White Paper on the Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) Islands


Republic of Vietnam
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Saigon, 1975
 

CHAPTER IV: THE DEFENSE OF THE LEGITIMATE RIGHTS OF VIETNAM 

In preceding Chapters, it has been mentioned that the Vietnamese have always assured an appropriate defense of their rights over the Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) Islands. Vietnamese or French troops were stationed permanently on both archipelagoes in a display of authority that is inherent to rightful sovereignty. In the diplomatic field, it has been recalled that France remained active until 1956 in the defense of the legitimate title it held on behalf of Vietnam. In 1932, then again in 1939, France issued particularly strong protests against pretenses from China concerning the Paracels and from Japan concerning the Spratlys.

White Paper on the Hoang Sa (Paracel) and Truong Sa (Spratly) Islands

Republic of Vietnam
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Saigon, 1975

CHAPTER II: THE EXERCISE OF VIETNAMESE SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE HOANG SA ISLANDS

Historical consolidation of the Vietnamese title to the Hoang Sa Islands continued under the Nguyen dynasty' i.e., after 1802. From that date, it is possible to speak of a Paracel policy , by the successive emperors of Vietnam as manifested through systematic measures taken in the fields of administration, defense,. transports and economic exploitation.

Formal taking of possession by Emperor Gia Long.

The first emperor of the Nguyen dynasty, Gia Long, consecrated the will of the Vietnamese to confirm their sovereignty over the Hoang Sa Islands by formally taking possession of the archipelago. According to various historic sources, in the year 1816 the Vietnamese flag was planted in a formal ceremony on the Paracels. In 1837 the Reverend, Jean-Louis Taberd, then Bishop of Isauropolis, wrote the following in his "Note on the Geography of Cochinchina printed in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, India, (12):

By Andrew Forbes

During ongoing negotiations over the past several years, rival claimants to the Spratly Islands have agreed loosely to 'increase cooperation' in the South China Sea. Officially, however, Beijing, the most powerful and least flexible claimant nation, remains adamant in its assertion that the Spratlys are "an inalienable part of the Chinese motherland". Under these circumstances, perhaps it is time to consider the historical foundations of China's claim - indeed, whether Beijing has legitimate interests in the region at all.

In July, 1977, when Teng Hsiao-ping first emerged as China's leader following the death of Mao Tse-tung, the Chinese foreign minister, Huang Hua, reconfirmed that China's claim to the South China Sea was "non-negotiable" in the strongest terms. At the same time he commented:
The territory of China reaches as far south as the James Shoals, near Malaysia's Borneo territory... I remember that while I was still a schoolboy, I read about those islands in the geography books. At that time, I never heard anyone say those islands were not China's... The Vietnamese claim that the islands belong to them. Let them talk that way. They have repeatedly asked us to negotiate with them on the issue; we have always declined to do so... As to the ownership of the islands, there are historical documents that can be verified. There is no need for negotiations since they originally belonged to China.

China’s Quest for Energy Security from the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea to the Caspian Sea Basin

By Tarique Niazi

ABSTRACT

This article attempts to explore the ecological dimensions of strategic interests by examining China’s Asia-wide quest for key natural resources and safe seaways for their shipment. It takes a close look at three cases – one in the Indian Ocean region, the South China Sea region, and the Caspian Sea region – to explain interaction between natural resources and China’s emerging strategic interests in Asia. The article shows that Beijing’s quest for key natural resources underlies its economic and strategic alignments with the respective nations of Indian Ocean, South China Sea and Caspian Sea regions. The article implies that International Relations (IR) Theory and policy makers pay very close attention to the anchorage of strategic interests in the struggles over access and control of critical natural resources.