Vietnam acknowledged Chinese sovereignty over South China Sea in 1958

[akittya]

A declaration is also a proposal.

Each government's response for a declaration is very serious . representatives of the Attending countries is only authorized discussed the agenda of issues. Your declare is simply not the agenda, so they did not need and no the right respond to your declare. so they all is no comment for your declare .
this is why i say you use a amendments result compare with your unilateral declaration results is very absurd.

Who else could it be but Viet Nam and France as original authority and sovereign power? If I stole from you and admit to the police that I will give up the item, do I need to spell it out in front of the judge your name? Of course not. Everyone would know who the item would go to: YOU.

French invasion Chinese these islands, they only control these islands ,as south VietNam control these islands , invasion can not produce sovereignty under international law, , France not sovereignty over these islands, South Vietnam also cant get sovereignty from France.

north Vietnam (become current government ) 1958 note and 1965 statement in fact show you government Hold the same view Continued about 20 years. so they admit these islands is belong to china.

why your govermment change idea ,The most reasonable explanation is find oil in the south china sea .is oil make you change.
if a Continued about 20 years admit can be Legal Erase，the world will be hell broke loose, and full of territorial disputes.

 

[gambit]

Each government's response for a declaration is very serious . representatives of the Attending countries is only authorized discussed the agenda of issues. Your declare is simply not the agenda, so they did not need and no the right respond to your declare. so they all is no comment for your declare .
this is why i say you use a amendments result compare with your unilateral declaration results is very absurd.

In a business contract or a treaty, a non-response is the same thing as consent (agreement). Why is it so hard for you to understand that a contract or a treaty is a document that governs certain behaviors under certain conditions? So if no one object to certain things to be inserted into the document, those things become laws. This is so freaking simple to understand.

French invasion Chinese these islands, they only control these islands ,as south VietNam control these islands , invasion can not produce sovereignty under international law, , France not sovereignty over these islands, South Vietnam also cant get sovereignty from France.

France never claimed sovereignty. They only claimed authority. And they can assign custodial responsibilities to anyone they want. Do you not see the differences between 'sovereignty', 'authority', and 'custodial rights and responsibilities'? Looks like not.

north Vietnam (become current government ) 1958 note and 1965 statement in fact show you government Hold the same view Continued about 20 years. so they admit these islands is belong to china.

Wrong...The North Vietnamese 1958 letter to China was not about the Paracels and Spratlys but about Taiwan.

See post 322... http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...er-south-china-sea-1958-a-22.html#post1972156

 

[akittya]

In a business contract or a treaty, a non-response is the same thing as consent (agreement). Why is it so hard for you to understand that a contract or a treaty is a document that governs certain behaviors under certain conditions? So if no

one object

to certain things to be inserted into the document, those things become laws. This is so freaking simple to understand.

representatives of the Attending countries is only authorized discussed the agenda of issues. Your declare is simply not the agenda, so they did not need and no the right respond to your declare. so they all is no comment .Simple logic, nothing difficult to understand. Do not impose your ideas to them.
isnt "no one object " and isnt "no one admit " ,the fact is "no comment " ,dont make you own word . they no right say admit or object for your declare

France never claimed sovereignty. They only claimed authority. And they can assign custodial responsibilities to anyone they want. Do you not see the differences between 'sovereignty', 'authority', and 'custodial rights and responsibilities'? Looks like not.

it only mean France invasion and control these islands . invasion can not produce sovereignty under international law.

Wrong...The North Vietnamese 1958 letter to China was not about the Paracels and Spratlys but about Taiwan.

The Democratic Republic of Vietnam's Government agreed to terms of China's public statment in 9-4-1958 about China's sea territory claim.The Democratic Republic of Vietnam Government respect it, and will direct all Agencies to absolute 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.

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.

white and black ,You can not deny.check the red word.

 

[gambit]

representatives of the Attending countries is only authorized discussed the agenda of issues. Your declare is simply not the agenda, so they did not need and no the right respond to your declare. so they all is no comment .Simple logic, nothing difficult to understand. Do not impose your ideas to them.
not "no one object " and no "no one admit " ,the fact is "no comment " ,dont make you own word . they no right say admit or object for your declare

There is only so much ways to explain things to simpletons. If you never had experience in business contracts, there is nothing more anyone can say.

it only mean France invasion and control these islands . invasion can not produce sovereignty under international law.

And France never claimed sovereignty.

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



white and black ,You can not deny.check the red word.

What is black and white is the fact that BEFORE you can accept something from someone, you must ascertain if the person has any legitimacy to give in the first place. Let me put it in a way your simple mind can understand...

If I say to you: 'I give YOU that Rolls Royce over there.' A Rolls is a very expensive car. Only millionaires can afford it. So before you can drive the Rolls away, you must be sure that I have the authority to give you that car. The best way to do that is for me to be the owner of the Rolls. Then you can drive it away.

The problem here is what make you believe that North Viet Nam was the rightful authority of these islands to agree to anything China claim?

 

[gambit]

What I suggested you to look at is: If Vietnam has sovereignty over the two archipelgos, then Vietnam must have all of these:

* territorial integrity
* border inviolability
* supremacy of the state
* a sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction

over those islands. Unfortunately, not ...

You pulled those items from the Internet without a clue of what they mean and how they interact with each other. So am going to simplify those principles so you can learn something...

Say your house is on fire. I jumped the fence and try to slow the fire's progress. Then I broke down the door and entered your house to wake you up. I violated your 'territorial integrity' without any authorization from anyone, least of all from you. So going by your simplistic argument did you lost your sovereignty over your house? Then the fire department arrived and prevented you from going back to your property so they can do their jobs. They took control away from you. So going by your simplistic argument did you lost sovereignty of your house again? The answer is no to both.

Say because of bad business decisions and bad luck you incurred a large debt. The bank took your house as collateral for that debt. The bank now stripped sovereignty from you. Did any 'territorial integrity' violation by the bank occurred? No. But by certain agreements between you, the bank, and some laws, you lost sovereignty without anyone touching your property. The bank can eject you from ITS property or the bank can allow to live in the house. If the bank allow you to live in ITS house, the bank WILL severely restrict you from doing things to the house. For fear of a fire, the bank may not even allow you to light the fireplace. The bank may not allow you to put up a picture on the wall because of nail damage. On the other hand, the bank cannot prevent you from coming and going as you please. The bank cannot prevent you from inviting guess or prevent people from going onto the property. In other words, the bank has sovereignty of the property but you have 'authority' and 'custodial rights and responsibilities'.

Get it?

I recommend this book that I have in my little library...

Amazon.com: Politics Among Nations (9780072895391): Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Thompson, David Clinton: Books

Chapter 19 deals with the definition and workings of the concept 'sovereignty' in these four arguments...

1. The location of sovereignty depends upon a dual test: (a) in what respects is the government of the state legally controlled by another government? and (b) which government actually performs governmental functions within the territory of the state?

2. The location of sovereignty is a matter of political judgment as well as of legal interpretation.

3. The location of sovereignty may be in temporary suspense if the actual distribution of power within a territory remains unsettled.

4. Sovereignty over the same territory cannot reside simultaneously in two different authorities; that is, sovereignty is indivisible.

Arguments 1 and 2 is best exampled by the US invasion and takeover of Iraq...

At Odds Over Iraqi 'Sovereignty' - TIME

The proposed deal is controversial both in Washington — where Democrats see it as a move to tie the hands of the next U.S. President, and are pressing for it to be subject to congressional approval — and also in Baghdad, where many Iraqi leaders fear that they're being asked to sign away their sovereignty. Negotiators for both sides emphasize that respect for Iraqi sovereignty will be the basis of any deal. But they don't appear to mean the same things by "sovereignty." Differences over the extent of control the Iraqi government would have over the deployment and activities of U.S. military forces on their territory has cast a shadow over prospects for an imminent deal. "These are negotiations between two sovereign parties," said a senior U.S. official in Baghdad, "each of which has the ability to say yes, or to say no."

Still, despite the official transfer of sovereignty on June 28, 2004, the extent of control wielded by the Iraqi government over security forces operating in its own country has been highly questionable.

How arguments 1 and 2 are applicable is clear: Since part of sovereignty is making political decisions, aka 'laws', that are applicable throughout the land by a single authority figure, the US, despite not wanting to take Iraq as part of a territorial expansion plan in the ME, has so much veto power over Iraqi political decision making processes that Iraqi sovereignty was in danger of being completely transferred to the US. Violation of territorial integrity alone does not lose Iraqi sovereignty but coupled with overwhelming US political intrusions, the Iraqis were in danger of losing it.

Arguments 3 and 4 are perfectly applicable to Viet Nam regarding the Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa islands. The 1954 Geneva Conference recognizes that unless there is a clear but temporary division of authority and custodial rights and responsibilities in Viet Nam, peace cannot happen. Or so the delegates hope that peace will happen with that division. So by dividing the country at the 17th parallel, sovereignty is indivisible in the north and indivisible in the south.

North Viet Nam cannot tell South Viet Nam what to do south of the 17th.

South Viet Nam cannot tell North Viet Nam what to do north of the 17th.

They can violate each other's territorial integrity but as long as either resisted said violations, no one loses sovereignty over his territory. So in reality, as long as there are Vietnamese in power over Vietnamese territories, no matter how divided the land and the people, Vietnamese sovereignty over all of Viet Nam is preserved until that distribution of power problem is resolved, which happened in 1975.

The Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa islands's sovereignty were returned to Viet Nam in the 1951 Peace Treaty with Japan by a 'no objection' consensus. They were assigned to South Viet Nam by the 1954 Geneva Conference designed to promote peace in a civil war. So from 1954 to 1975, North Viet Nam never had the authority to do anything to the islands. China can make all the claims she want and North Viet Nam can even openly agree to those claims and it would mean nothing.

 

[Nestea]

representatives of the Attending countries is only authorized discussed the agenda of issues. Your declare is simply not the agenda, so they did not need and no the right respond to your declare. so they all is no comment .Simple logic, nothing difficult to understand. Do not impose your ideas to them.
isnt "no one object " and isnt "no one admit " ,the fact is "no comment " ,dont make you own word . they no right say admit or object for your declare
it only mean France invasion and control these islands . invasion can not produce sovereignty under international law.





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



white and black ,You can not deny.check the red word.

Law of the jungle in the world, power is justice. If Gaddafi can be guilty of crimes against humanity, then George W. Bush launched the naked aggression against Iraq can be directly sent to The Hague is not? Accept the trial for crimes against humanity? The answer is no. Chinese Government's foreign policy is one word: drag, China needs at least two years to complete Rise of Nations, until 2020-2025, when China's economy will overtake the U.S. as the J20, 095,096, CV, CVN , DF-21D, DF-31/41 a large number of new large-scale equipment service, China's military power will dominate Asia, the overwhelming U.S. military influence in the Asia Pacific.

Valuable than the South China Sea islands and reefs that no one but the sea of oil and gas and fishery resources. Now, if the use of force to regain the Nansha Islands, only to meet the national vanity, can not achieve any economic benefits, but will bring a great international impact, but man these reefs far from the mainland of China is still a burden. So in the meantime, China is to rely on fisheries, maritime surveillance and other non-military forces to take driving oil and gas exploration ship, a large number of cross-border seizure of foreign fishing vessels and other measures to force other countries not in the Kau-line oil and gas exploration and fishing, and to the Nansha hinterland of the frame, step by step well, put fishing boats, but also the strength of China's powerful backing of air and sea, South China Sea, other countries can only look on in despair. Nansha true until after a Chinese sphere of influence, through the interception of supply ships and aircraft of other countries, cut off their supply lines, forcing the garrison can only choose to leave or starve to death!

China now is the development time, and South China Sea, other countries see China's rise, only uneasy, want to provoke the South China Sea disputes, the South China Sea International legalized, to fish in troubled waters, maintain a vested interest since the purpose. So China is now to do but not that hard, after all, we or our, this is only a matter of time, the South China Sea Xiao Louluo only playing lip service only.

So please akittya stop and argue that Vietnam monkeys (including the topic of the Southern Yue Yi), they can not change anything more than taking the fact that they can only be comforted by this, so they continue to call out, to masturbation!

 

[Peter]

Wrong...The North Vietnamese 1958 letter to China was not about the Paracels and Spratlys but about Taiwan.

See post 322... http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...er-south-china-sea-1958-a-22.html#post1972156

Wrong...The North Vietnamese 1958 letter to China was about the Paracels, Spratlys, Taiwan and all of China's coastal islands.


See post 324... http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...er-south-china-sea-1958-a-22.html#post1972274

 

[gambit]

Wrong...The North Vietnamese 1958 letter to China was about the Paracels, Spratlys, Taiwan and all of China's coastal islands.


See post 324... http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-...er-south-china-sea-1958-a-22.html#post1972274

And both letters are worthless...

 

[Peter]

You pulled those items from the Internet without a clue of what they mean and how they interact with each other. So am going to simplify those principles so you can learn something...

Please do, can't wait to read your childish argument agian and again ...

Say your house is on fire. I jumped the fence and try to slow the fire's progress. Then I broke down the door and entered your house to wake you up. I violated your 'territorial integrity' without any authorization from anyone, least of all from you. So going by your simplistic argument did you lost your sovereignty over your house?

No, because I am still the owner of the house and you're not there to stay and decide what to do with my house .. duh! You're still a neighbour - no more no less.

Then the fire department arrived and prevented you from going back to your property so they can do their jobs. They took control away from you. So going by your simplistic argument did you lost sovereignty of your house again? The answer is no to both.

Dude ... just wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something huh hehehee...

The fire department arrived and prevented you from going back to your property so they can do their jobs. What are their jobs? To SAVE my house for me. Got it!? My House not yours ... and when they are done with their jobs, I am still a owner of my house!

Of course, the answer is NO to both questions - but you forget something; that is, those violations are appropriate-n-necessary to save my house in which I have "sovereignty over it. It is different from stripping my "sovereignty over it for good - let's say you're now taking over it and own it, for instance. After the fire incident, I am still having these:

* territorial integrity
* border inviolability
* supremacy of the state
* a sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction

over it, my-house. BTW, I can sue you for broke down my door - if I wish to - for you had trespassed my property.

Therefore, your simplistic view reflect your childish thinking is no doubt. Thank you for your amusing lecture, dear Gambit

Say because of bad business decisions and bad luck you incurred a large debt. The bank took your house as collateral for that debt. The bank now stripped sovereignty from you. Did any 'territorial integrity' violation by the bank occurred? No. But by certain agreements between you, the bank, and some laws, you lost sovereignty without anyone touching your property. The bank can eject you from ITS property or the bank can allow to live in the house. If the bank allow you to live in ITS house, the bank WILL severely restrict you from doing things to the house. For fear of a fire, the bank may not even allow you to light the fireplace. The bank may not allow you to put up a picture on the wall because of nail damage. On the other hand, the bank cannot prevent you from coming and going as you please. The bank cannot prevent you from inviting guess or prevent people from going onto the property. In other words, the bank has sovereignty of the property but you have 'authority' and 'custodial rights and responsibilities'.

Get it?

Get what? You've conditioned a scenerio that is apparently inappropriate for the discussion of "sovereignty" as of a country. In the U.S., if you have not paid up for your house, then the bank owns it - not you, so strictly speaking you're just a renter. However, if you already paid off for the house, then dare the bank to eject you out of your house, won't allow you to light the fire place or put up a picture on the wall etc ... duh!

A country is not like a house that own by the bank, but own by its people. Get it?

I recommend this book that I have in my little library...

Amazon.com: Politics Among Nations (9780072895391): Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Thompson, David Clinton: Books

Chapter 19 deals with the definition and workings of the concept 'sovereignty' in these four arguments...

C'mon, Gambit - you are criticized me over the items/information from the Internet; so what is this? Another items from other's opinion?

Arguments 1 and 2 is best exampled by the US invasion and takeover of Iraq...

At Odds Over Iraqi 'Sovereignty' - TIME

How arguments 1 and 2 are applicable is clear: Since part of sovereignty is making political decisions, aka 'laws', that are applicable throughout the land by a single authority figure, the US, despite not wanting to take Iraq as part of a territorial expansion plan in the ME, has so much veto power over Iraqi political decision making processes that Iraqi sovereignty was in danger of being completely transferred to the US. Violation of territorial integrity alone does not lose Iraqi sovereignty but coupled with overwhelming US political intrusions, the Iraqis were in danger of losing it.

You have to get this clear dear Gambit! Big fish try to eat small fish and sometimes it can, but other time lots of small fishes can eat big fish too...

U.S. is a super power that she can make violation of territorial integrity to A MUCH SMALLER nation ... in the NAME of DEMOCRACY hehehe, but she will not ever be able to have sovereignty over Iraq, for example. Although, many Iraqi leaders fear that they're being asked to sign away their sovereignty but it will never happen; instead, a joint temporary "sovereignty" between U.S and IRAQ is more likely happened as said by a senior U.S. official in Baghdad: "These are negotiations between two sovereign parties, each of which has the ability to say yes, or to say no." You see the word, temporary, is a KEY WORD. Finally, Iraqi sovereignty will be the basis of its country.

Arguments 3 and 4 are perfectly applicable to Viet Nam regarding the Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa islands. The 1954 Geneva Conference recognizes that unless there is a clear but temporary division of authority and custodial rights and responsibilities in Viet Nam, peace cannot happen. Or so the delegates hope that peace will happen with that division. So by dividing the country at the 17th parallel, sovereignty is indivisible in the north and indivisible in the south.

North Viet Nam cannot tell South Viet Nam what to do south of the 17th.

South Viet Nam cannot tell North Viet Nam what to do north of the 17th.

Too bad, South Vietnam did not respect that and did not sign the 1954 Geneva Accords. Therefore, North Vietnam took over South Vietnam by force to tell South Viet Nam what to do. Sovereignty is now indivisible in Vietnam as a whole versus China. Arguments 3 and 4 are perfectly applicable to Viet Nam and China regarding the Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa islands is more complete.

They can violate each other's territorial integrity but as long as either resisted said violations, no one loses sovereignty over his territory. So in reality, as long as there are Vietnamese in power over Vietnamese territories, no matter how divided the land and the people, Vietnamese sovereignty over all of Viet Nam is preserved until that distribution of power problem is resolved, which happened in 1975.

Without U.S. aids, Vietnamese sovereignty over all of Viet Nam would be much sooner than 1975. That is besides the point, and the point now is the actual distribution of power within a territory (two archipelgos Paracel and Spratly) remains unsettled between Vietnam and China. Each country is now controlled some islands in those two archipelgos, thus sovereignty is divisible. Nothing you can do or say will change that fact. Live with it, dear Gambit!

The Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa islands's sovereignty were returned to Viet Nam in the 1951 Peace Treaty with Japan by a 'no objection' consensus.

Yes, return to Vietnam as a whole - not South Vietnam or North Vietnam.

They were assigned to South Viet Nam by the 1954 Geneva Conference designed to promote peace in a civil war.

South Vietnam refused it! So, do not continue your pointless argument over and over again.

So from 1954 to 1975, North Viet Nam never had the authority to do anything to the islands.

Wrong... Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa islands's sovereignty were returned to Viet Nam in the 1951 Peace Treaty with Japan and South Vietnam refused it, did not want to take its share; that left North Vietnam with the authority to do anything to the islands. North Vietnam did, with that letter of PM Pham Van Dong; how's SAD!

China can make all the claims she want and North Viet Nam can even openly agree to those claims and it would mean nothing.

You have lost the case! Case is closed!!!

 

[Zhing Jing]

VIETNAMESE ARMY NAMED AS TIMBER SMUGGLER
Press Release: 28 July 2011

Military a key player in illegally transporting raw timber from Laos

BANGKOK: A new report released today (July 28, 2011) exposes the pivotal role played by the Vietnamese military in a multi-million dollar operation which is smuggling threatened timber over the border from the shrinking forests of neighbouring Laos.

Laos has some of the Mekong region’s last intact tropical forests, but the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) report Crossroads: The Illicit Timber Trade Between Laos and Vietnam reveals its export ban on raw timber is routinely flouted on a massive scale to feed the ravenous timber processing industries of Vietnam, China and Thailand.

During undercover operations in 2010 and 2011, EIA agents posing as timber buyers tracked a trail of corruption and inadequate enforcement back from the busy furniture factories and ports of Vietnam to its border with Laos and beyond.

The forests of Laos support the livelihoods of millions of rural and indigenous people but are seriously threatened by over-exploitation; such is the volume of illegal timber flowing through Laos’ porous borders that its furniture manufacturing industry is finding it cannot supply orders due to a lack of raw materials,.

Through investment in logging, plantations and hydropower projects, Vietnamese firms have appropriated large swathes of Lao forests, yet the only winners in Laos are corrupt Government officials and well-connected businessmen. Meanwhile, Vietnamese logging companies and furniture factories are booming on the back of the illegal trade, exporting billions of dollars worth of finished wood products to the major markets of the USA and European Union.

And EIA’s investigations revealed that one of the biggest loggers in Laos is a company owned by the Vietnamese military.

Investigators first encountered the Vietnamese Company of Economic Cooperation (COECCO) in October 2010 during a visit to Qui Nhon port, documenting huge piles of logs bearing green paint marks and tagged with yellow labels bearing a Vietnamese name which translated into Company of Economic Cooperation – Ministry of Defence (or COECCO). A port worker said 95 per cent of the logs had come from Laos and most were owned by the Vietnamese military; specifically Military Zone 4.

Similarly marked logs were observed in a huge storage area between the two formal checkpoints at the Bo Y border crossing and EIA was eventually able to confirm that most of them had come from logging operations linked to the construction of a nearby hydropower dam.

To uncover more details of the company’s operations, EIA investigators travelled to COECCO’s headquarters in Vinh City, Vietnam, in May 2011 and learnt COECCO has been in the timber trade and logging business in Laos for more than 20 years, that it sources most of its logs from Lao dam clearance sites and that it is one of a handful of companies permitted to carry out logging in these areas.

A well-connected Lao company is also making a fortune trading logs to Vietnam; the Phonesack Group, the boss of which is connected with the Lao Government, prefers to send logs across the border while its own wood processing struggles to get supplies of raw material.

EIA Head of Forest Campaign Faith Doherty said: “EIA first exposed the illicit log trade between Laos and Vietnam in 2008, and our latest investigations reveal that sadly nothing has changed.

“The governments of Vietnam and Laos urgently need to work together to stem the flow of logs and curb the over-exploitation of Laos’ precious forests before it’s too late, and the Vietnamese military must be excluded from logging operations in Laos.

“With a new Timber Regulation coming into force within European markets in 2013, both Vietnam and Laos have a lot at stake and urgently need to work with the European Union.”


URGENT CALL TO ACTION – FROM EIA

1. THE GOVERNMENT OF LAOS SHOULD:
• Enforce its log export ban
• Publish details of all logging quotas and the selection process
• Clarify rules for converting forest land for plantations

2. THE GOVERNMENT OF VIETNAM SHOULD:
• Respect the policies of the Lao Government by blocking log imports from the country
• Hold bilateral talks with the Government of Laos over illicit wood trade between the two countries
• Work with Vietnamese wood industry associations to exclude Lao logs from its supply chain
• Exclude military businesses from carrying out logging operations in Laos

3. THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD:
• Ensure that any VPA discussions with Vietnam and Laos address the issue of log trade between the two countries
• Ensure that VPA talks include the full range of stakeholders
• Promote forest governance lessons from FLEGT into the development of REDD+, specifically in terms of displaced deforestation

4. COMPANIES AND CONSUMERS SHOULD:
• Obtain proof that wood products sourced from Vietnam are not derived from logs imported from Laos


Interviews are available on request: please contact Julian Newman at juliannewman@eia-international.org or telephone +44 (0)7966 171191 / 020 7354 7960, or Faith Doherty at faithdoherty@eia-international.org .

Copies of the full Crossroads report, stills and footage are available on request from EIA Press Officer Paul Newman at paulnewman@eia-international.org or phone 020 7354 7960.


EDITORS’ NOTES

1. The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) is a UK-based Non Governmental Organisation and charitable trust (registered charity number 1040615) that investigates and campaigns against a wide range of environmental crimes, including illegal wildlife trade, illegal logging, hazardous waste, and trade in climate and ozone-altering chemicals.

2. Read more about EIA’s 2008 Vietnam investigation and download the resulting report Borderlines: Vietnam’s Booming Furniture Industry and Timber Smuggling in the Mekong Region here EIA


Environmental Investigation Agency
62-63 Upper Street
London N1 0NY
UK
EIA - Environmental Investigation Agency
Tel: +44 207 354 7960
Fax: +44 207 354 7961


ends


FILE DOWNLOADS


VIETNAMESE ARMY NAMED AS TIMBER SMUGGLER
PDF File [3.53 MB] DOWNLOAD

Source: EIA

Crossroads Video by Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)
Crossroads on Vimeo

 

[Peter]

And both letters are worthless...

Not really! The first one is the Declaration and the second one is to support the first. So, the two archipelgos Paracel and Spratly are open for grap what is worth ...

 

[gambit]

Please do, can't wait to read your childish argument agian and again ...

More like it is YOUR argument that is childish.

No, because I am still the owner of the house and you're not there to stay and decide what to do with my house .. duh! You're still a neighbour - no more no less.



Dude ... just wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something huh hehehee...

The fire department arrived and prevented you from going back to your property so they can do their jobs. What are their jobs? To SAVE my house for me. Got it!? My House not yours ... and when they are done with their jobs, I am still a owner of my house!

Of course, the answer is NO to both questions - but you forget something; that is, those violations are appropriate-n-necessary to save my house in which I have "sovereignty over it. It is different from stripping my "sovereignty over it for good - let's say you're now taking over it and own it, for instance. After the fire incident, I am still having these:

* territorial integrity
* border inviolability
* supremacy of the state
* a sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction

over it, my-house. BTW, I can sue you for broke down my door - if I wish to - for you had trespassed my property.

Therefore, your simplistic view reflect your childish thinking is no doubt. Thank you for your amusing lecture, dear Gambit



Get what? You've conditioned a scenerio that is apparently inappropriate for the discussion of "sovereignty" as of a country. In the U.S., if you have not paid up for your house, then the bank owns it - not you, so strictly speaking you're just a renter. However, if you already paid off for the house, then dare the bank to eject you out of your house, won't allow you to light the fire place or put up a picture on the wall etc ... duh!

A country is not like a house that own by the bank, but own by its people. Get it?

Further proof that you cannot keep track of the debate. My arguments was to totally debunk yours that violation of territorial integrity can strip away sovereignty. The fact that you can reason out that somethings are necessary in the course of said violations also mean you debunked yourself. Now we can settle away that violation of territorial integrity does not strip away sovereignty.

C'mon, Gambit - you are criticized me over the items/information from the Internet; so what is this? Another items from other's opinion?

Do not like reading a book? You know what a 'book' looks like, no?

You have to get this clear dear Gambit! Big fish try to eat small fish and sometimes it can, but other time lots of small fishes can eat big fish too...

U.S. is a super power that she can make violation of territorial integrity to A MUCH SMALLER nation ... in the NAME of DEMOCRACY hehehe, but she will not ever be able to have sovereignty over Iraq, for example. Although, many Iraqi leaders fear that they're being asked to sign away their sovereignty but it will never happen; instead, a joint temporary "sovereignty" between U.S and IRAQ is more likely happened as said by a senior U.S. official in Baghdad: "These are negotiations between two sovereign parties, each of which has the ability to say yes, or to say no." You see the word, temporary, is a KEY WORD. Finally, Iraqi sovereignty will be the basis of its country.

Meaningless drivel when faced with a valid example that completely debunked your argument. That was an example to illustrate some principles of the concept of sovereignty, not for you to make rhetorical points unrelated to this debate.

Too bad, South Vietnam did not respect that and did not sign the 1954 Geneva Accords. Therefore, North Vietnam took over South Vietnam by force to tell South Viet Nam what to do. Sovereignty is now indivisible in Vietnam as a whole versus China. Arguments 3 and 4 are perfectly applicable to Viet Nam and China regarding the Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa islands is more complete.

More meaningless drivel. Clearly what I posted is beyond your ken.

We can now conclude that you do not know what you are talking about and the principles touched here are beyond your understanding. Chinese claim dismissed.

 

[Peter]

DO I need to say again and again, Mr.Peter ??we're not greedd for OIL, we can sell all oil in lowest price to China if they let us drill in deep water.

How contradicted your sentence is. You're not greedy for OIL but you want to drill for IT. Yet, you are saying if China let you drill - don't you have the sovereignty over your water territory?

You might consult with lawyer Gambit about this, perhaps!

The most important thing we care is Sea sovereignity. We can not let China take control of SCS(East sea) to expand their Naval force, Viet's future will be thrown to Hell, we're surrounded by Hoa (over sea CHinese) in ASEAN such as Thailand,SIngapore,Malaysia now.

If you're really care about it, then you and your government should have taken care of this back then when China first took over the two largest islands from Paracel archipelgo in 1956. What? It takes you 55 years to loose more islands....

We Must keep SCS(East sea) with our life as a buffer zone with CHinese surrouding

If you can't beat them, join them

 

[Peter]

More like it is YOUR argument that is childish.

Now... now it's not because I pointed out how childish your argument was then you just wanted to talk back like that huh?

Further proof that you cannot keep track of the debate. My arguments was to totally debunk yours that violation of territorial integrity can strip away sovereignty. The fact that you can reason out that somethings are necessary in the course of said violations also mean you debunked yourself. Now we can settle away that violation of territorial integrity does not strip away sovereignty.

Wrong... Your childish argument could not debunk anything in the case of Parcel and Spratly archipelgos in which I have proven such two largest islands Phu Lam (Woody Is.) and Linh Con from Paracel archipelgo were taken and controlledby China in 1956 up until the present day. Refute me if you can on such violation of territorial integrity can strip or can't strip away sovereignty.

Instead, you were giving examples of a house still owns by the bank and not yet yours for the comparison!? You missed the point badly dude.

Also, you brought up aids (neighbor) and assistances (fire department) to a home in the form of violation of territorial integrity, but that was not the same as violation of territorial integrity can strip away sovereignty for good of those islands in Paracel and Spratly archipelgos. It shown that you could not even keep up the argument skillfully in which a 5-6 years old kids could have done better understanding than you.

For instance, a Viet boy has a colorful big sucker

that he is showing off to other kids in his block. Then come big boy China goes over and takes the sucker away from a Viet boy just like that. A Viet boy then starts to cry out loud while a big boy China is licking and sucking that sucker joyfully. There is 4 scenerios going to happen:

1. other kids in the block that like a Viet boy enough to gang up on the big China boy make him to give the sucker back to a boy Viet, OR
2. other kids in the block gang up on the big China boy to make him give back the sucker to a boy Viet and make a Viet boy share it, OR
3. other kids in the block careless of a Viet boy but gang up on the big China boy to make him share the sucker with, OR
4. other kids just sit there doing nothing and watch it ...

Result:

1. violation of territorial integrity can't strip away sovereignty.
2. violation of territorial integrity can strip away some sovereignty.
2. violation of territorial integrity can strip away sovereignty.
3. violation of territorial integrity can strip away sovereignty.

Childrens do know this:

* territorial integrity
* border inviolability
* supremacy of the state
* a sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority within its jurisdiction

very early in life.

Do not like reading a book? You know what a 'book' looks like, no?

Not just whatever book, unless I need another point of view to support mine

Meaningless drivel when faced with a valid example that completely debunked your argument. That was an example to illustrate some principles of the concept of sovereignty, not for you to make rhetorical points unrelated to this debate.

Why can't you get it huh Gambit?

Violation of territorial integrity can strip away sovereignty and some other times it can't, but it seems like you can't keep up to the points related to this debate though. The reality is out there and the Chineses just cut off the survey cables from Vietnam's ships as they please and they just resided on many islands in South China Sea that Vietnam keeps whinning like a child whom losts his toys.

What have you debunked any of those facts?

More meaningless drivel. Clearly what I posted is beyond your ken.

Yes, sure .. what you posted is less than the knowledge of 5-6 years old kids. Please spare the audiences with your short range of vision.

We can now conclude that you do not know what you are talking about and the principles touched here are beyond your understanding. Chinese claim dismissed.

I do see that you are avoiding lots of points that I pointed out. Vietnam has no case.

Let's review, you and Viet posters focused on:

1. administrative rights over the islands was given to South Vietnam - it was not, South Vietnam refused and did not sign the 1954 Geneva Accords

2. neither North or South Vietnam had administrative rights over the islands after 1954 Geneva Conference - actually the North Vietnam had, when SVN refused its share

3. violation of territorial integrity can't strip away sovereignty - oh yes, it did strip away sovereignty when China took control over many islands



Case is closed! Come back when you have new evidences - Gambit ...

 

[gambit]

Wrong... Your childish argument could not debunk anything in the case of Parcel and Spratly archipelgos in which I have proven such two largest islands Phu Lam (Woody Is.) and Linh Con from Paracel archipelgo were taken and controlledby China in 1956 up until the present day. Refute me if you can on such violation of territorial integrity can strip or can't strip away sovereignty.

Easily...The concept of 'sovereignty' rests upon respect, meaning that it is not enough that you claim to be a 'sovereign' over a territory, but that also others must respect that claim as well.

Sovereignty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Sovereign authority is exercised within borders, but also, by definition, with respect to outsiders, who may not interfere with the sovereign's governance.

So if China does not respect Viet Nam's sovereignty over the islands, it does not matter if China has absolute control over some of them, China's claim of sovereignty will not be respected, hence, China does not have sovereignty over them. The respect works both ways: I do not interfere with your borders. You do not interfere with mine. If that respect exists, sovereignty exists.

You flunked.

1. administrative rights over the islands was given to South Vietnam - it was not, South Vietnam refused and did not sign the 1954 Geneva Accords

More stupidity. The 1954 Geneva Conference was also about a formal declaration of independence from France with the 17th parallel division and assignment of territories incidental to that declaration. Going by your simplistic argument, since South Viet Nam did not signed, which I doubt you know why, does that mean only North Viet Nam was independent? This implication is even more absurd in light of the fact that France claimed ALL Indochina as colonial protectorate. That mean North Viet Nam could not become independent unless South Viet Nam was as well. So I challenge you to provide a source that stated legally, only North Viet Nam was independent but not South Viet Nam.

You flunked.