|
Download pdf file: http://vietwill.org/images/Documents/vnwhitepapers81.pdf
THE HOANG SA AND TRUONG SA ARCHIPELAGOES VIETNAMESE TERRITORIES
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM
1981
PART II
THE HOANG SA AND TRUONG SA ARCHIPELAGOESHAVE NEVER BEEN CHINESE TERRITORIES
Despite the fact that the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes have longiince been part of Vietnamese territory, the Peking ruling circles are now tryingto justify their expansionist ambitions over these two archipelagoes, quoting ancientbooks to back up their claims that China was "the first to discover, to exploit andto govern" the "Xisha" and the "Nansha'' archipelagoes. "For thousands of years,the governments of various Chinese dynasties had been continuously exercisingtheir jurisdiction over these two archipelagoes... and the Chinese people areundeniable masters of these two archipelagoes", (38) they say.
On the other hand, they have brazenly made up the story that the VietnameseHoang Sa and Truong Sa are coastal islands and sandbanks along centralVietnam in an attempt to prove that the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoesand the "Xisha" and "Nansha" islands claimed by China are not the same.But no one can deny the truth that Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoeshave been and shall always be parts of Vietnamese territory.
1. ON THE SO-CALLED "DISCOVERY" AND "EXPLOITATION" BYTHE CHINESE PEOPLE
The document made public by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs onJanuary 30, 1980, presents excerpts from two books (39) published in the ThreeKigdoms period (220-265 AD) to prove that long ago the Chinese "discovered""Xisha" and "Nansha".
It also refers to six other books (40) published during the time between theSung dynasty and the Qing dynasty (from the 11th to 19th century) and declaresthat these books write about the Chinese people's voyages to the Xisha and Nanshaarchipelagoes and their engagement in production activities there over thousands of years, and "in this process, they gave the Xisha and Nansha archipelagoes different names like Liuru Lozhou, Shitang, Qianli Shitang, Wanli Changsha etc." This was an attempt to prove that "the Chinese people had discovered and carried on exploitation work in Xisha and Nansha".
As a matter of fact, the contents of what is quoted from the two books of the ThreeKingdoms period are quite vague. As for the six books dated from the Sung to the Qing dynasty, they are essentially writings recording contemporary Chinese cognizance of geographical positions, history and customs of foreign countries in Southeast Asia and South Asia, and the sea routes from China to such foreign countries and contain nothing about "the Chinese people's voyages to these two archipelagoes" and their "engagement in production activities" there. Even if the geographical names used in these ancient books correctly refer to the two archipelagoes as Peking claims, they are designations used by the Chinese in thepast to denote geographic features of foreign countries or to describe navigation routes in these sea areas. They are in no way of any legal value for the Chinese claim of sovereignty over these islands.
Similarly, even if it is true that the Chinese discovered these archipelagoes, that will not constitute a legal basis for the Chinese claim that they have been under Chinese jurisdiction. Even if it can be shown that some exploitation work was carried by the Chinese in "Xisha" and "Nansha", that will in no way help create sovereign rights for the Chinese state over these archipelagoes, since the work was done by private individuals.
2. ON THE SO-CALLED "JURISDICTION" EXERCISED BY CHINESEDYNASTIES
Public opinion has demanded that the Chinese ruling circles prove when and how theChinese state took possession of the two archipelagoes of "Xisha" and "Nansha". TheChinese authorities, however, have failed to provide an answer. They had to resort to a general statement that "the governments of various Chinese dynasties had continuously exercised their jurisdiction over these two archipelagoes", and with a view to proving that, they have cited a number of events taking place during the whole period from the 11th to the 19th century, of which the following three are emphasized :
The first event: In the above-mentioned document of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, what follows is said to be an excerpt from Wujing Zongyao, a book written in the reign of King Renzong (1023-1063) of the Northern Sungs : The Court "orders that royal troops be dispatched to build and defend the bases of maritime patrol in Guangnan (i.e. present day Guangdong)" and "that combat ships be built"... "if from, Tunmenshan one avails oneself of the east wind and takes the southwest route one will reach Jiuru Lozhou in seven days." The Chinese Foreign Ministry document considers Jiuru Lozhou to be the "Xisha archipelago" and concludes that "The Court of the Northern Sungs had placed the Xisha archipelago under its administration and that "Chinese naval units had patrolled the area of the Xisha archipelago".In fact, the original Wujing Zongyao had this to say about the abovementionedevent:
"...Orders that royal troops be dispatched to build and defend the basesof maritime patrol in the Eastern and Western sea-habours, which are 280truongs (41) in width, and which are about 200 li from Tunmenshan (42), and thatwarships be built"... "If from Tunmenshan one avails oneself of the east windand takes the southwest route one will reach Jiuru Lozhou in seven days andif proceeding further, one will reach Pulaoshan (in the Kingdom of Huanzhou (43)within 3 days : and about 300 li further southwards from that point is Lingshandongregion. To the southwest of Ungshandong are the Kingdoms of Dashifu,Sizi and Tianzhu (44) where no one had any idea of how long a voyage to theseKingdoms would take" (45).
Clearly the above excerpt from Wujing Zhongyao mentions on the one handthe order of the Court of the Northern Sungs on the establishment of bases formaritime patrol in Guangzhou Harbour, and on the other hand describes the positionsof these bases and the sea-routes from Guangzhou to the Indian Ocean, andnot a single line of the afore-said passage suggests that Chinecument of the ChineseForeign Ministry, indeed, re-arranges the words of the quoted passage (whichare here-above quoted) with no other aims than serving the expansionist designof the Chinese authorities with regard to the Hoang Sa archipelago (46).The second event: The document of the Chinese Foreign Ministry mentionsthe astronomical surveys conducted by the Yuan dynasty in the "South Sea" toconclude that "the Xisha archipelago lies within Chinese territory under theYuan".
Nevertheless, in Yuanshi, the official history of the Yuan dynasty, the astronomicalsurveys conducted during the early years of the Yuan dynasty are describesas follows :
"The measurements of shadows cast by the sun in the Four Seas were carriedout at twenty-seven points including Kaoli in the East, Tianchi in the West, Zhuyain the South and Tiele in the North." (47)
In the chapter "The Measurements in the Four Seas", Yuanshi clearly listed thetwenty-seven points including Kaoli, Tiele Peihai and Nanhai, where the measurements were carried out. (48) From what is written in Yuanshi, one can see clearly that the astronomical surveys at the twenty-seven points were not made on a "national level" as Peking said in its document but "in the Four Seas". That is why these twenty-seven points included such places lying outside the "Chinese domain" asKaoli i.e. Korea, Tiele i.e. a place in Siberia (U.S.S.R.), Peihai (Northern Sea) i.e. thesea off Siberia and Nanhai i.e, the East Sea (49).
Even if the point where measurements were carried out in Nanhai lies in the"Xisha" archipelago, that does not mean "Xisha" was part of the Chinese domainunder the Yuan dynasty. Yuanshi itself says the Chinese Empire then extendedonly to Hainan island in the south and not beyond the Gobi desert in the north. (50)The third event: The document of the Chinese foreign Ministry mentions the patroltour made by Vice-Admiral Wu Sheng some time between 1710 and 1712 duringthe Qing dynasty. The admiral was said "to have set out from Qiongya,proceeding to Tonggu, Qizhouyang, and Sigengsha. making a three-thousandlitour of patrol and observation". Making use of the above description of the tour,the publisher of the document says "Qishouyang is present-day Xisha archipelagoarea which was then patrolled by naval units of Guangdong province".
In reality, the places mentioned in the above excerpt are in or around Hainanisland :
— Qiongya or "the military district of Qiongya" under the Qing dynasty hadits headquarters at Qiongshan near the present-day township of HaiKou, in thenorthern part of Hainan island. (5 l)
— Tonggu lies in the northeastern point of Hainan island. (52)
— Qizhouyang is that part of the sea east of Hainan island in which there areseven islets called Qizhou. (53)
— Sigengsha is a sandbank in the western part of Hainan island. (54)It is now clear that the document of the Chinese Foreign Ministry has distortedfacts, turning "Qizhouyang" into "Xisha archipelago region" and conjuring atour in "Xisha archipelago region" out of Wu Sheng's patrol tour around Hainanisland to conclude that "the region was then patrolled by naval units of Guangdong province".
The comparison between Peking's excerpts and the original texts shows clearlythat none of the three cited events had any connection with the Xisha archipelago.Peking also cited some local geographical books in the Ming and Qing dynastieswhich said "Wanzhou includes Qianli Changsha and Wanli Shitang" (55) in an attempt to prove their assertion that "the Xisha and Nansha archipelagoes were then part of Wanzhou in the district of Qiongzhou, Guangdong province". Nevertheless,in "Daqing Yitongzhi", the official geographical book edited by the National Instituteof History of the Qing dynasty with a foreword by Emperor Xuanzong in the 22ndyear of Daoguang (1842), there was not a single mention about "Qianli Changsha"and "Wanli Shitang" being part of Wanzhou. Qiongzhou district, Guangdongprovince. That is the reason why, perhaps, Peking failed to mention this officialwork published by that feudal state itself.
Peking goes even further to say that it is in possession of three ancient mapsof China, all drawn in the Qing dynasty (56). "as evidence" supporting its claim-Readers may ask why the Peking author ties have not yet made public these maps.Such caution is not accidental because of the fact that all the maps of China drawnfrom that time till the early years of Zhunghua Minguo (the Chinese Republic) didnot include "Xisha" and "Nansha" as is asserted by the Peking authorities (57).Isn't it so that they need time to have these maps altered ?
The landing of 170 Chinese sailors on some islands in "Xisha" in 1909 underthe command of the Guangdong Admiral Li Zhun on order of Liang-guangGovernor Zhang Renjun was simply an unlawful act since the archipelagoby that time had been part of the Vietnamese territory for several hundredyears and no longer unoccupied land.
The landing of the Quo Ming Tang troops on Phu Lam island (Ile Boisée) inthe Hoang Sa archipelago and on Itu Aba island in the Truong Sa archipelago inDecember 1946 was an act of aggression for these islands had belonged to Vietnamlong before.
The occupations by the P.R.C. troops of the northeastern islands in the HoangSa archipelago in the early 1950s and of the southwestern islands of the samearchipelago which were being held by the troops of the Saigon administration in1974 were also acts of armed aggression.
Be it a lightning invasion or a prolonged occupation or any other acts undertakenby the Chinese in the Hoang Sa archipelago and Itu-Aba island, they areall flagrant acts of encroachment upon the territorial integrity of Vietnam andbrazen violation of international law. Those acts cannot create any rights or titlesfor the Chinese.
3. A NEW ALLEGATION FROM PEKING: VIETNAM'S HOANG SAAND TRUONG SA AND CHINA'S "XISHA" AND "NANSHA" ARENOT THE SAME
The above-mentioned document published by the Chinese Foreign Ministryends with a most sensational assertion: Vietnam's Hoang Sa and China's "Xisha"are not the same Vietnam's Truong Sa and China's "Nansha" are not the same;Vietnam's Truong Sa and Hoang Sa can only be "islands and sandbanks along the(56) Huangqing Gezhisheng Fentu (1755), Daqing Wannian Yitong Dili Quantu (1810) and Daqing Yitong Tianxia Quantu (1817).(57) See Supplements 11, 12, 13.coast of Central Vietnam". The Chinese authorities also say Vietnam cannot provethat the Truong Sa archipelago is the China-claimed archipelago of "Nansha". Theseare new allegations from Peking.
What arrises from this Chinese allegation is the recognition that there existin Vietnamese territory the archipelagoes of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa and alsothe assertion of the existence of the claimed archipelagoes of "Xisha" and "Nansha"belonging to Chinese territory. Then whatever are these "Xisha" and "Nansha"and where do they come from ? It is written in many Vietnamese ancient booksthat the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes have long since been Vietnameseterritories and this was confirmed in many Westerners' maps (under the designationsof Paracels and Spratley or Spratly) as well as in Vietnamese maps. However,the Chinese expansionists have chosen to baptize them "Xisha" and "Nansha"with a view to deliberately asserting claims on these two archipelagoes.Having done all this, the Peking authorities are now saying that Vietnam canin no way prove that Hoang Sa and Truong Sa are the same as the China-claimedarchipelagoes of "Xisha" and "Nansha". This new allegation of the Chinese expansionists shows on the one hand their arrogant attitude and on the other handtheir legally indefensible position in attempting to grab Vietnam's territory.Vietnamese archives make distinction between the islands along the coastof Central Vietnam and the Hoang Sa archipelago. In Phu Bien Tap Luc, forexample, Le Qui Don noted clearly that the Dai Truong Sa islands stand fartherout in the sea, separated from the Re island by a voyage of 3-days sailing. (58)Similarly in the map entitled Dai Nam Nhat Thong Toan Do, Hoang Sa—Van Ly Truong Sa are situated far out in the sea, away from suchVietnamese coastal islands as Cham, Re, Xanh, Thu and others.
The Peking authorities even distort Bishop Taberd's article written in 1837,saying that the archipelago of Paracel referred to by the Bishop precisely areislands and sandbands along the coast of Central Vietnam. They do not know ofthe fact, or they may have known it but pretend not to know it, that a year later.in 1838, Bishop Taberd published a map called An Nam Dai Quoc Hoa Do in his Dictionarium Latino-Annamiticum in which Paracel or Cat Vang was defined assituated far away from major islands along the coast of Central Vietnam such asCham, Re, Xanh, Tre, Thu etc. Thus, Bishop Taberd made a distinction betweenthe Paracel archipelago in the middle of the sea and the islands along the coastof Central Vietnam. Almost all the maps drawn by the 16th, 17th, and 18thcentury navigators (59) generally marked the Paracel or Parcel in the same areasof the present-day Paracels and Spratly far beyond the coastal islands of centralVietnam.
In 1959, 82 fishermen of the People's Republic of China sailed in three boatsand landed on three islands — Huu Nhat, Duy Mong and Quang Hoa — in theHoang Sa archipelago and were arrested by the Saigon troops. In connection withthis case, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, on February 29, 1959, issued a statement protesting against the Saigon administration.The arrest of the fishermen of the People's Republic of China mentionedin the above statement did not take place on the coastal islands of South Vietnambut on the islands of Huu Nhat, Duy Nong and Quang Hoa in the Hoang Sa archipelago.
On January 19, 1974, the Saigon authorities denounced the occupation of theHoang Sa archipelago by Peking armed forces and on January 20, 1974, theMinistry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China issued a statement todefend the aggression. It is evident that the fighting between Saigon and Pekingtook place in the Hoang Sa archipelago (Paracels) which Peking calls "Xisha" andnot on the islands along the South Vietnamese coast, and that Chinese armedforces have been occupying the Hoang Sa archipelago ever since, not the islandsalong the coast of South Vietnam.
The two events recalled above show all the more clearly that before January30, 1980, — the date on which the document of the Chinese Foreign Ministrywas circulated-Peking always held that what they called "Xisha" and "Nansha"were also the Vietnamese archipelagoes of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa, i.e. theParacels and Spratley in international maritime maps.
The Vietnamese archipelagoes of Hoang Sa and Truong Sa can in no wayalter their geographical positions by their Chinese names, nor can they becomeChinese territories due to Peking's allegations.
Despite all the noisy propaganda, all the concoction and distortion ofthe documents, and all the arguments constructed over the past decades, Peking hasfailed to bring out when the Chinese state began to take possession of the HoangSa and Truong Sa archipelagoes, and how this state has exercised its sovereigntyover them. This is the thing Peking cannot prove, because of a simple fact that theHoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes which they call "Xisha" and "Nansha" havenever been Chinese territories.
Supplement 11The HuangZhao Yitong Jidi Zongtu Map printed in the Huanqing Yitong Jidi Quantu Atlas published in the 20th year of Guangxu Reign (1894) on which only the Hainan island was defined and no archipelagoes whatsoever in the East Sea were drawn.
Supplement 12
The Da Qing Diguo Map printed in the Da Qing Diguo Quantu Atlas published byShanghai Shangwu Jinshuguan in the 31st year of Guangxu reign (1905) and republished in the 2nd year of Xuantung reign (1910), on which, similarly, only the Hainan island was drawn and no archipelagoes whatsoever in the East Sea were defined.Supplement 13The Zhungguo Zhengkutu Map printed in the Zhungguo Sonjyiu Atlas published by Shanghai Shangwu Jinshuguan in the 2nd year of Zhunghua Minguo (1913) and Re-published, the 3rd time, in the 6th year of Zhunghua Minguo (1917). On this map an archipelago was defined (marked "X")i the name of which, Patras, was transliterated by the publisher because there was not a ready name in Chinese. Later, the Chinese authorities gave it the name of Dongsha.38Supplement 14 :The Zhunghua Renmin Gungheguo Daditu Map printed by Aguang Judi Xuesha in 1952 on which the archipelagoes in the East Sea were defined as lying within Chinese frontiers (note the right corner).39
Supplement 15 :The Zhungguo Xingzheng Qwi Map drawn by Dilu Chupenshe, 1st printing in 1964, 4th printing in 1975, distributed by Xinhua Shudian, Peking, used in schools. On this map, the whole East Sea was shown as lying adjacent the Chinese mainland and the Chinese border line ran close to the coasts of Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines.40
Supplement 16:The Leizhou Peninsula and Hainan island sheet of a maritime map (Scale: 1/500,000)published by China in May 1965, in Chinese and Vietnamese: That Chau Duong, name of a place lying east to the Hainan island where there is a group of seven islands (Note "X" mark on the map).
CONCLUSION
There exists a Hoang Sa and Truong Sa problem. But this question must becorrectly understood.
On the basis of historical facts and international law it cannot be denied thatthe Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes have long since and always been Vietnamese territories. The Vietnamese state took possession of these archipelagoeswhen they were not under the sovereignty of any nation, and it has been continuouslyand effectively exercising its sovereignty over them.
The Chinese state in the past had never taken possession of these two archipelagoeswhich it calls "Xisha" and "Nansha" and had never exercised its sovereigntyover them. China had not even raised any claim over these two archipelagoesuntil the early years of the 20th century, but Peking is now fabricating facts anddistorting history to back up its claims that "Xisha" and "Nansha" have sinceancient times been Chinese territories.
The real problem here is not the question of a dispute between Vietnam andChina, but it is the Chinese aggression and occupation of the Hoang Sa archipelago,part of Vietnamese territory, and the Chinese claim of the Truong Sa archipelagoas part of China. The Chinese authorities must return to Vietnam the Hoang Saarchipelago and renounce all claims to the Hoang Sa and Truong Sa archipelagoes —this is a matter of course, in conformity with international law.
The ambition of the Peking authorities over the two Vietnamese archipelagoesof Hoang Sa and Truong Sa manifests all the more clearly their policy of bignationexpansionism and hegemony which is aimed at conquering Vietnam as wellas Laos and Kampuchea, gradually controlling and eventually turning the East Seainto a Chinese lake, and using the Indochinese peninsula as a springboard for theirexpansion into Southeast Asia.
The act of aggression of the reactionary clique in the Peking ruling circlesagainst the Hoang Sa archipelago and their scheme to annex the Truong Sa archipelago constitute not only an encroachment upon Vietnam's sovereignty and terrorial integrity but also an immediate threat to the interests of the countries in theEast Sea area, as well as to peace and stability in Southeast Asia.
The Vietnamese people are determined to defend the territorial integrity oftheir country and their sovereignty over the two archipelagoes of Hoang Sa andTruong Sa against all expansionist designs of the reactionary clique in the Pekingruling circles. This just struggle enjoying the sympathy and support of the world'speace-loving and progressive forces fighting against imperialism and Peking's expansionism and hegemonism, will certainly end in total victory.
Notes:
(1) The Vietnamese have long since adopted this name to designate what the Western car tographers call the China Sea or the South China Sea.(2) Maps drawn by Portuguese, Dutch and French navigators such as Lazaro Luis, Ferdanao Vaz Dourdo, Joao Teixeira, Janssonius, Willem Jansz Bleau, Jacob Aertsz Colom, Theunis Jacobsz, Hendrick Doncker, Frederich De Wit, P. Duval, Van Langren, etc.(3) See supplement 10.(4) See supplements 14 and 15.
(5) The Nguyen family (1558-1775) governed the Southern part of present-day Vietnam.(6) See supplement 1.(7) In the Hong Duc Atlas.(8) South of the Sa Ky Harbour, the An Vinh settlement on the Ré island also belongsto this village.(9) Dam is an ancient unit of measurement equal to half a kilometre.(10) See supplement 2.(11) The chapters on Central Vietnam provinces were amended and printed in 1909.(15) i.e. Northern Vietnam,(16) A. Salles's quotation in his article "Le mémoire sur la Cochinchine de J.B. Chaigneau" printed in "Bulletin des amis du vieux Hue", No 2, 1923, p. 257.(17) Bishop Jean—Louis Taberd's article "Note on Geography of Cochinchina" printed in "The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal", 1837, vol VI, p. 745.(18) Printed in "Dictionarium Latino-Anamiti*****", 1838; see Supplement 3.(19) "Geography of the Cochinchinese Empire" printed in "The Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London", 1849, vol XIX, p. 93.
(21) Sa Vinh is presently known as the Harbour of Sa Huynh, Nghia Binh province.(22) Bai Cat Vang, the Golden Sandbank, is an area where there are dangerous submerged rocks.(23) See Supplement 4.
(24) Part II, Vol 122.
(25) Part I, vol. 50.(26) Part I, vol. 52.(27) Part n, vol. 104.(28) Part II, vol. 122.(29) Part II, vol. 154.(30) Part II, Vol 165.(31) Part II, Vol 104.
(32) The islands of Song Tu Dong and Song Tu Tay.(33) Presently part of Dong Nai province. See supplement 5.
(34) Presently part of Binh Tri Thien province.(35) See supplement 6.(36) See supplement 7.
(37) See supplement 8 and 9.(38) Document published by the Chinese Foreign Ministry on Jan. 30th, 1980.(39) Nanzhou Yiwuzhi and Funanzhuan.(40) Monglianglu, Daoyi Zhilue, DongxiyangKao, Shunfeng Xiangsong, Zhinan Zhengfa and Haiguo Winjianlu
(41) Truong: an ancient unit of measure equal to 3.51 metres.(42) Tunmenshan is a place on the mouth of Pearl River (Guangdong province).(43) Pulaoshan is Cham island ; Huanzhou was the Kingdom of Champa.(44) Dasifu, mentioned in many Chinese ancient books as Dashi, was a Middle Age nation in the Persian Gulf area ; Sizi was ancient Sri Lanka and Tianzhu denoted India (according to Chinese books Tengshu, Sungshi and Gugin Doshu Zisheng).(45) Wujing Zongyao, Part I, Vol. 20, pp. 19a — 19b.(46) Peking not only distorts the contents of the books but also their titles in the French translation. For example "Daoyi Zhilue" means "genera! observation of the barbarous countries on islands" — "barbarous countries" is a spiteful Chinese term for foreign countries — but the Chinese translation is "general observation of the islands". "Haiguo Winjianlu" means "What one sees and hears about foreign countries" but the Chinese translation is "What one sees and hears about coastal areas".
(47) Yuanshi, Vol. 48, pp. la and lb.
(48) Yuanshi, Vol. 48, pp. 7a and 7b.(49) See Notes in Haiguo Tuzhi, a book published in 1842.(50) After Yuanshi, the part on geography, and Lidagangwupiao (Qing dynasty).(51) According to Zhungwen Dacidian, 1963 (published in Taiwan).(52) See Zhungguo Xinjutu, a map published by Shanghai Shangwu Jinshuguan, 1917.(53) See Zhungguo Haitu under Supplement 16.(54) See also Zhunggus Xinjutu, published by Shanghai Shangwu Jinshuguan, 1917.(55) Guandong Tongzhi, QiongZhou Fuzhi and Wanzhou Zhi.
(58) Sea also footnotes (7) and (8).(59) See also footnote (2).
|
LIBRARY 
