South China Sea oil and gas exploration - Vietnam vs. China, S. China Sea Options

[Liang1a]

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90883/7598163.html

India makes waves with South China Sea oil and gas exploration

(Global Times)09:49, September 18, 2011

India's External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna began a 3-day visit to Vietnam on Friday as reports claimed that an Indian state-owned oil producer is set to undertake joint exploration of gas resources in the South China Sea with Vietnam, in spite of protests from Beijing.

The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) was reported on Thursday to have cemented a deal with Vietnamese firms to exploit oil and gas in two offshore South China Sea oil blocks with Krishna expected to discuss the issue in Vietnam.

The Indian External Affairs Ministry also reportedly claimed on Thursday that the project has been approved by Vietnam, which claims sovereignty over the two blocks, according to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Responding to a question concerning these plans, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu responded Thursday that the UN Convention did not give any country the right to expand their own exclusive economic zone and continental shelf into other countries' territories. Jiang also warned countries outside the region to support the resolution of this dispute through bilateral channels.

-------------------------------------------

Liang’s comment:

This is the first time I’ve seen the Chinese government responding with a legal counterpoint based on UNCLOS to refute the baseless claims by other countries that UNCLOS’s provisions gave them the right to invade Chinese sovereign territories. As Jiang Yu rightly pointed out, UNCLOS does not give any country the right to unilaterally extend its EEZ and continental shelf into other countries’ EEZ, continental shelf, territorial seas, internal seas and sovereign territories. Any island that qualifies under UNCLOS’ Article 121 has its own EEZ and continental shelf. This means that every Chinese sovereign island in the S. China Sea has its own 200 nm of EEZ and 350 nm of continental shelf. And where the EEZ of two countries overlap, the right of EEZ of each area belongs to the country that is closest to it. Therefore, it is a misrepresentation for Vietnam and other invading countries to argue that UNCLOS allow them to claim 200 nm of EEZ that includes China’s sovereign islands. Furthermore, China has demarcated its sea boundary by the 9-Dotted Line Map that predates the UNCLOS by many decades and cannot be superseded by any ex post facto laws of UNCLOS. Therefore, Vietnam and other invading countries cannot justify their invasion of Chinese sovereign territories by referring to the UNCLOS. And China has the right to evict any invaders from its sovereign territories with force. Specifically, India’s oil agreement with Vietnam is null and void and subject to seizure by the Chinese government according to China's laws. I'm glad to see the Chinese government responding skillfully with refutations based on international laws. I hope it will follow up with military actions justified by international laws.

It should be quite obvious by now that war in S. China Sea is inevitable. If the Chinese government persists in deluding itself that by presenting an image of benevolence it will ultimately wear down its enemies with loving kindness then it will be taking China down the path of destruction. China's policy has not yielded good results as everyone can see. The reality is China is actually losing long time allies. Even N. Korea is now inching closer to Russia and Russia itself is becoming more inattentive to China's interests. The fact that Russia is increasing its arms sales to India and Vietnam is a slap in China's face that signals the serious failure of China's diplomacy. It is time for the Chinese leaders to stop their self-delusion and show the world that China can and will fight to safeguard its sovereign territories and that the international community has better respect China's sovereignty or face the consequences.

At the same time, the Chinese people should learn a few simple facts such as a war against Vietnam will not collapse China's economy if China confines the fighting to the S. China Sea and not attack Vietnam mainland itself. The Chinese people should also know that combat radius of China's fighters such as J-10 and J-11 can all reach the farthest areas of Nansha A. and therefore China does not need aircraft carriers to begin fighting. The Chinese people should also know that fighting Vietnam and Philippines will not cause world war or turn all the world against China. The world needs China more than China needs the world. At least for now. It has been suggested that EU is facing collapse and only China has the money to bail it out. Specifically, Italy has a debt of some $2 trillion. It is suggested that a consortium be formed to provide $750 billion to the IMF to be distributed to Italy to bail it out. China is expected to contribute half of the money. The importing countries need China's cheap exports while China can expand its economy much more sustainably by phasing out exports. Therefore, China is in a very good position to go to war now to regain its lost sovereign territories while at the same time create a new image of a powerful nation willing to defend itself. Such a powerful image will go a long way toward discouraging further aggressions from puny countries.

The cost of war is minimal and the international community needs China's money and exports. Everything is now favorable to China going to war. Such an opportunity may not come again. China must "take the tide while it serves."

Those who are interested in reading more about China's evidence for claiming sovereignty in S. China Sea can go to the following link:

"S. China Sea - possession is nine-tenth of the law."

http://www.network54.com/Forum/238054/thre...enth+of+the+law.

This post has been edited by Liang1a: Sep 19 2011, 03:44 PM

[Mid-Night_Sun]

LOL how big of a font do i have to make it before you see it. jesus.

i never said this letter is vietnam accepting the 9 dotted line. i said the letter, which says it accepts Chinese territory of 12 nautical miles, was in RESPONSE to the Chinese declaration that lists every disputed island.


yes, action does speak louder than words. here are the actions of China and then Viet.


this is Chinese declaration:

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：

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.











this is the response, your translation btw

"We would like to inform you 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.”





go ahead and try and convince people what it means. i think its clear as day. but you have to convince people that a letter, that is in RESPONSE to a declaration that lists every island, didnt actually mean to include those islands when they acknowledge the 12 mile limit. that it agrees with the 12 mile limit from the declaration, but not for the territories named right after in the same declaration. and not mentioned a single WORD of these disagreements in the letter. gl with that.

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Sep 25 2011, 04:23 PM

[ivy20]

LOL how big of a font do i have to make it before you see it. jesus.

i never said this letter is vietnam accepting the 9 dotted line. i said the letter, which says it accepts Chinese territory of 12 nautical miles, was in RESPONSE to the Chinese declaration that lists every disputed island.


yes, action does speak louder than words. here are the actions of China and then Viet.


this is Chinese declaration:

Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China on [size=5]China's Territorial Sea （September 4， 1958）

　　The Government of the People's Republic of China declares：

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.


this is the response, your translation btw

"We would like to inform you 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.”


go ahead and try and convince people what it means. i think its clear as day. but you have to convince people that a letter, that is in RESPONSE to a declaration that lists every island, didnt actually mean to include those islands when they acknowledge the 12 mile limit. that it agrees with the 12 mile limit from the declaration, but not for the territories named right after in the same declaration. and not mentioned a single WORD of these disagreements in the letter. gl with that.

You can not show where did China claim 12 nautical miles on the sea! Of course you can not show it because in the reality, China claims 90% of South China Sea, not 12 nautical miles!

It is so ridiculous when China always uses the letter of Pham V. Dong to excuse for China illegal actions in S. China Sea, but at the same time, China violates what Pham V. Dong said he respects in his letter! It is China's cheating #1
(This is one of reasons that China is always afraid to go to International Court for the conflict in S. China Sea)

China's cheating # 2: According to Geneva Accords 1954, French had to withdraw troops from Vietnam & returned back Vietnam's territory to
Vietnam. Vietnam was divided to 2 countries, North Vietnam & South Vietnam, from the 17th parallel to the south, belongs to South Vietnam. All countries sign the Accords 1954 should respect the territory of other country, can not use war to attack or violate the sovereignty and territory of other country.

Zhou Enlai, China Prime Minister attended Geneva Conference 1954, he DID SIGN the Geneva Accords 1954, but China seriously violated the sovereignty of South Vietnam on Paracel & Spratly islands when China declared that Paracel & Spratly islands belong to China in 1958! This is an illegal action, which violates what China already signed!
(This is another reason why China is always afraid to go to International Court for the conflict in S. China Sea)

China cheats people by saying that Paracel & Spratly islands don't belong to Vietnam because the name of these islands were not mentioned in Geneva Accords; however, China can cheat stupid people but China can not cheat International Courts & Lawyers!

Vietnam has more than 3,000 thousand islands, of course the names of Vietnam's 3,000 thousand islands don't appear in Geneva Accords, but Vietnam does have Legal Rights of sovereignty over these islands. Why?
Because the main purpose of Geneva Accords is French colonize denounced all rights in Vietnam & returned back Vietnam territory to previous owner is Vietnam. Vietnam has well documents of Vietnam's sovereignty of over 3,000 islands including Paracel & Spratly islands before French colonized & French also has documents of these islands when French received them from Vietnam 2 centuries ago. Documents of Paracel & Spratly islands from Vietnam & French are evidences to prove that Vietnam was the previous owner of Paracel & Spratly islands before French colonized. Of course, French should return these islands to the previous owner is Vietnam, according to Geneva Accords 1954.

This post has been edited by ivy20: Sep 26 2011, 11:01 AM

[Mid-Night_Sun]

[/size][size="3"]

You can not show where did China claim 12 nautical miles on the sea! Of course you can not show it because in the reality, China claims 90% of South China Sea, not 12 nautical miles!

It is so ridiculous when China always uses the letter of Pham V. Dong to excuse for China illegal actions in S. China Sea, but at the same time, China violates what Pham V. Dong said he respects in his letter! It is China's cheating #1
(This is one of reasons that China is always afraid to go to International Court for the conflict in S. China Sea)

China's cheating # 2: According to Geneva Accords 1954, French had to withdraw troops from Vietnam & returned back Vietnam's territory to
Vietnam. Vietnam was divided to 2 countries, North Vietnam & South Vietnam, from the 17th parallel to the south, belongs to South Vietnam. All countries sign the Accords 1954 should respect the territory of other country, can not use war to attack or violate the sovereignty and territory of other country.

Zhou Enlai, China Prime Minister attended Geneva Conference 1954, he DID SIGN the Geneva Accords 1954, but China seriously violated the sovereignty of South Vietnam on Paracel & Spratly islands when China declared that Paracel & Spratly islands belong to China in 1958! This is an illegal action, which violates what China already signed!
(This is another reason why China is always afraid to go to International Court for the conflict in S. China Sea)

China cheats people by saying that Paracel & Spratly islands don't belong to Vietnam because the name of these islands were not mention in Geneva Accords; however, China can cheat stupid people but China can not cheat International Courts & Lawyers!

Vietnam has more than 3,000 thousand islands, of course the names of Vietnam's 3,000 thousand islands don't appear in Geneva Accords, but Vietnam does have Legal Rights of sovereignty over these islands. Why?
Because the main purpose of Geneva Accords is French colonize denounced all rights in Vietnam & returned back Vietnam territory to previous owner is Vietnam. Vietnam has well documents of Vietnam's sovereignty of over 3,000 islands including Paracel & Spratly islands before French colonized & French also has documents of these islands when French received them from Vietnam 2 centuries ago. Documents of Paracel & Spratly islands from Vietnam & French are evidences to prove that Vietnam was the previous owner of Paracel & Spratly islands before French colonized. Of course, French should return these islands to the previous owner is Vietnam.

ready to get schooled again?

i already showed you several times where the 12 nautical mile limit comes from. why dont you go tell someone in viet then get back to me when you figure out what your major comprehension problem is.

Zhou Enlai, China Prime Minister attended Geneva Conference 1954, he DID SIGN the Geneva Accords 1954, but China seriously violated the sovereignty of South Vietnam on Paracel & Spratly islands when China declared that Paracel & Spratly islands belong to China in 1958! This is an illegal action, which violates what China already signed!
(This is another reason why China is always afraid to go to International Court for the conflict in S. China Sea)

OH REALLY? China violated South Vietnam because it signed the Geneva Accord eh? then China did what South Vietnam didnt in the first place. Saigon's delegation DID NOT SIGN THE GENEVA ACCORDS. In fact, it is on this basis Diem did not participate in the elections that Geneva Accords stated.

Jul 6, 1955: Diem says South Vietnam not bound by Geneva Agreements
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history...neva-agreements



but even if you didnt just body bag yourself like a typical delusional wack job. i have another response.

lets pretend South Vietnam (the victim of so called Chinese violation) did sign the Geneva Accord (which only YOU claim includes those islands in the first place). so what? this was in 1954.
The ROC been occupying Taiping for 9 years now. but lets put that fact aside for now.

so you say Geneva Accord can give back islands WITHOUT identifying them and WITHOUT France even being the last owner (Japan was). then ill take a page from your book.
sharpen your mind, because i dont have faith you can follow this.



Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan. Signed at Taipei, 28 April 1952.
ARTICLE II
It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the city of San Francisco in the United States of America on September 8, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Pe...public_of_China


so, what does the San Francisco Treaty say about our issue (the islands)? you will understand why Kurile is there in a moment.


Article 2
(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
© Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of September 5, 1905.
(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/alpha/learn/SanFran.htm


now how did these articles get into the Treaty? here, from the Japanese Ministry of Affairs, you can see statements between the Soviets and the Japanese ON THE AMERICAN DRAFT OF THE TREATY.


"To sum up, the following conclusions regarding the American-British draft peace treaty can be drawn:"
- First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, A.A. Gromyko


so why were spratly and paracel included? SAME REASON KURILES IS. (note that Japan STILL has dispute with Russia in Kuriles).


The draft contains only a reference to the renunciation by Japan of its rights to these territories but intentionally omits any mention of the further fate of these territories.

It is an indisputable fact that original Chinese territories which were severed from it, such as Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores, the Paracel Islands and other Chinese territories, should be returned to the Chinese People's Republic.

The rights of the Soviet Union to the southern part of the Sakhalin Island and all the islands adjacent to it, as well as to the Kurile Islands, which are at present under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union, are equally indisputable."


To sum up, the following conclusions regarding the American-British draft peace treaty can be drawn:

5. The draft treaty flagrantly violates the legitimate rights of the Chinese people to an integral part of China - Taiwan, the Pescadores and Paracel Islands and other territories severed from China as a result of Japanese aggression.

6. The draft treaty is in contradiction to the obligations undertaken by the United States and Great Britain under the Yalta Agreement regarding the return of Sakhalin and the transfer of the Kurile Islands to the Soviet Union.

- First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, A.A. Gromyko

Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/europe/russia...92/period4.html

The Soviets complained the AMERICAN-BRITISH DRAFT wasnt clear about Spratly/Paracel belonging to China and Kurile belonging to Soviets. The Japanese delegation DID NOT agree with Kuriles. this is the background to why those articles are in there. specifically to this topic, Article 2b and 2f. Note that the articles now have Japan renouncing its right AND TITLE AND CLAIM.



ill summarize for you to make it easier. 2 years before Geneva Accord there is a treaty between Taiwan and Japan where it states Japan give up its right/title/claim to spratly and paracel (BY NAME, something your Geneva Accord doesnt do). it references the article in the san francisco treaty. as stated, article 2 says Japan gives up right/title/claim.

now how did those articles get there. the Japanese Foreign Ministry of Affairs gave detailed statements from the Soviets and themselves on how. The Soviet delegation said the American-British draft made unclear the fate of spratly/paracel for China and Kurile for them.

of course Japan disagree with Kurile and to this day they have dispute. but regardless, what were the resulting articles. Articles 2b and 2f and of course 2c (that is kurile, not part of a discussion, but is worth noting because japan definitely didnt agree with that. it is there at because of the soviet protest along with the articles on spratly, paracel, taiwan, etc.)

yes, we can all acknowledge the irony that despite the Soviet's best efforts we have uneducated morons still getting enough ambiguity to say it wasnt clear. Chinese thank the Soviets for their attempt on our behalf, but you cant stop idiots who are determined. course it is also on Chinese, whos civil war prevented us from going ourselves. you can bet if China attended we wouldnt even be having this discussion.


so, if you were able to keep up with me, ill reiterate my scenario. if we pretend, that South Vietnam was even a part of the Geneva Accord (which it didnt sign) and that the Geneva Accord can give to Vietnam islands (without naming them and without France even being the occupant). then i can make the arguement as early as 1951 San Francisco Treaty Japan already relinquish to China.






not only that, i can go back further. let me take you to 1945, which was when Republic of China occupied the biggest and only fresh water island in Spratly. what happen in 1945? Potsdam Declaration July 26 1945: PROCLAMATION DEFINING TERMS FOR JAPANESE SURRENDER. That is quite an amazing coincidence in timing huh.





lets go even further back. Cairo Declaration November 27, 1943. it clearly states ALL territories stolen from Chinese must go back to China. it even gave examples such as Manchuria, Formosa and Pescadores.

http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/shiryo...6/002_46tx.html

so let me reiterate once more. if you tell me the Geneva Accord (pretending the victim of Chinese 'invasion' even signed it) can legitimately give islands (despite NOT naming them and NOT being the last occupant); i can say China as early as 1943 already have claim.



lmao, even if i just give up everything i said with the treatys, pretend its all wrong. i still have recorded statements from the Soviet's that recognize Chinese claims. to this day, i still havent seen ONE non Viet foreign minister say 'the spratly and paracel islands indisputably belong to the vietnamese people'. and you are STILL claiming sovereignty over a group of islands where the biggest one belong to someone else ever since 1945.

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: Sep 26 2011, 11:47 AM

[ivy20]

ready to get schooled again?

i already showed you several times where the 12 nautical mile limit comes from. why dont you go tell someone in viet then get back to me when you figure out what your major comprehension problem is.

There are a lot of cheating in your comment!. I will go over it step by step. Now, lets discuss your first sencentence:

According to the letter of Pham V. Dong, he said very clear that he respects 12 nautical miles territory water of China, if China respects Pham V. Dong letter, why did GREEDY China attack Vietnamese fishermen & oppose the right of Vietnam to explore oil on Vietnam's territory water???

Answer my questions:

1. What kind of International Law is China using in S. China Sea???

2. Can you explain the reason why "12 nautical miles territory water" of China go...too....too....far....to Exclusive Economic Zone territory water of Vietnam???

[chutzpah]

There are a lot of cheating in your comment!. I will go over it step by step. Now, lets discuss your first sencentence:

According to the letter of Pham V. Dong, he said very clear that he respects 12 nautical miles territory water of China, if China respects Pham V. Dong letter, why did GREEDY China attack Vietnamese fishermen & oppose the right of Vietnam to explore oil on Vietnam's territory water???

Answer my questions:

1. What kind of International Law is China using in S. China Sea???

2. Can you explain the reason why "12 nautical miles territory water" of China go...too....too....far....to Exclusive Economic Zone territory water of Vietnam???

You are quite obnoxious aren't you? Do you always accuse those you disagree with cheating and GREEDY? Others use facts and historical data to support their case, but you just bark away like a wronged female b!tch that you obviously are Pathetic!