Comments by "Yerris" (@yerri5567) on "Why Vietnam is Rapidly Reclaiming Land in South China Sea | WSJ" video.

@bigbear9288 The French took it from China when they were weak, when China was at war with Japan. Then a few years later Japan look the islands as they recognised it was Chinese land. Basically world powers all recognised they were Chinas. The only reason South Vietnam had control over the islands was because after the French left, SV had control over it. But too bad for the SV, North Vietnams Prime Minister Pham (also 1st Prime minister of Unified Vietnam) sent a letter to China in 1958 "acknowledging" and "respecting" Chinas claim over the Paracel and Spratly islands. Basically means they recognise that its theirs. So Chinas sovereign claim over the islands are the strongest in the region
15
Correct. Both PH and Vietnam were building artificial islands, or more precisely artificially building upon and extending the boundaries of natural islands long before China did
8
@ColoniaMurder20 Hundred Yue. You even said it yourself. Vietnamese are just ONE of the hundred Yues. So how can ONE of the 100 Yue tribes claim ALL of the 100 Yue tribes territory/culture?
7
@ColoniaMurder20 PH maps included Borneo too. Want to include Borneo as part of PH too? Maps are maps. They are to include territory even if its not yours.
6
@LợiNguyễn-z1l In 1958, North Vietnams Prime Minister Pham (also 1st Prime minister of Unified Vietnam) sent a letter to China "acknowledging" and "respecting" Chinas claim over the Paracel and Spratly islands. Thats why China helped North Vietnam win the war. Basically means they recognise that its theirs. So whats this about they "obviously" belong to Vietnam again?
6
@AhmetTekin101 Wrong. Vietname has no "legitimate rights" to do so. You always copy paste the same "Have you read UNCLOS or the Hague Tribunal 2016 ruling? Read them and come back to discuss" comment even when every single time I tell you I have and show you I know more about it than you do. Quote me WHERE in the UNCLOS or Hague Tribunal 2016 that specifies that Vietnam has the "legitimate right" to do so. Go on. Im waiting.
6
@AhmetTekin101 Wrong. Vietname has no "legitimate rights" to do so. You always copy paste the same "Have you read UNCLOS or the Hague Tribunal 2016 ruling? Read them and come back to discuss" comment even when every single time I tell you I have and show you I know more about it than you do. Quote me WHERE in the UNCLOS or Hague Tribunal 2016 that specifies that Vietnam has the "legitimate right" to do so. Go on. Im waiting.
5
@bigbear9288 Maps dont often show outlying islands. Look at the map of UK or France, they also dont show their outlying islands on their maps. Nguyen Dynasty only? China had jurisdiction there 1000+ years before that. And Vietnam was part of China then too. And same could be said of Chinas sovereignty over the islands were interrupted from France and Japan too. And if you want to talk about UNCLOS, there also no legal basis for Vietnam to make those claims as the 2016 arbitration ruled that China (and by extension other claimants) cant make territorial claims based on historical rights as theres no legal basis for it. And you may say the dashed lines are invalid, but they are no means "illegal". Just like how Vietnam claims half the SCS as well. Thats also invalid. But illegal? And violates the sovereignty of other nations? Thats a stretch that also has no legal basis. Under UNCLOS, countries are only have sovereign rights up to 12NM from their shore. As for sovereignty over the islands, refer back to the 1958 letter from Pham. Vietnam respects and acknowledges Chinas claims over the Paracel and Spratlys. Thats why China helped NV Vietnam win the war. But after the war ended Vietnam backstabbed China claiming sovereignty over the islands in the 1970. Whos in the right, whos in the wrong? Its as clear as day.
5
@AhmetTekin101 Wrong. Youre spreading misinformation again. Its not "illegal" per se. Theres actually no law that prevents that from happening. I know your tactics. You just keep repeating the same thing without providing evidence. How about you QUOTE the EXACT law that states its illegal if you want to prove me wrong.
5
@haraffael7821 In 1958, North Vietnams Prime Minister Pham (also 1st Prime minister of Unified Vietnam) sent a letter to China "acknowledging" and "respecting" Chinas claim over the Paracel and Spratly islands. Basically means they recognise that its theirs. Thats why China helped North Vietnam win the war. So whats this about Vietnam owning it again? Vietnam is the one illegally occupying the islands
5
@AhmetTekin101 Wrong. Vietnam has no "legitimate rights" to do so. You always copy paste the same "Have you read UNCLOS or the Hague Tribunal 2016 ruling? Read them and come back to discuss" comment even when every single time I tell you I have and show you I know more about it than you do. Quote me WHERE in the UNCLOS or Hague Tribunal 2016 that specifies that Vietnam has the "legitimate right" to do so. Go on. Im waiting.
5
@jilldawson89 Spratly islands is NOT within Vietnams water boundary, whatever that means.
4
@major0joy Actually, its the other way round. Vietnam started building artificial islands BEFORE China did. Then China copied them. So your "why not" should be directed to China, not Vietnam.
3
@nicktubby9710 Vietnam is "in the area"? Take out a ruler and look at the map. The distance between the closest point from Spratly to Vietnam is about the closest point from Spratly to Hainan, China. So if you agree Vietnam is in the area, then by your logic China is also in the area.
3
Geez...learn to use paragraphs...I wanted to read it but seeing that now I dont...
3
@Igarashi-yo Why? That guy is always spreading false information. This has nothing to do with Vietnam, but everything to do with the false information he is spreading. So what does it have anything to do with respecting you guys?
3
@cubiphan5469 So what youre trying to say is, as long as you dont do that, you can continuously claim and build upon ALL the islands there? And you say that now when others arent encroaching your supposed islands. Can you still say the same when other countries continuously come into your supposed islands territory, ram their ships there, and permanently station their ships there, and constantly send resources there to the people stationed there?
3
@DohuuVi Based on that logic, Vietnam belonged to China many centuries ago. So Vietnam belongs to China?
3
@ABCDEFGH-pp2sf Who says Im from China?
2
@NguyenTrang-kb1js If its Vietnams then why did Vietnams Prime Minister Pham write a letter to China in 1958 "acknowledging" and "respecting" Chinas claims over the Paracel and Spratly islands hmm?
2
@crampamn1262 PH actually has no sovereignty over anything in the SCS as per the sovereign handover treaty from the US to PH. Vietnams Prime Minister Pham send a letter to China in 1958 "acknowledging" and "respecting" Chinas claim over the Paracel and Spratly islands. Basically means they recognise that its theirs. So Chinas sovereign claim over the islands are the strongest in the region
2
@8220206 A good bot is a bot that tells the truth. Thats the truth. So youre right, thats a good bot indeed.
2
@easywaytogetscammed Yes it is, it was in "response" to Chinas Sept 4 1958 Declaration claiming many islands including Paracel and Spratly as theirs.
1
@easywaytogetscammed Read Chinas Sept 4 Declaration and you still see its clearly stated there. And Vietnam as you say "recognizes and agrees to the declaration, of September 4, 1958"
1
@ I never said it "belonged" to North Vietnam. I said North Vietnam confirmed those islands belong to China. South Vietnam no longer exists in this world. So even IF it "belonged" to South Vietnam, theyre long gone and North Vietnam confirmed it belong to China then.
1
@Goodtoseeyou1 You say "first of all" so confidently, yet so clueless at the same time. Firstly, if they recognised the 12nm territorial water limit, that literally means they recognise that the islands belong to China, and that they will not venture within 12nm of their islands. Thats literally what it means. And I mentioned nothing about the 9 dashed lines so not sure why you feel the need to bring that up and emphasis it in caps... In the letter, Vietnam literally said they recognise and agrees to the declaration China made on Sept 4 1958. In Chinas declaration, it specifically mentioned the islands belong to China. Vietnams letter sealed the deal already. Your second comment is irrelevant. This is a letter from Vietnam to China. Thats got nothing to do with US or TW. Solidarity or not, no one forced them to recognise it. You can show solidarity with you friends against an enemy without giving away a section of your property to them.. Thirdly, they did not "give them up". I never said they "gave them up". For the 2nd time, read properly. North Vietnam basically said to China, "we agree that these islands are yours, now help us win the war". Another angle of looking at that is, for arguments sake, lets say the islands were South Vietnam 100% without a doubt in this scenario. When North Vietnam eliminated the government of South Vietnam, all of South Vietnams territory now belong to the government of North Vietnam. Since North Vietnam won and recognised that the islands belong to China, then its obviously Chinas now. He sealed the deal with his letter.
1
@Goodtoseeyou1 For the 3rd time, READ PROPERLY. I NEVER said anything about "giving up". lt never belonged to NV in the first place, so how can they "give it up"? I (and the letter) clearly said they RECOGNISED. You dont need to own the territory to "recognise" that the territory is theirs. Just like my country can recognise another country as a "country". Understand? And these talks are behind the curtains. Its obviously not stated in black and white in ink. You honestly think all strategic talks in this world are documented? China even dropped the 11 dashed line to 9 dashed line because of warming ties to Vietnam. You think that was clearly stated in an official document too? And I said absolutely NOTHING about anyone being "forced to recognise TW" etc. Do you even know how to read? Im honestly not interested in speaking with an illiterate person. Especially one that keeps putting words in my mouth when I never said such a thing. Read properly will you? Oh not legally binding? So why wasnt he impeached for saying such a thing then hey? Imagine if Trump suddenly wrote an official letter to Xi stating that the US recognises that all the islands in the South China Sea belong to China. You think hed still be in office? Pham was a dictator. And a dictators words is representative of their state. Therefore the letter is legally binding. And speaking of legally binding. You know whats not legal binding? The French taking over the islands were not legal to begin with. Got anything to say about that?
1
"the letter was happened due to the conflict with Taiwan that’s why China had that 12-miles document towards to US for not being allied with Taiwan" Like I said, the issue with TW and the US has nothing to do with North Vietnam. Its irrelevant. Whether NV or anyone wanted to warm ties with China or any country, theyre not forced to "give any" of their territory away. And the islands never belonged to NV in the first place. It was just RECOGNITION. "You said no one was forced to recognise TW and I explained it was the act of warming ties" And for the last time, READ PROPERLY. WHERE did I say "no one was forced to recognise TW"? Quote me! "Why you said France took over the islands, those belongs to us in the first place" By "us", Im going to assume youre Vietnamese. If that was true, then why didnt the French take over the islands when they conquered Vietnam? Why did they have to wait till China was weak when they were at war with Japan to take over the islands? Because they recognised it was Chinas and wanted to take advantage of their blindspot/weakness thats why. Similarly, Japan also specifically took over those islands first when they went to war with China. Why? Because they also recognised that the islands belonged to China. When you have major world powers recognising that the islands were Chinas, then thats enough solid evidence. "Also, if it was from China, why would China signed the agreeement with France that those islands were belonged to Vietnam and that’s why they were belong to Indochina and hence France" No such thing. State the treaty that China recognised the Spratlys and Paracel belong to the French. Bet you cant. "It was just until China had conflict with Russia and was afraid Russian’s power and also the existence of US in Taiwan in the South China Sea that China started to claim those are theirs" No. China claimed those islands from many dynasties ago. Records even show they had jurisdiction over it 1000+ yrs ago. What are you on about? "You do not have any documents proves North Vietnam give China those islands in exchange for helping in war" No. But we do have evidence that NV RECOGNISED (not "give") that those islands belong to China. And thats enough solid evidence again. "The letter only mentioning that North Vietnam (who did not control any islands at the time) agree to the PRC’s 12 nautical-mile territorial water, did not mention the name of any islands" Really? I told you to read again, did you read again? The first line literally says NV agree to Chinas declaration made on Sept 4 1958. In Chinas declaration, they declared the Spratly and Paracels belonged to them. So NV literally agreed that Paracel and Spratly belongs to China IN THE VERY FIRST LINE of the letter! "This however did not suggest that North Vietnam ever gave up their claim to both islands" NV never claimed the islands in the first place. It was SV that claimed it. "Unless you can edit the letter, so it said that Vietnam respect China’s territorial water and its sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, then Vietnam definitely have no say on this issue forever" It literally says that! First line of the letter NV stated they agree to Chinas declaration made on Sept 4 1958, which includes China claiming Paracel and Spratly as theirs. Thats what Ive been saying this whole time! So Vietnam shouldnt have a say on this matter, forever. "This is what I mean regarding legal binding" If you want to bring up how France "legally" gave back the islands to Vietnam. Well I can say that there are no records, treaty or legal documents of any sort regarding of France legally acquiring the islands in the first place. "I also really don’t understand how China can claim the whole South China Sea belongs to them. They signed the UNCLOS law and now going against it, and having disputes with not just one country but the whole regions" I never spoke about the 9 dashed lines until you brought it up. Its irrelevant. Vietnam also claims half the SCS, why dont you say anything about that hey? And theres no law in UNCLOS that specifies that they cant do so, so they havent violated anything. The specific word used in UNCLOS was "shall". The world "shall" does not mean prohibit. Meaning they "shouldnt", but it doesnt mean they "cant". Grey area in the laws. Lets not talk about grey areas.
1
@Goodtoseeyou1 Comments above. Couldnt tag comment
1
@AhmetTekin101 See? You cant quote me can you. And Ive proven you wrong so many times on UNCLOS and the Hague ruling before. Yet you still ask me the same copy paste question whether Ive read it or not.... Quote me the exact line that Vietnam has the "legitimate right" to do so. Go on. Im waiting.
1
@AL-lh2ht Why L? Look up Vietnams Prime Minister Phams letter to China in 1958 recognising Chinas claim to the islands
1
@tiensn3k Doesnt matter if the names Paracel and Spratly isnt specified. Context is important. You need to read why Prime Minister Pham wrote that letter in the first place. The letter was in responses to Chinas open claim to Paracel and Spratlys. So of course it refers to the Paracel and Spratlys
1
@tiensn3k Your Link for Chinas declaration conveniently left out point 4 which states: "The principles provided in paragraphs 2) and 3) likewise apply to Taiwan and its surrounding islands, the Penghu Islands, the Tungsha Islands, and Hsisha Islands, the Chungsha Islands, the Nansha Islands, and all other islands belonging to China" Hsisha(Xisha) is Paracel islands. Nansha is Spratly islands. So its specified.
1
@vits2002 According to PHs sovereign handover treaty from the US, PH owns absolutely nothing in the SCS. Not even a rock.
1
@vits2002 According to PHs sovereign handover treaty from the US, PH has no sovereignty over anything in the SCS. Not even a rock.
1
@vits2002 According to PHs sovereign handover treaty from the US, PH has no sovereignty over anything in the SCS.
1
@khoadinh9897 China says that too. Thats why its called disputed territory
1
@DũngNguyễn-v7r2w NV claimed SV territory, as did SV claimed NV territory is it not? Isnt thats why there was a war? And ofcourse there is current value. It was written by Pham, the first Prime Minister of unified Vietnam. Its the same person of Prime Minister of NV. So that means everything already.
1
@cubiphan5469 If PH rams one of their manned military ships onto one of the territories VN has strong claims/interests over, and permanently stations them there, lets not kid ourselves and think VN wont do anything. VN would likely be on the offensive too to any ships that try to replenish supplies for them to stay there forever. Then, itll be all over the media. And people would also "hate what VN is doing in the SCS".
1
@cubiphan5469 If PH rams one of their manned military ships onto one of the territories VN has strong claims/interests over, and permanently stations them there, lets not pretend VN wont do anything. VN would likely be on the offensive too to any ships that try to replenish supplies for them to stay there forever. Then, itll be all over the media. And people would also "heh-eight what VN is doing in the SCS".
1
If PH rams one of their manned military ships onto one of the territories VN has strong claims/interests over, and permanently stations them there, lets not kid ourselves and think VN wont do anything. VN would likely be on the offensive too to any ships that try to replenish supplies for them to stay there forever. Then, itll be all over the media. And people would also "hate what VN is doing in the SCS".
1
If PH rams one of their manned military ships onto one of the territories VN has strong claims/interests over, and permanently stations them there, lets not kid ourselves and think VN wont do anything.
1
I dont think you understand the scope of the situation. Try understand why China did what they did in the first place. If PH crashes a military ship onto one of the territories that VN has strong claims/interests over, and permanently stations them there to annex it, lets not kid ourselves and think VN wont do anything. VN would likely be on the offensive too to any ships that try to replenish supplies for them to stay there forever. Then, itll be all over the media. And people would also "hate what VN is doing in the SCS".
1
I dont think you understand the scope of the situation. Try understand why China did what they did in the first place. If PH crashes a military ship onto one of the territories that VN has strong claims/interests over, and permanently stations them there to annex it, lets not kid ourselves and think VN wont do anything.
1
I dont think you understand the scope of the situation. Try understand why China did what they did in the first place. If PH crashes a military ship onto one of the territories that VN has strong claims/interests over, and permanently stations them there to annex it, lets not pretend VN wont do anything.
1
@cubiphan5469 I dont think you understand the scope of the situation. Try understand why China did what they did in the first place. If PH crashes a military ship onto one of the territories that VN has strong claims/interests over, and permanently stations them there to annex it, VN would likely be on the offensive too to any ships that try to replenish supplies for them to stay there forever as we know VN arent saints (weve all seen what theyve done to Cambodia). Then, itll be all over the media. And people would also "hate what VN is doing in the SCS".
1
@AhmetTekin101 Wrong. Vietname has no "legitimate rights" to do so. You always copy paste the same "Have you read UNCLOS or the Hague Tribunal 2016 ruling? Read them and come back to discuss" comment even when every single time I tell you I have and show you I know more about it than you do. Quote me WHERE in the UNCLOS or Hague Tribunal 2016 that specifies that Vietnam has the "legitimate right" to do so. Go on. Im waiting.
1