Vietnamnet.vn
Podcast
VietNamNet Bridge – China’s ambition to impose unreasonable sovereignty in
almost all the East Sea is extremely contradictory to this country’s historical
documents. However, China has done the thing that all true academicians protest:
intentionally making up and distorting history.
The East Sea disputes
 |
|
|
White Books on China’s sovereignty over Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagos and research documents of Chinese scholars, typically Hán Zhèn Huá with the book “Review of historical documents of our country South China Sea islands,” put forward “forceful conclusions” that there are “historical truth,” including archaeological relics that “fully prove” Chinese as the first who discovered, did business, developed and managed the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos “for thousands of years”.
But ancient Chinese historians were self-respected and serious people. Historical records of Chinese feudal dynasties noted most of significant events, with clear details, which raise difficulties for China’s today arguments of their sovereignty in the East Sea, including Vietnam’s Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes.
Geographically, China quoted from some old geographic books the description of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes as evidence for their thousand-year sovereignty over the two archipelagoes.
For example, a book entitled “Nanzhou Yiwu Zhi” about strange things overseas which was written in the age of three kingdoms in China (220-265), described some islands in the East Sea, where had hollow places with loadstones which were dangerous for ships. With only several words about the area called “Truong Hai”, recent documents of China imposed these words for Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes. It is necessary to stress that most of ancient documents in China mentioned islands and banks in the East Sea with different names.
For instance, the book “Dong-Xiyang kao” by Zhang Xie (1618) mentioned islands that are around 100 miles (50km) from China’s Wenchang district, which China claims the today Paracel Islands. It is impossible because the Paracel Islands is more than 250km south from Hainan.
In Zhou Kin’s “China’s borders” in 1991, this author confirmed: “In 1873, the first Chinese ambassador to the West mentioned in his dairy that the Spratlys Islands belongs to China.” However, this was illustrated by information about the Paracel Islands, at the 17 northern latitude. This is a serious mistake that shows the intentional add Vietnam’s Hoang Sa and Truong Sa, which is at southern latitude 17 to China’s territory.
Many ancient geological documents of China similarly described and delimited the territory of the old China, with the terminal point is the southern Hainan island. In this direction, Chinese books written in the 12th, 17th and 18th, including the book entitled “Guangdong province’s monography” that were presented to the 9th King Qing in 1731, did not mention the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagos.
Meanwhile, in 1754, a ship of Vietnam’s Hoang Sa flotilla was sunken in Hoang Sa. Its sailors floated to Chinese coast. After investigation, Chinese authorities released them. It proved that the operation of the Hoang Sa flotilla and Vietnam’s enforcement of its sovereignty in this waters was considered normal by Chinese authorities.
China always says that its fishermen were present islands in the East Sea in all periods, but the documents they show off only prove that these were personal acts, which are not suitable for claiming national sovereignty. Moreover, in these periods, Vietnamese fishermen also traveled to these islands.
In fact, there is no evidence that China protested Vietnamese Emperor Gia Long and the subsequent Vietnamese kings’ confirmation of sovereignty over the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelago.
Chinese historical documents did not have any confirmation of China’s ambition over islands in the East Sea.
China has never practiced sovereignty over these islands until the early 20th century. China’s ignorance to these islands in history is verified by the map of China issued in 1894, in which China’s territory only reaches the Hainan Island. China’s Geography textbook in 1906, page 241, says that China’s southern end point is the coast of Qiongzhou Island or Hainan, at northern latitude 18o13’.
Accurate and clear evidences for Vietnam’s long-standing, constant sovereignty by specific actions of Vietnamese people, under the command of the Vietnamese feudal dynasties since the 18th century, has forced China to argue that Vietnamese kings always served Chinese kings. It is absurd. Dai Co Viet kingdom (Vietnam) was established in the 11th century, with independence and it wisely recognized the suzerainty of China.
The relations could not be defined by legal viewpoint because the relations were vague and increased and reduced in different periods.
In history, Vietnamese dynasties needed China’s recognition, like modern countries need international recognition today. For China, paying tribute showed the dependence but for Dai Viet, paying tribute showed its independence that it could reach without causing response from China. Dai Viet accepted the vassal mechanism in name, under the form of paying tribute. But Dai Viet’s tribute to “celestial empire” was formalism.
History shows that after defeating Chinese invaders, Vietnamese kings always sought to relieve their giant neighbors by becoming a symbolic vassal. China’s vague argument about the vassal relations to claim sovereignty over Vietnam’s territory has no legal value.
China also uses some archaeological reports to say that they have sovereignty over Hoang Sa and Truong Sa. However, there is no scientific verification that the items that China says to collect from these islands belong to Chinese. Moreover, if these items belonged to Chinese, under international laws they have no meaning in defining territorial sovereignty because archaeological relics is not a decisive factor for recognizing or rejecting the sovereignty of a country over the places where have archaeological sites.
Source: Dai Doan Ket
.svg){kind=icon}
