Pham Van Dong's 1958 Letter
From: phuxuan700@gmail.com <phuxuan700@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/11
To: Vsg@u.washington.edu
Dear List,
This week marks the 50th anniversary of Pham Van Dong's "historical" letter to Chou-En-lai, recognizing China's claim of Paracel and Spratly islands which at the time belonged to the South Vietnam.
The following articles indicate the issue has become more current than ever:
http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKPEK26269420080720
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/JI10Ae01.html
Calvin Thai
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai <aoverl@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: 2008/9/12
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear All,
you may be interested in what I recently found in the diplomatic context of Hanoi's passivity during the Chinese occupation of the Paracels in 1974. It seems that the Chinese invasion was timed in a way that made it very difficult for the VWP leaders to protest against it publicly. Namely, in late 1973 and early 1974 Sino-American relations underwent a marked deterioration, which, from Hanoi's perspective, was certainly preferable to the Sino-American rapprochement of 1971-72. Moreover, in late 1973 the Vietnamese Communist leaders were by no means pleased by the process of Soviet-American and inter-German detente, whereas the Soviets did not welcome the renewal of armed confrontation in Vietnam.
Thus Hanoi could not really afford to publicly criticize China in January 1974. On the contrary, during the visit of a high-ranking North Vietnamese delegation in Cuba, the Vietnamese persuaded their hosts to let them make a few positive comments on China in a public speech made in Havana (the Cubans, on their part, consistently avoided saying anything about China, both before and during the visit). Hanoi obviously wanted to have China on its side against the U.S. But there must have been a lot of anger below the surface, because in 1973-74 the Vietnamese said very nasty things about the North Koreans, whom they regarded more or less as Chinese proxies. Among others, the DPRK quickly recognized China's sovereignty over the Paracels.
All the best,
Balazs Szalontai
----------
From: Quynh Le <lequynh78@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:45 AM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
For those interested in this issue, our BBC today interviewed Luu Van Loi, Hanoi's retired diplomat, who elaborated to defend Pham Van
Dong's letter.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/vietnamese/vietnam/story/2008/09/080917_luuvanloi_inv.shtml
Quynh Le
----------
From: phuxuan700@gmail.com <phuxuan700@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear Quynh,
Thanks for sharing the article.
Luu Van Loi's argument in the BBC interview is weak; it does not offer anything new!
Loi has left out facts, cited by the Chinese and even mentioned in Loi's own books, clearly indicating that from 1956 to 1969, Hanoi sided with Beijing in China's claim of Vietnam's Paracel and Spratly (Hoang Sa and Truong Sa) islands.
Loi also has left out facts presented by Hanoi itself 25-plus years ago in his effort to defend against accusation of Hanoi's land concession to China in border negotiations.
Calvin Thai
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai <aoverl@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: 2008/9/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear Mr. Thai,
I think we may have to treat the issue of supposed DRV territorial concessions to China quite cautiously. As early as 1968-70, there were major disagreements between Beijing and Hanoi over the extent of influence that these two powers were to have in Laos and (later) Cambodia. And if the VWP leaders were so determined to secure a No.1 position in the lesser Indochinese states vis-a-vis the PRC, it is not far-fetched to assume that no matter what they occasionally told the Chinese, they did not really intend to give up any part of Vietnam proper in favor of China. (This is not to say that Hanoi had the same historical right for Laos and Cambodia as for the Paracels.:)))
All the best,
Balazs Szalontai
----------
From: phuxuan700@gmail.com <phuxuan700@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/19
To: aoverl@yahoo.co.uk, Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear Dr. Szalontai,
I completely agree with you that the relations between China and Vietnam during the war were very complex. Had McNamara's "best and brightest" fully understood this complexity, we might have seen a different war outcome today!
And yes, there was friction between the two countries at times. Some reading materials from Hanoi in early 1980's reflect such friction, i.e. "The Truth about Vietnamo-Chinese Relations over the Past Thirty Years".
In my previous post, I wanted to focus on Luu Van Loi's effort to defend Hanoi position on territorial issue.
I'd like to cite a typical case here:
Hanoi itself said at one time the famous Ban Gioc waterfall was well within Vietnam's border and accused China of illegally moving the bordermark deep inside Vietnam.
Years later during the land negotiations, Hanoi however said since they "just found" the bordermark in the middle of the waterfall, that is where the borderline would be.
What should we call this ?
Best regards,
Calvin Thai
PS: Historial facts from the French have shown this waterfall was about 2.0km away from the border.