Embedded Files
Dear List,
Like several other DC-based VSGers, I have gotten calls from the media this week on President Bush's trip to Vietnam and, with them, the standard questions about similarities and differences between the Vietnam war and Iraq. The Washington policy community seems to be coming to a tacit consensus on the eventual partition of Iraq and, as a result, media queries are starting to include comparisons/contrasts between partition in Vietnam in 1954 and possible partition in Iraq, all with the usual caveats that these are two very different situations and very different points in history. The contrasts are fairly obvious. The Vietnam war resulted in the reunification of the two entities that had been created by partition, while the net result of the Iraq war could be the exact opposite. And the 1954 partition was assumed (by some, at least) to be temporary, whil! e the assumption is that partition of Iraq would be permanent. One obvious similarity would be the international community's involvement in partition in both cases.
Not being an historian, I'm not well-versed in the origins of the 1954 partition (other than the Geneva Conference, of course and the general model of Cold War partitions that had gone before - Korea, Germany, etc). I would appreciate hearing from VSGers of the historian persuasion (Shawn McHale?) on whether the 1954 partition was - on balance - an initiative of the international community, or whether there was a significant level of support for it among the Vietnamese political elite in the south. My casual understanding of that time is that the Viet Minh were opposed, of course, and that even Ngo Dinh Diem expressed doubts, at least in the beginning, that partition could work, even as an interim measure.
Thanks for any thoughts anyone can offer.
Best,
Catharin
Christoph Giebel <giebel@u.washington.edu>
date Nov 17, 2006 5:23 PM
subject Re: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
Catharin,
Well, to begin with, the Geneva Conference in 1954 did not result in
"partition" at all! So the use of this term already reinforces the
false framing that is going on all the time in American public
discourses, namely, the notion of two countries --so-called "North Viet
Nam" and so-called "South Viet Nam"-- with a border at the 17th
parallel. (To wit, see CNN's ridiculous description yesterday of the
Tet offensive as "the Viet Cong's deadly communist push into South
Vietnam," with its implied, pseudo-legalistic binary.)
Geneva basically addressed two larger issues, military and political.
Regarding the former, the DMZ was solely created as a temporary cease
fire line to disentangle opposing *military* forces, those of the Viet
Minh/DRVN (who by then controlled an overwhelming portion of the
country, having to move north of the DMZ) and those of the French
forces and the fledgling ASVN army (moving south). The political
solution was envisioned to be the country-wide elections to be held in
1956. These elections were supposed to result in a unified government,
rather than the two rival government that had existed since 1945 (DRVN)
and 1949 (ASVN), both claiming sole legitimate authority over all of
Viet Nam, of course.
So Viet Nam was never partitioned into two countries, nor did any of
the rival governments (with the ASVN replaced by the RVN in 1955) claim
that to be the case. This is quite different from, say, the two
Germanys during the Cold War or the secession of the US South in the
1860s.
Even if we disregard the rival political claims to government/state
authority over all of Viet Nam and just focus on actual control over
territory and population, the notion that Geneva resulted in the *de
facto* "partition" of Viet Nam into "two entities" is at best
problematic. First, this is not a result of the Geneva agreements at
all, which indeed delineated a political process of conflict
resolution, but of the later decisions by the RVN and the US (both of
which had refused to sign on to the agreements) not to hold the
elections that were to result in one all-Vietnamese government and
state. Second, while the DRVN controlled pretty much the entire
"entity" north of the DMZ after 1954, the "entity" south of the DMZ was
never under full control of the Sai Gon government, 1956-1958
notwithstanding when Ngo Dinh Diem had his best shot at it. Large
swaths of territory south of the 17th parallel were either continuously
disputed or controlled by forces opposed to the US and the RVN's claim
to legitimate authority and either loyal to the DRVN or at least wedded
to various visions of a revolutionary, unified Viet Nam.
So, in sum, (1) Geneva in 1954 de iure did not "partition" Viet Nam
into two countries, and (2) the decision by the RVN/US not to allow
country-wide elections resulted in the de facto fragmentation of Viet
Nam into several, certainly not just two, rather fluid "entities" at
war.
Regards,
Christoph
C. Giebel
UW-Seattle
Stephen Denney <sdenney@ocf.berkeley.edu>
date Nov 17, 2006 5:40 PM
subject Re: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
It would seem problematic to assess the popular support enjoyed by either
political faction when dissent was suppressed, more systematically in the
north than in the south for most of this period.
Catharin dalpino <catharindalpino@earthlink.net>
date Nov 17, 2006 5:56 PM
subject Re: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
Christoph,
Thanks for the clarification - it's very useful. I had known much of this
but not quite in the sequence you describe. Again, I'm not an historian
but thought it was important to go back to whatever the situation on the
ground was in 1954, because the United States Government often referred to
the "partition" of Vietnam in 1954 in the 1950's and 1960's. I'm pasting a
1956 speech from the then Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia which
follows that line (e.g., "in mid-1954, partitioned by fiat of the great
powers" etc). I used to be in government, and Assistant Secretaries don't
make speeches off the cuff about their own perceptions, so we can assume
this was a carefully crafted statement of US views on the subject. The
Pentagon Papers also analyzed the failures of Geneva and the "partition"
which resulted from the conference. I also have a small collection of
American political science books and texts of that era that analyze the
"partition." So perhaps it was a particularly American conceit or concept.
However, at some point that concept must have travelled, since I recall
that Russia at one point proposed that the two Viet Nams be admitted to the
United Nations as separate members.
Best,
Catharin
Christoph Giebel <giebel@u.washington.edu>
date Nov 17, 2006 6:19 PM
subject Re: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
Steve, just to be clear, I was speaking of government or military
control, nowhere of "popular support." It would be nice not to have
this misread.
DiGregorio, Michael <M.DiGregorio@fordfound.org>
date Nov 17, 2006 7:47 PM
subject RE: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
Dear Catharine,
Here is a link to the article that Suzanne Goldenberg from the Guardian's Washington Bureau wrote during her visit to VN last week. She came with the hope of soliciting Vietnamese responses to the question of whether or not America's involvement in Iraq shared any similarities with its Vietnam experience. As you will see below, what she found in her small sample was that people were not interested in, or willing to, answer her question, on the one hand. And other the other hand, if they did respond, they viewed the similarities in terms of America's strategically counterproductive interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. They did not view the Iraq resistance in the same terms as their own on several counts, primarily due to lack of unity and the brutality towards non-combatants. The idea of the Vietnam conflict as a civil war, and hence the question of partitition, does not seem to have come up. And I think that is fairly common in Vietnam. You will be hard pressed to find anyone, north or south, who regards the war as a contest between competing, legitimate governments.
The article link follows below.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1950228,00.html
Mike DiGregorio
Ford Foundation
Hanoi
Markus Vorpahl <m_vorpahl@web.de>
date Nov 17, 2006 8:51 PM
subject Re: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
On this last point: the disentanglement did not only include the
military, but lead to a "population exchange" in 1954, with most of the
potentially or openly dissenting people following the French forces and
moving south of the 17th parallel. Supposedly, in the north you had much
less oposition and energies were absorbed by land reform and
rectification etc.
That's at least the impression you get when doing
biographical/anthropological interviews, both in the northern or
southern parts of Vietnam - you especially hear a lot of stories about
families separated by the 17th parallel.
Best,
Markus
Philip Taylor <philip.taylor@anu.edu.au>
date Nov 17, 2006 11:07 PM
subject RE: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
My anthropological fieldwork in Vietnam, beginning fourteen years ago, has
been predominantly in the triangle extending southwest from Bien Hoa to Ha
Tien and Ca Mau. This includes Ho Chi Minh City (former Saigon - Cho Lon
and surrounds) and all of the Mekong delta provinces. During this time I
have conversed with numerous people from many backrounds in both urban and
rural areas. I have found it exceedingly common for people in this area to
refer to the conflict years of 1960-1975 as a war between North and South
Vietnam, abbreviated as 'Chien tranh Bac-Nam'. Here I think that people
are indeed evoking the idea of partition, of civil war and certainly of
war between two states. Notwithstanding the legendary reputation of
Vietnamese nationalism, I think we cannot rule out that some people mean
by this a war between 'two countries' (hai nuoc).
The civil war notion persists in the face of assiduous educational efforts
to get the formula 'Chien tranh chong My' (the War against America) into
circulation. Of course, these official efforts have been quite succesful,
evidenced for example, by the self-designation of former ARVN soldiers as
'linh nguy' (puppet soldiers), but they are counteracted, among other
things, by the powerful overseas Vietnamese influence in this area. By the
way, I have yet to hear anyone use the journalistic and mirror-gazing
formula 'the American War' (Chien tranh My). However, the term 'Vietnam
War' (Chien tranh VN) is quite common. The army and administration that
assumed complete control of this region in 1975 are variously (and
interchangeably) known as the 'Revolution', 'Liberation', 'Northerners'
and 'Communists' and it is common for people to refer to the process by
which they assumed control as 'entering the south' (vo nam), for instance,
'when the revolution came south' (hoi cach mang vo nam). The government
overturned in South Vietnam is frequently referred to as 'Quoc gia' (the
national government).
These expressions are pervasive enough in the area of Vietnam where I
work. Determining exactly who uses these terms (and there are other
terms), in what contexts, what they evoke and the way usages have changed
over time are interesting questions that remain to be answered.
Philip Taylor
Tuan Hoang <thoang1@nd.edu>
date Nov 18, 2006 8:42 AM
subject RE: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
A bit of a sidetrack here, but on Philip's point about different meanings of the war to different groups of
Vietnamese (native and overseas), I'd add that it has been a deeply contentious topic. One example is an
exchange last year between two Vietnamese: Le Xuan Khoa, former professor at Saigon and Johns Hopkins
Universities who considers the war a civil conflict; and Nguy?n Hoa, who thinks it is an insult to the
efforts and memories of anti-American Vietnamese participants in the war. Some of us are familiar with
Taylor-Buzzanco dispute. This dispute shows that it is just as intense (if not more) among Vietnamese.
The exchange is available online. Le Xuan Khoa, “Ba m??i n?m go?i ten gi cho cuo?c chi?n?”,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/vietnamese/regionalnews/story/2005/02/050215_lexuankhoa.shtml.
Nguy?n Hoa, “Ten cu?c chi?n hay xuyen t?c s? th?t?”:
http://www.nhandan.com.vn/tinbai/?top=37&sub=130&article=27203.
Khoa's reply: “Xuyen t?c s? th?t hay ph?c h?i s? th?t?”,
http://www.talawas.org/talaDB/suche.php?res=4388&rb=0307.
The entire exchange is also available at http://www.talawas.org/talaDB/suche.php?res=4386&rb=0307.
~Tuan
Khoa Le <khoa.le2@verizon.net>
date Nov 18, 2006 10:49 AM
subject Re: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
For your convenience, I am attaching the English translation of my first
article. The exchange lasted five or six months with the participation of
several readers, including one veteran of the People's Army who defended my
view in his letter "to comrade-in arms Nguyen Hoa". This article, I believe,
practically ended the dispute.
Le Xuan Khoa
Lan PHAMNGOC <lan_phamngoc@yahoo.com>
date Nov 18, 2006 4:52 PM
subject RE: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
Hi all,
From my point of view, the "partition" word widely used is correct : the Geneva accords did not partition the Viet Nam country into 2 countries, nor 2 states, but they did partition VN into 2 areas with 2 different administrations. They did not partition "for ever" but did partition for 2 years, while waiting for elections.
What happened after these 2 years is a different story. The 2 "temporary different areas" became de facto 2 different states, each state internationally recognized by a number of countries. The fact that these 2 states are not recognizing each other does not mean that they didn't exist.
The war between these 2 states is called "war against the Americans for the sake of the country" by the North government, and the "war of self protection against the invasion of the North" by the South government. The term "civil war" is prohibited by both governments.
Trinh Cong Son wrote in one of his famous songs: "20 nam noi chien tung ngay", meaning "20 years of every day civil war". I agree. For me, this is clearly a civil war because one Vietnamese is killing another Vietnamese. The fact that they kill each other with rifles made in USA and made in Tchecoslovakia doesn't change the fact that they are all Vietnamese.
Lan PHAM NGOC
Aix-en-Provence
Tuan Hoang <thoang1@nd.edu>
date Nov 19, 2006 1:42 PM
subject Re: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
Thanks to Prof. Khoa for providing a translation of the first article, if only because Vietnamese-language
debates on the war rarely reach English-speaking audience. Having followed both American-centric and
Vietnamese-centric debates, I found that there is still a very large gap between the twain, due mostly to
terms of debate but also to lack of translations.
One clarification: I didn't mean to imply that among Vietnamese the debate is simply about an "in-country" position versus an "overseas" position. As seen from the responses in the BBC link - from Vietnam, Australia, North America, and Western and Central Europe - there is a multiplicity of perspectives on what the war (and the partition) means to Vietnamese today.
Back to the original question, I agree with the points on the partition from Pham Ngoc Lan and Christoph Giebel, esp. Christoph's characterization of the word "partition" as an American-centric and Cold-War-fused construct for the time. My impression is, most Vietnamese at the time, both communists and noncommunists, were more preoccupied with postcolonial concerns than with the Cold War. I think too that it may be more
helpful to step away, at least a little, from Cold War-centered perspectives that typically accompany debates about the partition. Why was it, for example, that France and the DRV signed the Geneva Agreements? The fact is obvious, but the implications seem tantalizingly complex but also potentially fruitful.
~Tuan
Christoph Giebel <giebel@u.washington.edu>
date Nov 20, 2006 3:50 AM
subject Re: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
A quick question to Lan Pham Ngoc: Who ever said that either of the
Vietnamese states "didn't exist"? That would be nonsensical, and I
wonder if anyone really ever made such an argument.
I also cannot agree with Lan Pham Ngoc's statement that "[t]he2
'temporary different areas' BECAME [my emphasis] de facto2 different
states, each state internationallyrecognized by a number of
countries." They did not "become" that in the 1954-56 period: the
DRVN had already existed since 1945, Bao Dai's ASVN since 1949;
international recognition of either (albeit in a mutually exclusive
way) occurred in 1950. So Viet Nam had "de facto 2 different states"
since 1949. (We will ignore the French here for the sake of argument's
clarity.) The RVN replaced the ASVN late 1955/early 1956. DRVN on the
one hand and ASVN/RVN on the other both claimed exclusive legitimacy
over all of Viet Nam and regarded each other as illegitimate.
States exist through various combinations of the following:
Declarations, Constitutions, institutions, laws, governments, armies,
taxes, personalities, "imagined communities," loyalties, claims
to/believes in legitimacy, etc. States make claims to territories and
populations, although those claims may never find full realizations.
I really don't know, then, what the DMZ (i.e., the focus of the false
notion of "partition") has to do with all of that, nor what the Geneva
accords (signed by only ONE of the two rival states, to boot) have to
do with all of that, other than that Geneva laid out a roadmap for
overcoming the already five-year-old (since 1949) issue of two rival
states/governments: military disentanglement across the DMZ in 1954,
optional civilian cross-DMZ relocation in 1954/55, temporary
administration of the territories south/north of the DMZ by the two
opposing states centered in Sai Gon/Ha Noi during 1954-56, and finally
1956 elections to create one all-Vietnamese government to rule over one
all-Vietnamese state in the country of Viet Nam, from the Chinese
border to the tip of Ca Mau.
The rhetorical fuzziness occurs when (A) the two temporary territories
created by the DMZ become mixed in/thrown together/confused with (B)
the existence, since 1949, of two mutually exclusive states.
Please bear with me as I, neither jurist nor political scientist, try
to walk through this tangle:
Did Geneva PARTITION Viet Nam into two COUNTRIES: "North Viet Nam" and
"South Viet Nam," with a border on the 17th parallel? Of course, no.
Did Geneva CREATE two STATES, divided by the DMZ: DRVN (= "North Viet
Nam") and ASVN/RVN (= "South Viet Nam")? Clearly no; they existed
since 1945 and 1949 and both claimed exclusive legitimate authority
over all of Viet Nam.
Did Geneva, then, REDUCE those pre-existing opposing states (with their
all-Vietnamese claims to legitimacy) in a FORMAL/LEGAL way into two
separate territories, north/south of the DMZ? No. Neither state gave
up or reduced their territorial claims, although one, the DRVN, through
signature, agreed to a temporary *administration* only of the territory
north of the DMZ in anticipation of the 1956 elections, while the other
one, Bao Dai's non-signatory ASVN, made no attempt to administer any
other territory than the one south of the DMZ.
Did the refusal of the RVN to allow the 1956 elections, then, FORMALLY
create two states on discrete territories, north/south of the DMZ?
Again, no. Neither did the RVN reduce its territorial, all-Vietnamese
claims inherited from the ASVN, nor did the DRVN --the one that got
"cheated" out of the elections-- suddenly acquiesce to having
legitimacy and territorial reach only north of the DMZ. If anything,
the DRVN and its southern supporters after 1956 felt no longer bound by
the temporary Geneva restrictions on fully realizing their state's
claims.
Which takes us from the formal to the de facto:
Did the DRVN, after the 1954-56 period, in reality --de facto-- become
the state of "North Viet Nam"? No. It was centered in Ha Noi, it
controlled pretty much all the territory north of the DMZ since 1954,
but it (and its supporters in the south) did not recognize the DMZ as a
legitimate demarcation between states and the DRVN's (or, more broadly,
the Revolution's) reach in territory south of the DMZ was considerable,
especially after 1958, with varying degrees of control over large
tracts of southern land.
Hence, one might call the DRVN a "northern Vietnamese state" --seen by
some as legitimate and by others as illegitimate-- but neither formally
nor de facto was it "North Viet Nam" (defined as the territory north of
the DMZ).
Did the RVN, after 1955/56, de facto become the state of "South Viet
Nam"? No. It was centered in Sai Gon, it made --if Nguyen Cao Ky can
be believed-- military plans for "Bac Tien" (a "March to the North") to
assert its legitimacy over, and extend its control into, the north, but
especially after 1958 its reach even south of the DMZ was considerably
reduced, its control of much southern territory denied by southern
revolutionary forces and, after 1964, by a combination of southern
anti-RVN forces and those of the "northern Vietnamese state."
Hence, one might call the RVN a "southern Vietnamese state" --seen by
some as legitimate and by others as illegitimate-- but neither formally
nor de facto was it "South Viet Nam" (defined as the territory south of
the DMZ). Of course the RVN "existed": this state existed IN southern
Viet Nam, but for most of the RVN's existence, it did NOT exist AS
"South Viet Nam."
---
So what's my recurring beef with "South Viet Nam"/"North Viet Nam" and
the false binaries created by these sloppy terminologies? At least in
American public discourses (about which I am best qualified to speak),
the false notion of "partition" at or after Geneva, the existence of
opposing Vietnamese states, and the definition of "South VN" and "North
VN" via the DMZ are habitually mixed together and endlessly repeated.
The net result is that a certain framing for a particular
political/moral reading of the war is created that (a) obscures the
complexities of the situation, (b) reifies the nationalist trope of
altruistically interventionist US exceptionalism, and (c)
delegitimizes, silences and externalizes other organized southern
Vietnamese actors who had just as much claim to "South Viet Nam" as the
RVN.
To point out this simple fact is not to "take sides," but rather to
insist on a bit of balance: it is to show how the rhetorical framing
of "partition into South VN and North VN" constructs a narrative in the
US of taking sides for the RVN.
In this narrative, "partition" claims to solve the issue of opposing
states by creating two discrete countries (or at least separate state
territories). "Partition's" false linkage to Geneva gives the whole
notion an aura of formality, of fact. Defined by the DMZ, "partition"
assigns "North Viet Nam" to the Reds, while "South Viet Nam" is
henceforth White Hat territory, which the US comes to defend, and where
no Vietnamese actors other than the RVN have any legitimate business.
Once the RVN is equated as "South VN," other operators south of the DMZ
are termed "insurgents," "subversives," "terrorists," etc. They are
manipulated by "North Viet Nam" which should stay north of the DMZ and
yet violates all kinds of international norms by sending the "North
Vietnamese Army" (NVA) south. The "NV"A, cast as alien forces when in
"South VN," should be made to leave, yet Kissinger capitulates to Le
Duc Tho, and the US thus betrays, not its client state the RVN, but
"South Viet Nam."
Etc. etc. No matter that many if not most Vietnamese nationalists did
not buy into this territorial/political conception. No matter that it
prevents an understanding of what "liberation" meant to committed
revolutionary nationalists. No matter that it marginalizes,
delegitimizes, silences the many southerners who had other plans than
the RVN and the US. I am not surprised that this framing creeps, as
Catharin Dalpino has pointed out, into US textbooks and other
pronouncements all the time.
So we finally end up with CNN on Nov. 16 breathlessly describing the
1968 Tet Offensive as "the Viet Cong's deadly communist push into South
Vietnam." Not "in" (o'?), but "INTO" (va`o) "South Viet Nam."
Condensed in this word choice is all that I have been trying to say in
this overlong posting, not just the externalization of the NLF, but
really the de-southernization of all those --revolutionary,
non-revolutionary, nationalists, localists, Third Forcers, sectarians,
etc.-- not covered by the RVN. Put on a rendition flight to "North
Viet Nam." Ha Noi has been happy to claim them ever since.
Christoph Giebel
UW-Seattle
Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
date Nov 20, 2006 8:36 AM
subject Re: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
Though I am not in a position to engage in a long answer at the moment, the discussion is so interesting that I could not resist. Let me just add my quick three cents' worth.
I agree with Christoph in the legalistic analysis and the recognition of the actual situation on the ground, esp. the Cold war use of the term "North VN" and "South VN" as part of the holy war crusade. Tuan Hoang, I think, puts the finger on the central characterization of the period, as far as the majority of the Vietnamese were concerned at the time - "My impression is, most Vietnamese at the time, both communists and noncommunists, were more preoccupied with postcolonial concerns than with the Cold War."
I think one of the reasons for the endless debate today about this issue is the fact that now looking back, many of those on the "Republic of the Vietnam" side tend to look at it from the other end of the stick - as a Cold war narrative rather than postcolonial.
For the Vietnamese who were actually engaged in the resistance from 1858 to 1954, it was clearly an anticolonial struggle. The US actually got involved in the 40s, and then funded 78% of the French efforts to take back VN as a colony. When that failed in 1954 with the fall of Dien Bien Phu, the US took it over - with mostly the same cast of local characters, only with a new narrative - from colonialists to freedom fighters. To those who were involved in the resistance at the time, it'd difficult to see it as anything else other than the continuation of the old one.
Very aware of this problem, the US put a great deal of effort in trying to establish the idea that NVN was an aggressor under the control of China and the Soviet Union, which naturally justifies the presence of US troops. This is covered in a US doctoral dissertation that studies US propaganda effort during this period - its major themes and frequency of delivery, the name of which escapes me at the moment. This has proved to be quite successful as we could see this repeatedly endlessly in the internet discussion among Vietnamese newsgroups. This also lay the foundation for the "war by proxy" analogy. US intelligence recognizes very early that the communist-led resistance was indigenous and had enormous popular support.
The central issue for the resistance is that those who oppose them in the South have never had any real independence apart from the foreign power that supports them - first the French and then the US. It's interesting to note that references are usually made to the fact neither Bao Dai nor Ngo Dinh Diem signed the Geneva agreement. The fact that few mention is that it has never been their choice to make, to sign or not to sign. As Tuan Hoang perceptively notes, it was the French who signed on their behalf. It was pretty much the same with the Paris agreement, to which Nguyen van Thieu objected in vain.
As for the issue of the civil war, I think it simply means, for any Vietnamese at the time, that clearly Vietnamese were killing Vietnamese and all efforts had to be made to end the war. It does not mean that the cause of the war is not being instigated by outsiders. The dichotomy between a civil war and war driven by others is therefore a false one.
It has been well noted that the resistance put a premium on independence while the other side chose freedom. In light of Vietnamese history, those who side with independence will always win. Now comes the hard part.
Nguyen Ba Chung
Lan PHAMNGOC <lan_phamngoc@yahoo.com>
date Nov 20, 2006 4:13 PM
subject Re: [Vsg] "Partition" of Viet Nam
Thanks Christoph, for the clarification.
Quick answer to quick question: nobody said that.
I agree with you about my statement, it was not accurate. I meant "the 2
different areas became de facto the 2 lands belonging to the 2 existing
states". Maybe my english is not good enough to express my idea the
right way, but I'm sure you understand. This de facto situation is different
from the theoretical view, but what is important for the people living on a
land is their perception, not what is written on papers.
Cheers !
Pha.m Ngo.c La^n
Aix-en-Provence
Page updated
Report abuse