sits on the U.N. Security Council as a permanent member and it has the military power to back up its historical claims to the South China Sea.

This is a slam dunk case. There is no wiggle room. South China Sea islands and territory belong to China.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

So, you should Read more about Uncloss , you will understand why. I can not explain in English, sorry.^^.

Phillipin Gov did not discover any Island in Sparty, you can ask your Gov if it's true or not. Only Viet Nam and China say having envidence to discover Spratly Islands..But VN envidence is winning .

Don't tell that Vietnam's sailing technology was ahead of China in the ancient time.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Yep, before threaten by Nuke boom , Just take a look again poor Chinese pocket, do they have enought money to buy such so high Oil price like that .^^.Why the powerful Gov can not drill more oil for them ??

That's why we gonna start to drill for more oil in our South China Sea in this coming July.

 

[gpit]

So, you should Read more about Uncloss , you will understand why. I can not explain in English, sorry.^^.

Phillipin Gov did not discover any Island in Sparty, you can ask your Gov if it's true or not. Only Viet Nam and China say having envidence to discover Spratly Islands..But VN envidence is winning .

Vietnam is discoveried by China, per history book.

Do you have written evidence that you discovered Vietnam?

 

[gpit]

Yep, before threaten by Nuke boom , Just take a look again poor Chinese pocket, do they have enought money to buy such so high Oil price like that .^^.Why the powerful Gov can not drill more oil for them ??

A funny frog now questions Chinese government money?

I guess China can buy half Vietnam if it is not a full one.

If poverty is the reason, Vietnam is more suspicious in initiating the conflict.

This cranky boy's logic is so twisted.

 

[LetsGetRowdy]

I wonder if Vietnam can get a piece of the pie if we side with China and Taiwan against the Philippines? I am not stupid to believe we can defend the islands from the Chinese if they decided to go on the offensive. I rather Vietnam get something then to lose everything.

 

[Martian2]

People in the Philippines are having the same thoughts of cooperation with China. Provoking the Dragon is a dead-end foreign policy.

Let

"Let’s be realistic: We can never beat China
By Ramon Tulfo
Philippine Daily Inquirer
9:18 pm | Monday, June 6th, 2011

The government should adopt the position of former President Fidel V. Ramos on our confrontation with China over the Spratlys.

Ramos says we should not be confrontational in threshing out problems with China over our claim to the group of islands off Palawan.

The Cold War is over and China should no longer be considered an enemy but an economic partner, says the former President.

Let’s listen to Ramos, an Army veteran who fought in Korea in the 1950s as a lieutenant. In a war with China, we would certainly lose since we have a weak Armed Forces.

If we can’t lick them, let’s join them.

That’s not cowardice, that’s being practical."

----------

U.N. guidelines on sea boundaries do not apply to South China Sea territory that Vietnam leaders, including the Premier, have already acknowledged as Chinese territory.

Historical and physical evidence (e.g. human remains and artifacts) have proven that South China Sea has always been Chinese. This is corroborated by Chinese historical records throughout many dynasties.

----------

1. China has designated South China Sea as a core interest. This means that China is willing to go to war over South China Sea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/world/asia/24navy.html
"Apr 23, 2010 ... It was the first time the Chinese labeled the South China Sea a core interest, on par with Taiwan and Tibet, the official said. ..."

2. When it comes to the United States invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the world does not intervene. When Russia annexes 20% of U.N. member Georgia, the world watches. When China deals with Vietnam, the world will also just watch.

 

[hhhh]

1. China discovered and claimed the South China Sea islands and territory. Chinese burial grounds and remains (archeological evidence) and Chinese artifacts dating back over a thousand years are irrefutable proof.

Hey, have u lost ur mind?

Look at 大清帝国全图 1909 =)) =)) Tell me where the southernmost of your country is? Is that Hainan Island??? Over thousand years? Oh, you really got high education. Without fact and science, your brain was kindly forged by your government.

2. China has a historical written record claiming the South China Sea. The Tang Dynasty written record is an example.

Show me what the hell it is! Haha, never show me smt funny like some crazy map without any exact coordinates and without proper reference.

3. Vietnam leaders have admitted in writing that China rightfully owns the South China Sea.

Haha, if you have enough knowledge to understand this text and historical background

On September 4, 1958 Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai declared to the world China’s decision regarding the 12 nautical mile territorial waters from mainland China, which also included a map clearly depicting sea borders and sea territories (which also included the two archipelagos Paracel and Spratly or Hoang Sa and Truong Sa).

Prime Minister Pham Van Dong representing the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) affirmed this declaration from China regarding Chinese ownership of the archipelagos in the Eastern Sea (South China Sea). The diplomatic note was written on September 14 and was publicized on Nhan Dan newspaper on September 22, 1958.

The content of the letter is as follows:

We would like to inform you so that you may be clear that the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam has noted and support the September 4, 1958 declaration by the People’s Republic of China regarding territorial waters of China. The government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision and will direct the proper government agencies to respect absolutely the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of China in all dealings with the People’s Republic of China on the sea. We would like to send our sincere regards.


Analysis in Modern Journal:

The above declaration is not valid because before 1975, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) did not control these islands. At that time, these islands were under the control of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) who always asserted Vietnamese sovereignty over these two archipelagos. The Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Vietnam also made no declaration that jeopardized this sovereignty. According to the lawyer and author Monique Chemillier-Gendreau:
“In this context, declarations or any viewpoints given by the North Vietnamese government is not effective when it comes to sovereignty. This was not a government that had authority over these archipelagos. One may not renounce what one has no authority over….”

A second reason from a legal perspective is that at that time North Vietnam was not a party in the conflict. Before 1975, the countries and territories involved in the conflict included: China, Taiwan, South Vietnam, and the Philippines. Therefore, declarations made by North Vietnam may be seen as declarations of a third party, which had no effect on the conflict itself.

Supposing that the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North) and the Republic of Vietnam (South) were one country, then based on international law, this declaration is also invalid. However, some has espoused the doctrine of “estoppel” in order to argue that this declaration has validity and Vietnam cannot go back on its words.

According to international law, there is no other legal bar that creates obligation for those who make unilateral declaration other than “estoppel”. Estoppel is a principle in which a country cannot say or do in contrast to what was said or done before. In other words, “one cannot at the same time blow hot and cold.” However, estoppel does not mean that a country is obligated to whatever it declares.

The estoppel doctrine had its beginning in English law, and was later brought into international law. The main purpose is to prevent countries from benefitting from its dishonest actions, and hurting other countries. Therefore, estoppel must meet the following criteria:

1. The declaration or action must be taken by a representative of a country in a clear and unequivocal manner.

2. The country that claims “estoppel” must prove that based on that declaration or action, there are actions or inactions being carried out by that country which constitutes “reliance”, as is called in English and American law.

3. The country claiming “estoppel” also has to prove that based on the declaration of the other country, it has suffered damage, or that the other country has benefitted when making that declaration.

4. Some judgments demand that this declaration must be made in a continous manner over time.

In addition, if the declaration has the characteristic of a promise, which means that the country declares that it will or will not do something, it must have true intention of wanting to be obligated by that promise, and truly wants to execute that promise.

The estoppel doctrine has many precedents in international courts and countries who have made certain declarations have found to not be obligated to follow them because not all the conditions are met.

Applying these criteria of estoppel to the declaration of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, we can see that conditions 2 and 3 are missing. In the years 1956, 1958, and 1965, China did not have any attitude or make any changes in its attitude based on North Vietnam’s declaration. China also cannot prove that it suffered damage for relying on that declaration. North Vietnam did not benefit in any way from making that declaration. At that time, Vietnam and China saw themselves as close comrades and friends. The declaration made by PM Pham Van Dong was based on that friendship. Moreover, the wording of the declaration does not clearly and unequivocally affirm Chinese ownership of the Paracel Islands. The letter only states: “The government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision (the decision to determine the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of China), and will direct the proper government agencies to respect absolutely the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of China….”

The declaration of PM Pham Van Dong may also be understood as a unilateral promise, a declaration of intention. In fact, this is a promise to respect the decision of China in its determination of sea territories, and a promise to order national agencies to respect Chinese territories.

If it is a mere promise, then it is even more difficult to obligate a country to follow that promise. The International Court has provided one more condition to make a promise obligatory: the true intention of the country making that promise. That is, whether that country really wants to be obligated to its promise or not. In order to determine this intention, the court examines every event surrounding the declaration, to see in what context and circumstances was the declaration made. Moreover, if the court sees that the country can obligate itself through signing agreements with the other country, then the declaration is not needed, and the court will conclude that the country making the declaration does not truly want to be obligated to that declaration. Therefore, the declaration does not have an obligatory characteristic.

In this case, when PM Pham Van Dong declared that Vietnam will respect Chinese sea territories, he did not intend to speak of ownership of the Paracel and Spratly Islands. He made this declaration in urgent circumstances, in which the war with the United States was escalating, American Fleet 7 was carrying out activites on the Taiwan Strait threatening China. He had to immediately voice support of China in order to counter against American threat.

The 1965 declaration of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was in the same manner. The motivation for that declaration was an urgent situation of danger in Vietnam. This is a declaration that has political not legal characteristics.

Even the condition of making declaration continuously and over time is not satisfied when it comes to the three declarations of North Vietnam. Estoppel doctrine is only applied if we consider North Vietnam and The Socialist Republic of Vietnam as one; and even France during the colonial period, and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) as the same entity as the present Vietnam. If we consider the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) as a separate country, then estoppel cannot be applied because, as stated above, the declaration will be seen as a declaration made by a country that does not have authority over territories being disputed. Therefore, if Vietnam is seen as one single entity from history until the present, then the three declarations made by North Vietam are only statements that carry political meaning during wartimes, compared to the attitude and viewpoint of Vietnam in general from the 17th century until the present.

In summary, the declaration that we are analyzing is missing many factors that allow for estoppel to be applied. The factors of reliance and intention are very significant. If the reliance factor does not exist in order to limit the application of estoppel, countries will be prevented in making their foreign policies. They will be forced to follow out-dated ways to execute their foreign policies. When conditions change, the foreign policy of the other country changes, the foreign policy of this country must also change. It is normal for countries to be friends one moment and then turn into enemies the next.

As for unilateral promises without true intention of following, they are no more than empty promises, similar to those of politicans and candidates in political elections. In the international arena, the principle of sovereignty is very important. Outside international procedures and the articles of Jus Congens, there is no law that obligates a country contrary to its wishes, when it is not causing damage to another country. Therefore, the intention of the country has a decisive role in determining obligation of a unilateral promise.

Remember that your government never showed this note to claim Paracels and Spratlys. Why? Because it's an useless paper. No more?

4. China sits on the U.N. Security Council as a permanent member and it has the military power to back up its historical claims to the South China Sea.

This is a slam dunk case. There is no wiggle room. South China Sea islands and territory belong to China.

Hic hic, finally, you showed what u guys only have. Your military power is constrained by geopolitical powers such as Russia, Japan, India and the U.S. A

Vietnam has drilled and taken millions of barrel of oil in East Sea (south china sea in Vietnamese) within Vietnamese EEZ. What happened to your great power? Poor China !!!

Remember: no other country tolerate Chinese greed that she can claim more than 80% of East Sea. Open your eyes and broaden your view, short-sighted!

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I wonder if Vietnam can get a piece of the pie if we side with China and Taiwan against the Philippines? I am not stupid to believe we can defend the islands from the Chinese if they decided to go on the offensive. I rather Vietnam get something then to lose everything.

I respect Vietnam more than Philippines who is just a 100% banana state installed by USA.

If the nature of ASEAN is not Anti-China, then it wouldn't have so many conflicts.

I wonder when ASEAN could stop buying those Anti-China from the West?

 

[NiceGuy]

I wonder if Vietnam can get a piece of the pie if we side with China and Taiwan against the Philippines? I am not stupid to believe we can defend the islands from the Chinese if they decided to go on the offensive. I rather Vietnam get something then to lose everything.

Are you Vnese ??all of these Islands belong to our forefather, and now will belong to VN, no share, if VN Gov think like you, they will be kick out by people.

We only can sell oil to China, share the EEZ under international law, that all.