w11.zetaboards.com Webutation
Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

- NATIONS

Domestic News: | International News: P | Military News: | Financial News: | Other News: |
Add Reply
The Paracel and Spratley Islands
Topic Started: Oct 18 2014, 07:48 AM (286 Views)
EnglishIrish
Member Avatar

Phạm Bình Minh
Posted Image
Vietnamese Foreign Minister

Delegates,

I am here today to ask for your attention regarding the territorial disputes between China and Vietnam, regarding the Paracel and Spratley Islands. Recently, China has stepped up their bullish manner when defending their "supposed territories" in the South China Sea. I have been asked by the President of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, to argue to case for the Vietnamese re-occupation of these islands. We have documented evidence and factual historical evidence to argue a strong case for these islands. Vietnam utterly deplores the People's Republic of China's, continued occupation of the Paracel and Spratley Islands. We really hope that other members of the International Community can deplore this illegal occupation of territory.

In context, the Paracel and Spratly Islands have been subject to the sovereignty of Vietnam by reason of terra nullius, effectively occupied by Vietnam since the 16th century. According to international law, the discovery of a terra nullius itself does not sufficiently legitimise any legal status for the discovering State over that territory. To acquire sovereignty over the terra nullius, a State must effectively occupy that territory. There are two principles that govern this effective occupation. The first is the principle of actuality, which requires that the State actually possesses the terra nullius, considers it as part of the State’s territory, and exercises State authority and administration over it for a reasonable period of time. In addition to the material corpus element, the actual possession also requires the intentional animus element of whether a State wishes to possess the terra nullius. The second is the principle of publicity, which requires that the possession by a State must be announced to, or acknowledged by, other sovereign States.

To demonstrate its actual possession of the Paracel and Spratly Islands, Viet Nam asserts the following arguments. The State of Vietnam knew of the Paracel and Spratly Islands, we grouped them together, and named them as “Đại Trường Sa”, “Hoàng Sa” and “Vạn Lý Trường Sa”. These territories were considered as Vietnamese territory.

Throughout more than three hundred years, from the 16th to the 19th centuries, the State of Vietnam had continuously exercised their sovereignty at least over the Paracel Islands by frequently sending the Flotillas of Hoàng Sa and Bắc Hải to the archipelago, which would stay there for several months every year for surveying and exploiting resources in a systematic manner. Personnel from these flotillas collected goods from wrecked ships, built temples, planted trees to symbolise the State’s sovereignty, collected taxes, and provided assistance to foreign ships in danger. These activities of the Vietnamese States were totally free from any opposition or disputes from other countries, including China, and contained both the corpus and animus elements of an actual possession.

Vietnam has official documentation from the 17th century to support these arguments, official documentation includes the following:
-Đại Nam thực lục tiền biên (1600–1775)
-Toản tập Thiên Nam tứ chí lộ đồ thư (1630–1653)
-Phủ biên tạp lục (1776)
-Đại Nam thực lục chính biên (1848)
-Đại Nam nhất thống chí (1865–1882)
-Hoàng Việt dư địa chí (1833)
-Việt sử thông giám cương mục khảo lược (1876)

Jaseniew Vladimir and Stephanow Evginii, in their 1982 book entitled “The Chinese Frontiers: From Traditional Expansionism to Present Hegemonism”, listed the activities of the Vietnamese States in continuously exercising their sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, and emphasized that “feudal States of Vietnam had for long annexed archipelagos such as the Paracels and Spratlys into their State’s territory”.

France, after imposing its protectorate over Vietnam, represented Vietnam in exercising and maintaining Viet Nam’s sovereignty over the archipelagos. In 1899, then Governor-General of Indochina Paul Doumer submitted a proposal to the Government of France to build a lighthouse in the Paracel Islands. Financial difficulty, however, prevented this plan from being realized. On March 8, 1925, the Governor-General of Indochina affirmed that the Paracel Islands were part of French territory. Surveillance and research trips thus had been organized in the Paracel Islands since 1925 and in the Spratly Islands since 1927.

In 1930, the French authorities in Indochina sent a mission group to set up a flag pole in the Spratly Islands. Since then until 1933, French naval units established a garrison on the main islands of the archipelago, including Spratly on April 13, 1930, Amboyna Cay on April 7, 1933 , Itu Aba on April 10, 1933 the Two-Island Group including Southwest and Northeast Cays on April 10, 1933, Loaita on April 11, 1933, and Thitu on April 12, 1933, together with small islets/cays surrounding these islands.

These occupation activities were proclaimed in the July 26, 1933 Official Gazette of the French Republic and the September 25, 1933 Official Gazette of Indochina, and did not meet any opposition from China, the Philippines, the Netherlands (which occupied Brunei at that time), or the United States of America. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland required explanation for these activities and was satisfied with the response from France. On December 2, 1933, the Governor of Cochinchina J. Krautheimer incorporated the Spratly Islands into the Province of Bà Rịa.

On March 30, 1938, Emperor Bảo Đại issued his imperial edict to incorporate the Paracel Islands into the Province of Thừa Thiên. On June 15, 1938, the Governor-General of Indochina Jules Brévié issued a decree on establishing an administrative unit in the Paracel Islands. The French authorities then effectively occupied the whole archipelago with a permanent guard unit. In 1938, a sovereignty stele was erected with the inscription of the words “The French Republic – The Kingdom of An Nam – The Paracel Islands, 1816 – Pattle Island – 1938”. A lighthouse, a meteorological station, and a radio station were also set up on Pattle Island.

We believe that the Paracel and Spratley islands are of Vietnamese Territory. This is just some of the evidence we have and we hope that the International Community will take this situation seriously and help Vietnam in condemning China.

Thank You
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vonar Roberts

LIU Jieyi,
Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations
China also has a strong historical claim with the first discovery of the islands dating back to 2 bc, and regular fishing expeditions being recorded in the region from at least 200 ad with regular fishing and military expeditions conducted through the subsequent Chinese dynasties. More recently however the 1887 Chinese-Vietnamese Boundary convention signed between France and China after the Sino-French War said that China was the owner of the Spratly and Parcel islands.

Chinese claims are further strengthened by navigational maps which show the Spratly and Parcel islands claimed as Chinese territory since the 12th century. Historical documents also show that Chinese naval forces conducted inspection tours in 1902 and 1907 and placed flags and markers on the islands. When Japan conquered the Spratly and Parcel islands they administered them through Taiwan, which since Beijing is the successor state to the Republic of China would indicate that they believed that the islands were during that time at least legally under Chinese jurisdiction. Finally in 1946, the Americans told the Philippines that the Spratly islands were not a part of its territory when they asked for permission to annex the islands, and the Vietnamese government recognized China's claim to the Spratly and Parcel islands in 1958 only withdrawing said recognition after the Vietnamese military's defeat in the Sino-Vietnamese war.

We have strong evidence dating back more then 2,000 years that show that the Paracel and Spratley islands are of Chinese territory, and should be recognized as such by the international community. Recently Malaysia has agreed with our position, and has also recognized our claims to the Spratley Islands, and my government is willing to negotiate with other Spratly Island nations who have a dispute with the People's Republic of China in order to resolve this situation peacefully. It also truly is unfortunate that Hanoi has chosen to bring this matter to the United Nations instead of first contacting Beijing about it and attempting to address their grievances.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Redbirdfan
Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Ambassador Gérard Araud
Permanent Representatives of French Republic to the United Nations

We believe that ancient historical claims are improper and impossible to verify and accede to in a court of law. If this were true, Norway and Sweden would have legal claims to parts of Canada and the United States. Most courts in nations have periods - statues of limitations. The Italians would lay claim to half of Europe. The actions of the historic past cannot and do not justify the current or the future.

We believe a point of contention between the parties is the fact that China wishes to lay claim to all of the South China Sea, as opposed to normal maritime and coastal claims amongst parties in the South China Sea.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bobithy
Member Avatar
Great Leader of the Korean People
Posted Image

Vitaly Churkin
Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations
Russian Federation



Esteemed representatives and distinguished guests,

The issue of the Paracel and Spratley Islands is an old argument between the nations involved. If the simple claim to the islands could be legally made through ancient claims and texts on the region than the first to land on the islands would maintain ownership. However, as the honorable delegate from France explained, it is not that simple. With that being said, the Russian Federation would like to know if Vietnam or China wish the United Nations to intervene on the issue of the islands and to discuss a resolution surrounding the islands. It is Russia's opinion that this regional issue should be handled diplomatically, and with great care, between the specific States involved. But if a side wishes to request UN intervention, than that can be discussed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vonar Roberts

LIU Jieyi,
Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations
Mr Churkin,
My government believes that diplomacy between the involved parties without outside interference is the best way to resolve the current Paracel and Spratley Islands dispute. We also believe that it is very unfortunate that Hanoi has decided to bring this matter to the United Nations without even attempting to first discuss the matters that Hanoi has brought up with Beijing, and the other involved parties.

Mr Araud,
While we have used historical fact to help bolster our claims the majority of China's modern claim is based off of treaties signed with various nations over the course of the past two centuries that recognize the Paracel and Spratley Islands as Chinese territory which I believe are not subject to the statues of limitations. We have also pointed out that Vietnam's current claims are actually a very recent thing and at one point not so long ago the Vietnamese government recognized the claims of the People's Republic of China to both the Paracel and Spratley Islands. Our government has also indicated its willingness to negotiate the exact maritime border with the nations that have a dispute over the Spratley islands, and the nine-dash line is negotiable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
EnglishIrish
Member Avatar

Phạm Bình Minh
Vietnamese Foreign Minister

Esteemed Delegates,

The claims by the People's Republic of China are without foundations whatsoever. The Cairo Declaration, drafted by the Allies and China towards the end of World War II, listed the territories that the Allies intended to strip from Japan and return to China. Despite China being among the authors of the declaration, this list did not include the Paracel or Spratley Islands . In addition, at the San Francisco Conference on the peace treaty with Japan, the Soviet Union proposed that the Paracel and Spratly Islands should be recognized as belonging to China. This proposal was rejected by an overwhelming majority of the delegates. On 7 July 1951, the Vietnam delegation to the conference declared that the Paracel and Spratly Islands were part of Vietnamese territory. This declaration met with no challenge from the 51 representatives at the conference. The text of the Treaty of San Francisco listed the Paracel and Spratley Islands as not being listed for the territories that should be passed back to China.

To respond to the Russian Delegation, we would like to involved the United Nations on this matter. This dispute has been going on too long. The People's Republic of China, have been bullish in the way they have dealt with the matter in the past and I suspect they will continue to do so. We will quite happily hold diplomatic talks but with the assurance that the UN will also deal with the matter should diplomatic talks fail.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stevay b
Member Avatar

Posted Image
Posted Image Samantha Power
United States Ambassador to the United Nations

I urge that both Beijing and Hanoi continue to pursue diplomatic solutions to this old dispute. Aggression, like that shown towards Vietnamese fishing vessels in the Paracels, cannot be tolerated by the International community. Ancient claims I do not believe can be taken into account as this would, as pointed out by Mr Araud, mean that various European nations could use this basis to lay claim to areas of Africa and the Americas.

Perhaps Beijing should reconsider it's claimed national waters in the South China Sea, or at the very least provide a basis under international law for the claiming of an entire Sea - something I believe Beijing has yet to do, despite the decades of disputes caused by this.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vonar Roberts

LIU Jieyi,
Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations
Mrs Powers,
In the case of the extent of the People's Republic of China's exclusive economical zone in the South China Sea my government has merely followed the policies of many other nations with our legal maritime boundaries being extended where available to the full 200 nautical miles that is permissible according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Other maritime claims in the South China Sea have been claimed based on their connection to the continental shelf which allows for claims up to 350 nautical miles, or 648 km from the shores of China, and includes Chinese territories in the Parcel and and Spratley Islands.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stevay b
Member Avatar

Posted Image
Posted Image Samantha Power
United States Ambassador to the United Nations

Mr Jieyi, I do not believe it is prudent to include the territories involved in the dispute as part of your legal basis for maritime claims, at least until the dispute is settled. And as pointed out by Mr Minh, the treaties that the People's Republic is using as a legal basis make no mention of either the Spratly or the Paracel Islands, and merely state the Islands that would be renounced by Japan after the Second World War - a list which did not include the islands being disputed.

Might I also point out that only acts of sovereignty by the State can be used as justification of a claim. The first verifiable acts of sovereignty by China over the Paracels came in 1909, and over the Spratlys in 1933. Both of these were well after the first verifiable acts of sovereignty by Vietnam over the Paracels in 1816, and by France over the Spratlys in 1929. Records used by Beijing rely on the sporadic occupation of the islands by fishermen, which as acts by private individuals, this does not constitute a legal basis for the claims as the State did not authorise or support the actions of these fishermen. The periods of occupation would also need to be followed up with acts by the State to display sovereignty over the islands.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vonar Roberts

LIU Jieyi,
Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations
Mrs Powers,
You have deliberately ignored 1600 to 1800 years worth of Chinese use of the territories around the islands including the placement of territorial markers, diplomatic treaties who's border commissions recognized the islands as Chinese territory, and regular military patrols by Chinese vessels to make your case in favor of Vietnam. I should also point out that by your argument the United Kingdom should not have a exclusive economical zone around the Falklands Islands since they have a ongoing dispute with Argentina over the island yet they do.


A representative from our government was going to offer Vietnam a deal that would have resolved the Paracel and Spratley island dispute. However since Vietnam has decided to seek international condemnation of my country and turn this dispute into a public spectacle I do not believe that Hanoi is ready to negotiate in good faith with Beijing and take the matter of the Paracel and Spratley Islands seriously, and thus we have decided to postpone negotiations with Hanoi over the problem until they are ready to take the matter a little more seriously.
Edited by Vonar Roberts, Oct 22 2014, 03:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Round 5 · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Skin created by tiptopolive