PROOF OF SELLING BY THE VIETKONG PART 2

2)The Paracelses were "lost" or Sold under coercion to the Chinese by
the Vietzankonghoa , not by the Vietkong who did not have custody of
this archipelago in 1974.
During the Chinese Invasion, no resistance was made by the VZVH
garrison on Hoang sa which was constituted almost exclusively of
disciplined or draft dodgers elements of the ARVIN (Read "No Tushima,
No Okinawa, No Iwo jima my Love by El Chino ). They and their Kovan,
an American, were taken to Hainan Islands by the Chinese invading
forces. The prisoners were allowed Chinese Food Eating and some
shopping in the Island then released to the American Authority in
Hongkong

3)At the time of Chinese Invasion in 1974, the Vietkong could not
intervene because it has no credible Navy and the US Seventh Fleet was
there to blow its puny navy off the water within minutes of any
attempts.

The fact that the 7th fleet did not intervene against the Chicom
Fleet for the VZCH was due to Nixon giving the Paracelses to China as
a down payment to get its help to get out of Vietnam after Tricky Dick
and Kissinger.'s visit to China in the early 1970s.

The Vietkong did not lodge any protest at the time -- either
officially or through the back channel with China -- because this will
not make an iota of difference.
In this case Silence is Gold because if the Vietkong were to
protest the Invasion as some brainless Chinese Suggested (Frank Ching
of the FEER) the Chicom could demand the signature of a document
recognizing Chinese suzerainty over the Paracelses for future supply
of food and military supplies most of which from the Soviet Union by
rails through China.

3)The Vietkong invaded the Spratleys on April 1975 in its March to
Saigon. reaffirming Vietnam suzerainty on the Archipelago by the
forces of arms. causing loss of face to Deng Siao Ping and the Chicom
but the latter could not do a thing because China did not have a
credible Navy and/or Air Force in 1975 for invading the Spratleys
hundreds of miles further than Hoangsa from Hainan Island .
Legalistically China did not have document signed by the Vietkong
recognizing either implicitly or explicitly Chinese ownership of the
Islands.
The Chinese did not protest loudly either just like the Vietkong
didn't protest in 1974 because Silence is Golden for the Chinese too.
The Chinese revenged by occupying a few islands on the Spratley
Archipelago in the 1980s when its Navy and Air Forces were much
stronger than Vietnam. The Vietkong inflicted some damages to the
Chinese unvaders, suffered 70 deaths but were not able to dislodge the
Chinese from a few small islands.

so, after 30 years under the most glorious, brightest, most precious
essence of Vietnamese culture ...blalblalbal of communist party, VN
cannot fight back China to re-take Spratley Islands ?

and what is the fucking frontier treaty signed recently with the
fucking china by your fucking communist party ?

Do some research on google. Because you cannot read the fucking
frontier document signed by your fucking communist party because you
are a fucking low-class communist agent to be allowed to read this
fucking treaty by your fucking glorious party

Me, I do and see interesting thing like 300m given for free to China,
the Spratleys Island, the bach. long Vy~ island and others land to
dispute



nguyen_viet_2000@yahoo.com (EL CHINO BOATMEN'S CONSCIENCE) wrote in message news:<6ea9eed5.0402100639.455b0828@posting.google.com>...
> 2)The Paracelses were "lost" or Sold under coercion to the Chinese by
> the Vietzankonghoa , not by the Vietkong who did not have custody of
> this archipelago in 1974.
> During the Chinese Invasion, no resistance was made by the VZVH
> garrison on Hoang sa which was constituted almost exclusively of
> disciplined or draft dodgers elements of the ARVIN (Read "No Tushima,
> No Okinawa, No Iwo jima my Love by El Chino ). They and their Kovan,
> an American, were taken to Hainan Islands by the Chinese invading
> forces. The prisoners were allowed Chinese Food Eating and some
> shopping in the Island then released to the American Authority in
> Hongkong
>
> 3)At the time of Chinese Invasion in 1974, the Vietkong could not
> intervene because it has no credible Navy and the US Seventh Fleet was
> there to blow its puny navy off the water within minutes of any
> attempts.
>
> The fact that the 7th fleet did not intervene against the Chicom
> Fleet for the VZCH was due to Nixon giving the Paracelses to China as
> a down payment to get its help to get out of Vietnam after Tricky Dick
> and Kissinger.'s visit to China in the early 1970s.
>
> The Vietkong did not lodge any protest at the time -- either
> officially or through the back channel with China -- because this will
> not make an iota of difference.
> In this case Silence is Gold because if the Vietkong were to
> protest the Invasion as some brainless Chinese Suggested (Frank Ching
> of the FEER) the Chicom could demand the signature of a document
> recognizing Chinese suzerainty over the Paracelses for future supply
> of food and military supplies most of which from the Soviet Union by
> rails through China.
>
> 3)The Vietkong invaded the Spratleys on April 1975 in its March to
> Saigon. reaffirming Vietnam suzerainty on the Archipelago by the
> forces of arms. causing loss of face to Deng Siao Ping and the Chicom
> but the latter could not do a thing because China did not have a
> credible Navy and/or Air Force in 1975 for invading the Spratleys
> hundreds of miles further than Hoangsa from Hainan Island .
> Legalistically China did not have document signed by the Vietkong
> recognizing either implicitly or explicitly Chinese ownership of the
> Islands.
> The Chinese did not protest loudly either just like the Vietkong
> didn't protest in 1974 because Silence is Golden for the Chinese too.
> The Chinese revenged by occupying a few islands on the Spratley
> Archipelago in the 1980s when its Navy and Air Forces were much
> stronger than Vietnam. The Vietkong inflicted some damages to the
> Chinese unvaders, suffered 70 deaths but were not able to dislodge the
> Chinese from a few small islands.

1. Ba.ch Long Vi~ is in Vietnam control. Have been for ages. I dont
know where you got the opposite impression. By reading some Vietnamese
tabloids, perhaps.

2. The 1958's statement is a boiler plate as anh ElChino mentioned.
There may have been two points raised in the China self-declaration.
By agreeing with one point (about the China sea territorial rights)
does not mean Vietnam agrees with the other(s). One might complain
about the silence from Vietnam about the other point. But that does
not mean a sellout, certainly when the land is in Vietnam's hand. This
analog should help you to get a better understanding: Vietnam does
make many public claims about the Paracel Islands and Chinese reaction
in many cases is a blank silence. Does China sellout the Paracel
Islands? certainly NOT.

3. The land border treaty is right thing to do. One however must admit
that the hold-back of releasing the complete treaty is plainly wrong.
Vietnam government should release the treaty in full. BTW where you
got the "300m" from?? No intelligent Vietnamese would dare to cite any
specific figure at the moment. Hytran's statement about 10km and 20km
figures are laughable, again show his true-self. Would Hytran be
willing to cite any reference to back up his claims?.
I think NOT.

4. The sea border treaty is something WE HAVE TO HAVE. The territorial
water right was not ESTABLISHED when the 1888's(?) treaty was signed,
period. The 1888's treaty might assert the right to the islands in the
contested water but it does not include the right to the contested
water itself. Who care about the water that far at the time anyway. No
fishing ships at the time could have travel that far, they might have
not heard about off-shore exploration yet.

My understanding is that back in 19th century, each nation could only
claim their soveignty for the water are within 3 nautical miles from
their shore. This later changed to 12 nautical miles around 1958's
(that is perhaps why the China had that declaration) by some
international convention. This further evolved to the economical zone
of about 200 nautical miles around 1970?. Mr Xeyes should know this
pretty well.

Hi, Mr TranCaoKy

The document I have in hand, printed, is the analysis report by SEAP,
by SAREC and by SIDA, who talks about the management of Border
disputes bewteen China and Vietnam. Documents are in English. It
covers all the legal aspects and military aspects. I hold my
informations in there and not by Mr. Hy Tran. As you said, we must be
fair... for pull out the truth.

The french, master of Vietnam - let say it- in 19th century, did signe
with the late Thanh Dynasty the frontier treaty reclaimed the Paracel
and Spratly islands. It's in 1888.

Even in our History, LeQuyDon, in VN Dia.Ly'Toa`nthu* (?) talked about
theses islands. I don't remember the whole text: it talked about 3-4
days by ship in direction of sun rise and the island are there.

Why VN lives side by side with China thousand and thousand years
without any frontier treaty except Ma~Vie^.n bronze column and now HAS
to sign this treaty? Something must happended. DO you know? And of
course, there is anything good in there for VN, China is much richer
and stronger than VN thank to reforms started under DengXiaoPing after
the war with VN in 1979. Do you think a poor can compete and fight
with a rich, as VN and China?

In 1988, VN had a naval war with China, VN got lost 100 men and 3 war
ships. This document is documented by USA naval force and China force.

You are wrong about this parcel of island, Bach. Long Vi~, it's
because by this island, VN still can extend the limit of maritime
sovereign around there. Like the Japan sealed and try to float the
small desert island in south Japan to have the right of maritime limit
around the island. It's Exclusivity Economy Zone (EEZ or EE).


well, as you cited, it's so far and nobody explore it and nobody
cares. It's the exact declaration of Voltaire, a french philosoph in
16th century about the New France - who cares about some acres of snow
? - see today this some acres of snow is Canada.



Cao_Ky@beer.com (Tran Cao Ky) wrote in message news:...
> 1. Ba.ch Long Vi~ is in Vietnam control. Have been for ages. I dont
> know where you got the opposite impression. By reading some Vietnamese
> tabloids, perhaps.
>
> 2. The 1958's statement is a boiler plate as anh ElChino mentioned.
> There may have been two points raised in the China self-declaration.
> By agreeing with one point (about the China sea territorial rights)
> does not mean Vietnam agrees with the other(s). One might complain
> about the silence from Vietnam about the other point. But that does
> not mean a sellout, certainly when the land is in Vietnam's hand. This
> analog should help you to get a better understanding: Vietnam does
> make many public claims about the Paracel Islands and Chinese reaction
> in many cases is a blank silence. Does China sellout the Paracel
> Islands? certainly NOT.
>
> 3. The land border treaty is right thing to do. One however must admit
> that the hold-back of releasing the complete treaty is plainly wrong.
> Vietnam government should release the treaty in full. BTW where you
> got the "300m" from?? No intelligent Vietnamese would dare to cite any
> specific figure at the moment. Hytran's statement about 10km and 20km
> figures are laughable, again show his true-self. Would Hytran be
> willing to cite any reference to back up his claims?.
> I think NOT.
>
> 4. The sea border treaty is something WE HAVE TO HAVE. The territorial
> water right was not ESTABLISHED when the 1888's(?) treaty was signed,
> period. The 1888's treaty might assert the right to the islands in the
> contested water but it does not include the right to the contested
> water itself. Who care about the water that far at the time anyway. No
> fishing ships at the time could have travel that far, they might have
> not heard about off-shore exploration yet.
>
> My understanding is that back in 19th century, each nation could only
> claim their soveignty for the water are within 3 nautical miles from
> their shore. This later changed to 12 nautical miles around 1958's
> (that is perhaps why the China had that declaration) by some
> international convention. This further evolved to the economical zone
> of about 200 nautical miles around 1970?. Mr Xeyes should know this
> pretty well.

Hi Mr. xemthesu@yahoo.ca,

Could you provide some details about the analysis report you mentioned
(i.e. document name, author and publisher name, year published, etc) ?

I agree with you that we must be fair since only the truth can set us
free. ;-)

My email address is cathai@netzero.net

Thanks.

Calvin


Cao_Ky@beer.com (Tran Cao Ky) wrote in message news:...
> 1. Ba.ch Long Vi~ is in Vietnam control. Have been for ages. I dont
> know where you got the opposite impression. By reading some Vietnamese
> tabloids, perhaps.
>
> 2. The 1958's statement is a boiler plate as anh ElChino mentioned.
> There may have been two points raised in the China self-declaration.
> By agreeing with one point (about the China sea territorial rights)
> does not mean Vietnam agrees with the other(s). One might complain
> about the silence from Vietnam about the other point. But that does
> not mean a sellout, certainly when the land is in Vietnam's hand. This
> analog should help you to get a better understanding: Vietnam does
> make many public claims about the Paracel Islands and Chinese reaction
> in many cases is a blank silence. Does China sellout the Paracel
> Islands? certainly NOT.
>
> 3. The land border treaty is right thing to do. One however must admit
> that the hold-back of releasing the complete treaty is plainly wrong.
> Vietnam government should release the treaty in full. BTW where you
> got the "300m" from?? No intelligent Vietnamese would dare to cite any
> specific figure at the moment. Hytran's statement about 10km and 20km
> figures are laughable, again show his true-self. Would Hytran be
> willing to cite any reference to back up his claims?.
> I think NOT.
>
> 4. The sea border treaty is something WE HAVE TO HAVE. The territorial
> water right was not ESTABLISHED when the 1888's(?) treaty was signed,
> period. The 1888's treaty might assert the right to the islands in the
> contested water but it does not include the right to the contested
> water itself. Who care about the water that far at the time anyway. No
> fishing ships at the time could have travel that far, they might have
> not heard about off-shore exploration yet.
>
> My understanding is that back in 19th century, each nation could only
> claim their soveignty for the water are within 3 nautical miles from
> their shore. This later changed to 12 nautical miles around 1958's
> (that is perhaps why the China had that declaration) by some
> international convention. This further evolved to the economical zone
> of about 200 nautical miles around 1970?. Mr Xeyes should know this
> pretty well.

To^?ng cha`o!

Ta`i lie^.u dda^y na`y:

http://lichsuviet.cjb.net/view_article.asp?id=88&cat=12

QTTT
-------
nguyen_viet_2000@yahoo.com (EL CHINO BOATMEN'S CONSCIENCE) wrote in message news:<6ea9eed5.0402100639.455b0828@posting.google.com>...
> 2)The Paracelses were "lost" or Sold under coercion to the Chinese by
> the Vietzankonghoa , not by the Vietkong who did not have custody of
> this archipelago in 1974.
> During the Chinese Invasion, no resistance was made by the VZVH
> garrison on Hoang sa which was constituted almost exclusively of
> disciplined or draft dodgers elements of the ARVIN (Read "No Tushima,
> No Okinawa, No Iwo jima my Love by El Chino ). They and their Kovan,
> an American, were taken to Hainan Islands by the Chinese invading
> forces. The prisoners were allowed Chinese Food Eating and some
> shopping in the Island then released to the American Authority in
> Hongkong
>
> 3)At the time of Chinese Invasion in 1974, the Vietkong could not
> intervene because it has no credible Navy and the US Seventh Fleet was
> there to blow its puny navy off the water within minutes of any
> attempts.
>
> The fact that the 7th fleet did not intervene against the Chicom
> Fleet for the VZCH was due to Nixon giving the Paracelses to China as
> a down payment to get its help to get out of Vietnam after Tricky Dick
> and Kissinger.'s visit to China in the early 1970s.
>
> The Vietkong did not lodge any protest at the time -- either
> officially or through the back channel with China -- because this will
> not make an iota of difference.
> In this case Silence is Gold because if the Vietkong were to
> protest the Invasion as some brainless Chinese Suggested (Frank Ching
> of the FEER) the Chicom could demand the signature of a document
> recognizing Chinese suzerainty over the Paracelses for future supply
> of food and military supplies most of which from the Soviet Union by
> rails through China.
>
> 3)The Vietkong invaded the Spratleys on April 1975 in its March to
> Saigon. reaffirming Vietnam suzerainty on the Archipelago by the
> forces of arms. causing loss of face to Deng Siao Ping and the Chicom
> but the latter could not do a thing because China did not have a
> credible Navy and/or Air Force in 1975 for invading the Spratleys
> hundreds of miles further than Hoangsa from Hainan Island .
> Legalistically China did not have document signed by the Vietkong
> recognizing either implicitly or explicitly Chinese ownership of the
> Islands.
> The Chinese did not protest loudly either just like the Vietkong
> didn't protest in 1974 because Silence is Golden for the Chinese too.
> The Chinese revenged by occupying a few islands on the Spratley
> Archipelago in the 1980s when its Navy and Air Forces were much
> stronger than Vietnam. The Vietkong inflicted some damages to the
> Chinese unvaders, suffered 70 deaths but were not able to dislodge the
> Chinese from a few small islands.

ta`i lie^.u qua' ro~!

xin mo+`i va`o dda^y:

http://lichsuviet.cjb.net/view_article.asp?id=88&cat=12

Cu. Pha.m Va(n Ddo^`ng ba'n nu+o+'c qua' ro~ ra`ng! ;-(((

QTTT
---------------
nguyen_viet_2000@yahoo.com (EL CHINO BOATMEN'S CONSCIENCE) wrote in message news:<6ea9eed5.0402100639.455b0828@posting.google.com>...
> 2)The Paracelses were "lost" or Sold under coercion to the Chinese by
> the Vietzankonghoa , not by the Vietkong who did not have custody of
> this archipelago in 1974.
> During the Chinese Invasion, no resistance was made by the VZVH
> garrison on Hoang sa which was constituted almost exclusively of
> disciplined or draft dodgers elements of the ARVIN (Read "No Tushima,
> No Okinawa, No Iwo jima my Love by El Chino ). They and their Kovan,
> an American, were taken to Hainan Islands by the Chinese invading
> forces. The prisoners were allowed Chinese Food Eating and some
> shopping in the Island then released to the American Authority in
> Hongkong
>
> 3)At the time of Chinese Invasion in 1974, the Vietkong could not
> intervene because it has no credible Navy and the US Seventh Fleet was
> there to blow its puny navy off the water within minutes of any
> attempts.
>
> The fact that the 7th fleet did not intervene against the Chicom
> Fleet for the VZCH was due to Nixon giving the Paracelses to China as
> a down payment to get its help to get out of Vietnam after Tricky Dick
> and Kissinger.'s visit to China in the early 1970s.
>
> The Vietkong did not lodge any protest at the time -- either
> officially or through the back channel with China -- because this will
> not make an iota of difference.
> In this case Silence is Gold because if the Vietkong were to
> protest the Invasion as some brainless Chinese Suggested (Frank Ching
> of the FEER) the Chicom could demand the signature of a document
> recognizing Chinese suzerainty over the Paracelses for future supply
> of food and military supplies most of which from the Soviet Union by
> rails through China.
>
> 3)The Vietkong invaded the Spratleys on April 1975 in its March to
> Saigon. reaffirming Vietnam suzerainty on the Archipelago by the
> forces of arms. causing loss of face to Deng Siao Ping and the Chicom
> but the latter could not do a thing because China did not have a
> credible Navy and/or Air Force in 1975 for invading the Spratleys
> hundreds of miles further than Hoangsa from Hainan Island .
> Legalistically China did not have document signed by the Vietkong
> recognizing either implicitly or explicitly Chinese ownership of the
> Islands.
> The Chinese did not protest loudly either just like the Vietkong
> didn't protest in 1974 because Silence is Golden for the Chinese too.
> The Chinese revenged by occupying a few islands on the Spratley
> Archipelago in the 1980s when its Navy and Air Forces were much
> stronger than Vietnam. The Vietkong inflicted some damages to the
> Chinese unvaders, suffered 70 deaths but were not able to dislodge the
> Chinese from a few small islands.

Hi Mr. Calvin

If you want to read the analysis report about this subject: find on
Google.com. Keyword: Vietnam, border dispute... China, border
dispute...Read documents, take out rhetorics... you find some truths
about this because no border treaty released to public by China side
neither by VN side.

There are many reports very interesting, but I print this document –
Management of the Border Disputes bewteen China and Vietnam and its
Regional Implications.
This document is presented to SEAP, Department of Peace and Conflict
Research, SAREC and SIDA. They are all international organizations
and universities in USA.

The document is in year 2000. So after the signature of the frontier
treaty.

I cannot save the file (maybe the save option of this file is blocked)
into my PC but I printed it. That's why I cannot send to you. But you
still can access. There are annexes which indicate lots of more link
and informations complementary around this subject.

Read all this and pull out the truth.

For the true Frontier Treaty, refer to the Communist Party in VN and
China
cathai@netzero.net (C T) wrote in message news:<545465ae.0402110917.21f5f43e@posting.google.com>...
> Hi Mr. xemthesu@yahoo.ca,
>
> Could you provide some details about the analysis report you mentioned
> (i.e. document name, author and publisher name, year published, etc) ?
>
> I agree with you that we must be fair since only the truth can set us
> free. ;-)
>
> My email address is cathai@netzero.net
>
> Thanks.
>
> Calvin
>
>
> Cao_Ky@beer.com (Tran Cao Ky) wrote in message news:...
> > 1. Ba.ch Long Vi~ is in Vietnam control. Have been for ages. I dont
> > know where you got the opposite impression. By reading some Vietnamese
> > tabloids, perhaps.
> >
> > 2. The 1958's statement is a boiler plate as anh ElChino mentioned.
> > There may have been two points raised in the China self-declaration.
> > By agreeing with one point (about the China sea territorial rights)
> > does not mean Vietnam agrees with the other(s). One might complain
> > about the silence from Vietnam about the other point. But that does
> > not mean a sellout, certainly when the land is in Vietnam's hand. This
> > analog should help you to get a better understanding: Vietnam does
> > make many public claims about the Paracel Islands and Chinese reaction
> > in many cases is a blank silence. Does China sellout the Paracel
> > Islands? certainly NOT.
> >
> > 3. The land border treaty is right thing to do. One however must admit
> > that the hold-back of releasing the complete treaty is plainly wrong.
> > Vietnam government should release the treaty in full. BTW where you
> > got the "300m" from?? No intelligent Vietnamese would dare to cite any
> > specific figure at the moment. Hytran's statement about 10km and 20km
> > figures are laughable, again show his true-self. Would Hytran be
> > willing to cite any reference to back up his claims?.
> > I think NOT.
> >
> > 4. The sea border treaty is something WE HAVE TO HAVE. The territorial
> > water right was not ESTABLISHED when the 1888's(?) treaty was signed,
> > period. The 1888's treaty might assert the right to the islands in the
> > contested water but it does not include the right to the contested
> > water itself. Who care about the water that far at the time anyway. No
> > fishing ships at the time could have travel that far, they might have
> > not heard about off-shore exploration yet.
> >
> > My understanding is that back in 19th century, each nation could only
> > claim their soveignty for the water are within 3 nautical miles from
> > their shore. This later changed to 12 nautical miles around 1958's
> > (that is perhaps why the China had that declaration) by some
> > international convention. This further evolved to the economical zone
> > of about 200 nautical miles around 1970?. Mr Xeyes should know this
> > pretty well.

qttt@yahoo.com (Qu.Tinh) wrote in message news:<7e903ab6.0402111208.3351b2b5@posting.google.com>...
> To^?ng cha`o!
>
> Ta`i lie^.u dda^y na`y:
>
> http://lichsuviet.cjb.net/view_article.asp?id=88&cat=12
>
> QTTT

Comrade QTTT co' the^? publicly announce so^' visitors va` so^'
webhits va` comrade QTTT co' ddu+o+.c o+? website lichsuviet.cjb.net
trong tha'ng 1/2004 ddu+o+.c kho^ng.

Ne^u' QTTT co' tool gather cai' data ddo' thi` QTTT co' the^? post
cai' summary page ddo'. Tui se~ co' ca'ch kie^m? ddi.nh con so^' ddo'
:-).

Ra^'t ca'm o+n va` cha`o tha^n ai' comrade.

xemthesu@yahoo.ca (xemthesu) wrote in message news:...
> Hi, Mr TranCaoKy
>
> The document I have in hand, printed, is the analysis report by SEAP,
> by SAREC and by SIDA, who talks about the management of Border
> disputes bewteen China and Vietnam. Documents are in English. It
> covers all the legal aspects and military aspects. I hold my
> informations in there and not by Mr. Hy Tran. As you said, we must be
> fair... for pull out the truth.
I would be delighted if you could provide the details of the documents
you have. Also if you could quote from those documents any specific
paragraph that pointed to the lost of 300m here and there. I would be
more than happy if you could prove that conclusively and even more
happy to admit that you are right on this issue. It is all up to you
to produce those documents that you stated that you have in hand.

Quoting LeQuiDon writings or the 1988 fighting have nothing to do with
the border treaty. Until you could produce documents on the land
border treaty, there is no point to discuss this further. The ball for
the land border treaty is in your court. Now back to the issue of the
sea border treaty.

We might use the BachLongVi to further our claim to the seawater
within 200 miles from this island. Likewise, China could use Hainan
island to claim their exclusive economical zone of 200 miles from
their island. Distance from BachLongVi to Hainan is less than 200
miles, both areas are overlapping and thus the area is a disputed one.
There is an international maritine legal framework to settle such
disputes. I understood that the sea border treaty abides to this
international legal framework and thus is fair. This is all we could
ask for.

Using your logics, it is within China right to claim the whole
economical zone in the Vinh Bac Bo since most areas there would be
within 200 nautical miles from the China lands. You got to get real on
this. An exclusive economic zone of the area with 200 nautical miles
from BachLongVinh would never get any buyer.

Back in 1600's, there is already de-facto Western standard of claiming
the right to any (new) area of lands. This is what Columbus did when
he landed in the America continent. This is no different to what
France did to (some?) area of Canada today. The point is that there is
an (de-facto) international framework to claim the land rights at the
time and thus it is acceptable to do so for any land area. Whether the
value of the area claimed is worthy is not revelant. Voltaire's quote
has nothing to do with our topic of discussion here. I got no idea why
you would like to bring it in.

In the sea, it is very different. The concept of claiming soveignty
over any area of the sea was never established back then. The only
concept existed was the 3 nautical miles from the land. This concept
changed and became 12 nautical miles in 1950's. The concept of
exclusive economical zone of 200 nautical miles was established much
later.

If you read carefully the sea border treaty in 1880's, it did not
actually specify the right to the seawater in the area. It only
resolved the soveignty of the land areas, i.e. the islands, within the
mentioned seawater area. And thus the matter of soveignty right to the
sea waters within the area is left open for dispute. Given that both
exclusive economic zones overlap, a treaty is clearly needed, period.