[Senate Hearing 110-641]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-641
THE UNITED STATES AND VIETNAM: EXAMINING THE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN
AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 12, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-703 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BILL NELSON, Florida GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JIM WEBB, Virginia JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
Antony J. Blinken, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EAST ASIAN
AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JIM WEBB, Virginia CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from California, opening
statement...................................................... 1
Daley, Matthew P., president, US-ASEAN Business Council,
Washington, DC................................................. 43
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Diem, Do Hoang, chairman, Viet Tan (Vietnam Reform Party), Orange
County, CA..................................................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Griffiths, Ann Mills, executive director, National League of POW/
MIA Families, Arlington, VA.................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing
in Southeast Asia.......................................... 36
Number of Americans Missing and Unaccounted for From Each
State...................................................... 38
Hill, Hon. Christopher, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian
and Pacific Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC....... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to questions submitted for the record by Senator
Barbara Boxer.............................................. 58
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska, statement........ 3
Nguyen, Janet, member, Board of Supervisors, Orange County, CA... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Richardson, Sophie, advocacy director, Asia Division, Human
Rights Watch, Washington, DC................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Webb, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from Virginia, statement............ 4
Additional Statement Submitted for the Record
Sauvageot, Andre, Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.), prepared statement.. 61
(iii)
THE UNITED STATES AND VIETNAM: EXAMINING THE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Webb, and Murkowski.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. The hearing will come to order. Welcome to
everyone. Today the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on
East Asian and Pacific Affairs meets to examine the United
States/Vietnam bilateral relationship, with a focus on human
rights.
The United States/Vietnamese relationship has grown
dramatically over the past decade. In just a few years, the
United States and Vietnam have normalized trade relations,
signed an International Military Education Training Agreement,
and held a number of high-level visits, including that of
Vietnamese President Nguyen Minh Triet to Washington last
year--the first such visit by a Vietnamese head of state since
the end of the Vietnam war.
Educational exchanges are increasing, with more and more
Vietnamese students coming to study in America. Commerce is
increasing; roughly $12 billion in goods and services were
exchanged between the United States and Vietnam last year
alone.
This is translating not just into improved relations
between our two countries, but into improved quality of life
for many Vietnamese. According to CRS, poverty levels in
Vietnam have been cut in half since the early nineties to less
than 30 percent. And I understand that Vietnam has even set a
goal of becoming a fully industrialized country by 2020.
But despite these positive trends, there is one area in
particular where we have failed to see significant progress,
and that is on the issue of human rights. And that is the
reason I wanted to have this hearing. Despite its public
denials, we know from press reports and human rights groups
that Vietnam's one party authoritarian government routinely
takes punitive actions to silence those who speak out against
the government's undemocratic policies.
Democracy activists are frequently imprisoned for their
peaceful advocacy of opposing political views. In late 2006 and
early 2007, Vietnam instituted one of its harshest crackdowns
in 20 years against those calling for a peaceful, political
change, arresting hundreds of activists, including Nguyen Van
Ly.
I have a picture of Nguyen Van Ly to show you. I am certain
most of you have seen it. Father Ly was arrested in February
2007, after a short trial in which he was denied a defense
attorney, and physically muzzled, as you can see, by Vietnamese
authorities. Father Ly was convicted of ``carrying out
propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,'' and he
was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
The Vietnamese Government also arrested two prominent human
rights attorneys, Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thi Cong Nhan, as well
as Le Quoc Quan, a lawyer who completed a fellowship at the
National Endowment for Democracy here in Washington, DC. While
Le Quoc Quan has been released, the other three remain in jail.
This all happened shortly after the United States removed
Vietnam from its list of countries of particular concern,
granted Vietnam permanent normalized trade relations, and
supported Vietnam's bid to join the World Trade Organization.
It also happened in the runup to the Vietnamese President's
visit to the United States last June.
Unfortunately, this was not the end of the arrests. On
November 17, 2007, Mr. Nguyen Quoc Quan was arrested in
Vietnam. Mr. Nguyen is a U.S. citizen, a longtime Sacramento,
California, resident, and father of two. He had traveled to
Vietnam to promote nonviolent, democratic change.
According to available news reports, Mr. Nguyen was
arrested for the peaceful distribution of prodemocracy
leaflets. And here you see his photograph; it looks like it
might have been taken at the families' home in Sacramento.
Despite calls from the State Department and Members of
Congress, including myself and Senator Feinstein, Mr. Nguyen
remains in a Vietnamese prison today, and is being held without
charge.
His wife is here today, Mrs. Mai-Huong Ngo. I invite her to
stand, and I thank her for her courage, and I want to tell her
that we will not ever forget her husband, and we will do
everything that we can to help.
The stories that I have just highlighted are not the type
of news that we want to hear out of a country that is one of
the largest recipients of United States aid in East Asia. It
certainly is not something that I relish. I got my start in
politics in the days of the Vietnam war, so I supported
normalization of relations. But we have to expect something in
return.
At the end of 2007, the United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom summed up Vietnam's recent
actions this way: ``Vietnam's overall human rights record
remains very poor and has deteriorated in the past year. Dozens
of legal and political reform advocates, free speech advocates,
labor unionists, and independent religious leaders and
religious freedom advocates have been arrested, placed under
home detention and surveillance, threatened, intimidated, and
harassed.''
The Commission concluded that: ``The U.S. Government and
its officials must continue to speak with a single, strong
voice on human rights, including religious freedom. Better
United States/Vietnamese relations depend upon it.''
I certainly do agree with those sentiments. During today's
hearing, it is my hope that we will be able to shed some light
on the situation, and also identify ways to move the United
States/Vietnam relationship forward while addressing human
rights, trade, and POW/MIA issues.
Before I ask Senator Murkowski and then Senator Webb for
their opening statements, I want to just go through our
witnesses today.
On our first panel, we will hear from Christopher Hill, the
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific
Affairs. As many of you know, Secretary Hill has spent the last
few years serving as our country's lead negotiator to the six-
party talks regarding North Korea. I think I speak for so many
of us, Ambassador, when I say thank you for your tireless work.
Secretary Hill just returned from Vietnam, and I look forward
to his insights into the situation there.
On our second panel, we will hear from Ms. Janet Nguyen, a
county supervisor from Orange County, California. The
supervisor represents one of the largest Vietnamese-American
communities in the United States. She was born in Saigon,
Vietnam, and escaped with her family, passing through numerous
refugee camps before arriving in the United States in 1981. The
supervisor will give a statement addressing the concerns of the
Vietnamese-American community in California.
On our third panel, we will hear from Mr. Matthew Daley,
the president of the US-ASEAN Business Council. Mr. Daley was a
career member of the U.S. Foreign Service before retiring in
2004 from his position as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
We'll also hear from Sophie Richardson, the advocacy
director for the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch. She's
responsible for the organization's oversight work in Vietnam,
and she has extensive experience in Asia.
In addition, we'll hear from Ann Mills Griffiths, who for
30 years has been the executive director of the National League
of POW/MIA Families. Having traveled to Vietnam on numerous
occasions, Ms. Mills Griffiths has extensive experience on POW/
MIA issues.
And finally, we will hear from Do Hoang Diem, a resident of
Orange County. Diem Do is the chairman of Viet Tan, or the
Vietnam Reform Party, an organization dedicated to the peaceful
advocacy of political change in Vietnam. He escaped from
Vietnam on April 30, 1975, and arrived in the United States as
a refugee in June 1975. Diem Do met with President Bush last
year to discuss the human rights situation in Vietnam.
I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses, and I
certainly look forward to hearing from my colleague, Senator
Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you
for holding this hearing on what is fast becoming a very
significant bilateral relationship between the United States
and Vietnam.
When you look at the warmth with which the Vietnamese have
embraced the friendship with the United States, some may
suggest that this is surprising, but given the recent history,
you think about the past century for Vietnam, and Vietnam has
almost continuously been at war. So the opportunity for peace
is one that they won't pass up.
The Senate has played a significant role in getting us to
our current position, with a Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA
affairs, led by Senator Kerry, conducting an independent
investigation of the POW/MIA issue, helping to lay the
groundwork for relations to move forward, along with the
approval of a bilateral trade agreement in 2001, and extending
permanent normal trade relation status in 2006.
So it is inherent upon us to continue down this path of
building upon our growing relations, to be supportive when and
where we can, but at the same time not to be afraid to offer
contrary views if we disagree with one another. In a mature
relationship, we recognize that you don't always agree on every
issue, but we will be able to at least share our differences
and hopefully work through them.
Madam Chairman, you mentioned California has a sizable
Vietnamese-American population. I understand it's about as many
as--as many Vietnamese live in California as we have Alaskans
in the entire State. But we have a strong Vietnamese population
in my State, as well. We've got about 1,500; and that might not
seem like a lot, but for us in the State, we embrace them.
They've become integrated into our communities and
neighborhoods. We do have an interest in ensuring that the
United States and Vietnamese relations remain strong and move
forward.
You have appropriately noted the challenges that face us in
the area of human rights. And, Secretary Hill, in your written
statement, you certainly speak to the problems that remain in
the area of human rights. We look forward to hearing this being
fleshed out further in the testimony here this afternoon.
I appreciate all of the witnesses that have agreed to join
us, and for the opportunity to have the hearing.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
Senator Webb.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM WEBB, U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Webb. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to
say that I got my professional start--not my political start--
on the Vietnamese issue, by serving in Vietnam as a Marine in
Quang Nam Province. And I have a special interest in how we're
going to bridge the gap, not only between our country and
Vietnam, but also between the Vietnamese community in the
United States and the Vietnamese who continue to rule Vietnam.
We have a kind of misperception that's crept into a lot of
our dialogue over the past 20 years or so that this was a war
between the United States and Vietnam. It was not. It was an
effort by the United States to assist an incipient democracy
that was growing in South Vietnam that was not successful for a
lot of different reasons.
But this gives us a special obligation to address issues
like human rights in a different sort of way than we do with,
perhaps, any other country, because there is a sizable
percentage of the population in Vietnam, and a majority of the
population of Vietnamese descent in the United States who are
aligned with us in attempting to prevent a Communist takeover
in Vietnam.
So these are not simply issues of human rights; they're
issues of how the government has been treating people who were
aligned with the United States and the attempt of the South
Vietnamese Government to obtain a democracy in South Vietnam.
So that's an insight that I think we need to emphasize when
we have these sorts of hearings. I've been privileged for more
than 30 years to be working on this issue in one way or
another, including working with the Vietnamese communities
since the late 1970s, and having returned to Vietnam probably
20 times since 1991, and watching the improvements that, though
still need to be greater, have been taking place in Vietnam.
So this is an issue that we should take a very special
interest in as a country, because the number of people, who
were attempting to align themselves with us, have been at risk.
And I look forward very much to hearing all the witnesses
today, and I thank you for holding the hearing.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Ambassador, I hope you
can share some of your wisdom with us in the next 5 to 7
minutes. We would greatly appreciate it. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER HILL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU
OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Hill. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I
have, of course, a statement I'd like to read into the--or have
added into the record, and then if I could read an oral
statement.
Senator Boxer. Please.
Ambassador Hill. Madam Chairman, Senator Murkowski, Senator
Webb, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity today
to testify on the subject of the United States relationship
with Vietnam. I've just returned from a trip there; in fact, my
fourth in my current position. And I'm pleased to have this
opportunity to share my impressions of that trip with you.
Vietnam is a country that stirs emotions in many families
in the United States. We have historical ties, cultural ties,
sometimes just very, very difficult memories. Yet, Vietnam is a
country whose economic and democratic transition is important
to the United States, and it is important that we remain
engaged with Vietnam and work with Vietnam on this.
That transformation in Vietnam has enabled--it's in part
been helped by the expansion of our bilateral relationship. We
are working constructively with Vietnam on a growing range of
important issues. Of course, many problems remain, and Madam
Chairman, you alluded to a very important problem that remains,
and that is human rights.
But overall, we have made broad progress where our
interests have coincided, and we've also been able to engage
candidly on issues where we differ, and I can say, Madam
Chairman, I did just that just a few days ago. We believe this
continued engagement of Vietnam is very much in the United
States interests.
Engagement can be seen most clearly in our economic
relations. And here, I must say our ties are thriving. Two-way
trade has risen to some $12.5 billion in 2007, and that trade
has been buoyed by Vietnam's entry into the World Trade
Organization, and the continued success in implementing our
Bilateral Trade Agreement. U.S. exports in particular have been
growing--some 70 percent last year. Investments from United
States firms are also flowing into Vietnam--over $2.5 billion
since 1988, and $639 million last year alone.
The U.S. assistance, thanks to the U.S. taxpayers, has
improved good governance and transparency in Vietnam. U.S.-
funded advisers have collaborated on a range of new laws to
promote a level playing field in the private sector. Our
cooperation on regional security matters is also expanding
steadily through engagement in ASEAN, where Vietnam is a
member. Also, in APEC and at the U.N. Security Council, which
Vietnam joined in January of this year for a 2-year term.
We're pleased to see Vietnam support a new sanctions
resolution on Iran at the U.N. Security Council just last week.
We also have had a very active IMET Program. That is a military
cooperation program involving training of English to their
officers. We've had regular U.S. Navy port calls, and are
working to build capacity for peacekeeping and search and
rescue.
We have worked very closely with Vietnam on health issues.
In particular, Vietnam is one of 15 focus countries under the
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief, PEPFAR. And in
fiscal year 2007, we gave some $66 million for HIV prevention.
We are also working very closely with Vietnam on the threat of
avian influenza. Four people have died from that virus in
Vietnam. And last year, we gave some $10 million to strengthen
emergency preparedness, laboratory capacity, and public
awareness.
But in human rights, this is clearly a work in progress.
Let me say first that Vietnam's transformation and its
engagement with the United States has helped open its society
and expand social freedoms. The average Vietnamese citizen
today has more freedom to live, work, and practice his or her
faith than at any time since 1975. But there is no question
that serious deficiencies remain in political and civil
liabilities.
People cannot choose their government, and risk detention
for peaceful expression of political views. The government
maintains significant restrictions on freedom of the press, on
speech, on assembly, and Internet content. In early 2007, in
particular, the government launched a crackdown on political
descent and arrested many members of fledgling prodemocracy
groups.
In November, authorities arrested a group of prodemocracy
activists, including two American citizens. Several individuals
were released following pressure from the administration and
from the Congress, but one American, Dr. Nguyen Quoc Quan,
still remains in prison. And among the prominent dissidents
still in prison are Father Ly, Nguyen Van Dai, and Le Thi Cong
Nhan are still--they are still awaiting their freedom. And
during my visit to Hanoi this month, I raised all of these
cases with senior Vietnamese officials, urging that those
arrested for peacefully expressing their views should be
released immediately.
There have been some gains in the last 2 years: A
resumption of our bilateral human rights dialogue, the release
of some high-profile prisoners, greater access to the Central
Highlands, and the repeal of Administrative Decree 31, which
had the effect of allowing authorities to circumvent due
process.
We raise human rights issues regularly and at all levels
with the Vietnamese authorities. Our annual human rights
dialogue is an important channel to raise these concerns, and
we do so without pulling any punches at all. We plan the next
round this May in Hanoi, and I have emphasized that we need to
focus on concrete actions to produce real improvements.
We're urging Vietnam to take steps now, such as ending the
use of catch-all national security provisions, such as Article
88 of the Criminal Code, which outlaws conducting propaganda
against the state. We've urged them to release all remaining
political prisoners.
In the area of religious freedom, it has made some
significant gains. From 2004 to 2006, the State Department
designated Vietnam as a country of particular concern on
religious freedom. And during that time, we negotiated with the
Vietnamese Government an unprecedented agreement that committed
them to significant religious freedom reforms. By November
2006, Vietnam was no longer on the list of serious violators of
religious freedom; they had been taken off the list of
countries of particular concern.
Some of these key reforms include passage of a new law that
banned forced renunciations, that allowed registration of
hundreds of Protestant congregations, and we continue to
monitor these. This year, we've seen some further progress. The
government registered seven new denominations. And while I was
in Hanoi just last week, I met with officials from the Catholic
Church, and also from the Evangelical churches of Vietnam to
discuss the progress with them. Indeed, Vietnam can and should
do more, but we continue to work with Vietnam on this.
Another challenge to our relationship is in intercountry
adoptions. We have had problems in Vietnam; problems that have
created--that have been caused by fraud and some illegal
activities. We are working very hard with the Vietnamese
Government on this. We are working with Vietnam to accede to
the Hague Convention on adoptions. We want a situation that's
good for all, that's good for the child above all, that's good
for the adopting family, and then make sure the process
functions completely.
Finally, we work very much in Vietnam on the legacy of war.
We work on trying to bring the remains of our service men and
women home. We are the largest donor of humanitarian
assistance, from Mine Actions Programs in Vietnam. We've given
some 43 million in disability assistance. We have also helped
to--together with the Congress, we have worked on difficult
issues, such as Agent Orange. And we're now finalizing a plan
to implement $3 million set aside by Congress for environmental
remediation and health-related programs.
In conclusion, Madam Chairman, I want to emphasize the
vital role that Congress has played in advancing the United
States-Vietnam relationship. It is with the support of Congress
that we established diplomatic relations with Vietnam, and made
it a permanent normal trading partner. As our bilateral ties
have improved, Congress has reinforced our efforts and ensured
that human rights and religious freedom remain very much high
on our agenda.
Over the last 13 years, our relationship with Vietnam has
transformed from one of conflict to one of cooperation. We're
eager to do more, such as establishing a Peace Corps Program,
if Vietnam is so interested, increasing--also, increasing
educational opportunities for Vietnamese in this country.
There are tremendous changes in Vietnam. Problems certainly
remain, especially in human rights and democracy, and we need
to address them squarely and honestly. It's in our national
interest to keep the United States involved in Vietnam's
transformation as a partner, and when needed as a constructive
critic.
Thank you very much, and I would be happy to take your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Hill follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher Hill, Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of State,
Washington, DC
introduction
Chairman Boxer, Senator Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to testify today on the subject of United
States-Vietnam bilateral relations. I have just returned from a trip to
Hanoi and am pleased to have this opportunity to share my impressions
of Vietnam with you.
The United States-Vietnam relationship has expanded in an
impressive number of areas since we reestablished diplomatic relations
with Vietnam in 1995. President Bush's trip to Hanoi in November 2006
for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meeting and President
Triet's visit to Washington in June 2007 reflect the advances in our
relationship. Problems remain, especially in the area of human rights.
Overall, we have made broad progress on issues where our interests
coincide, as well as in our ability to engage candidly on the areas
where we differ. Continued engagement with Vietnam is clearly in U.S.
interests.
bilateral ties--from conflict to cooperation
A good starting point for reviewing how our bilateral ties have
evolved is to look at the dramatic transformation Vietnam has
experienced as a country. When we first began reengaging with Vietnam
in the 1990s, the country was just beginning to recover from years of
hard-core Marxism. Those years had ravaged an economy still reeling
from war, and forced thousands into reeducation camps or to flee to the
United States and other countries. Vietnam's foreign policy was marked
by close alignment with the Soviet Union, and it was just ending a
decade-long occupation of Cambodia.
Vietnam's leaders started reversing this dead-end approach in the
late-1980s, by introducing a policy of ``doi moi,'' or renovation, to
boost economic growth. They turned away from central planning in favor
of efforts to promote the private sector. Vietnam's leaders saw they
had to integrate with the world economy to attract foreign trade,
investment, and technology. Subsequently, they launched what has turned
out to be one of the most rapid economic revolutions in modern history.
The United States encouraged this new orientation and has been actively
facilitating change in Vietnam for over a decade through our
development assistance and trade policy.
If Vietnam can continue to implement effectively more market
reforms, it has the economic potential to catch up with the Asian
tigers. Vietnam's GDP grew 8.5 percent in 2007, its highest growth rate
in a decade. The urban middle class is growing, and retail markets are
booming. In what the World Bank has described as one of the most
successful antipoverty campaigns ever, Vietnam reduced its poverty rate
from more than three-quarters of the population in 1990 to under 14
percent in 2007. To succeed in its ambition to be an industrialized
country by 2020, however, Vietnam will need to do more to develop its
physical and human infrastructure, including tackling serious
shortcomings in its education system.
Vietnam is rapidly integrating with the rest of the world. The
country is increasingly influential in the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
forum, and joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in January 2007.
This January, Vietnam joined the U.N. Security Council for a 2-year
term. We are working closely with Vietnam in the Council and seek to
strengthen our cooperation in that important forum over the coming 2
years.
economic ties
Building on the promise of the 2001 United States-Vietnam Bilateral
Trade Agreement (BTA), we have continued to expand our economic
relationship through substantial growth in trade and investment. At the
end of 2006, Vietnam was granted Permanent Normal Trade Relations
(PNTR) with the United States. Vietnam then acceded to the WTO in
January 2007, to the benefit of both our countries. In June 2007, the
United States and Vietnam concluded a Trade and Investment Framework
Agreement (TIFA) to support implementation of the BTA and Vietnam's WTO
commitments, and to identify new opportunities to advance our trade and
investment ties. Vietnam's WTO accession has helped push our two-way
trade to $12.5 billion in 2007, up 29 percent from 2006. While the
trade balance remains in Vietnam's favor, U.S. exports to Vietnam grew
an impressive 73 percent in 2007, three times as fast as Vietnamese
exports to the United States. As President Triet affirmed during his
June visit to the United States, Vietnam welcomes more U.S. investment.
Commerce Secretary Gutierrez led executives from 22 major U.S.
companies on a trade mission to Vietnam in November 2007 to seek deals
and expand our exports.
U.S. assistance for Vietnam's economic reforms focuses on good
governance and transparency and has helped make possible our robust
trade and investment ties. Through USAID-funded projects such as
Support for Trade Acceleration, or ``STAR,'' we have provided advice
and input to Vietnam on a range of new laws related to implementation
of Vietnam's BTA and WTO commitments. These efforts will help transform
the Vietnamese economy by promoting a level playing field for the
private sector, including both foreign and domestic companies. In the
same vein, USAID's funding for the Vietnam Competitiveness Initiative
has established an index that ranks each province on ease of doing
business, based on the views of Vietnam's own firms. The Vietnamese
Government is using that tool to encourage greater transparency and
anticorruption measures at the local level. As a result, private
Vietnamese firms have new influence over their own government's
economic policymaking. Some Vietnamese leaders have voiced interest in
expanding our economic governance programs into broader legal and
administrative reform efforts.
regional and security issues
On regional and security issues, our cooperation with Vietnam is
steadily expanding. In ASEAN and APEC, our engagement on issues such as
free trade and counterterrorism has increased with Vietnam's rising
influence. At the U.N. Security Council, we are seeking their backing
on the full range of international peace and security issues. In a
first big test of its cooperation, Vietnam voted earlier this month in
favor of the new Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran. We hope
to strengthen that cooperation during Vietnam's tenure in the UNSC.
Bilaterally, we are working to help build capacity for peacekeeping and
search-and-rescue through International Military Education and Training
(IMET) programs, and U.S. Navy ships now call at Vietnamese ports. The
USNS Mercy will make a planned visit to Vietnam this summer.
combating hiv/aids and avian influenza
Over the past few years, our cooperation with Vietnam on critical
health issues, such as avian influenza and HIV/AIDS, has been expanding
rapidly. Vietnamese authorities have been open and enthusiastic
partners in combating both global health threats. Vietnam has welcomed
U.S. assistance to combat avian influenza and has worked closely with
us on this issue. Outbreaks of avian influenza have already caused four
human deaths in Vietnam this year. We are the second largest bilateral
donor in Vietnam, contributing approximately $23 million since 2005,
including $10 million in FY 2007 alone. Our assistance has focused on
building emergency preparedness, laboratory capacity, and public
awareness. We are working with Vietnam to move from an emergency-
oriented response to a sustained programmatic approach. Vietnam is also
1 of 15 focus countries under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR), and work on HIV/AIDS makes up the lion's share of our
official assistance to Vietnam. In fiscal year 2007 alone, we will
spend $66 million on HIV prevention, care, and treatment.
human rights
Vietnam's economic and cultural integration into the world has
helped open its society and expand social freedoms. Vietnamese citizens
today enjoy greater freedom to live, work, and practice their faith,
and most enjoy significantly improved standards of living.
However, in the area of political and civil liberties, serious
deficiencies remain. People cannot freely choose their government, they
risk arrest for peacefully expressing their political views, and they
lack the right of fair and expeditious trials. The government continues
to maintain significant restrictions on freedom of the press, speech,
and assembly and Internet content. In early 2007, the government
launched a crackdown on political dissent, arresting and imprisoning
many individuals involved in the prodemocracy group Bloc 8406, and
other fledgling prodemocracy groups. Some are still being held.
In November 2007, Vietnamese authorities arrested a group of
prodemocracy activists including two American citizens. After pressure
from the administration and Congress, and many others in the
international community, several individuals were released, including
one American. Another American, Dr. Nguyen Quoc Quan, remains held in a
jail in Ho Chi Minh City. Among the prominent dissidents who are still
imprisoned are Father Ly, Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thi Cong Nhan. During
my visit to Hanoi this month, I raised all these cases with senior
Vietnamese officials, stressing that we object to the arrest of any
individual for peacefully expressing his or her views, and making clear
that anyone arrested on that basis should be released immediately.
Despite the setbacks, there have been some positive developments
over the past 2 years: The resumption of our bilateral human rights
dialogue, the release of some high-profile prisoners of concern,
greater access by the international community to the Central Highlands
and to prisons to assess conditions, and the repeal of Administrative
Decree 31, which allowed authorities to circumvent due process.
Visiting Vietnamese officials, such as a high-level group visiting
Washington this month from the Central Highlands, are showing more
interest in meeting with NGOs, Vietnamese-American groups, and Members
of Congress to discuss human rights issues. We strongly encourage this
type of engagement. Vietnam has also taken some encouraging steps to
combat corruption. Last week, the top Communist Party official in Can
Tho province in southern Vietnam was reprimanded and fired for
corruption related to improper land deals.
Our annual Human Rights Dialogue also provides an important channel
to raise concerns with the Government of Vietnam. We held our second
meeting since the resumption of the Dialogue in April 2007, and plan a
third meeting this May in Hanoi. It is a frank exchange where we raise
our concerns and pull no punches. The Vietnamese Government says they
value it, and have made limited improvements, but they must do more. We
have emphasized that the Dialogue has to focus on concrete action by
the government to improve the human rights situation, and must produce
tangible results.
Our message to Vietnam is that the United States cares about this
issue not because we seek to destabilize their government, but because
we value respect for universal human rights and human dignity. We also
demonstrate to Vietnam that improving the protection of human rights is
in its interests and will make the country stronger. There are steps we
would like the Vietnamese to take right now, such as ending the use of
catch-all ``national security'' provisions like article 88 of the
Criminal Code, which outlaws ``conducting propaganda against the
State,'' and the release of all remaining political prisoners.
Madame Chairman, I assure you that we will continue to push
vigorously for a greater expansion of the civil and political rights of
all Vietnamese citizens and for the release of all political prisoners.
religious freedom
In contrast to the slow progress on political rights, religious
freedom in Vietnam has expanded significantly. From 2004 to 2006, the
State Department designated Vietnam as a ``Country of Particular
Concern'' (CPC) regarding religious freedom. At that time, many
religious communities faced harassment and forced renunciations, and
the country had 45 known religious prisoners. Official policy supported
a hard-line approach, especially in some rural areas considered
``sensitive'' by Vietnam's Government. By November 2006, Vietnam had
addressed the problems that constituted severe violations of religious
freedom as defined by the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act.
The Vietnamese Government explicitly changed many aspects of
official policy that had restricted religious practice and introduced a
new law on religion that banned forced renunciation, enshrined
individual freedom of religion, and allowed registration of hundreds of
Protestant congregations. The government released all those individuals
that the United States had identified as prisoners of concern for
reasons connected to their faith. It has invited any information on
allegations that the law is not being carried out. We have monitored
the implementation of the expansion of religious freedom carefully--and
been given the access to do so. We have found cases in which local
authorities have not followed the new law. When that happens, we have
either brought them to the attention of the government, or monitored
efforts by religious groups to ensure compliance with the new law.
During my visit to Hanoi, I met with officials of the Catholic
Church and Evangelical Church of Vietnam (North), who confirmed there
have been significant improvements, although they also noted concerns
over property disputes and the pace of registrations of new
denominations. In February, Catholics in Hanoi staged a series of
large-scale prayer vigils urging the government to return a property
once used by the Papal Nuncio. Before this confrontation reached a
crisis point, the Hanoi Archdiocese and the government agreed to
resolve the dispute through negotiation. The leaders I met also called
for the government to permit a greater role for churches in charitable
and social activities, such as poverty alleviation, education, health
care, and disaster relief.
Since the CPC designation was removed, there has been further
progress: The government has issued seven national-level registrations
of denominations, and held over 3,000 training courses and 10,000
training workshops for officials throughout the country on how to
implement the new law on religion. Relations with the Vatican have also
improved. A meeting between Prime Minister Dung and Pope Benedict XVI
led to the launch last October of a Joint Working Group to establish
diplomatic relations.
Vietnam can and should do more to advance religious freedom. We
would like to see the government quicken the pace of registrations for
new denominations and accelerate the training of local officials on the
new legal framework. Vietnam, however, no longer qualifies as a severe
violator of religious freedom. Key religious leaders from different
faiths within the country have confirmed this. It is vital that we
continue to monitor the situation. It is also important that we
recognize progress and urge that the good work continue.
adoption
Another challenge to our bilateral relationship is intercountry
adoptions. Hundreds of caring American parents have adopted children
from Vietnam since the United States and Vietnam resumed processing
intercountry adoptions in 2006. This renewed interest has put great
pressure on a Vietnamese social and governmental infrastructure that,
in our evaluation, simply has been unable to respond adequately. We
have observed a disturbing trend of fraud and illegal activity in
recent months that threatens the integrity of the program by denying
birth parents their rights and placing the lives of infants at risk.
Our goal is to work closely with the Vietnamese Government and other
interested parties to reform the international adoption process in
Vietnam while facilitating cases that meet the requirements of
Vietnamese and United States law and regulations.
We have raised these concerns at high levels with Vietnam and urged
their government to accede to the Hague Convention on Adoptions. We
have offered technical assistance to develop the institutions that
would enable them to become compliant with safeguards in the Hague
Convention. Our goal is to work with Vietnam to fix the system, so that
we can process adoptions from Vietnam while ensuring the protection of
the children, the birth parents, and the adoptive parents.
education
In a further sign of our growing bilateral relations, our
educational ties with Vietnam are expanding rapidly. Young Vietnamese
leaders have a great appetite to learn about American society and
values; our support for sharing the American experience with them is a
vital long-term investment. The Fulbright program for Vietnam is one of
our largest in Asia; we are working to expand it further with corporate
support. The Harvard-affiliated Fulbright Economics Training Program in
Ho Chi Minh City is a highly successful program giving hundreds of mid-
level Vietnamese officials the public policy tools to keep the country
on its market-driven path. The Vietnam Education Foundation (VEF)
supports Vietnamese students of science and technology currently in
U.S. colleges. Our Ambassador in Hanoi has been active in bringing
harmony to all the U.S. efforts on education. Vietnam's top leaders say
they want the Peace Corps in Vietnam, and the Peace Corps has discussed
with the Vietnamese Government the possibility of establishing a
country program. We hope to see those talks progress.
legacies of war
Finally, it is important to note that we continue to work closely
with Vietnam on issues related to the legacy of war. Our efforts to
obtain the fullest possible accounting for our personnel missing from
the Vietnam war remain an important component of our bilateral
relationship. Since 1973, we have been able to repatriate and identify
the remains of 883 Americans, 627 of whom were lost in Vietnam. We
continue to enjoy good cooperation from Vietnam in the accounting
mission, but have requested additional records pertaining to their
forces in areas of Laos and Cambodia where we still have unresolved
cases. Later this year, we will meet with our Vietnamese counterparts
to assess 20 years of cooperation on the accounting mission, and assess
how we can do the accounting mission better.
The United States is the largest donor of humanitarian assistance
for mine-action programs to Vietnam, providing $40 million since 1993.
In addition, we have given $43 million in disability assistance since
1989 through the Leahy War Victims Fund, set up to assist Vietnamese
with disabilities of all kinds. Support from Congress is also helping
us defuse a delicate bilateral issue: The defoliant Agent Orange and
its contaminant dioxin. Since 2002, we have given $2 million to help
Vietnam build capacity to deal with environmental challenges posed by
dioxin, and we are now devising a plan to implement $3 million more set
aside by Congress for environmental remediation and health-related
programs. U.S. engagement has spurred other donors, such as the Ford
Foundation, UNDP, and the Czech Republic, to join in a multilateral
effort to address the impact of dioxin. While the United States and
Vietnam may disagree on aspects of this emotional issue, we have
reached a point with Vietnam where we can focus on helping disabled
individuals regardless of cause, and address this issue in a
cooperative manner, increasingly free of hyperbole.
conclusion
Madame Chairman, before I close, I want to emphasize the vital role
that Congress has played in advancing United States-Vietnam relations
over the years. With the support of Congress, we reestablished
diplomatic relations with Vietnam and made it a permanent normal
trading partner. As Vietnam and our bilateral ties have improved,
Congress has reinforced our efforts to expand our engagement, and
ensured that human rights and religious freedom remain high priorities
in our relationship.
Over the last 13 years, our relationship with Vietnam has
transformed from one of conflict to one of cooperation. The country has
changed tremendously in that time, and the lives of the vast majority
of its people have improved in clear and measurable ways. Problems
remain, especially in the area of human rights and democracy, and we
must address them squarely. It is in our national interests to keep the
United States involved in Vietnam's transformation as a partner, and
when needed, as a constructive critic.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Ambassador. According to
the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the
Vietnamese Government continues to harass and detain members of
religious groups that seek independence or autonomy from
government control. In October 2007, Vietnamese President
Nguyen Minh Triet publicly threatened to arrest the venerable
Thich Quang Do, who is under detention along with 12 other
leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam.
Up to 12 Hoa Hao Buddhists have been arrested in the past
few years, including four sentenced to prison terms in 2007 for
a peaceful hunger strike protesting past imprisonments of
fellow Hao Hao. Five Khmer Buddhists were also sentenced last
year for leading a peaceful demonstration to protest religious
freedom restrictions. Five Cao Dais remain in prison for
distributing pamphlets critical of restrictions on their
activities. And hundreds of Montagnard Protestants remain
imprisoned after staging demonstrations for land rights and
religious freedom.
In addition, Father Nguyen Van Ly, Nguyen Van Dai, and Le
Thi Cong Nhan were all charged and imprisoned for the peaceful
expression of universally guaranteed rights to freedom of
speech, association, and religion.
Now, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
has concluded in a report that these prisoners should at least
be considered for their activities to promote religious
freedom. As you probably know, they're imprisoned for crimes
against the state. Despite the U.S. Commission's Report, the
2007 State Department International Religious Report states
that, ``Vietnam no longer detains any prisoners of concern.''
Such prisoners are one of the main criteria used for
determining whether a country will be designated as a country
of particular concern, or CPC. Why are the imprisoned
individuals that I just mentioned not considered prisoners of
concern?
Ambassador Hill. Well, first of all, let me say that we
have continued to be very concerned about both issues of
political speech, but also religious belief. And in some of
these cases where there have been religious figures, such as
Father Ly, we believe many of these have been violations of
their political rights, their rights to speak out.
We have raised these issues with the Vietnamese
authorities. We will continue to do so, as such religious
leaders are being held primarily for political activism rather
than religious views. But we certainly don't mean to suggest
that Vietnam's record on religious freedom is perfect; what we
are looking at is whether it is improved or not, and we do
believe there has been improvement.
With regard to the issue of the Montagnards, it is with
that in mind that we pressed very substantially for access to
the Central Highlands so we could see ourselves how the
situation was. And I can say that Ambassador Michalak and his
staff, and also our consulate in Ho Chi Minh City, have been
very vigilant in getting people up to the central part of the
country to see what some of the----
Senator Boxer. OK.
Ambassador Hill [continuing]. What the conditions are.
Senator Boxer. Well, to me, the facts are the facts. These
people are in jail, and they're not out, and our Commission on
Religious Freedom said that they're being held for their
religious activities. And, it just seems to me that we're doing
a two-step here. I want to see progress in this relationship. I
don't think that when a friend does something wrong it helps to
just keep saying, ``You're wonderful.'' I mean, I have
differences with my colleagues here.
Now, I don't doubt for a minute that the State Department
is pressing the Vietnamese Government on these issues. But then
you take them off the CPC list. It seems to me that
redesignating Vietnam as a CPC would send a strong signal that
our interests lie not only with economic and security concerns,
but in real progress on religious freedom.
But let me move, in the rest of my time, to more about
politics there. Is it true that only one political party is
allowed in Vietnam?
Ambassador Hill. Yes. It's the Communist Party.
Senator Boxer. That's right. And you may know that a secret
memo recently surfaced regarding political trials. And this
secret memo has been attributed to an August 2007 Politburo
meeting of the Communist Party of Vietnam.
Although the Government of Vietnam denies that it's
currently holding any political prisoners, the document details
the success of some of the recent ``political trials,'' and
states that the party must work to ``limit the spread of false
ideas in the population about democracy, human rights, and
religious freedom.''
Now, according to Human Rights Watch, the document also
states that opposition political parties must not be allowed to
take shape, ``It is absolutely necessary not to let it happen
that political opposition parties be established.'' That's
supposed to be in the document.
First of all, can you confirm the authenticity of the
document Human Rights Watch has, but I wonder if you can
confirm the authenticity of the document?
Ambassador Hill. My understanding is the U.S. Government is
not in a position to confirm the authenticity of that document.
Senator Boxer. Are you going to give us an opinion on it at
some point?
Ambassador Hill. Well, certainly, we've been--you know,
we're certainly checking on the authenticity of that, but what
we are really concerned about, of course, is the fact that the
Vietnam Government continues to imprison people of conscience
and deny them their fundamental rights, the right of peaceful
assembly and the right to express political views, and we have
focused very much on the list of people of concern, with an
effort to try to get them out of prison, to get the Vietnamese
authorities not to abuse such catch-all terms, as this article
88, which essentially defines that anyone engaged in something
so-called propaganda can be arrested and imprisoned.
So we have very much focused on the list of people, but
also on the system which allows some of these people----
Senator Boxer. OK.
Ambassador Hill [continuing]. That can be taken by these
catch-all provisions.
Senator Boxer. Well, Human Rights Watch will testify later,
and we're going to ask them about how they know this is
authentic, because it's fact that this is authentic. And they
can prove it's authentic. We're going to see. You ought to take
another look at this, because, again, you get the sense that
trade and other things may be trumping this serious violation
of human rights and freedom of speech and so on.
Let me just wind up my time by thanking the State
Department. It has taken me quite awhile, but with the help of
my wonderful staff and folks over in your shop, we've been able
to conclude some adoptions that were being held up. It was so
tragic. These adoptions were going through, and American
families thought they were going to get the children, and then
the children got caught up in a horrible bind because there are
problems over in Vietnam with baby selling and all the rest.
And so, I was so glad to see that we were able to work with
your people, and we've freed those children and now they are
home with their families. But, in writing, rather than taking
our time today, would you let me know how the Orphans First
Policy is coming along, and how you feel it may avert the kind
of problems that we've had before?
And I very much want to thank you. All my other questions,
I'll put in writing. Thank you.
Ambassador Hill. OK. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator Murkowski.
Ambassador Hill. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to
thank your staff for the work we did together on this Orphans
First Policy, because it was a terrible, terrible situation for
the parents to wait like this. And I'm glad we were able to get
through that, and we did that with a lot of cooperation, and we
will get through some of these problems, as well.
Senator Boxer. I hope so, because that was a joy to see the
faces when I saw families united with their children.
Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Ambassador, you had mentioned in not
only your written, but in your testimony here, as you were
speaking about the bilateral human rights dialogue, that while
improvements had been made, they've got to do more, and you had
emphasized that the dialogue has to focus on concrete action.
Define ``concrete action'' or what you would anticipate you
could accomplish in the relatively short term, and whether or
not you figure you can actually achieve some concrete steps in
this bilateral human rights dialogue.
Ambassador Hill. Well, let me just take an example from the
effort on religious freedom, where we actually looked at the
number, the sheer number, of registrations, church
registrations. So we actually had a metric. We were looking at
how many registrations they were getting accomplished. This is
really concrete action.
And then, in that list, we were also concerned about
whether we could get to some of the places where these
registrations were to take place, namely the Central Highlands.
So we insisted on getting access to follow up, to make sure
these things weren't just being registered and then closed
again or something.
So we were able to work, I think, in very concrete terms
with the government, agree on things that needed to be done,
and then follow up to verify that they were done. I think we
can do that kind of thing in a human rights dialogue. And we
have to, in approaching this--what we want to stress is that we
want to see visible changes on the ground, and we want to work
with the Vietnamese authorities on how to accomplish this.
We don't want a situation where we are wagging our finger
at them, and they are not responding in any positive way. We
want to work with them cooperatively. A lot of these issues are
not just United States issues; these are international issues
where Vietnam, as it internationalizes its economy, will want
to have a human rights record and procedures that live up to
the international standard.
So we want to work cooperatively with them to get, for
example, some of these people of concern, of conscience, who
are on this list, to get them out of prison. There are some
people who are now eligible for amnesty. We would like to see
those people released immediately. There are people on that
list who were put in prison because of free speech. We want
those people removed.
So we will work very specifically with specific names to
try to work through this. But we do need an overall process
where, as we release some people, others aren't arrested the
next day, so we do need to address some of these systemic
issues, such as article 88.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that, and I hope that
you're making that level of progress on these action items that
you feel is significant, and certainly encourage you to work
there.
I want to ask you just a little bit of a detour question,
recognizing all of your work with North Korea and the six-party
talks. Vietnam maintains official relations with North Korea.
They've got an embassy there in Pyongyang. What help can they
provide in these talks? And have they been active on the
sidelines at all? Where are they in this mix?
Ambassador Hill. Some 3 years ago, Vietnam assisted South
Korea in taking a couple of hundred North Korean refugees and
repatriating--or I should say bringing them to the Republic of
Korea, to South Korea. And when this was done, the North
Korean/Vietnamese relationship obviously took a turn for the
worse.
We think Vietnam did the right thing, and we have
encouraged them to continue to do that kind of thing. So I
think doing the right thing with respect to North Korean
refugees has been an important byproduct of our work with the
Vietnamese, and also to the South Korean work with the
Vietnamese. In addition, I think Vietnam, which has gone
through a very challenging past, has a lot to offer North
Korea, in terms of what it's been able to do.
Vietnam is really in the beginning of an economic
transformation, but for the past 5 years it has begun to put up
numbers on the order of 7.5 and 8.5 percent economic growth.
They've opened up the economy to foreign investment. That's the
kind of move that I think has been very successful for Vietnam,
that has helped Vietnam taxi its way to the takeoff point to be
that next Asian country that is going to move.
I think, given the very difficult past Vietnam has had,
North Korea could learn a lot from that experience, and I do
hope the Vietnamese are sharing it with them. In fact, when I
see the North Koreans tomorrow in Geneva, I might give them a
little trip report of my recent trip to Vietnam, so that they
understand that they can change their way, and they can get
some success.
Senator Murkowski. So what you're saying, though, is that
Vietnam has--can be seen as an example by North Korea, but in
terms of any even sideline activity on the six-party talks,
there's no engagement there.
Ambassador Hill. Yes. I'm not sure we need the sideline
activity, although Vietnam did offer to host and did host a
bilateral meeting between the Japanese and the North Koreans. I
think Vietnam, because of historical circumstances, has
familiarity with the North Koreans and the North Korean
mindset, and I think certainly any advice they can give the
North Koreans--when I was in Vietnam, I did talk to the
Vietnamese officials to bring them up to date on the six-party
process so that in their dealings with the North Koreans, they
could be helpful to what we all want to see happen.
Vietnam has never developed nuclear capabilities or weapons
capabilities, as the North Koreans are doing, and Vietnam is
much more successful for that fact.
Senator Murkowski. Uh-huh. Very quickly, is there an update
on the status of negotiations with Vietnam for the POW/MIA
searches that are offshore?
Ambassador Hill. We are working on the offshore. My
understanding is that discussions have gone very well, and I
think I would have to give you an--get you a----
Senator Murkowski. If you can do that.
Ambassador Hill [continuing]. Prepared answer. But my
understanding is that it's going very well.
[The submitted written answer by Ambassador Hill to the
above requested information follows:]
Achieving the fullest possible accounting for those still listed as
missing from the Vietnam war remains an important component of the
bilateral relationship. Of the more than 1,300 Americans still listed
as unaccounted for in Vietnam from the conflict in Indochina,
approximately 450 were presumed lost in operations off the Vietnamese
coast. The vast majority of those cases were the result of aircraft
crashes.
Since the end of the Vietnam war, the U.S. has undertaken 13
underwater investigations or attempts to recover the remains of
Americans believed to have been lost off the coast of Vietnam. The
ratio of recovery attempts to personnel believed lost over water is low
because it is extremely difficult--if not impossible--to locate the
underwater crash sites. Of the operations conducted to date, most of
which used information from Vietnamese citizens who discovered
underwater wreckage since the war, only one mission resulted in the
recovery of identifiable remains. Despite the limited results and the
difficulty involved, the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC), based
in Hawaii and with a forward element in Hanoi, routinely conducts one
extended underwater search operation each year, involving U.S. divers
and equipment staging from Vietnamese boats. The next such underwater
search operation off the coast of Vietnam is planned for spring 2009.
In an attempt to develop more accurate information on underwater
crash site locations, JPAC and the U.S. Navy made a proposal last year
to the Government of Vietnam to use a U.S. Navy hydrographic research
ship for underwater MIA search operations. The Vietnamese have agreed
in principle, and the two sides are now undertaking the complicated
planning needed to make such a precedent-setting operation a reality.
The operation is tentatively set to occur in March-April 2009. Our hope
is that the data collected by the U.S. Navy ship will provide a basis
upon which to conduct more effective underwater recovery operations in
the future.
Overall, we are pleased with Vietnam's cooperation with the U.S.
accounting mission to date, as articulated in the Determination of
Vietnamese Cooperation on POW/MIAs submitted to Congress earlier this
month. To strengthen further that cooperation, we are urging Vietnam to
allow greater archival access, including to records pertaining to
Americans captured, missing or killed in areas of Laos and Cambodia
under wartime Vietnamese control.
Senator Murkowski. Good. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Webb.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ambassador, I
would fully agree with you that if you look back over the span
of the last 15 years or more, that conditions in Vietnam have
dramatically improved. When I first went back to the Vietnam 17
years ago this month, actually, it was a stalling state at that
time. The educational system had come out of Central Europe.
The religious institutions were in disrepair. The churches and
pagodas were overgrown. And particularly, the treatment of the
people who had been with us was atrocious.
There have been a couple of contributing factors to the
change--the economic factors, which are obvious, and the
strength of the Vietnamese community here in the United States.
Even during the dark days, one of the real ironies of the post-
Vietnam war was that remittances from this country were
basically keeping Saigon afloat, to the tune of $\1/2\ billion
or $1 billion a year at some point.
It was also because of the right kind of attempt at
dialogue--the willingness of this government to listen and to
negotiate increased, since it is a transitional process. The
one question I would have for you, and I want to hopefully get
three questions in, is one of the frustrations I have when we
talk about human rights in Vietnam. As I mentioned in my
opening statement, we don't distinguish the unique situation of
Vietnam with other human rights conditions around the world.
What I mean by that is that there is a special circumstance
because of the significant percentage of the population that
was technically aligned with us and, after a Communist
takeover, suffered a great deal of discrimination, in addition
to having to go to education camps and new economic zones and
being precluded from getting jobs and education and those sorts
of things.
When you're looking at Vietnam today, do you see that part
of the equation changing?
Ambassador Hill. I think some of it is simply changing as
the years go by, because you have some 60 percent of the
population born after the Vietnam war. In my four visits there,
this issue of the discrimination of all of the--of people who
were on the other side, as you pointed out, this was not a
United States/Vietnam war.
I mean, I have raised this issue with people, but I think
the focus is on the approach to--on the question of whether
Vietnam is now living up to international standards in its
human rights, rather than on the effort to address broad
injustices of the kind you mentioned.
Senator Webb. Well, if I may make one strong suggestion to
the professionals in the State Department who work on this
issue, that they not lose sight of this. Because we are the
only country that can even raise it. And it goes beyond the
people who served alongside us. It goes to their children, and
in some cases, to their grandchildren.
And you're not going to eliminate this type of
discrimination where it still exists unless we actually put it
on the table. I was attempting, actually, during the
normalization process all those years ago, to try to get a
provision in the language of a roadmap basically saying that
you can't discriminate against someone based on a past status.
And this is a status question, just as apartheid was in South
Africa.
Ambassador Hill. OK.
Senator Webb. One of my feelings about the strongest
contribution we could make to the continued evolution of
circumstances in Vietnam is to improve the rule of law,
economically, commercially, as well as in terms of criminal
law. I have found in the questions that I've asked when I've
been over there, and in hearing from people here, for instance,
in the Appropriations Committee, that there is a receptivity to
this.
Vietnam, as you know, is the only country on the Southeast
Asian Mainland that has an Anglicized alphabet, so it's much
easier to transition a rule of law that everyone can
understand. Are you familiar with where those programs are
right now? We have assistance programs to work with them on
that.
Ambassador Hill. We have bilateral assistance programs, and
I think some of those have been very successful, because I
think the Vietnamese have very much bought into that, because
they understand that if they're going to internationalize their
economy, they need this kind of rules-based economy.
So our experience has been very positive on this, and we
would look to expand those sorts of programs.
Senator Webb. Yes. I think when that sort of openness is
available, it also goes into how they viewed criminal justice
in the country, and other things, as well. When you have an
objective standard where every individual believes that they
can have their circumstances looked at in front of a court that
can make a determination rather than behind a closed door, it
helps the evolution of society in other ways.
Ambassador Hill. Senator, I completely agree. And I think
the fact that we address some of these rules-based issues with
respect to the economy doesn't mean that we're only interested
in the economy, but we see these as approaches that should be
in a political or social realm, as well as economic.
And we certainly monitor very closely how all of our
assistance programs work. But I think this particular one has
been working well, and I think we should look to see what more
we can do in this area.
Senator Webb. I have a very short period of time, but I
would like to ask your thoughts on how you would compare the
overall human rights situation in Vietnam with China.
Ambassador Hill. Well, I think both countries have
challenges to meet in human rights, and in particular on these
rule of law issues you mentioned. I think perhaps China has
been grappling with them longer than Vietnam has been, and so
China may be a little further along on some of these issues
than Vietnam. But I'm certainly not giving China a pass in
saying that.
But I think Vietnam, if you look at just the sheer amount
of time, Vietnam has begun this transformation more recently
than China, and has to, I think, go further including in the
economic area than China has gone.
Senator Webb. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Thank you so much,
Ambassador. We really appreciate this and look forward to
getting some of your answers in writing. And good luck with all
you're doing. Thank you very much.
Ambassador Hill. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. And we will now hear from Supervisor Janet
Nguyen, a member of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County.
We welcome her. I'm delighted to have her here. She's going to
give us a message from the people that she represents back
home. We are very proud of our Vietnamese community, and we
welcome you.
STATEMENT OF JANET NGUYEN, MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ORANGE
COUNTY, CA
Ms. Nguyen. Thank you, Honorable Chairwoman Boxer. It's an
extreme honor for me to be invited here today to speak. In my
oral testimony and written statement, I express concerns
regarding human rights violations in Vietnam--not as an
individual, but on behalf of Vietnamese-Americans everywhere.
About one of every five Vietnamese-Americans in the United
States resides in Orange County, California. In particular, out
of over 600,000 residents in my supervisorial district, over
150,000 are of Vietnamese descent. And the number is increasing
each year. Orange County is the home to the largest population
of Vietnamese outside Vietnam. I, myself, am a former
boatperson.
My father, as a member of the Army of the Republic of
Vietnam, fought side by side with American soldiers in
combating communism. After the fall of Saigon, my uncle was
summarily and publicly executed. Our family, like those of
millions of Vietnam's other enemies of the state, was part of
the outcasts. Political oppression and lack of economic
livelihood were part of our daily lives. We had no choice but
to put our lives in providence's hand and cast our lot to whim
of fate and the current of the sea.
Therefore, issues of human rights and personal freedom are
of particular importance to me and my constituents. Since the
1980s, Vietnam's policy of Doi Moi or New Change has benefited
that country significantly. Market-oriented policies leading to
the establishment and promotion of the private sector have
attracted foreign trade, investment, and technology, with an
annual economic growth of over 7 percent and trade between
Vietnam and the United States surpassing $10 billion each year.
The standard of living for the people of Vietnam has
improved substantially; however, there are glaring economic
inequalities and injustices that continue to plague the people
of Vietnam. Throughout its society, there are no labor rights,
and political corruption and graft are rampant.
The cost of this corruption has proved impossibly
oppressive to the people of Vietnam. The gap between the rich
bureaucrats and the poor masses increases more and more each
year. Accommodations are given to large multinational companies
to create jobs and perpetuate an appearance of openness, but
the reality for the vast majority of the people there lies in
stark contrast. Extreme poverty is still commonplace. Human
trafficking into sex or slave labor shows no signs of ending.
And the Government of Vietnam has shown little, if any,
political will in ending this practice. In addition, Vietnam's
economic integration with the rest of the world has not been
met with similar progress in meeting the demands for basic,
universal human rights and civil liberties for the people of
Vietnam.
Its people have no opportunity to express their political
views without risk of being imprisoned, even if the political
expression was done peacefully. There are oppressive
restrictions on freedom of the press, speech, and assembly.
Even the use of the Internet is censored. The people of Vietnam
have no power to pick or choose their government.
While there have been bilateral human rights dialogue
taking place in the past few years, these measures have for all
intents and purposes been mere window dressing. Despite the
release of some high-profile prisoners of concern, alleged
access to prison and the repeal of a dubious Administrative
Decree 31 that allowed the detention of people and taking of
personal property without due process, real progress in human
rights has not been results-based. Whatever progress has been
only lip service, usually in response to international pressure
on specific instances.
Similarly, religious freedom in Vietnam needs to be
addressed by its government in a tangible and earnest manner.
Removal of Vietnam's designation as a country of particular
concern was premature. The quick haste to reward Vietnam after
only a few nominal measures to portray religious freedom
encourages that government to play a shell game with respect to
compliance with the International Religious Freedom Act of
1998.
Father Nguyen Ly, a Catholic priest, was sentenced to 8
years in prison merely for attempting to exercise his
fundamental human rights to peacefully advocate for change in
Vietnam. Given no defense lawyer, his guilt was predetermined
and his mouth was muzzled as he attempted to stand for his
rights.
Vietnam continues to repress religious freedom and
continues to persecute members of the Cao Dai religion, Unified
Buddhist Church of Vietnam, Hao Hao Buddhists, and the
Montagnards from the Central Highlands. Le Thi Cong Nhan,
founder of the Vietnamese Labor Movement, and Nguyen Van Dai, a
human rights lawyer, were also arrested. Father Ly's conviction
and the arrests of Ms. Le and Mr. Nguyen were in direct
contravention of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights to which Vietnam is a state party. When
Vietnam joined the World Trade Organization, its membership was
granted with the assurance that its government would continue
to improve its human rights record. These recent crackdowns and
violence are significant steps backward.
We must continue our vigilance in demanding that the
commitment made by the Government of Vietnam is kept. Human
rights and freedom are the core beliefs of our country, and any
relationship with another government should be ground in those
basic principles. Vietnam should not be an exception.
I want to thank you again for giving me this opportunity,
Senator.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nguyen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet Nguyen, Member, Board of Supervisors,
Orange County, CA
Dear Honorable Chairwoman Senator Boxer and the honorable members
of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific
Affairs.
It is an honor for me to be invited to speak before this
subcommittee today. Your work is extremely important to the 600,000-
plus residents in my district, over 150,000 of whom are of Vietnamese
descent. Orange County is home to the largest population of Vietnamese
outside of Vietnam. My oral testimony and written statement speak to
concerns regarding human rights violations in Vietnam, and I speak not
only for myself as a former Boat Person, but also on behalf of
Vietnamese-Americans everywhere.
My father, as a member of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam,
fought side by side with American soldiers in combating communism.
After the fall of Saigon, my uncle was summarily and publicly executed.
Our family, like those of millions of Vietnam's other Enemies of the
State, was part of the outcast. Political oppression and lack of
economic livelihood were part of our daily lives. We had no choice but
to put our life in Providence's hand and cast our lot to the whims of
fate and the current of the sea. Therefore, issues of human rights and
personal freedom are of particular importance to me and my
constituents.
Since the late 1980s, Vietnam's policy of ``Doi Moi'' or ``New
Change'' has benefited that country significantly. Vietnam has been
invited to join many world economic organizations, including the World
Trade Organization. Since the beginning of this year, Vietnam sits on
the United Nations Security Council. These achievements reflect the
significant investment of political goodwill in Vietnam that the U.S.,
including the Senate, has made. Consequently, Vietnam has grown from
being one of the poorest nations in the world to an economy that has
grown at an impressive pace, once Vietnam's leaders abandoned their
Marxist doctrine. Market-oriented policies, leading to the
establishment and promotion of the private sector, have attracted
foreign trade, investment and technology. Vietnam is also a member of
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC).
Vietnam has an annual economic growth of over 7 percent, behind
only China in Asia. Per capita income grew from $288 in 1993 to $726 in
2006. Poverty dropped from 58 percent to 14 percent in 2004, according
to the U.S. State Department. Bilateral trade between the U.S. and
Vietnam reached $9.6 billions in 2006. U.S. firms have made over $2.5
billions in Vietnam since 1988. More than 75,000 Americans visited
Vietnam in 2006 and over 6,000 student visas were issued to Vietnamese
Nationals in 2007.
Militarily, the U.S. and Vietnam have also taken steps toward
cooperation. Peacekeeping and search-and-rescue through the
International Military Education and Training program are examples of
this cooperation. U.S. Navy ships now call at Vietnamese ports, and
since 1973, remains of 882 Americans have been identified and
repatriated. The U.S. has also aided Vietnam in addressing health
issues, such as HIV/AIDS and avian influenza (or the bird flu).
Relations between the U.S. and Vietnam have warmed, with the two
countries exchanging visits of high-ranking officials in 2007. However,
significant, fundamental differences in political philosophy exist
between the two nations.
human rights
Despite the encouragement and support from the U.S. in many areas
as described above, Vietnam's lack of progress in many important
aspects of its society cannot be said as acceptable or destined to be
successful in the long run. Throughout its society, there are no labor
rights, and political corruption and graft are rampant. The cost of
this corruption has proved impossibly oppressive to the people of
Vietnam. The gap between the rich bureaucrats and the poor masses
increases more and more each year. Accommodations are given to large
multinational companies to create jobs and perpetuate an appearance of
openness, but the reality for the vast majority of the people there
lies in stark contrast--extreme poverty is still commonplace. Human
trafficking into sex or slave labor shows no signs of ending, and the
Government of Vietnam has shown little if any political will in ending
this practice.
Each year, Vietnam receives financial assistance from
organizations, such as the World Bank, Asia Development Bank, and
nations, such as Japan, Europe and the United States. Vietnamese
expatriates around the world also remit hard currencies back to family
members in Vietnam; total in the billions of dollars. The benefits of
such financial benefits have been bestowed primarily, however, only on
the bureaucrats and Communist Party leaders. The people of Vietnam are
forced to eke out a living in a corrupt system that is based mostly on
patronage with no social safety net. Property rights are almost
nonexistent. The Economic Index published by the Heritage Foundation in
2008 places Vietnam's respect for private property rights at a dismal
10 percent. In its report, the Heritage Foundation indicates that ``the
judiciary is not independent. Corruption among judges and court clerks
is common . . . All land belongs to the state.'' Throughout Vietnam, it
is common to see people, city dwellers as well as villagers, protest in
the street, demanding the return of their land and property.
In sum, Vietnam's economic integration with the rest of the world
has not been met with similar progress in meeting the demand for basic,
universal human rights and civil liberties for the people of Vietnam.
Its people have no opportunity to express their political views,
without risk of being imprisoned even if the political expression was
done peacefully. There are oppressive restrictions on freedom of the
press, speech, and assembly. Even the use of the Internet is censored.
The people of Vietnam have no power to pick or change their government.
While there have been bilateral human rights dialogue taking place
in the past few years, these measures have for all intents and purposes
been mere window-dressing. Despite the release of some high-profile
prisoners of concern, alleged access to prisons, and the dubious repeal
of the Administrative Decree 31 that allowed the detention of people
and taking of personal property without due process, real progress in
human rights have not been results-based; whatever progress claimed has
been only lip service, usually in response to international pressure on
specific instances. In fact, in the beginning of 2007 after Vietnam
gained admission into the World Trade Organization, it instituted a
crackdown on dissidents who fought for human rights and democracy in
Vietnam. Many individuals in the prodemocracy group 8406 and other
labor groups arrested and imprisoned. Religious leaders and human
rights advocates who have been either imprisoned or placed under house
arrest include the Eminency Thich Huyen Quang, the Eminency Thich Quang
Do, Father Nguyen Van Ly, Attorney Nguyen Van Dai, Attorney Le Thi Cong
Nhan, and many others. Thirty years of power and having been admitted
into the world of nations have not diminished the paranoid tendency of
the Government of Vietnam to resort to totalitarianism and oppression
in dealing with its people.
religious freedom
Religious freedom in Vietnam needs to be addressed by its
government in a tangible and earnest manner. From 2004 to 2006, the
U.S. State Department designated Vietnam as a ``Country of Particular
Concern'' regarding its blatant violations of international standards
on religious freedom. During this period, many religious groups were
harassed and discriminated against, and Vietnam imprisoned 45 known
religious protesters. Removal of Vietnam's designation in the past year
and a half as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' was premature. The
quick haste to reward Vietnam after only a few nominal measures to
portray religious freedom encourages that government to play a shell-
game with respect to compliance with the International Religious
Freedom act of 1998. Vietnam needs to simply recognize its people's
religious freedom, recognize the different religious faiths, and return
land that was illegally confiscated.
Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest, was sentenced to 8 years
in prison merely for attempting to exercise his fundamental human right
to peacefully advocate for change in Vietnam. Given no defense lawyer,
his guilt was predetermined and his mouth was muzzled as he attempted
to stand up for his rights. Vietnam continues to repress religious
freedom and continues to persecute members of the Cao Dai religion,
Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, Hoa Hao Buddhists, and the
Montagnards from the Central Highlands.
Le Thi Cong Nhan, founder of the Vietnamese Labor Movement, and
Nguyen Van Dai, a human rights lawyer, were also arrested. Father Ly's
conviction and the arrests of Ms. Le and Mr. Nguyen were in direct
contravention of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, to which Vietnam is a state party.
conclusion
Vietnam faces many uncertainties and challenges, without many
viable alternatives other than to truly open its country and recognize
the rights of its citizenry. With the population increase that is
difficult to control and an economy that is largely unregulated,
Vietnam faces formidable hurdles, such as spiraling inflation and
rising fuel cost making the everyday life of its people extremely
difficult. The Government of Vietnam does not have the political will
to address the political corruption that exists, and the inadequacy of
its urban planning and regulatory control contributes to the recurrence
of medical epidemics and extreme pollution. Military aggressiveness has
also caused needed resources to be diverted to a military buildup,
further straining the country's ability to address the myriad problems
it faces. Vietnam needs to get out of the shadow of fear and paranoia
and join the rest of the world in the light of democracy and freedom.
When Vietnam joined the World Trade Organization, its membership
was granted with the assurance that its government would continue to
improve its human rights records. These recent crackdowns and
violations are significant steps backward. We must continue our
vigilance in demanding that the commitment made by the government of
Vietnam is kept. Human rights and freedom are the core beliefs of our
country, and any relationship with another government should be
grounded in those basic principles. Vietnam should not be an exception.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Supervisor. It's wonderful to
have you here. I really do appreciate this. And I'm going to
place your entire statement, in its entirety, into the record.
It's very, very compelling, and we so appreciate you're being
here. Thank you very much.
Ms. Nguyen. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. And we're going to call up panel three: Ms.
Sophie Richardson, Ms. Ann Mills Griffiths, Mr. Do Hoang Diem,
and Mr. Matthew Daley. We are looking forward to hearing from
all of you. And we will start with Ms. Sophie Richardson,
advocacy director, Asia Division of Human Rights Watch.
Thank you.
Why don't we start now with Ms. Sophie Richardson? And
we're going to set the clock for 5 minutes, and hope that you
can complete your statement in that time. If not, go over a
minute or two, but then I'll stop you at 7.
So go ahead, Ms. Richardson, advocacy director of Asia
Division of Human Rights Watch. We welcome you here.
STATEMENT OF SOPHIE RICHARDSON, ADVOCACY DIRECTOR, ASIA
DIVISION, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting us to
join you today. While economic engagement and other aspects of
the United States/Vietnam bilateral relationship have
flourished, Vietnam's respect for human rights has taken a
sharp turn for the worse.
Since mid-2006, we have documented the Vietnamese
Government's efforts to arrest and imprison more than 40
peaceful activists, including human rights defenders,
independent trade union leaders, oppositional political party
members, members of unsanctioned religious groups, and
underground publishers.
Religious leaders who have advocated for human rights,
democratic reforms, and land rights who have participated in
peaceful demonstrations have also been imprisoned. These new
prisoners join more than 350 religious and political prisoners
sentenced to prison in 2001, mostly Montagnard Christians from
the Central Highlands. Buddhist monks from the banned Unified
Buddhist Church of Vietnam, including its two top leaders,
remain confined to their monasteries under ``pagoda arrest.''
We are submitting for the record these partial lists of people
detained and imprisoned in Vietnam.
Senator Boxer. We will put those in.
[Editor's note.--The list mentioned above was too voluminous to
include in the printed hearing but will be maintained in the
committee's permanent record.]
Ms. Richardson. Thank you. Vietnamese officials continue to
publicly assert, as you mentioned earlier, that there are no
political trials or prisoners of conscience in Vietnam, and
that only people who are arrested are those who violated
Vietnamese law. You spoke earlier about this document. I'm
happy to note that we have verified its authenticity with an
even higher degree of care than we normally do with documents.
We've checked with six different sources in several different
countries, including in Vietnam, and we are quite confident
that the document is what it presents itself to be.
It details the conclusions of a Politburo Meeting on August
6, 2007. And I'd just like to read on excerpt on it.
Senator Boxer. Please do.
Ms. Richardson. ``Recently, the disposition of these
political trials has achieved some degree of success. It has
the purpose of teaching a lesson to effectively prevent the
contrarian political activities of the enemy forces while
they're still in the embryonic stages, not allowing them to
publicly establish themselves in the country to organize
violent insurrection in order to overthrow the rule of the
people. It is absolutely necessary not to let it happen, the
political opposition parties be established.''
Aside from the harassment and imprisonment of political
activists, the Vietnamese Government continues to exert strong
control over religious activities. It has to be noted that
religion in Vietnam remains a right that the government grants,
not one that people fundamentally possess as individuals.
In June 2007, the Prime Minister calls for the training of
22,000 new cadres to oversee and monitor religious activities.
And an updated training manual for local cadre to guide them in
religious affairs continues to advance the policy that
religious believers must follow the leadership of the Communist
Party of Vietnam and contribute to the revolutionary task of
the people.
It states that the government will ``implement its
management
of religion through the leaders of various religions.'' As a
result of international pressure, and of the United States
designation of Vietnam in 2004 as a country of particular
concern, we have seen the release of a handful of religious
prisoners, and some implementation of reform, such as
directives that expedite church registration and requirements
that forbids forced recantations of faith.
But we know that these abuses continue. And several people,
including Ambassador Hill, have already enumerated on several
denominations that continue to suffer persecution. Of serious
concern to us is the fact that followers of religions that are
not officially recognized by the government come under
particular pressure.
The recommendations we would respectfully make, given the
United States relationship with Vietnam--it's now Vietnam's
largest export market--really need to underscore that Vietnam
needs to make some very serious, significant improvements, or
it will impinge on the overall bilateral relationship.
We have six recommendations, and those include that if
Vietnam does not promptly implement significant tangible
reforms and end its crackdown on peaceful dissent and
unsanctioned religious activities, the United States should
reinstate Vietnam to the list of countries of particular
concern as a warning that the United States will not tolerate
the ongoing restrictions on religious freedom.
The United States must also insist that the Vietnamese
Government release its hundreds of religious and political
prisoners, and the United States itself must not be selective
in advocating for the release of some religious or some
political prisoners and not others. To distinguish between
victims who are equally subject to human rights abuse is really
underlying the cause as a whole.
The United States should call on Vietnam to remove
prohibitions on workers forming or joining independent unions,
and ask the Vietnamese Government specifically for information
about the whereabouts of labor activist, Le Tri Tue, who
``disappeared'' in May 2007 after claiming political asylum in
Cambodia.
Fourth, the United States and other members of the
international community should insist that now that Vietnam is
on the Security Council it cooperate better with its
international obligations, particularly with respect to
standing invitations to U.N.'s Special Rapporteurs,
particularly on religious intolerance, torture, indigenous
people, and arbitrary detention.
Fifth, if Vietnam is to be a reliable trading partner, the
rule of law is essential, and the Vietnamese Government must
demonstrate its willingness to observe international rules and
standards. A first step, of course, would be for the Vietnamese
Government to repeal provisions in the law that criminalize
peaceful dissent, unsanctioned religious activities, and
nonviolent demonstrations.
Last, if concrete progress is not made on human rights
before May, obviously the next bilateral dialogue should be
seriously reconsidered. We've seen this happen in China, where
the government has recently quite cynically offered to restart
the human rights dialogue. We feel that it is appropriate to be
equally skeptical about whether having one with Vietnam would
have any real consequence, or whether it would send the wrong
signal.
I'll stop there. We have further recommendations in our
written testimony, which I'm happy to elaborate on. Thank you
for inviting us to join you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sophie Richardson, Advocacy Director, Asia
Division, Human Rights Watch, Washington, Dc
The bilateral relationship between the United States and Vietnam
has steadily improved during the last 20 years. In 1994 the United
States lifted its trade embargo on Vietnam, normalizing relations in
1995. The two countries exchanged ambassadors in 1997 and signed a
Bilateral Trade Agreement in 2001.
During the last 2 years trade, foreign policy and security ties
have grown dramatically, with the United States and Vietnam conducting
historic, high-level state visits with each other, resuming an annual
human rights dialogue, and embarking on military and antiterror
collaboration. The week of President Bush's November 2006 visit to
Hanoi, the United States lifted its designation of Vietnam as a Country
of Particular Concern for religious freedom violations. Following
Vietnam's entry into the World Trade Organization in January 2007, the
United States granted Vietnam permanent normal trade relations status.
While economic engagement and other aspects of the bilateral
relationship between the United States and Vietnam flourish, Vietnam's
respect for human rights has taken a sharp turn for the worse. As a
state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), Vietnam is obligated to protect basic rights and freedoms.
This is all the more important now that Vietnam has been elected to a
2-year seat on the United Nations Security Council.
arbitrary arrest, torture, detention, and unfair trials
Article 14 of the ICCPR states that no one shall be subjected to
arbitrary arrest or detention. Anyone arrested or detained on a
criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judicial officer and
is entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.
Since mid-2006, the Vietnamese Government has arrested and
imprisoned more than 40 peaceful activists, including human rights
defenders, independent trade union leaders, opposition political party
members, members of unsanctioned religious groups, and underground
publishers. Religious leaders who have advocated for respect for human
rights, democratic reforms and land rights, or who have participated in
peaceful demonstrations, have also been imprisoned.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Religious leaders imprisoned for nonviolent political
activities or participation in peaceful demonstrations include ethnic
Khmer Buddhists, evangelical Christians, and Roman Catholic priest
Nguyen Van Ly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These new prisoners join more than 350 religious and political
prisoners sentenced to prison since 2001, mostly Montagnard Christians
from the Central Highlands. Buddhist monks from the banned Unified
Buddhist Church of Vietnam, including its top two leaders, remained
confined to their monasteries under ``pagoda arrest.''
There is compelling evidence of torture and other mistreatment of
detainees. Prison conditions are extremely harsh and fall far short of
international standards. We have received reports of solitary
confinement of detainees in cramped, dark, unsanitary cells and of
police beating, kicking, and using electric shock batons on detainees,
or allowing inmates or prison gangs to carry out beatings of fellow
prisoners with impunity.
We are submitting for the record partial listings of people
detained and imprisoned in Vietnam.
No political trials?
Vietnamese officials continue to publicly assert that there are no
political trials or prisoners of conscience in Vietnam and that the
only people who are arrested are those who have violated Vietnamese
laws.
In a press briefing last month, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
spokesman Le Dzung asserted once again that there is ``no political
crackdown'' taking place in Vietnam and that no one is arrested for
their political or religious beliefs. ``The State of Vietnam always
respects the rights to freedom and democracy of all citizens,'' he
said.
In Vietnam people can be sent to prison for exercising their basic
rights to peaceful expression, association, and assembly. This is in
violation of international human rights conventions to which Vietnam is
a state party, such as the ICCPR.
Vietnam's Penal Code lists vaguely worded ``national security''
crimes under which peaceful critics have been imprisoned, such as
conducting propaganda against the government (article 88); ``abusing
democratic freedoms'' of speech, press, belief, religion, assembly, and
association to ``infringe upon the interests of the State'' (article
258); ``undermining the unity police'' (article 87); ``disrupting
security'' (article 89); ``causing public disorder'' (article 245), and
``spying'' (article 80).
In addition, Vietnamese law continues to authorize arbitrary
detention without trial. Administrative detention decree 31/CP was
repealed in 2007, but a more repressive law, Ordinance 44, authorizes
placing people suspected of threatening national security under house
arrest or in detention without trial in Social Protection Centers,
rehabilitation camps, or mental hospitals.
A recently leaked internal document from the Communist Party of
Vietnam (VCP) unequivocally establishes that ``political trials'' are
conducted in Vietnam. I quote from a translation of the confidential
document, which we have determined to be authentic. It details the
conclusions of a Politburo meeting of August 6, 2007:
Recently, the disposition of these political trials has
achieved some degree of success. It has the purpose of making
an example or of teaching a lesson, to effectively prevent the
contrarian political activities of the enemy forces while they
are still in the embryonic stages, not allowing them to
publicly establish themselves in the country to organize
violent insurrection, in order to overthrow the rule of the
people.
Therefore, we need to fortify the security measures to ensure
our political stability, peaceful order in society and to
protect the rule of socialism, to resolutely contribute to the
economic and social development, to build a political system
and promote the strength of the whole solidarity bloc of our
Nation's populace, to ensure the perpetuation and stability of
socialism. Our teams of cadres and soldiers who specialize in
the ad-hoc task forces have made efforts in the handling of the
political trials. . . .
However, the quality and effectiveness of the execution of
political cases have not met the requirements to enable the
struggle to prevent and deal with these crimes. . . .
In the near term, the reactionary antistate activities from
both inside and outside the country will continue unabated and
resolute. They will conspire with ruses and innovative and
refined methods, armed with insidious intentions in order to
successfully organize loyal opposition parties inside the
country to provide support for their radical and extremist
counterparts to utilize international forums on democracy and
human rights, religions and races to strengthen their
reputation, slander and make false accusation against the state
in our national policy regarding the great solidarity of our
people; they will increase domestic infiltration activities,
conducting espionage inside various central and local agencies.
They will utilize IT [information technology] and
telecommunication in their intention to seek the destruction of
socialism. Therefore, to fight and defeat the attack plot of
the enemy forces is our first line of defense, urgent and
immediate. Long-term, difficult and complex tasks still lie
ahead requiring the effort of the whole party and the people,
where we cannot be vague, drop our guard or leaning to the
right in this effort. . . .
The administrative execution of the arrests, prosecution and
trials of these reactionary and opportunist elements is
necessary but it needs to be weighed carefully on many fronts;
to apply uniformly various fighting measures and techniques
such as political, rhetorical, argumentative and professional,
which at once should be firm, responsive and intelligent: To
expose the plot and nature of the enemy forces, to isolate the
recalcitrant leaders, to wrest the people who are being pulled
by the other side and try to win their sympathy, to limit the
spread of false ideas in the population about democracy, human
rights, religious freedom, which impacts negatively on the
Party and the State foreign policy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Vietnam Communist Party, ``Notice: Conclusion of the Political
Party concerning raising the quality and effectiveness in the execution
of the political trials in the face of new development,'' Hanoi,
September 12, 2007. Disseminated by the People's Democratic Party in
February 2008.
The Politburo congratulates the public security police for cleverly
handling some of these ``political'' cases while noting weaknesses in
the handling of other cases, most notably instances in which defendants
were able to respond strongly during their trials.
Finally, the Politburo spells out the order that opposition
political parties are to be neutralized: ``It is absolutely necessary
not to let it happen that political opposition parties be established.
Arrests and trials continue
While high-profile arrests may appear to have abated recently, this
is in part due to the fact the most of the opposition parties,
independent trade unions, and prodemocracy bulletins that emerged
during the brief opening of the political space in Vietnam in 2006 have
now been forced underground or collapsed after their key leaders and
founders were imprisoned, decided to cease their activities or engage
in self-censorship, or were forced to flee the country.
The government continues to try to silence its critics by isolating
them, cutting their phone lines, monitoring their Internet usage,
keeping them under surveillance, having them removed from their jobs,
and subjecting them to verbal abuse in public meetings orchestrated by
authorities or physical attacks by police or civilians working on their
behalf.
Despite the sense of relative calm in recent weeks, however, the
arrests, harassment and political trials of activists have not stopped.
We have learned that just last week, Ms. Bui Kim Thanh, champion of
the farmers' movement for settlement of land conflicts and lawyer for
the opposition Dang Dan Chu 21 (Democracy 21) party, was arrested by
police once again, on March 6, and involuntarily committed to Bien Hoa
mental hospital. She was previously involuntarily committed at the same
institution for more than 9 months after police arrested her in
November 2006 at the time of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) summit in Hanoi.
Next week, on March 18, Internet reporter Truong Minh Duc from the
opposition Vi Dan (Populist) party is expected to go to trial in Kien
Giang province on charges of ``abusing democratic freedoms,'' most
likely for his political views and coverage of bureaucratic corruption.
freedom of religion
Aside from harassment and imprisonment of political activists, the
Vietnamese Government continues to exert strong control over religious
activities, as outlined in a June 2007 decision by the Prime Minister
calling for the training of 22,000 cadre to oversee and monitor
religious matters.
An updated training manual for local cadre to guide them in
religious affairs continues to advance the policy that religious
believers must follow the leadership of the Communist Party of Vietnam
and contribute to the revolutionary task of the people. It states that
the government will ``implement its management of religion through the
leaders of the various religions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ International Society for Human Rights and Christian Solidarity
Worldwide, ``Analysis: 2007 Revision of Internal Training Manual
Concerning the Task of the Protestant Religion in the Northern
Mountainous Region,'' February 2008, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of international pressure and from the United States
designation of Vietnam in 2004 as a Country of Particular Concern for
religious freedom violations, the Vietnamese Government released a
handful of religious prisoners and implemented some reforms, such as
directives that expedite church registration requirements and forbid
forced recantations of faith.
The 2004 Ordinance on Beliefs and Religions affirms the right to
freedom of religion, as provided for in article 18 of the ICCPR.
However, it requires that all religious groups register with the
government in order to be legal, and bans any religious activity deemed
to cause public disorder, harm national security and national unity, or
``sow divisions.''
While a number of new religious organizations have been allowed to
register, the government continues to apply strict religious
restrictions on members of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam,
ethnic Khmer Theravada Buddhists, Hoa Hao Buddhists, some Mennonite
churches, and evangelical Christians in the northern and central
highlands.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Letter to
Secretary Rice with 2007 CPC recommendations, May 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Followers of religions that are not officially recognized by the
government continue to be persecuted. Security officials disperse their
religious gatherings, confiscate religious literature, and summon
religious leaders to police stations for interrogation. Buddhist monks
from the banned Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, including its
Supreme Patriarch, Thich Huyen Quang, and second-ranking leader, Thich
Quang Do, have been confined without charges to their monasteries for
years, under police surveillance.
controls over freedom of expression and information
Article 19 of the ICCPR provides for the right to freedom of
expression. In contrast, Vietnam's 1993 Law on Publications prohibits
private ownership of media and publishing houses and strictly bans
publications that oppose the government, divulge state secrets, or
disseminate ``reactionary'' ideas. According to Vietnam's 1989 Press
Law (as revised in 1999), the role of the media is to ``disseminate,
popularize and contribute to the elaboration and protection of the
party's lines, directions and policies'' and ``building and defending
the Socialist Fatherland [of] Vietnam.''
Criminal penalties apply to publications, Web sites, and Internet
users that disseminate information that opposes the government,
threatens national security, or reveals state secrets. In addition, the
government controls the Internet by monitoring e-mail and online forums
and blocking Web sites covering human rights, religious freedom,
democracy groups, and independent media.
Internet users such as democracy activist Truong Quoc Huy have been
detained or imprisoned for alleged national security crimes after using
the Internet to disseminate views disfavored by the government. Truong
Quoc Huy was first arrested in 2005 and detained for more than 8 months
on charges of attempting to overthrow the government (article 79 of the
Penal Code) after participating in prodemocracy discussion forums on
the Internet. He was subsequently rearrested and sentenced in January
2008 to 6-years' imprisonment and 3-years' house arrest for ``abusing
democratic rights'' (article 258) for allegedly distributing leaflets
criticizing the Communist Party of Vietnam.
restrictions on freedom of association and assembly
Article 21 of the ICCPR recognizes the right of peaceful assembly,
and article 22 provides for the right to freedom of association with
others. In Vietnam, however, political parties, unions, and
nongovernmental human rights organizations that are independent of the
government, the party or mass organizations controlled by the party are
not allowed to operate.
Public demonstrations are rare, especially after government
crackdowns against mass protests in the Central Highlands in 2001 and
2004. Decree 38 bans public gatherings in front of places where
government, party, and international conferences are held, and requires
organizers of public gatherings to apply for and obtain government
permission in advance. Despite the restrictions, farmers from the
provinces are increasingly conducting peaceful protests in provincial
towns, Ho Chi Minh City or Hanoi against government land seizures. In
December 2007, thousands of Catholics in Hanoi participated in
unprecedented rallies and prayer vigils for more than a month to call
for return of church property confiscated by the Vietnamese Government
in the 1950s. In late January 2008, municipal officials ordered the
demonstrators to disperse and launched an investigation into crimes
allegedly committed during the course of the protests, while reportedly
pledging to return the property to the church.
labor rights
In 2007 the government announced it would raise the minimum monthly
salary for workers in foreign companies for the first time in 6 years.
Despite this, unprecedented numbers of workers--mostly at South Korean,
Japanese, Taiwanese, and Singaporean enterprises--have continued to
strike for better pay and working conditions.
A new draft law would fine workers who participate in ``illegal''
strikes not approved by the VCP-controlled union confederation. Decrees
issued in 2007 enable local officials to force striking workers back to
work, and ban strikes in strategic sectors including power stations,
railways, airports, post offices, and oil, gas, and forestry
enterprises.
Members of independent trade unions are arrested, harassed, and
intimidated, with at least six members of newly formed independent
trade unions such as the United Worker-Farmers Organization arrested
since 2006. Le Tri Tue of the Independent Workers' Union
``disappeared'' in May 2007 after claiming political asylum in Cambodia
with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). He was
presumed to have been abducted and sent to prison in Vietnam.
conclusions and general recommendations
Although Vietnam has made important strides in poverty reduction
and economic reforms, the country remains a one-party state that denies
its citizens the freedoms of speech, press, and religion, as well as
the right to form independent trade unions and political parties.
Vietnam's eagerness to engage with the global economy must be linked
with respect for basic human rights and rule of law. Commitments such
as those made last week by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, who
asserted at the United Nations Human Rights Council that Vietnam is
open and willing to engage more deeply in international dialogue and
cooperation on human rights, must be vigorously pursued. This is
especially important now that Vietnam has been elected to the U.N.
Security Council.
The United States, which is now Vietnam's largest export market,
needs to send a clear signal to Vietnam that its increasingly blatant
disregard for its international human rights commitments will affect
other aspects of the evolving bilateral relationship. Because of its
growing economic ties with Hanoi, the United States needs to take a
firm stance with Vietnam regarding human rights.
We therefore respectfully recommend that:
1. If Vietnam does not promptly implement significant, tangible
reforms and end its crackdown on peaceful dissent and unsanctioned
religious activities, the United States should reinstate Vietnam on its
list of Countries of Particular Concern as a warning that the United
States will not tolerate restrictions on religious freedom.
2. The United States must insist that the Vietnamese Government
release the hundreds of religious and political prisoners in prison. In
addition, the United States itself must not be selective in advocating
for the release of religious and political prisoners, and must not
distinguish between religious and political prisoners--both are equally
victims because of their exercise of fundamental human rights.
3. The United States should call on Vietnam to remove prohibitions
on workers forming or joining independent unions, and ask the
Vietnamese Government for information about the whereabouts of labor
activist Le Tri Tue who ``disappeared'' in May 2007 after claiming
political asylum in Cambodia.
4. The United States and other members of the international
community should also insist that as a member of the Security Council,
Vietnam must cooperate more fully with the United Nations' human rights
mechanisms and special rapporteurs, none of whom have been granted an
invitation to Vietnam since 1998. Specifically, Vietnam should promptly
issue standing invitations to the U.N. special rapporteurs on religious
intolerance, torture, and indigenous people, and the U.N. Working Group
on Arbitrary Detention.
5. If Vietnam is to be a reliable trading partner, the rule of law
is essential, and the Vietnamese Government must demonstrate its
willingness to observe international rules and standards, including
those governing respect for fundamental human rights. A first step
would be for the Vietnamese Government to repeal provisions in
Vietnamese law that criminalize peaceful dissent, unsanctioned
religious activity, and nonviolent demonstrations and rallies.
6. If concrete progress is not made on human rights before the next
bilateral dialogue, the United States should seriously reconsider
whether to proceed with the annual exercise.
More specific recommendations for human rights issues that the
United States should raise with Vietnam follow below.
recommendations
1. Arbitrary arrest, torture, detention, and unfair trials
Immediately release or exonerate all people imprisoned,
detained, or placed under house arrest, administrative
detention, or involuntary commitment to mental hospitals for
the peaceful expression of political or religious beliefs.
Amend provisions in domestic law that criminalize dissent
and certain religious activities on the basis of imprecisely
defined ``national security'' crimes. Specifically:
--Amend or repeal Vietnam's Criminal Code to bring it into
conformity with international standards.
--Eliminate ambiguities in the Criminal Code's section on crimes
against national security to ensure that these laws cannot
be applied against those who have exercised their basic
rights to freedom of expression, assembly, religion and
belief, and association.
--Amend or repeal provisions in the Ordinance on Religion, which
restrict and criminalize the right to peaceful membership
in independent religious groups.
Repeal Ordinance 44, which authorizes administrative
detention, house arrest, or detention in Social Protection
Centers and psychiatric facilities for 2-year renewable
periods, without trial, for individuals deemed to have violated
national security laws.
Extend a standing invitation to the U.N. Working Group on
Arbitrary Detention, which visited Vietnam in 1994, and the
Special Rapporteur on Torture to visit Vietnam.
2. Freedom of religion
Release people who have been imprisoned or placed under
house arrest for their religious beliefs, including members of
the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, ethnic Khmer Buddhists,
ethnic minority Christians, Roman Catholics, and members of the
Cao Dai and Hoa Hao religions.
End the restrictions on peaceful gatherings or activities by
religious groups that are not registered with the government;
pressure to join government-authorized churches; and abusive
police surveillance and harassment of religious leaders and
followers.
Ensure that churches and religious organizations seeking to
register with the government are granted approval for
``religious operations'' in general and not just for ``specific
activities.''
Allow independent religious organizations to freely conduct
peaceful religious activities and govern themselves. Recognize
the legitimate status of churches and denominations that do not
choose to join or affiliate with one of the officially
authorized religious organizations whose governing boards are
under the control of the government. Allow these religious
organizations to register with the government and operate
independently of already registered religious organizations if
they choose to do so.
Invite the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance
to return to Vietnam.
3. Controls over freedom of expression and information
Amend provisions of Vietnam's Criminal Code that restrict
and criminalize the right to peaceful dissent, particularly the
provisions on national security.
Bring press laws into compliance with article 19 of the
ICCPR.
Authorize the publication of independent, privately run
newspapers and magazines.
Remove filtering, surveillance, and other restrictions on
Internet usage and release people imprisoned for peaceful
dissemination of their views over the Internet.
4. Restrictions on freedom of association and assembly
Permit individuals the right to associate freely and
peacefully with others of similar views regardless of whether
those views run counter to the political or ideological views
approved by the party and state.
Bring legislation regulating public gatherings and
demonstrations into conformity with the rights of free
association and assembly in the ICCPR.
Address rural grievances without violating the rights of
petitioners by strengthening the legal system, the independence
of the judiciary, and making legal services available to the
rural poor.
5. Labor Rights
Immediately and unconditionally release all persons detained
for peaceful activities to promote the rights of workers to
freely associate, including the right to form and join trade
unions of their own choice; to peacefully assemble to protect
and advance their rights; and to exercise their right to
freedom of expression on behalf of workers and their concerns.
Recognize independent labor unions.
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you. I am going to ask you
later, all of you, for your recommendations. Thank you very
much.
We'll hear from Ms. Ann Mills Griffiths, executive director
of National League of POW/MIA Families in Arlington. We welcome
you, ma'am.
STATEMENT OF ANN MILLS GRIFFITHS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
LEAGUE OF POW/MIA FAMILIES, ARLINGTON, VA
Ms. Griffiths. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.
It's a pleasure to be here. I have represented the POW/MIA
Families for the three decades that encompass the entire post-
war relationship between the United States and Vietnam. The
issue I represent played a central role in the normalization
process, as Vietnam has agreed and indicated it was their
bridge to normalization.
There were fits and starts, but little real priority on
obtaining answers until 1981. President Reagan came into office
with commitment to this issue that was well-known to those of
us in California that were then involved in POW/MIA matters.
The policies developed and improved and implemented from 1981
to 1989 formed a solid basis on which to build a mutually
beneficial bilateral relationship.
In the lead was the POW/MIA Interagency Group, on which I
served as the only nongovernment member. Without diplomatic
relations, I often served as a direct communication link
between Washington and Hanoi, and usually in New York City. One
such private meeting with a Politburo member brought the first
bilateral dialogue between senior U.S. officials and the
Government of Vietnam, a sensitive thing at the time, because
of Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia and the sensitivity of the
ASEAN countries to any direct dialogue, in the mistaken belief,
actually, that it might have meant a premature, backchannel
normalization between the United States and Vietnam.
A September 1982 League Delegation to Vietnam and Laos sort
of broke things open. Progress in those early years was very
hard-earned and sporadic, but our expectations then and now
were realistic and based squarely on U.S. Government evidence
and analysis. We've always known that answers could only come
through the government-to-government process, yet I could paper
my walls with agreements reached with and broken by Vietnam.
There were many disappointments, but none more damaging
than United States and Vietnamese violations of the 1991
roadmap that Senator Webb alluded to, which was also developed
by the POW/MIA Interagency Group on which I served.
The three-phase roadmap specified actions by Vietnam to
address accounting issues, with reciprocal U.S. steps leading
to withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from Cambodia and
normalization of U.S.-SRV relations. With agreement to proceed
along the roadmap course of action, Vietnam began withdrawing
troops and pressure rose within the U.S. bureaucracy on the
need to respond, despite Vietnam's failure and stalling on POW/
MIA provisions.
And this process continued to erode, with the altered
priorities that came in in 1993 and led fairly quickly to
normalization of political rations in 1995, a bilateral trade
agreement in 2001, and permanent normal trade relations in
2006. But still, the League has consistently relied on
sustainable official information.
Since 1982, I have conveyed these facts and our
expectations to officials in Hanoi, Vientiane, and Phnom Penh;
most recently, in October 2006, I think my 29th visit to Hanoi
since 1982. Each time, we have commended Vietnam for their
support in joint field operations, past and present, and that
aspect is going fairly well. It's improved dramatically in
scope and quality, especially when compared to early efforts,
which were really more focused on the perception of cooperation
and openness, whether real or not, to justify moving forward on
the political and economic objectives.
But that's all past, and today we have 820 U.S. personnel
that have been accounted for since the actual end of the war in
1975, with the assistance of the Vietnamese, Lao, and Cambodian
Governments, 569 of them from Vietnam. Though this hearing is
focused solely on United States/Vietnam relations, I would be
remiss if I failed to mention and to commend Cambodia for truly
unfettered cooperation, and Laos for extraordinary efforts over
the years, always working to improve the process and be
responsive to the families.
It is remarkable, considering the fact that 90 percent of
the 1,763 that are still listed as missing from the Vietnam war
were either lost in Vietnam itself, or in areas of Cambodia and
Laos that were under Vietnam's wartime control. Over the years,
we've overcome countless obstacles, including 1978 speculation
that all the records were eaten by bugs and that weather and
other elements had destroyed all the remains, even disbelief
that Vietnam was storing remains in large numbers.
These excuses have all proven to be false. Archived
material that we have been able to get has reinforced the long-
held analysis, and Vietnam's postwar repatriation of stored
remains began in earnest in the mid-1980s. It's now widely
accepted that much more can be achieved jointly and
unilaterally by Vietnam.
Today's challenges are most succinctly outlined in the
State Department's Determination to Congress. Although they
must say that Vietnam is fully cooperating in good faith on the
accounting effort--otherwise the relationship would revert to
prenormalization levels, which is absurd--there was language
added in 2002 that specifically lays out four steps that need
to be followed by Vietnam, unilaterally taken by Vietnam, and
would, in fact, bring about the fullest possible accounting.
Without those efforts, joint operations can never reach
that goal. And those steps are outlined in the full testimony.
Again, I stress accounting goals can't be obtained without
those steps, so I would like to call on Congress, and have
articulated this more directly in the full testimony, asking
for some--for the Congress--in fact, all officials of the
United States Government to make a unified effort to press
Vietnam to move on those four actions.
It's not that they're difficult. They're not difficult and
sensitive like many of the human rights steps that need to be
taken, that leaders in Hanoi may consider potentially dangerous
to their control. But these POW/MIA accounting steps are just
being ignored and overlooked.
And I would disagree, unfortunately, with Secretary Hill's
comment in response to Senator Murkowski that the U.S. Navy
ship effort for underwater recoveries is going well; frankly,
it's not. But that was as much the fault of U.S. officials and
the bureaucracy as it was the Vietnamese; although, the
Vietnamese have balked at implementing the agreements that they
pledged, and that needs to be pursued further.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Griffiths follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ann Mills Griffiths, Executive Director, National
League of POW/MIA Families, Arlington, VA
Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the subcommittee, for
inviting League participation in this hearing.
I'm pleased to be able to join you and give the views of the
Vietnam war POW/MIA families whom I have represented for three decades,
though my personal involvement began much earlier. On September 21,
1966, my brother, LCDR James B. Mills, USNR disappeared in an F4B
flying off the USS Coral Sea over northern Vietnam, his second such
tour of duty, the first being on the USS Midway. He deployed from
Alameda Naval Air Station, listing Bakersfield, CA, as his home of
record, the State where the vast majority of the extended Mills family
still resides.
These three decades encompass the entire spectrum of the postwar
bilateral relationship between Vietnam and the United States. The issue
I represent played a central role in the normalization process and its
evolution. Vietnam agrees, citing the POW/MIA issue as their bridge to
normalization of relations.
The League did not support immediate post-war normalization of
relations, due to Vietnam's failure to implement provisions in the 1973
Paris Peace Accords calling for a full accounting for unreturned
American POW/MIAs. The process became one of fits and starts, dialogue
and movement, stalling, backtracking and resumption, but not with
focused priority on obtaining answers until 1981. President Reagan came
into office with a commitment to this issue that was well known to the
returned POWs, as it was to the MIA families, especially those of us in
California.
The policies developed, approved, and implemented from 1981-1989
formed a solid basis on which to build a mutually beneficial bilateral
relationship. In the lead throughout that time was the POW/MIA
Interagency Group, on which I served as the only nongovernment member.
Without diplomatic relations, I frequently served as a direct
communication link between Washington and Hanoi, most often in New York
City. Such a meeting with the late Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister and
Foreign Minister Nguyen Co Thach brought subsequent bilateral
discussions with senior U.S. officials, a sensitive prospect at the
time due to Vietnam's military occupation of neighboring Cambodia. All
members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) strongly
objected to Vietnam's presence. My participation in such high level
discussions offered assurance that the primary purpose was
humanitarian, not, as ASEAN could have thought, a backdoor, premature
effort by the United States to normalize bilateral U.S.-SRV relations.
Yes; those were unique times . . . not yet adequately chronicled.
A September 1982 League delegation to Vietnam and Laos was credited
with jump-starting cooperation between these two governments and the
United States. Progress during those early years was hard-earned and
sporadic, but the families' expectations, with very few exceptions,
were realistic and based squarely on U.S. Government evidence and
analysis. We have always recognized that this issue could be solved
only through government-to-government efforts; yet I've often said I
could paper my walls with agreements reached with and broken by
Vietnam. There were frequent disappointments, none more damaging to the
issue than United States and Vietnamese violations of the 1991
``roadmap'' to normalization of relations developed by the POW/MIA
Interagency Group.
The three-phase ``roadmap'' specified actions by Vietnam to address
accounting issues and reciprocal steps by the United States, leading to
withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from Cambodia and normalization of
bilateral U.S.-SRV relations. With agreement to proceed along the
``roadmap'' course of action, Vietnam began withdrawing troops from
Cambodia, and pressure rose within the U.S. bureaucracy on the need to
respond positively, despite Vietnam's stalling on specified POW/MIA
accounting steps. The process continued to erode with the altered
priorities that came in 1993, leading fairly quickly to normalization
of political relations in 1995, a bilateral trade agreement in 2001,
and permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) in 2006.
Throughout these years, the League has relied on sustainable
information provided by the U.S. Government. Since 1982, I have
conveyed these facts and our well-founded expectations to officials in
Hanoi, Vientiane, and Phnom Penh, most recently in October 2006. I
believe that was my 29th visit to Hanoi, a beautiful, historic city.
I've also visited Bangkok, Moscow, and elsewhere to appeal for help
from those willing and able. Each time, the League commended Vietnam
for support provided to joint field operations, past and present.
The joint field operations aspect of the accounting process has
improved dramatically in quality and scope. Our highly skilled and
motivated personnel in Hanoi, Vientiane, Bangkok, and Phnom Penh
continue to find ways to make improvements. This is especially true
when compared with efforts in the early 1990s that focused more on form
than substance in an effort to visibly demonstrate cooperation and
openness, whether or not real. At the time, the higher priority was
generating support for political and economic objectives, never fully
grasping that pursuing POW/MIA accounting and those priorities was, in
reality, quite doable and complimentary.
But that is past, and today we have 820 U.S. personnel returned and
accounted for since the actual end of the war in 1975, with the
assistance of the Vietnamese, Lao, and Cambodia Governments, 569 of
them from Vietnam. Remains of another 63 U.S. personnel were recovered
and identified before the end of the war, but without the bilateral
cooperation that is the subject of today's hearing.
In that regard, and even though this hearing is focused solely on
the United States-Vietnam relationship, I would be remiss if I failed
to commend Cambodia for its unfettered cooperation and Laos for the
extraordinary effort they have made over the years, always working to
improve the process and be responsive to the families. That is
especially true when considering the fact that approximately 90 percent
of all the 1,763 still listed as unaccounted for from the Vietnam war
were lost in Vietnam or in areas of Cambodia and Laos under Vietnam's
wartime control.
Over the years, we have overcome countless obstacles that were
raised, either in this country or overseas. These ranged from
speculation in 1978 that bugs had probably eaten the archival records
and the elements had ravaged most of the remains, to disbelief that
Vietnam was storing large quantities of remains. These excuses have
been proven false. Sufficient archival material has been provided to
reinforce long-held analysis on Vietnam's ability to provide relevant
archival documents, and Vietnam's postwar repatriation of stored
remains began in earnest in the mid-1980s. It is now widely accepted:
Much can yet be achieved jointly and unilaterally by the Government of
Vietnam.
Today's challenges are most succinctly outlined in the State
Department's determination just sent to Congress assessing the level of
Vietnam's cooperation, as required by section 109 of the Department of
State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008
(P.L. 110-161) The standard determination language citing Vietnam as
``fully cooperating in good faith'' on the accounting effort lists some
specific criteria that have not been met, but the precise language is
required or the bilateral relationship would revert to prenormalization
levels. That would be absurd, and no objective observer or participant
would support such a drastic course. The most helpful aspect of this
required determination was added by President Bush in 2002, outlining
how cooperation can be improved.
Originally signed by the President in his certification in 2002,
since signed by the Secretary of State, the determination explains:
``To further strengthen that cooperation, however, I urge Vietnam to
work aggressively to improve tangibly its unilateral provision of POW/
MIA-related documents and records, focused initially on archival data
pertaining to Americans captured, missing, or killed in areas of
Laos and Cambodia under wartime Vietnamese control. Vietnam should also
focus greater attention on locating and providing information on
discrepancy cases, with priority on those last known alive in captivity
or in immediate proximity to capture, and to locating and repatriating
the remains of those who died while in Vietnamese control that have not
yet been returned. I also call upon Vietnam to continue permitting our
recovery teams to have access to restricted areas for the sole purpose
of conducting our humanitarian accounting operations.''
The determination concludes with commitment and a pledge of
continued priority: ``Finally, in making this determination, I wish to
reaffirm my continuing personal commitment to the entire POW/MIA
community, especially to the immediate families, relatives, friends,
and supporters of these brave individuals, and to reconfirm that
achieving the fullest possible accounting for our prisoners of war and
missing in action remains one of the most important priorities in our
relations with Vietnam.''
We welcome this year's determination. It defines four specific
steps that Vietnam should take, again reinforcing the need for
unilateral actions. Despite the praiseworthy field operations of the
Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command, augmented by the Defense Intelligence
Agency's special POW/MIA investigation team, the fullest possible
accounting can not be achieved without authorization by Vietnam's
leadership to take the unilateral actions outlined in the determination
to Congress.
Knowing the importance of the POW/MIA Issue to America--both
government and people--major decisions during and after the war were
historically made by Politburo consensus. Relations with the United
States, a long-desired Vietnamese objective, was mismanaged and flubbed
more than once, but it remains a matter of high national security
interest to Vietnam, and understandably so, to retain a balance of
powers, as well as regional economic health and political equilibrium.
We continue to hope that Vietnam's leaders will authorize the
unilateral cooperation long sought. We urge all U.S. officials,
including Members of Congress, to press for the specific actions
needed. To start, they can provide the documents on the list attached
to my testimony, a list compiled by the Defense POW/MIA Office and JPAC
and presented many times in Hanoi, including my most recent trip, a
family member delegation exactly 1 year ago, and again that fall by
Ambassador Charles Ray, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
POW/MIA Affairs.
Historically, Vietnam has responded best when there was high-level
executive and legislative branch interest. Information from the current
POW/MIA bureaucracy is pro forma on the need for unilateral action;
therefore, we are concerned that the Vietnamese leadership may believe
joint field operations are sufficient to meet requirements. They are
not, and Congress can help by passing a bipartisan resolution urging
Vietnam to respond to the provisions in the administration's recent
determination. We respectfully request this action be taken quickly and
transmitted to the Vietnamese leadership.
We deeply appreciate the leading role our Ambassadors have taken to
promote cooperation from the host governments and their full support
for field operations. We are indebted to nearly all who served as U.S.
Ambassadors in each of these countries, to Presidents who cared, and to
senior officials in the NSC, State, and Defense who demonstrated by
their actions the leadership that was needed. All Americans and those
we elect in Congress have a useful role in fulfilling our Nation's
commitment to those who serve--past, present, and future--and to signal
those serving today, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, that should
they be captured or become missing, they won't be forgotten and, if
possible, they will be brought home.
______
National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in
Southeast Asia
status of the pow/mia issue: march 7, 2008
1,763 Americans are still listed by DOD as missing and unaccounted
for from the Vietnam War, though over 450 were at sea/over water
losses: Vietnam--1,353 (VN-481; VS-872); Laos--348; Cambodia--55;
Peoples Republic of China territorial waters--7. The League seeks the
return of all U.S. prisoners, the fullest possible accounting for those
still missing and repatriation of all recoverable remains. The League's
highest priority is accounting for Americans last known alive. Official
intelligence indicates that Americans known to be in captivity in
Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were not returned at the end of the war. In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be assumed that these
Americans may still be alive. As a policy, the U.S. Government does not
rule out the possibility that Americans could still be held.
Unilateral return of remains by the Government of the Socialist-
Republic of Vietnam (SRV) has been proven an effective means of
obtaining accountability, as have joint field operations in recent
years, though the first joint excavation in northern Vietnam occurred
in 1985. A comprehensive wartime and post-war process was established
by Vietnam to collect and retain information and remains; thus,
unilateral efforts by Vietnam to locate and return remains and provide
records continue to offer significant potential. Hanoi's earlier
commitments to expedite interviews to obtain intelligence information
and move forward on coastline cases, including working out a bilateral
agreement for use of a U.S. recovery ship, are welcome and appreciated.
These topics have repeatedly been raised during League Delegations,
most recently in September 2006, and have now been raised regularly by
U.S. officials at the highest levels. Archival research, also a high
priority with Vietnam, has produced thousands of documents and photos,
but to date the vast majority pertain to returned POWs and Americans
previously accounted for, though recent commitments offer promise, if
implemented.
Joint field operations in Laos are very productive. Over the years,
the Lao regularly increased flexibility and the number of U.S.
personnel permitted in-country in an effort to improve field
operations. The Lao approved an archival research program, but results
thus far have been disappointing. Agreements between the U.S. and the
Indochina governments now permit Vietnamese witnesses to participate in
joint operations in Laos and Cambodia when necessary; but it is a time-
consuming, expensive process that could be at least partially
alleviated with a decision in Hanoi to unilaterally provide relevant
documents, as President Bush requested during his November 2006 visit
to Hanoi. He also certified such to Congress on March 20, 2002, as did
Secretary of State Powell September 7, 2004, and Secretary of State
Rice July 15, 2005, and August 8, 2006. Research and field activities
in Cambodia have received excellent support with a full-time DIA Stony
Beach specialist working in the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh. Over 80% of
U.S. losses in Laos and 90% in Cambodia occurred in areas where
Vietnam's forces operated during the war, but Hanoi has not responded
to countless U.S. requests for case-specific records on our losses in
these countries. Records research and field operations are the most
likely means of increased accounting for Americans missing in Laos and
Cambodia.
U.S. intelligence and other evidence indicate that many Americans
can be accounted for by unilateral Vietnamese efforts to locate and
return remains and provide relevant documents and records. Despite this
reality, President Clinton regularly certified to Congress that Vietnam
was ``fully cooperating in good faith'' to resolve this issue. The
League recognizes that legislation requiring certification includes
punitive measures that would reverse political and economic relations
to the level in place in 1994. The League supported steps by the U.S.
to respond to concrete results, not advancing political and economic
concessions in the hope that Hanoi would respond. The Clinton
administration lifted the trade embargo, established the U.S. Embassy
in Hanoi, normalized diplomatic relations, posted a U.S. Ambassador to
Vietnam, signed a bilateral trade agreement and established normal
trade relations. The Bush administration also issued the required
certification that Vietnam is ``fully cooperating in good faith,'' but
added criteria Vietnam should meet which the League welcomed. These
included the need to increase unilateral provision of POW/MIA-related
documents and records on Americans missing in areas of Laos and
Cambodia under wartime Vietnamese control, greater attention to
locating and providing information on discrepancy cases, with priority
on those last known alive in captivity or in immediate proximity to
capture, and the need to locate and repatriate the remains of those who
died while in Vietnamese control that can't be recovered jointly and
have not yet been returned. Senior officials from the Departments of
State and Defense regularly press Hanoi for increased cooperation.
national combined federal campaign eligibility #10218 pow/mia
statistics
(Live Sighting statistics are provided by the Defense POW/MIA Office
(DPMO))
Live Sightings: As of December 5, 2007, 1,989 first-hand live
sighting reports in Indochina have been received since 1975; 1,942
(97.64%) have been resolved. 1,341 (67.49%) were equated to Americans
now accounted for (i.e., returned POWs, missionaries or civilians
detained for violating Vietnamese codes); 45 (2.26%) correlated to
wartime sightings of military personnel or pre-1975 sightings of
civilians still unaccounted for; 556 (27.95%) were determined to be
fabrications. The remaining 47 (2.36%) unresolved first-hand reports
are the focus of current analytical and collection efforts: 42 (2.11%)
concern Americans in a captive environment; 5 (0.25%) are noncaptive
sightings. The years in which these 47 first-hand sightings occurred is
listed below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Pre-76 76-80 81-85 86-90 91-95 96-2000 01-07 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35 3 0 1 0 4 4 47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accountability: At the end of the Vietnam War, there reportedly
were 2,583 unaccounted for American prisoners, missing or killed in
action/body not recovered. As of March 7, 2008, the Defense POW/MIA
Office lists 1,763 Americans as still missing and unaccounted for, 90+%
of them in Vietnam or areas of Cambodia and Laos where Vietnamese
forces operated during the war. A breakdown by year of recovery for the
*820 Americans accounted for from Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and China
since the end of the war in 1975 follows:
1965-1974--War years (recently identified): 2
1974-1975--Post war years: 28
1976-1978--US/SRV normalization negotiations: 47
1979-1980--US/SRV talks break down: 1
1981-1984--1st Reagan Administration: 23
1985-1988--2nd Reagan Administration: 162
1989-1992--George H.W. Bush Administration: 121
1993-1996--1st Clinton Administration: 258
1997-2001--2nd Clinton Administration: 94
2001-2007--George W. Bush Administration: 84
According to CILHI, unilateral SRV repatriations of remains with
scientific evidence of storage have accounted for only 180 of the 569
from Vietnam; two were mistakenly listed as KIA/BNR in Vietnam in 1968,
but remains were actually recovered at that time. All but 6 of the 219
Americans accounted for in Laos have been the result of joint
excavations. Four remains were recovered and turned over by indigenous
personnel, one from Vietnam and five from Laos. In addition, three
persons identified were recovered in Vietnam before the end of the war.
The breakdown by country of the 820* Americans accounted for since the
end of the Vietnam War in 1975:
Vietnam--569 (627)
China--3
Laos--219 (224)
Cambodia--29
* An additional 63 U.S. personnel were accounted between 1973 and
1975, for a grand total of 883. These Americans were accounted for by
unilateral U.S. effort in areas where the U.S. could gain access at
that time, not due to government-to-government cooperation with the
post-war governments of Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia.
For the latest information, call the League's Office (703) 465-7432
and log onto the League Web site: www.pow-miafamilies.orq.
______
number of americans missing and unaccounted for from each state--
march 7, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................... 32 New Hampshire.. 6
Alaska....................... 2 New Jersey..... 48
Arizona...................... 17 New Mexico..... 12
Arkansas..................... 20 New York....... 115
California................... 179 North Carolina. 44
Colorado..................... 27 North Dakota... 10
Connecticut.................. 27 Ohio........... 82
Delaware..................... 4 Oklahoma....... 36
District of Columbia......... 8 Oregon......... 39
Florida...................... 59 Pennsylvania... 96
Georgia...................... 33 Rhode Island... 7
Hawaii....................... 7 South Carolina. 29
Idaho........................ 10 South Dakota... 7
Illinois..................... 72 Tennessee...... 33
Indiana...................... 57 Texas.......... 114
Iowa......................... 26 Utah........... 15
Kansas....................... 28 Vermont........ 5
Kentucky..................... 14 Virginia....... 48
Louisana..................... 24 Washington..... 43
Maine........................ 13 West Virginia.. 17
Maryland..................... 25 Wisconsin...... 29
Massachusetts................ 40 Wyoming........ 5
Michigan..................... 53 Canada......... 2
Minnesota.................... 36 Panama......... 1
Mississippi.................. 12 Philippines.... 4
Missouri..................... 38 Puerto Rico.... 1
Montana...................... 18 Virgin Islands. 0
Nebraska..................... 19 Civilians*..... 8
Nevada....................... 7
Total missing and unaccounted
for: 1763
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 8 civilians do not have a listed home of record.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much. I really appreciate
that, and we'll have questions for all of our panelists. Mr. Do
Hoang Diem, Chairman, Viet Tan, that's the Vietnam Reform
Party, from Orange County. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF DO HOANG DIEM, CHAIRMAN, VIET TAN (VIETNAM REFORM
PARTY), ORANGE COUNTY, CA
Mr. Diem. Madam Chair, Senator Webb, thank you for the
invitation to testify today. I am here on behalf of Viet Tan,
an unsanctioned prodemocracy party active in Vietnam. The goal
of Viet Tan is to work alongside with other Vietnamese
democratic forces to bring about peaceful, nonviolent political
change through the power of the people.
We believe that a free society is the best means to harness
the tremendous potential of Vietnamese citizens, and that a
democratic Vietnam would be an anchor for posterity and
stability in Asia. I would like to focus first on the current
situation in Vietnam, next on the challenge and opportunity
facing us, and last on specific recommendations.
There are two recent important developments--the surge in
social discontent and an emboldened challenge to one-party
rule.
First, due to pervasive corruption, social discontent has
risen to an unprecedented level. This is shown by widespread
protest by farmers and labor unrest. For almost 2 years,
farmers have staged numerous protests to demand fair
compensation for land lost to corrupt officials. The most
significant event was the 27 days' protest in Saigon last
summer by thousands of people before the police forcibly
removed them.
Workers also have walked out by the thousands in hundreds
of strikes. More recently, the Catholic community joined in
when thousands of followers protested from December 2007 into
January of this year, demanding the return of confiscated
church properties in Hanoi. Meanwhile, the government continues
to arbitrarily arrest those suspected of leading the protests
and harassing others who have participated. However, so far
this has failed to prevent new protests from taking place.
On the political front, the democracy movement in Vietnam
today is similar to Czechoslovakia during the 1970s and Poland
in the 1980s. For the first time, the movement no longer
consists of individuals, but organized groups with increasing
popular support. Since 2006, dozens of political parties and
grassroots' associations have sprung up to challenge one-party
rule.
The government retaliated in February 2007 when they
unleashed the worst crackdown in the last 20 years. Scores of
democracy leaders have been imprisoned, others put under house
arrest or subjected to constant harassment by the police.
Although battered by the crackdowns, these groups are still
hanging on and building coalitions from both overseas and
inside Vietnam.
Recently, on November 17, 2007, three members of my party
were arrested in Vietnam, along with three associates, for
attempting to publicize nonviolent principles and methods to
the people. Among the arrested are two American citizens. Mr.
Leon Truong, from Hawaii, was later released in December. But
Dr. Le Quoc Quan of California is still in prison today.
Just last week, his wife's visa to Vietnam was revoked,
despite her plea to visit her husband. Mrs. Nguyen is here at
the hearing today as a vivid reminder that the Vietnamese
people are still living under a brutal and dictatorial regime.
I also would like to take this opportunity to express our
appreciation to Members of Congress, State Department
officials, Ambassador Michael Michalak, and his staff for
maintaining constant pressure on the Vietnamese Government. It
is clear that what is happening in Vietnam is very unusual and
significant. After more than 50 years in power, for the first
time, the Vietnamese Communist Party is facing numerous and
unprecedented challenges to its rule.
The desire for real change in Vietnam is stronger now than
ever before, and in response, the regime is using terror
tactics to silence opposition and severely violate human
rights. The democracy movement in Vietnam is facing a huge
challenge; that is, to survive the crackdown at all costs. If
the movement can survive the next year or two, it will prove to
the Vietnamese people that: One, there is a viable alternative
that can withstand the persecution and continues to challenge
the regime; and two, fear can be overcome, and the ruling
dictatorship is not as invincible as it claims.
For the United States, an excellent opportunity also exists
because: First, a democratic Vietnam would be a much more
reliable partner in the long run, on both economic and security
fronts, especially in dealing with China; and second, a victory
for democracy in Vietnam would have a tremendous impact on
political openness and respect for human rights throughout the
region.
The choice for American policy is not whether to isolate or
engage Vietnam, but how to pursue the relationship in the most
constructive way. I would like to offer three recommendations.
First, saying that Vietnam human rights are active to
President Bush by his signature. Last September, the House
overwhelmingly passed the Vietnam Human Rights Act. The result
was warmly welcomed by the Vietnamese-American community and
democracy activists inside Vietnam. We strongly urge you to
pass this important legislation in the Senate.
Second, speak out on human rights abuse in Vietnam. Your
voices in today's hearing, through letters, speeches on the
Senate floor, and in meetings with officials are important in
demanding that the regime release all political prisoners. We
ask you to particularly focus on the following cases: Father
Nguyen Ly, Attorney Nguyen Dai, Attorney Le Thi Nhan,
imprisoned members of the Vietnamese Progression Party,
People's Democratic Party, Vietnam Populist Party, and the
United Workers and Farmers Organization, and last, Dr. Nguyen
Quoc Quan and three associates of Viet Tan--Somsak Khunmi,
Nguyen The Vu, and Nguyen Viet Trung.
And last, support democratic change. As long as there is
one-party dictatorship, human rights abuse will persist. The
solution to human rights is a democratic society where all
stakeholders have the voice in the future of their country. The
international community can help by enabling the activities of
independent NGOs, promoting an independent media, and
collaborating with grassroots' organizations inside Vietnam.
Once again, thank you for holding this hearing, and for
your continued support.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Diem follows:]
Prepared Statement of Do Hoang Diem, Chairman, Viet Tan (Vietnam Reform
Party), Orange County, CA
Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee, thank you for the
invitation to testify today. I am here on behalf of Viet Tan, an
unsanctioned prodemocracy party active in Vietnam. The goal of Viet Tan
is to work alongside other Vietnamese democratic forces to bring about
peaceful, nonviolent political change through the power of the people.
We believe that a free society is the best means to harness the
tremendous potential of Vietnamese citizens and that a democratic
Vietnam would be an anchor for prosperity and stability in Asia.
I would like to focus first on the current situation in Vietnam,
next on the challenge and opportunity facing us, and last on specific
recommendations.
current situation in vietnam
There are two important developments: A surge in social discontent
and an emboldened challenge to one-party rule.
First, due to pervasive corruption, social discontent has risen to
an unprecedented level. This is shown by widespread protests by farmers
and labor unrest. For almost 2 years, farmers have staged numerous
protests to demand fair compensation for land lost to corrupt
officials. The most significant event was the 27 days protest in Saigon
last summer by thousands of people before the police forcibly removed
them. Workers also have walked out by the thousands in hundreds of
strikes. More recently, the Catholic community joined in when thousands
of followers protested from December 2007 into January of this year
demanding the return of confiscated church properties in Hanoi.
Meanwhile, the government continues to arbitrarily arrest those
suspected of leading the protests and harassing others who
participated. However, so far this has failed to prevent new protests
from taking place.
On the political front, the democracy movement in Vietnam today is
similar to Czechoslovakia during the 1970s and Poland in the 1980s. For
the first time, the movement no longer consists of individuals but
organized groups with increasing popular support. Since 2006, dozens of
political parties and grassroots associations have sprung up to
challenge one-party rule. The government retaliated in February 2007
when they unleashed the worst crackdown in the last 20 years. Scores of
democracy leaders have been imprisoned; others put under house arrest
or subjected to constant harassment by the police. Although battered by
the crackdown, these groups are still hanging on and building
coalitions from both overseas and inside Vietnam.
Recently, on November 17, 2007, three members of my party, Viet
Tan, were arrested in Vietnam along with three associates for
attempting to publicize nonviolent principles and methods to the
people. Among the arrested are two American citizens. Mr. Leon Truong
of Hawaii was later released in December, but Dr. Nguyen Quoc Quan of
California is still in prison today. Just last week, his wife's visa to
Vietnam was retracted despite her plea to visit her husband. Mrs.
Nguyen Quoc Quan is at the hearing today as a vivid reminder that the
Vietnamese people are still living under a brutal and dictatorial
regime. I also would like to take this opportunity to express our
appreciation to Members of Congress, State Department officials,
Ambassador Michael Michalak and his staff for maintaining constant
pressure on the Vietnamese Government for the release of Dr. Nguyen
Quoc Quan and other Viet Tan colleagues who were detained.
It is clear that what is happening in Vietnam is very unusual and
significant. After more than 50 years in power, for the first time, the
Vietnamese Communist Party is facing numerous and unprecedented
challenges to its rule. The desire for real changes in Vietnam is
stronger now than ever before. In response, the regime is using terror
tactics to silence opposition, and severely violate human rights of not
just political dissidents but also bloggers, farmers, workers, students
or whoever dares to question the regime's authority.
challenge and opportunity
The democracy movement in Vietnam is facing a huge challenge: That
is to survive the crackdown at all costs. And by overcoming the
challenge, a tremendous opportunity also exists. If the movement can
survive the next year or two, it will prove to the Vietnamese people
that:
1. There is a viable alternative that can withstand the
persecution and continues to challenge the regime, and
2. Fear can be overcome for the ruling dictatorship is not as
invincible as it claims.
And that will lead to a tipping point to accelerate real democratic
changes.
For the United States, an excellent opportunity also exists
because:
1. A democratic Vietnam will be a much more reliable partner
in the long run on both economic and security fronts,
especially in dealing with China.
2. A victory for democracy in Vietnam will have a tremendous
impact on political openness and respect for human rights
throughout the region.
recommendations
The choice for American policy is not whether to isolate or engage
Vietnam, but how to pursue the bilateral relationship in the most
constructive way. To deepen America's relationship with the Vietnamese
people, I would like to offer three recommendations:
1. Send the Vietnam Human Rights Act to President Bush for his
signature
Last September, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed
the Vietnam Human Rights Act (H.R. 3096). This result was warmly
welcomed by the Vietnamese American community and democracy activists
inside Vietnam. In a letter thanking the House, the Vietnam-based
Alliance for Democracy and Human Rights stated: ``The fraternal and
economic relationship between Vietnam and the United States is only
sustainable and benefiting the peoples of the two countries when
Vietnam is truly a democratic nation where human rights are
respected.''
We strongly urge you to pass this important legislation in the
Senate.
2. Speak out on the human rights abuses in Vietnam
Your voices--in today's hearing, through letters, speeches on the
Senate floor, and in meetings with Hanoi officials--are important in
demanding that the regime release all political prisoners and cease all
forms of harassment against democracy activists and their families. We
ask you to particularly focus on the following cases:
Father Nguyen Van Ly, attorney Nguyen Van Dai, and attorney
Le Thi Cong Nhan.
Imprisoned members of the Vietnam Progression Party,
People's Democratic Party, Vietnam Populist Party, and United
Workers-Farmers Organization.
Dr. Nguyen Quoc Quan and three associates of Viet Tan:
Somsak Khunmi, Nguyen The Vu, and Nguyen Viet Trung.
3. Support democratic change
As long as there is a one-party dictatorship, human rights abuses
will persist. The solution to human rights is a democratic society
where all stake-holders have a voice in the future of their country.
While achieving democracy must be foremost an effort of the Vietnamese
people, the international community can help by enabling the activities
of independent NGOs, promoting an independent media and collaborating
with grassroots organizations inside Vietnam. This is essential for
empowering the Vietnamese people and building a civil society, the
critical foundation upon which a long lasting democracy can be
achieved.
Once again, thank you for holding this hearing and for your
continued support for democracy and human rights in Vietnam.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so very much. It's a pleasure and
honor to have you here. And our last panelist, Mr. Matthew
Daley, president of US-ASEAN Business Council, Washington, DC.
Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW P. DALEY, PRESIDENT, US-ASEAN BUSINESS
COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Daley. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
appear at this hearing. I do have a somewhat lengthy statement,
which I would submit for the record, with your--thank you.
The US-ASEAN Business Council is a private, nonprofit
organization that consists of American corporations with the
purpose of trying to expand trade and investment linkages
between the United States and Southeast Asia. And to that end,
our members take a very long-term perspective on their
relationships. They approach dealing with individual countries
with a firm commitment to the rule of law, to high standards of
corporate social responsibility, and to being the benchmark in
human resource development and employee relations.
The Council has long judged that strong commercial and
business ties are integral to strengthening bilateral
relationships between the United States and Vietnam. We think
that transparency, the rule of law, access to information and
communications, and government accountability--all of which
help foster a favorable business climate--will contribute to
the other objectives of the United States.
We see Vietnam itself as an exciting new frontier for trade
and investment. With its succession to the WTO and permanent
normal trade relations with the United States last year,
Vietnam is set to undergo a new era of reform and opening.
Over the last 6 years, starting with the conclusion of
Bilateral Trade Agreement, our firms have expanded their
operations in Vietnam significantly. I think it's already been
noted that Vietnam has had roughly an 8.5-percent increase in
gross domestic product in the past year. And this has led to a
dramatic reduction in poverty rates across the country.
Vietnam's exports to the United States have increased
tenfold, from $1 billion in 2001 to about $10 billion last
year. And the United States has made investments of over $1.3
billion in the first 2 months of this year, and that compares
to a total of only $3.2 billion during the previous two
decades.
Our corporate activity sets high standards. And through our
members' projects, we contribute to Vietnam's social welfare,
through a variety of local initiatives on health and education.
Several examples of these projects are mentioned in my written
statement.
Taken together, these business activities have helped lower
poverty and increased standards of living, and I think it's
important to note that the benefits of the poverty reduction
and the increase in the standards of living are distributed
throughout the country, including in the Central Highlands.
Even with economic success, concerns remain about
corruption, judicial reform, and human rights. These are on
Hanoi's agenda. Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung has made
corruption one of his main priorities. For our part in the
business community, we realize that over the past two decades,
the political and human rights situation in Vietnam has moved
along an uneven path. A lot of progress has been made, looking
back. Very much remains to be done.
In this respect, our members have traditionally encouraged
promotion of the rule of law, increasing respect for labor
rights, promoting human rights, and also encouraging
environmental protection. In 2007, Vietnam regressed in some
aspects, including those allowing for free speech and freedom
of assembly. At the same time, we've seen the government work
toward greater religious freedom, easier movement in and out of
the country, and greater collaboration with international
groups in such areas as legal reform and curbing human
trafficking.
We respect and we support the broad goals of the Vietnam
Human Rights Act of 2007. At the same time, we believe
providing positive models and encouragement to Vietnam, rather
than a policy of sanctions, will encourage the kind of change
that we want to see. And I'd be prepared to discuss one
concrete example of that drawn from another country in the
Qs&As.
We think that the process of internalizing human rights and
legal reform is underway in Vietnam. It's going to be a long
and complex path. Vietnam has shown a willingness to engage
with the international community and with the United States on
these issues, to include trafficking persons and religious
freedom.
We noted these efforts led the State Department to remove
Vietnam from its list of countries of particular concern for
religious freedom in 2007, and we know that the distinction
that Secretary Hill made between those that have been
imprisoned because of religious activity as opposed to
political activity.
On human trafficking, we think Vietnam has made significant
strides by providing funding and implementation of its 2004-
2010 National Program of Action, that includes a comprehensive
package of prevention and prosecution of trafficking, and
provides for protection of victims. As it works to alter its
bureaucracy, its statutes, and its legal system to encourage
economic growth, we think Vietnam is going to aspire to higher
international standards across the full issue area.
We think American assistance programs can be an integral
part of this process. We see them not as a reward for good
behavior. We see them as devices that address, on the one hand,
basic human needs; and on the other hand, a way to set the
agenda for a reform. We would hope that they would not be
curtailed as the inevitable disappointments arise moving
forward.
We think we need to focus on the trend lines, not the
particular concern of the moment, as deciders of policy, and we
need to press on. We, at the Council, look forward to working
with the Governments of Vietnam and the United States to
support the reform effort.
And again, Senator, I thank you very much for the
opportunity to appear here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew P. Daley, President, US-ASEAN Business
Council, Washington, DC
Senator Boxer, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's
hearing. My name is Matthew Daley, President of the US-ASEAN Business
Council, a private, nonprofit organization which works to expand trade
and investment between the United States and the member countries of
ASEAN, an acronym for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Consisting of over 120 leading American companies, the US-ASEAN
Business Council has for two decades promoted American interests in
Southeast Asia. Our corporate members have in common a long-term
perspective on the relationship with the Southeast Asian nations, a
commitment to the rule of law and to high standards of corporate social
responsibility. The Council's Vietnam committee chair is the General
Electric Company, while its vice-chair is the largest single investor
from any sector and any country in Vietnam, ConocoPhillips.
The Council's has long judged that strong commercial ties are
integral to the strengthening of the bilateral relationship between the
United States and Vietnam. We think that transparency, access to
information and communications, respect for the rule of law and
government accountability help to foster a favorable business climate
that contributes to America's other objectives. Over the past two
decades, the United States-Vietnam relationship has seen significant
strengthening of these commercial and bilateral ties. The relationship
has progressed from the lifting of the trade embargo in the 1990s and
improving cooperation on POW/MIA affairs, where we support efforts to
obtain the fullest possible accounting for our civilian and military
personnel, to the normalization of diplomatic relations in July 1995
and subsequent normalization of economic relations with the passage of
the Bilateral Trade Agreement. Most recently, the Council and its
Vietnam WTO coalition members supported granting Vietnam Permanent
Normalized Trade Relations with the United States and Vietnam's
accession to the World Trade Organization in January 2007. Since 1999,
the United States and Vietnam have seen a growing warmth in their
relationship with the historic visit to Vietnam of President Clinton in
2000 and President Bush in 2006. In return, Prime Minister Phan Van
Khai came to the United States in 2005 and President Nguyen Minh Triet
visited States in 2007. The Council was honored to host the Prime
Minister and the President during their visits to Washington, DC. Most
recently, during the United Nations General Assembly meeting in
September 2007, we were also honored to host the current Prime
Minister--Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung. As we look back upon the
history of the post-war period we would like to recognize the
tremendously important role played by Senator John Kerry and Senator
John McCain in furthering the reconciliation between our two nations.
As the United States continues to engage Vietnam, tens of thousands
of young bright Vietnamese have had opportunities that were unthinkable
in the past to come to America for their studies through exchange
programs funded by the U.S. Government, universities, private
businesses, and increasingly by themselves. The number of Vietnamese
students coming here has been rising steadily, reaching over 6,000 last
year, a 31.3 percent increase over the previous year. Many came for
higher education in the sciences and engineering, but others also came
for studies in social science and the humanities. In the narrow
commercial sense, these students represent the sale of intellectual
goods and services to Vietnam, but they are far more significant. After
returning to Vietnam, these people are making tremendous contributions
toward changing their country in the private sector, the government
sector,\1\ the academic sector. They use the United States as the
benchmark and standard to calibrate these goals and their country's
progress. The U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Michael Michalak, sees this
as a great avenue to help Vietnam and its people and identifies one of
the top 3 priorities during his term there to double the number of
Vietnamese students coming to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The current Deputy PM, Nguyen Thien Nhan, who's in charge of
education, technology and rural development, among other things, is a
former Fulbright student.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the Council, we see Vietnam as an exciting new frontier for even
greater trade and investment opportunities as we strive to meet Prime
Minister Nguyen Tan Dung's challenge to make the United States the No.
1 one investor in Vietnam. With Vietnam's accession to the WTO and PNTR
with the United States, Vietnam is set to undergo a new era of reform
and opening. As it works to meet these WTO and PNTR commitments, it
must implement and pass legislation that will streamline its
bureaucracy, open up key sectors for competition, equitize its state-
owned enterprises, work toward a market pricing regime, and build the
institutions that will enable the government to follow through with its
commitments. These steps will take time, but Vietnam is well on its way
to meet its commitments. Recently, the Vietnamese Government announced
legislation and plans that cover the expansion of trading and
distribution rights, a master plan for radio and broadcast, a review of
its Criminal Code in order to criminalize intellectual property
violations, the opening of the banking sector to wholly owned foreign
institutions, and a master plan to develop and apply the biotechnology
sector, to name but a few policy departures.
In addition, the Government of Vietnam remains active in its
engagement with the United States Government as it works on a number of
initiatives including the recently signed Trade and Investment
Framework Agreement (TIFA) and the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT)
that is currently under consideration. In each case,
the Vietnamese Government has welcomed insight and input from the
United States and active engagement with the United States private
sector. This point was strongly underscored during the December, 2007,
TIFA dialogue headed by the Chairman of the Office of the Government,
Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc.
Over the past 6 years, starting with the signing of the Bilateral
Trade Agreement, United States businesses have expanded their
operations into vast sectors of the Vietnamese market. The US-ASEAN
Business Council's members operate in the financial services,
information technology, manufacturing, entertainment, insurance,
retail, fast food, and energy markets. They are contributing to the
fastest economic development in Vietnam in 11 years, reaching a GDP
growth rate of 8.5 percent in 2007. The path of United States trade and
investment with Vietnam is striking. Since the passage of the BTA in
2001, trade between the United States and Vietnam has grown tenfold.
Within 1 year after the United States granted Vietnam PNTR status and
helped it join the WTO, exports of United States goods to Vietnam has
almost doubled from $1.1 billion in 2006 to over $1.9 billion last
year. The value of imports from Vietnam has also grown from about $1
billion USD in 2001 to over $10 billion by the end of year 2007. We
expect the imbalance to diminish as Vietnam becomes more prosperous.
United States investment in Vietnam has increased. During the first 2
months of 2008, the United States was the No. 1 investor in Vietnam,
with new investments of over $1.3 billion USD. This lies in sharp
contrast to total investments made over the past two decades of just
over $3.2 billion USD.\2\ As the government continues to open new
sectors such as banking and other services, United States companies
seek to have a growing share in these markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Foreign Direct Investment Projects Licensed From 1988 to 2006
by Main Counterparts'' General Statistics Office of Vietnam. (http://
www.gso.gov.vn/default_en.aspx?tabid=471&
idmid=3&ItemID=6227).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the projects nearing completion or recently completed in
Vietnam include Black & Veatch's first electric substation and
transmission line project for the Saigon Hi-Tech Park in Ho Chi Minh
City. This project received an excellence in safety award from the
National Institute of Labor Protection in Vietnam and includes a first
of its kind installation of a portion of underground line to ensure
reliable energy delivery in the Hi-Tech Park. In the past year an
agreement was reached between Vietnam Airlines and Boeing for the
purchase of a dozen Boeing 787-7 Dreamliners worth an estimated $2
billion USD. As Vietnam Airlines moves to modernize its fleet to
provide the safest and most up to date equipment for its customers, one
may anticipate future sales. The largest single investor in Vietnam,
ConocoPhillips, currently holds investments amounting to over $1.3
billion USD. Intel has also announced a $1 billion USD investment in
Vietnam. In December 2005, AES in partnership with Vinacomin, has
signed a MOU with Government of Vietnam to develop a BOT coal-fired
power project of 1000 to 1200 MW capacity. The total investment is
estimated to be $1.5 billion USD. Ford Vietnam Limited also holds the
largest automotive investment in Vietnam at 102 million USD. During the
January 8, 2008, summit in Vietnam organized by the Economist, Stuart
Dean of General Electric and the chair of the Council's Vietnam
committee announced plans to expand local operations, regarding Vietnam
as a new tiger in Asia thanks to an abundant workforce and efficient
operations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Great Opportunities in Vietnam.'' Vietnam Net Bridge. (http:/
/english.vietnamnet.vn/reports/2008/02/767899/) February 8, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through cooperation with the United States Government, our members
also participate in a number of capacity-building projects in Vietnam
to create the environment and legal landscape that leads to the most
up-to-date and transparent systems. Among these are the United States
Trade and Development Agency funded programs for standards
implementation and customs valuation that look to ensure that as
Vietnam implements its commitments, it does so to international
standards. These standards enable our companies to operate in an
environment that is conducive to transparency and fairness in
competition. Member corporations also engage in other United States
Government sponsored projects including the latest State Department
organized United States-Vietnam Joint Commission on Science and
Technology held in late February 2008 as well as the October 2007
Department of Commerce United States-Vietnam Information and
Communication Technologies Commercials Dialogue. These forums engage
the United States private sector and establish channels of
communication with the Vietnamese Government during the policy and
legislative formulation process.
In addition to these projects, the Council's members also
contribute to Vietnam's social welfare through a variety of local
projects on health and education. As a Globally Integrated Enterprise,
the IBM Corporation has developed a number of collaborative
partnerships in Vietnam to foster the skills and educational base in
the information technology services sector. These arrangements include
investing in early learning through its KidSmart program, Reinventing
Education Program and tertiary level support and training through its
newly launched Career Education in IBM Software program, which aims to
create skilled engineers and programmers through a cooperation with Ha
Noi University of Technologies and DTT. The chair of the Vietnam
Committee, the General Electric Company, conducts a wide range of
activities in Vietnam including volunteer work for environmental clean
up on Nha Trang beach, donations for emergency relief work after the
many devastating natural disasters including VND 1 billion for the
victims of Can Tho Bridge collapse. GE, through its foundation also
offers 3-year scholarships for qualified, but disadvantaged Vietnamese
students to attend leading Vietnamese universities, and also offers
leadership development work for Vietnam's promising rising leaders. The
committee's vice chair, ConocoPhillips works with nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) such as Operation Smile. ConocoPhillips also
builds orphanages and homes in local communities where it operates, and
grants scholarships to students studying at the Hanoi University of
Mining and Geology. Another member company, Chevron, has a number of
community-based programs active in Vietnam. The most far-reaching of
Chevron's projects is jointly managed by Michigan State University and
Can Tho University, and is designed to reduce poverty in the Mekong
Delta region by linking school improvements with community development.
The project focuses on helping farmers diversify sources of income by
training teachers, students, and farmers in sustainable agricultural
practices such as organic vegetable growing as well as improved animal
husbandry and aquaculture. These highlight but a few of the many
programs carried out by the Council's member corporations in Vietnam.
Vietnam's high GDP growth rate, reaching 8.5 percent last year, and
the rising wealth of the Vietnamese population has led to the reduction
of poverty from 60 percent in 1993 to 14 percent today. Vietnam has
consistently exemplified a country that has fought poverty effectively.
These accolades were given by no other than Kofi Annan, the former
Secretary General of the United Nations who noted Vietnam's
achievements toward reaching the Millennium Development Goals. The
country's success in alleviating poverty was also noted by Ajay
Chibber, Country Director of the World Bank. Mr. Chibber observed that,
remarkably, unlike other emerging economies, there has only been a very
small increase in wealth inequality among the populace especially
between urban and rural areas.\4\ Poverty reduction is inclusive and
countrywide. The government must be applauded for its far-reaching
economic development activities paying particular focus on the central
highlands and northern poorer provinces. Over the past year, ministry
directives have increasingly focused on development projects in some of
the poorest regions and provinces including Son La and Nghe An.
Combined, these achievements provide the people of Vietnam a higher
standard of living.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Vietnam Leads Way in Tackling Poverty.'' Thanh Nien News.
(http://www.thanhnien
news.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=35780) February 16, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vietnam's soon to be finished distribution legislation will allow
it to become a retail market destination. Today, it already ranks among
the top markets for retailers as noted by the latest AT Kearney report.
Wealth has allowed the Vietnamese populace to buy goods that they could
never have afforded to buy in decades past. Lower tariffs and taxes
have allowed both common and luxury goods to enter the market. On
January 1, 2008, over 700 tax rates on over 30 categories of goods were
slashed by 1-6 percent to conform to Vietnam's WTO commitments. Even
more impressive, sales of automobiles surged 156 percent year on year
in January to over 12,000 vehicles sold. The Vietnamese population is
becoming wealthier as they pull themselves out of poverty. The
Vietnamese Government is working to become a middle-income country with
a per capita GDP of 1000 USD by 2009. In 2004, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) reported that Vietnam's per capita GDP was just
over 550 USD. The IMF estimates that by end of 2008, Vietnam's GDP per
capita will be close to 920 USD.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Vietnam GDP per capita,'' current prices, International
Monetary Fund. (http://www.imf.org/
external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy= 2004&ey=
2008&scsm= 1&ssd= 1&sort=
country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=75&pr1.y=9&c=582&s=NGDPDPC&grp=0&a) Run March
10th, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all these economic reforms taking place, concerns remain in a
number of areas including corruption, judicial reform, intellectual
property rights, and fair competition. On IPR and competition, Vietnam
is moving steadily toward formulating policies and legislation to
tackle these issues and we look forward to reviewing them with the
Vietnamese Government. Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung has made
corruption one of his main priorities, setting up a task force headed
by the Chairman of the Office of the Government to pursue whatever
policy is necessary to identify, prevent, and eliminate corruption
among all ranks. Following Vietnam's celebration of its Lunar New Year
this past February, the Prime Minister once again called on the
ministries to be vigilant of corruption in the system, calling for
renewed efforts to eradicate it, viewing corruption as the greatest
threat to the survival of the country's political system. In fact the
Prime Minister directed state agencies' to improve the provision of
information to the media about corruption inspections and
investigations to ensure ``objectiveness, accuracy, and conformity with
the regulations.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Vietnam PM Renews Anti-Corruption Push.'' Thanh Nien News.
(http://www.thanhnien
news.com/politics/?catid=1&newsid=35639) February 10, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Council and its members realize that over the past two decades
the political and human rights situation in Vietnam has moved along an
uneven path and much remains to be done. In this respect, our members
have traditionally encouraged the promotion of the rule of law,
increasing respect for labor rights, promoting human rights, and
encouraging environmental protection in countries in which they
operate. In 2007, Vietnam regressed in some respects including those
allowing for free speech and freedom of assembly. At the same time we
have seen the government work toward greater religious freedom, freedom
of movement, and greater collaboration with international groups on
issues ranging from legal reform to human trafficking. While we respect
the broad goals of the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2007, we believe,
based on past experience that providing positive models and
encouragement in Vietnam, rather than a policy of sanctions, will bring
about more significant change for the people of Vietnam. Our view is
informed by our own experience working quietly with the Government of
Vietnam in this area.
Internalizing human rights and legal reform are under way in
Vietnam. This will be a long and complex path. Already through
cooperation with a number of aid agencies, including the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP), the Danish International Development Agency
(DANIDA), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and the
Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), Vietnam is embarking
on a number of judicial reform, good governance, and human rights
programs. These programs include those run by UNDP in partnership with
Vietnam's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to understand international human
rights mechanisms as well as restructuring its judicial system under
their ``Assistance for the Implementation of Vietnam's Legal System
Development Strategy to 2010'' and farther reaching ``Judicial Reform
Strategy to the year 2020.'' These reforms look to review issues
ranging from criminal and civil policy legislation and judicial
procedures to international cooperation in the judicial sector.\7\
Following the passage of the Bilateral Trade Agreement, the United
States Vietnam Trade Council has also conducted a number of programs on
judicial and administrative reform to transform Vietnam's legal system.
As Vietnam moves forward, these programs will help implement a judicial
regime that is in line with both its national legal system as well as
international standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For more information on these programs please see: (http://
www.undp.org.vn/undpLive/System/What-We-Do/Focus-Areas/Democratic-
Governance/Project-Details?contentId= 1765&category
Name=Rule-of-law-and-Access&CategoryConditionUse= Subject-Areas/
Democratic-Governance/Rule-of-law-and-Access&) and (http://
www.danidadevforum.um.dk/en/menu/Topics/GoodGover-
nance/Programmes/CountryProgrammes/Asia/Vietnam/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We endorse the Vietnamese Government's attempt to engage with the
overseas Vietnamese community. Granting 5-year visa exemptions for
overseas Vietnamese is a step forward. In addition, the current
Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Le Cong Phung, held his
first-ever press conference with a wide range of media including, Nguoi
Viet. Nguoi Viet, a newspaper based out of Orange County, California,
serves the largest community of Vietnamese outside of Vietnam.
In addition the Vietnamese Government has reviewed and extended
laws allowing housing permits for foreigners to include not only
overseas Vietnamese but those that have long term interests in the
country.\8\ These steps are gestures of goodwill made by the Vietnamese
Government in its engagement with foreign individuals including many
investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Vietnam Builds a Future for Itself.'' The Financial Times.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d1bf34
ce-ecb4-11dc-86be-0000779fd2ac.html. March 8, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vietnam has shown a willingness to engage with the international
community and the United States on other issues as well. Vietnam has
increasingly cooperated with the United States on human trafficking and
religious freedom issues. These efforts led the United States
Department of State to remove Vietnam from its list of Countries of
Particular Concern for religious freedom in 2007. On human trafficking,
Vietnam has made significant strides to eliminate trafficking by
providing funding and implementation for its 2004-2010 National Program
of Action which includes a comprehensive package including prosecution,
prevention, and protection against trafficking. Most recently, the
Vietnamese police shut down a baby trafficking ring involving the
arrest of four Vietnamese citizens.
Vietnam is a vibrant country that is coming into its own. Its
dynamic leadership is well on its way toward transforming the economy
into that of an industrialized nation by 2020. As it works to alter its
bureaucracy, statues, and legal system to allow for growth, Vietnam
will continue to aspire to even higher standards. American assistance
programs in Vietnam are part of the process. These programs are not
rewards for good behavior. Rather, they address basic humanitarian
needs while others set the agenda for reforms. We do not think they
should be curtailed as the inevitable disappointments arise. Instead,
we need to focus on the trend lines and press forward. At the Council,
we look forward to the opportunity to work with the Vietnamese and
American Governments as they pursue a broad range of reforms and
continue to engage in activities that lead to both the economic and
social welfare of its populace.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Ms. Griffiths, I want to thank you so much for everything
you've done on this POW/MIA issue. Your commitment is
outstanding, and it is a great tribute to your brother, who has
been missing since 1966, I believe. Is that correct?
In your written testimony, you state that historically
Vietnam has responded best when there was high-level executive
and legislative branch interest in the POW/MIA issue. I
certainly would agree with that. Shining the light on these
things always helps. And when I asked Michael Michalak about
the POW/MIA issue, he answered by saying that he'd do
everything he could to get access to the archives, to do
searches along the coast. He admitted that more had to be done.
Now, you have written that there is no lack of serious
interest from the Ambassador, so that's good. Yet, I understand
these underwater surveys are not expected to take place until
May 2009. And you've cited the Vietnamese failure to complete
interministerial coordination as one reason why these surveys
are delayed.
What do you mean by interministerial coordination, and how
can we help in this committee to resolve the issue?
Ms. Griffiths. What I was told specifically, and I have a
great deal of interest in this, because--we've all seen--and I
applaud--the increased military-to-military cooperation be
broadened across the board. We have seen a lot of port calls,
even basketball and volleyball playing, and all of that's
great. I love to see that expansion.
But what we haven't seen is use of the U.S. Navy vessel
that was agreed to when I was there in October 2006, formalized
in November 2006, for using the U.S. Navy vessel. I think the
one they want to use is the USNS Heezen for along the
coastline, underwater surveys and excavations.
What I was told is that the Vietnamese were saying that the
coordination process is very difficult for the Foreign Ministry
to coordinate with the other agencies or departments and
ministries of their government. But I also know that there were
some--in our government, below Mike Michalak, the Ambassador's
level, who are giving excuses for the Vietnamese, rather than
making this proposal to the Vietnamese, saying it would be much
too difficult for them to handle two official humanitarian
visits at the same time.
So POW/MIA, that has been around since the beginning of
time, got postponed in the interests of a different
humanitarian mission--a worthy one, and that is the USNS
Mercy's dental humanitarian mission.
Senator Boxer. Uh-huh, uh-huh.
Ms. Griffiths. Now, I applaud that. The Families have
supported humanitarian assistance to Vietnam since long before
it was a popular thing to do. So----
Senator Boxer. But you're saying we should be able to walk
and chew gum at the same time.
Ms. Griffiths. Yes.
Senator Boxer. We can do more than one thing. And we----
Ms. Griffiths. When I talked----
Senator Boxer. This is America.
Ms. Griffiths. Yes. When I talked----
Senator Boxer. This is----
Ms. Griffiths [continuing]. To Admiral Keating in Hawaii,
when I went out since the first of the year, he agreed that
that proposal needed to be made. The reason it's not until May
2009 is because it wasn't yet made. So that isn't Vietnam's
fault; that's our fault.
Senator Boxer. OK, OK. Well, I would love to work with you
on this. And we'll----
Ms. Griffiths. I'll be glad to do that.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. Get some kind of a leader to go
in, and I'll see if my colleagues want to help us just with
this issue, because it seems to me that it's something we could
do and we should do. So we will be going to back to you, and
we'll definitely work on that.
Now, for me, and I know I differ from many members on this
committee, I think it might be time for some legislation over
here. We've had human rights legislation on the House side
that's passed. I don't know that Senate legislation would be
identical, but it could be similar.
And I know that, for example, Mr. Daley was very upfront
about his views on the House legislation, and I appreciate
that. But from all my many years here, I've found that if you
push hard in the legislative branch, it gives leverage to the
executive branch to move forward. And so, I'm leaning pretty
heavily in that direction.
I guess I really would like to ask Human Rights Watch for
input. I'm very impressed at the fact that you feel that the
document that you talk about, that you quoted from, which is
very disturbing, is a legitimate document. And if you could, if
you would, present my staff with--not right now, but chapter
and verse of why you believe it's real, and I would like to
have a meeting with Chris Hill, and I'd like to present him
with this, to talk about this.
I'll also bring up the possibility of legislation with
Secretary Hill, because I think he's a wonderful public
servant, and because I just think we need to push harder on
this. So I'm assuming, and I don't want to--I shouldn't assume
this, Ms. Richardson--do you support the House bill or
something like the House bill?
Ms. Richardson. It's hard to argue against anything that
would bring greater scrutiny and more regular discussion to
Vietnam's human rights record.
Senator Boxer. Uh-huh.
Ms. Richardson. I mean, you know, I think 50 percent of the
battle is simply that this record and the different problems
get discussed sporadically. Different kinds of cases get very
different----
Senator Boxer. Yeah.
Ms. Richardson [continuing]. Levels or kinds of attention.
It's extremely problematic from our perspective that the State
Department echoes the Vietnamese Government's line about
speaking differently about purely religious prisoners as
opposed to religious adherents who are imprisoned because of--
on the grounds of national security or propaganda or those
kinds of charges.
And so, you know, I think legislation that would oblige the
State Department to engage these issues more consistently----
Senator Boxer. OK. Would you work with us on such
legislation?
Ms. Richardson. Of course.
Senator Boxer. Because I would like to work with you on it,
because I don't want to send the wrong message here, that we
have lost faith or hope that we can make things better. We want
to keep on improving, and so I think the tone of this
legislation has to be set in a way that it's no-nonsense, but
it rewards for good behavior and----
Ms. Richardson. Yes.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. It does, in fact, use the
leverage of cutting off funding for bad behavior. Let's see.
I'm going to go to Mr. Diem, and then I'll turn it over to
Senator Webb.
Is it true that owners of domestic Web sites must submit
their content to the government for approval?
Mr. Diem. It is widely known in Vietnam that the government
strictly controls access to the Internet, even in the Internet
cafe out on the street. It is known that the owners of this
site have to register, people who use their service have to log
on, and for certain owners of Web sites, they do have to
register their content. It is widely known that the government
uses that as a means to maintain control on their population.
If I may, just quickly, regarding the document that you had
mentioned awhile ago?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Mr. Diem. We have also received that document. We have
also--we are in the process of verifying it, as well. And at
this point, we also have reason to believe that it is
authentic. On top of that, in Vietnam, in the Vietnamese
Constitution, Article 4, it guarantees the Vietnamese Communist
Party the right to be the only party to exist. And just 6
months ago, or 9 months ago, if my memory serves me right,
President Nguyen Minh Triet of Vietnam was quoted in the
Vietnamese newspaper saying that if the article 4 is removed,
that means we have just committed suicide. He was quoted that
in the Vietnamese newspaper. So I have no surprise at all----
Senator Boxer. He seems to have a great sense of self-
importance. He's the only one that knows how to run a country.
And I understand, also, there's been a history of jamming Radio
Free Asia, as well.
Mr. Diem. That's correct.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, let me just thank the panel. I'm
going to ask Senator Webb to take as much time as he needs at
this time.
Senator Webb. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Griffiths,
good to see you. I want to thank you so much for all of your
years of work in this area. I think I go back a long way doing
it, and you were there before I got there, and so you've given
a great service to our country for continuing to focus on all
of these issues.
Ms. Richardson, I regret that I missed hearing your
testimony. I had a meeting that I had to take outside the room.
I want to put something to the panel. Before I do, I want to
say that I think I can honestly say that there's nobody up here
in the United States Senate who feels more strongly than I do,
there's some people who feel as strongly, about wanting to see
a government in Vietnam where everyone has an opportunity for
advancement into the future and for participation.
I was very proud to have fought in the U.S. Marine Corps on
behalf of that concept. I've never backed away from it, despite
what happened after 1975. The question really is how we get
there, and we're at a critical juncture in many ways, and I
think we need to continue to look at an analytical model
through which we can make this case.
And so, Ms. Richardson, could you first tell me the scope
of your responsibilities, in terms of countries and working
with Human Rights Watch? Are you all through Southeast Asia, or
East Asia, or all of Asia?
Ms. Richardson. I'm fared only South Asia. I actually
direct all of our work on China, and I'm the advocacy director
for all of East and Southeast Asia.
Senator Webb. So you go all the way over into Burma.
Ms. Richardson. Correct.
Senator Webb. OK. How would you rate the overall human
rights challenges in Vietnam compared to other countries in
your jurisdiction?
Ms. Richardson. Well, the most significant distinction
between Vietnam and several other countries, particularly in
Southeast Asia, of course, is that it's a one-party government.
And obviously, it shares that with China and North Korea.
Senator Webb. Burma.
Ms. Richardson. Burma. It's different variations of one-
party governments, perhaps, meaning Vietnam's is not a military
government. You know, I think Vietnam also falls in a distinct
category for impenetrability. Again, with perhaps the exception
of North Korea. You know, other countries in Southeast Asia are
much easier to get into, much easier to do research on, it's
much easier to engage a government directly.
You know, I mean, the reality is now, for us, that--and
this has happened even in the last 48 hours--when we comment
publicly about China, we get a public response from the Foreign
Ministry. That almost never happens with the Vietnamese
Government, and if there is a response at all, it's usually a
pretty unilateral denial of the fact.
And so, I think it's sort of a particular kind of
isolation, an impenetrability, that distinguishes it from some
of its neighbors.
Senator Webb. Having spent a lot of time in that part of
the world, in a number of different capacities, frequently as a
journalist, the only country that has denied me a journalist
visa is China. No doubt because of a lot of writings that I
have made over the past 20 years about a lot of different
situations there. So they're sort of a veil within a veil
themselves.
Mr. Diem, have you been able to examine situations inside
Vietnam where the people who are family members and close
associates with the former government are still suffering a
special type of discrimination?
Mr. Diem. When you say ``former government,'' are you
referring to the Former Republic of South Vietnam?
Senator Webb. Right.
Mr. Diem. For a long while, after the end of the war, that
was and had been a situation. Actually, Supervisor Janet
Nguyen, in her testimony, she did refer to the fact that her
family suffered greatly, and that lasted a long time. However,
my understanding is that by the late eighties and into the
nineties, the situation seems to have faded away, if you will.
So right now, at this point, there's no particular incident
that I'm aware of. Now, is that still going on? I have to say
that I'm not 100 percent certain. But I do know that it did go
on, and I have talked to people who have suffered that greatly.
But, like I said, until the late eighties, early nineties, that
seemed----
Senator Webb. Well, I'm personally aware that it went on
well into the nineties that, for many of the families--not just
military people, but----
Mr. Diem. Right.
Senator Webb [continuing]. Also politicians, government
officials, anyone who had associated with the government, and
even their children--it was impossible, in many cases, to go
beyond a basic level of education or to get certain jobs. I was
bringing American companies into Vietnam after the embargo was
lifted, and it was very difficult to be able to hire someone
who had come from the Vietnam Quon Hua government.
That seems to have gone away, to a certain extent, in
recent experience. My time is going to go away, but if it's OK
with you, Madam Chairman, I have just a couple more minutes of
line of questioning here that I'm trying to get at a couple of
things, in terms of how we proceed forward.
The first is, I watched Vietnam at a time when sanctions
were in place, and I supported the sanctions. They had made an
agreement at the Paris Peace Talks in 1972 to have elections.
They were discriminating strongly against the people who had
been with us. There was nobody else making this case.
But I don't see sanctions as a way to get to where things
need to go. There are two examples of that. One is in Vietnam
itself. I think when sanctions were lifted, it allowed the
average Vietnamese to see people from the outside, to be able
to talk, and to gain an understanding that wasn't there before.
And the other is Burma, right now, quite frankly. I was in
Burma in 2001, at a time just before the really strict
sanctions went into place, and I was hosted by an American
businessman who had put together an outdoor furniture company
in Burma. And he was basically saying, if you respond to these
human rights violations by putting sanctions in place, really
what's going to happen is the people of Burma are going to lose
contact with the outside world, which is basically what has
happened.
At the same time, now, China's trade has doubled into
Burma. There was an article in The Economist magazine 2 weeks
ago, saying that Burma is actually looking at moving toward the
yuan as its currency.
So, looking at that, sanctions don't appear to work, as a
general policy, unless the entire world gets together. All the
different countries in the world get together and say, ``We are
going to sanction that behavior,'' as is what happened in South
Africa. But that's not happening in this part of the world.
Then, the question becomes--how do we proceed in a way that
will open up this society and, at the same time, not
destabilize the region? What are your thoughts on that, Mr.
Diem? Or the panel, in general? I'm really interested in
getting your views on this.
Mr. Diem. If I may, I'd like to start to respond to that
question. First of all, sanction, in my viewpoint, has to be
chosen or applied really case by case. Sanction as a blanket
means may not work in certain instances or in certain cases;
but then, in others, it may stand a very good chance.
Let's take Vietnam, for example. In 1985, the Vietnamese
economy was on the brink of collapse. The Vietnamese Communist
Party was on its knees, and they quickly abandoned their old
policy in 1986, and implemented the new Economic Openness
Policy, and we must admit that during the last 20-plus years,
yes, the Vietnamese economy had improved, and yes, the living
standard has increased.
However, at the same time, yes, the Vietnamese Communist
Party had bought more time, and consolidated their power. They
had 20-years-plus to prepare their next step. They had 20-plus
years to entrench even further, and that is the reality of
Vietnam right now.
Senator Webb. But if I may, sir, on that point, the real
transition in Vietnam came after the fall of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union was putting up to $3 billion a year into the
Vietnamese economy. I was there in 1991. There wasn't anything
going on.
And when the Soviet Union collapsed, the government
realized it had to look to the outside world. The point with
sanction is it only works when you have a large number of
countries involved. The United States sanctions in Burma
basically are pushing Burma into China. The United States
sanctions in Iran, quite frankly, are doubling Iran's trade
with China right now.
So as a general principle, unless you have the collective
body, the collective world body involved, sanctions aren't
going to get us where we need to go. So the question, again, is
what do you think we should do?
Mr. Diem. Well, in my testimony, I did mention a number--I
did offer a number of specific recommendations. But let me say
this. In my viewpoint, given the current situation in Vietnam
right now, the most appropriate way to assist transition over
to a more democratic and open society is to really help the
Vietnamese people, to empower them through building a civil
society in Vietnam.
A civil society in Vietnam is growing. It's budding. It is
a budding civil society in Vietnam right now. More and more in
recent years, we have autonomous grassroots organizations that
do not fall under the control of the government begin to spring
up. And that is the base. And I think we--because the United
States can do a lot to assist that process.
Senator Webb. OK. I thank you. Mr. Daley or Ms. Richardson,
do you have a comment on that? Actually, Ann, it isn't an area
you've been working, but if you have an observation, any of
you?
Mr. Daley. Yes, Senator, if I may. I think that some of the
programs that both the government and the private sector have
been working on are helping to build what I would call the
infrastructure for a future more open and responsive system of
government in Vietnam.
For example, one project that our affiliate at U.S. Vietnam
Trade Council worked on resulted in a decision in Vietnam that
judicial decisions and the rationale for those decisions would
be published. Now, this was done with reference to the BTA in
order to help bring it into compliance with modern business
principles, but it has brought ramifications in opening up the
judicial sector and making it accountable and transparent,
understandable, and giving points of leverage for future
change.
Those are worth continuing. I also think that in all kinds
of ways, private corporations and organizations can work with
the Government in Vietnam. Last year, we worked with a
Montagnard organization in the United States to remove barriers
to the immigration of roughly two dozen Montagnards who had
been encountering considerable difficulties from local
authorities in the Central Highland.
And those barriers were taken away in relatively short
time. This was a matter of a private discussion done on a
humanitarian basis. Did it change the overall situation in
Vietnam? Perhaps not. But to those two dozen families, it made
a big difference.
In the broader area of policy, I would offer the example of
what the United States did with Cambodia and labor reform. We
cut a deal with the Government of Cambodia that if they
accepted international labor standards and a presence in Phnom
Penh by the ILO, and free guaranteed access to the factories
that were working in the export garment sector, we would
increase their textile quota. And they----
Senator Boxer. They what? I'm sorry.
Mr. Daley. We would increase their textile quota, in the
days when we had textile quotas. And they bit on it. They
agreed to this approach. And even though the multifiber
agreements have expired and that whole area has changed, the
ILO is still operating in Cambodia, they still have full
access. And in those areas in the export sectors, those workers
are treated according to international standards.
And not only that, the pattern of relationships that they
established with American suppliers after the quota system sort
of faded away was sustained. And Cambodia's textile exports,
which everybody thought would be just wiped off the map by
China, have continued to----
Senator Boxer. Mr. Daley, I'm sorry. We've gone 8 minutes,
almost, over, and----
Mr. Daley. I apologize.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. We have to clear the room, and
I've got to be at a meeting at 4:30.
Senator Webb. I thank the chairman for her patience.
Senator Boxer. I just want to say that we do have to move
on. Let me just tell you where I come out on this. I think what
you have discussed, Mr. Daley, is a good example of something
we can do using the economic purse. No question. But, I don't
see it in any way as being the only thing we can do.
And I agree with Senator Webb when he says it takes the
whole world to really change another country, if that country
doesn't want to change, but it's got to start somewhere. Who's
the first country that's going to step up and say, ``You know
what, the rest of the world, this is a problem.'' It's always
been America before, in most cases, it seems to me.
So, I've been very careful to weigh what I want to do here,
representing so many constituents, from Supervisor Nguyen to
the whole community, and I haven't jumped up and said, ``Oh,
this is the perfect answer or that is,'' but I'll tell you what
I think after hearing what I've heard today.
I believe that document is real. I believe that right now,
in Vietnam, there's no dissent allowed. I believe we are making
some progress through trade. I think we should continue,
because I believe that is important. And we all know that when
people are exposed to freedom, eventually it will come. But
that doesn't mean there's nothing else we can do.
I think when Mr. Daley made the point that the power of the
purse works, that's really what the House bill does. It uses
the power of our purse, in America. It doesn't sanction
anybody. It just says, ``We're going to freeze aid where it is,
nonhumanitarian aid.'' It doesn't say we're going to take away
anything.
It says we're going to freeze everything but humanitarian
aid, and we're going to say we need some improvements in
respect to human rights. I frankly think it's actually a small
and important step to take. So I know that I may be in a
minority in this committee, but that's today, and it may not be
tomorrow.
So what I'm going to do, because I believe in a transparent
process, is begin putting together a bill that I think will
send an undeniable signal to the Vietnamese Government that you
can't say one thing and then have a secret meeting and admit
that you're having political trials. The Vietnamese Government
can't say, ``Oh, it's got nothing to do with that''--the fact
that these people were, you know, some kind of a threat because
they practice a religion that the government doesn't like.
I just think we can do this in a way that's productive. I
think we can do this in a way that will bring about change. And
again, in my experience here--and I cosponsor many bills that
are pretty tough bills--you have to just push and push. This is
what I have found, and I think Senator Webb has been my ally in
the example of the Philippines. We held one hearing on
extrajudicial killings, and it really reverberated there.
They get the message when Congress is looking. And we
should not underestimate that power. So I think Congress needs
to keep looking at this, and I think we can put together
something that is not punitive, that is not a sanctions bill,
per se, but essentially just says the American taxpayers are
very generous, but there's a point at which we're going to say,
``No more, unless you step up to the plate.''
And we're not asking for things that aren't, frankly,
internationally recognized as human rights. And, you know, when
I started going through the names on the list, just on and on
and on of people who have been detained, including one of my
constituents from Sacramento, I thought, they have been
detained for doing what? Trying to fight for freedom? I mean,
something's wrong, and if we're not the ones, then who is going
to step up to the plate here? If we're not the ones, who is
going to do it?
So I have great respect for those who caution us not to do
too much that would reverse progress, and I think they're right
for warning us. But on the other hand, it doesn't mean you
can't do something more. And again, it's always one country
that starts, and I believe that we can see improvements in
Vietnam.
So I just want to say to all of you on this panel, thank
you very much. You've all been terrific witnesses. And when I
put together this bill, I'm going to include a chapter on POW/
MIA, just to bring that back and say, ``We expect to see
continued cooperation,'' because we need that cooperation.
Ms. Griffiths. Could I ask you, please, not----
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Ms. Griffiths [continuing]. To link the two issues
together? Because if you do----
Senator Boxer. Oh, we'll do a separate thing, then.
Ms. Griffiths [continuing]. POW/MIA will suffer from their
internal unwillingness----
Senator Boxer. Well, we'll do something separate.
Ms. Griffiths [continuing]. To risk their government.
Senator Boxer. We'll do something separate on that.
Ms. Griffiths. I will count on that.
Senator Boxer. Yes, we will do something separate on that.
Because I do believe that's another area where we could do
more. I mean, how many years do we have to struggle. You're the
ones. I feel just so deeply saddened by the fact that we could
be doing so much more, and it just seems there's always a
reason and an excuse, and it doesn't make sense to me.
So we'll do something separate. We'll do a letter
separately. If we have to do legislation, we'll get it done. We
won't link the two, but in my mind, it is important that
Vietnam step up to the plate in both ways. And I think you make
the point that our country has to step up to the plate, also,
and not just Vietnam, on this POW/MIA issue.
So I thank you all very much for coming. We'll work with
you to get a good bill. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Responses of Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill to Questions
Submitted by Senator Barbara Boxer
Question. A secret memo recently surfaced regarding ``political
trials'' that has been attributed to an August 6, 2007, Politburo
Meeting of the Communist Party of Vietnam.
Although the Government of Vietnam denies that it is currently
holding any political prisoners, the document details the success of
some of the recent ``political trials'' and states that the party must
work to ``limit the spread of false ideas in the population about
democracy, human rights, [and] religious freedom. . . .''
According to Human Rights Watch, the document also states that
opposition political parties must not be allowed to take shape: ``It is
absolutely necessary not to let it happen that political opposition
parties be established.''
Can you confirm the authenticity of this document? If so, what is
the reaction of the State Department?
Answer. We are not able to confirm the authenticity of the alleged
Politburo document posted on the Internet. We are aware, however, that
the Government of Vietnam has shown little tolerance for political
dissent or any political alternative to the ruling Communist Party of
Vietnam. These circumstances are documented in the Department of
State's annual Human Rights Report to Congress, released in early March
2008.
Promotion of greater respect for human rights continues to be one
of the highest priorities of U.S. policy toward Vietnam. We raise our
concerns about human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam frequently
and with officials at all levels of the Vietnamese Government,
including through our annual Human Rights Dialogue.
Question. How is the new adoption policy, known as ``Orphans
First,'' being implemented?
Answer. On October 29, 2007, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS), in cooperation with the Department of State,
instituted the ``Orphans First'' program for Vietnam. Under this
program, I-600 Petitions (to Classify Orphans as an Immediate Relative)
for Vietnamese children are adjudicated before a formal Vietnamese
adoption occurs. Our goal in instituting this new procedure is to
address any problems that may arise as early as possible in the
adoption process. We aim to notify petitioners of a decision on their
I-600 within 60 days after a petition is filed. Initially, an
extraordinarily high number of U.S. and Vietnamese holidays in December
and January made it impossible for us to meet that timeline for all
cases. According to a recent analysis by USCIS, however, 90 percent of
these petitions are now being processed within 60 days or less. As of
June 27, only 51 of 647 cases submitted under Orphans First had been
pending longer than 60 days, most because of fraud indications related
to the petition. For the first 8 months of the program, the average
processing time of all cases is 49 days, except where our field
investigations are blocked by Vietnamese authorities.
Once a case is recommended for approval, petitioners can
travel to Vietnam to complete the adoption and schedule their
immigrant visa interview. The new process has eliminated the
need for a separate I-600 interview, as would be required in
other countries.
If the case cannot be adjudicated within 60 days, USCIS
informs the petitioner in writing of the reason for the delay.
If a case is not recommended for approval, petitioners are
provided the reasons for the USCIS decision and given written
instructions on how to proceed, should they want to appeal.
In some cases, U.S. officials attempting to complete the required
review have been prevented by Vietnamese officials from interviewing
local officials and individuals. Such interference in the
investigations has delayed those cases. The Department of State is
reaching out to these Vietnamese Government officials to underscore the
necessity of our performing the reviews. In many cases these problems
have been resolved, although as of June 27, there were still 45 blocked
investigations.
We are making every effort to review and resolve cases as quickly
as possible. We are working to ensure good communication among all
involved as we continue to develop procedures to respond to an evolving
situation. In addition, the Department of State and USCIS continue to
assess the situation in Vietnam with an eye toward finding new measures
designed to safeguard against baby trafficking and ensure reliable
adoptions for American parents.
Question. Do the State Department and DHS have the resources and
staff necessary to review adoption applications quickly and completely?
Answer. In the last year, there has been a four-fold increase in
adoption cases from Vietnam as well as a surge in fraud indicators that
necessitate a greater number of investigations for possible fraud. The
Departments of State and Homeland Security continue to review staffing
levels to ensure there are sufficient personnel and resources to review
and adjudicate orphan cases quickly and completely.
The USCIS office in Ho Chi Minh City is currently staffed by one
officer. USCIS has provided temporary personnel to augment the office
and plans an increase in permanent staffing. The consular section in
Hanoi currently has sufficient staff to process adoption applications;
however, we plan to provide some short-term TDY assistance to ensure
all pending cases are resolved.
Question. How long should families expect to wait to receive
decisions on their adoption applications?
Answer. Our goal is that petitioners receive a response within 60
days of filing a petition. Currently, the average processing time for
an I-600 petition filed with the USCIS office in Ho Chi Minh City is 49
days. Based on recent experience, we anticipate that in most cases the
petition will be approved; however, in some cases the response will be
a request for further information or instructions on what further
action may be taken.
In cases where we have been prevented by Vietnamese officials from
completing the required investigation to verify the child's orphan
status, we will inform petitioners of the reasons for the delay in
concluding their cases. We are reaching out to Vietnamese Government
officials in order to establish mutually agreeable procedures which
would allow U.S. officials to perform these reviews.
Question. How have the State Department and DHS reformed their
procedures to improve communication with U.S. citizens who are going
through the adoption process?
Answer. The Departments of State and DHS appreciate the importance
of communication with U.S. citizens who are undertaking an
international adoption. Adoptive parents are notified when their case
is received and again when a determination is made to approve the
petition, request further information, or issue a Notice of Intent to
Deny. The Embassy has a dedicated e-mail address for prospective
adoptive parents, and our goal is to answer all e-mail inquiries within
3 working days.
In addition, following the implementation of the Orphans First
program, we have established a local Consular Section/USCIS combined
case-tracking database to ensure that cases do not languish without a
response. Through this system, we can identify any cases that are
approaching the 60-day target to make sure that the petitioner is
informed of the status of the case and that all possible efforts are
being made to resolve any outstanding issues in a timely manner.
Question. Have the State Department and DHS come to an agreement on
the standards by which international adoptions will be considered?
Answer. Each orphan petition and visa application is adjudicated
individually on the basis of applicable laws and regulations. The State
Department and DHS play different roles in an international adoption.
In essence, our two agencies function as strong partners in a
deliberative process that requires investigation, recommendations, and
decisions. Sometimes during that process, new information is
discovered. The deliberation therefore evolves as a case is reviewed.
USCIS and the Department of State share the same legal standards
and policy objective for immigration petitions: To ensure cases are
adjudicated on the most accurate and timely basis practicable. Within
Vietnam there is excellent cooperation and communication between the
consular section and the USCIS office. Similarly, State Department and
USCIS officials in Washington are in daily--sometimes even hourly--
contact. We continue to review the situation in Vietnam carefully to
safeguard the process while at the same time looking for ways to
provide petitioners with the best possible service.
With our colleagues at USCIS we are looking to determine what
additional steps might be taken to prevent emotional and financial
hardship for prospective adopting parents after September 1. We want to
work with the Government of Vietnam to address problems in Vietnam's
adoption system, so that we can pursue a new agreement that allows
adoptions under a system that is more transparent and protects the
children and parents involved.
The United States continues to urge that Vietnam demonstrate its
commitment to the establishment of appropriate safeguards and
procedures by acceding to the Hague Convention on Intercountry
Adoptions.
Question. A report facilitated by the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees in 2007 found that ``severe forms of
religion-based punitive action'' against the indigenous Montagnard
Christian communities in Vietnam's Central Highlands continue to this
day.
According to the June 2006 Human Rights Watch report ``No
Sanctuary: Ongoing Threats to Indigenous Montagnards in Vietnam's
Central Highlands,'' Vietnamese officials continue to force Montagnard
Christians to renounce their religion despite passing regulations to
ban these practices.
The Vietnamese Government harshly persecutes peaceful dissent among
the Montagnards. Last year, at least 13 were sentenced to prison. Since
2001, over 350 have been arrested and imprisoned on national security
charges, for affiliating with independent or unregistered house
churches, participating in land rights protests, or attempting to flee
the country to seek asylum.
How does the State Department monitor abuses in Vietnam's
provinces and rural areas, including the Central Highlands?
What actions has the State Department taken or will it take
to address the Government of Vietnam's harassment and
imprisonment of the Montagnards in violation of new laws that
it has passed on religion?
How can we engage the Government of Vietnam to improve
religious freedom for all of its people?
Answer. Officials of the United States Embassy in Hanoi and United
States Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City monitor the situation in the
Central Highlands through their contacts with community leaders and
NGOs. They also work closely with the Office of the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). In the past 3 years, U.S. and UNHCR
monitors have had unprecedented access to the Central Highlands. Since
January 2007 alone, U.S. or UNHCR personnel have made nine visits to
the Central Highlands. In its 2007 report, the UNHCR concluded there is
no systematic persecution of ethnic minorities, though individual
instances occur. The Department of State's 2007 International Religious
Freedom Report notes that the number of credible reports of religious
freedom abuses in the Central Highlands was ``significantly lower
compared with previous years and appeared to reflect individual bias at
the local level rather than official central government policy. In a
number of instances, the local officials involved were reprimanded or
fired.'' This conclusion is based on our direct observation and
information collected from credible sources.
Between 2004 and 2006, the Government of Vietnam released all 45
prisoners raised by the U.S. Government as prisoners of concern for
reasons clearly related to their religious beliefs and practices. Many
Montagnards currently in prison were incarcerated for involvement in
the 2001 and 2004 demonstrations in the Central Highlands. While some
of these individuals may have deep religious convictions, we are not
aware of individuals in prison in the Central Highlands for violation
of laws passed in recent years liberalizing religious practice.
Authorities continue to restrict the activities of individuals and
groups whom they say are affiliated with ethnic minority separatist
movements calling for an independent homeland. The majority of Central
Highland ethnic minority Protestants are not affiliated with these
groups and have enjoyed greater freedom in recent years. This does not
mean that we are no longer active and vigilant.
U.S. attention to these issues over past years contributed to the
improvements we are witnessing in the Central Highlands. The U.S.
Ambassador and other U.S. officials, including the Ambassador at Large
for International Religious Freedom, have raised concerns about
restrictions on religious freedom in the Central Highlands with the
Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, government cabinet ministers,
Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) leaders, senior provincial officials,
and others, and will continue to do so. U.S. officials also meet
regularly with religious leaders in Vietnam, including in the Central
Highlands. In February 2008, the Ambassador at Large for International
Religious Freedom met with a delegation of senior government and CPV
officials from the Central Highlands, and addressed a wide range of
ongoing religious freedom concerns. In March 2008, Ambassador Michalak
met with some of those same leaders during his visit to the Central
Highlands, and discussed ways to improve the socio-economic conditions
for ethnic minorities, as well as potential cooperation to promote safe
migration.
Our diplomatic engagement with Vietnam has helped to encourage
significant advances in religious freedom. Nearly all religious
communities throughout the country report greater freedom to practice
their faith, and there is an overall increase in religious activity and
observance throughout the country. The legal framework on religion bans
forced renunciation of faith and has allowed hundreds of congregations
to register their places of worship. The Government of Vietnam has
granted full national recognition to 19 different religious
denominations and intends to register and recognize many more by the
end of 2008. Implementation of the government's legal framework on
religion has been uneven, but over the past 2 years, the government has
organized 70 workshops in 17 provinces and cities to familiarize
thousands of officials and religious leaders and practitioners with the
provisions of the law on religion.
Even as we highlight this progress, we recognize that problems
affecting religious freedom continue in Vietnam and we will continue to
raise the concerns cited here with the Government of Vietnam at all
levels. We call on the government to streamline and speed up the
registration process for religious organizations that request it, or to
eliminate the need for registration altogether. Although registrations
of congregations have begun in the North and Northwest Highlands, the
process has been slow. Local officials in some areas ignore the central
government's policy of promoting religious freedom and continue to
interfere with religious believers there. U.S. Embassy contacts have
reported that in certain areas in the Central, North and Northwest
Highlands, some officials are using new methods, including denial of
government benefits, to encourage followers (primarily recently
converted Protestants) to abandon their faith. While religious leaders
themselves have told us that these cases are not widespread, we take
these allegations seriously and raise them with Government of Vietnam
authorities. Furthermore, the government has continued to ban and
actively discourage participation in certain unrecognized religious
groups, including the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, and certain
Hoa Hao, Cao Dai, and Protestant Church groups. We continue to press
the Vietnamese Government to expand freedom of religion for all
citizens.
______
Prepared Statement of Andre Sauvageot, Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.)
I am a retired U.S. Army officer, with 9 tours (years) of duty in
wartime Vietnam, followed by post-war U.S. Government service to do
political analysis of Vietnam and assist with the MIA/POW issue.
Following this, I helped American companies develop markets in Vietnam
and create jobs for American workers, in strict compliance with U.S.
policy.
I. Vietnam provides stable, friendly, predictable environment
The Vietnamese have forged a society in which 85 million people of
some 54 different ethnic groups with a wide variety of religions all
live peacefully together, free of the ethnic and religious strife with
which so many other countries are afflicted.
After the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon, the Political and Economic Research Company (PERC) based
in Hong Kong upgraded its assessment of the security among 14 Asian
Pacific countries to reflect the changing post-9/11 perceptions of
entrepreneurs. Their assessment soon after
9/11 ranked Vietnam as the most secure of those 14 countries.
II. Human Rights
A. Already relatively good considering: (relative to other
countries among some 190 sovereign nations
including, (sadly) the post 9/11 United States
The frequent atrocities occurring in so many countries, such as
floggings, amputations and death by stoning, long prison sentences for
consensual sex between adults (e.g., United States--and worse in some
countries governed by Sharia law) roundups, torture, and killing of
gays, all would be unthinkable in Vietnam.
A few years ago people were shocked when religious police forced
little girls back to their deaths in a burning school because they did
not meet the dress codes as they fled the flames. More recently, the
world was shocked again when the same country sentenced a female rape
victim to prison and 90 lashes because she was in a car with an
unrelated male when the couple were kidnapped and raped by 7 men. The
female victim's punishment was for being in a car with an unrelated
male. When her lawyer courageously appealed her sentence, the
punishment increased to 200 lashes and his license to practice law was
suspended.
By contrast, with the above, Vietnam is a tolerant humane country
for all of its citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or
sexual orientation. A paucity of hate crimes based on the foregoing
factors obviates any need for hate crimes legislation. Women and ethnic
minorities are well represented in the National Assembly. The
Vietnamese Communist Party has committed itself (Article 4,
Constitution of 1992) to work within the laws passed by the National
Assembly and continues steady progress toward this commitment.
B. And improving (improvement will continue, but the United
States can be a supportive, negative, or neutral
factor)
A basic reason that human rights in Vietnam is continuing to
improve is that Vietnam's leadership has an enlightened concept of its
self interest. But enlightened self-interest does not entail self
destruction, e.g., yielding quickly to foreign or hostile pressures to
undermine the leadership role of the Communist Party.
Therefore, if the SRV leadership perceives that an approach to
improve a particular aspect of human rights is sincere, i.e., based on
human rights qua human rights and therefore potentially beneficial to
Vietnam or maybe even of mutual benefit to Vietnam and the United
States there is a real chance for progress.
On the contrary, if the SRV leadership perceives a human rights
approach is superficial, unrealistic, or basically posturing for an
American constituency, the end result may be no change. And again, if
it perceives a hostile intent, the result could be to elicit tightened
security procedures, which could constitute a regression in civil
liberties.
Vietnam's Constitution (Article 4) stipulates the leadership role
of the Communist Party and is supported by most of the population (in
Vietnam) because the party (from enlightened self-interest) has spear-
headed political and economic reform under difficult conditions from
the the 6th Party Congress which concluded in December 1986 through the
10th Party Congress which concluded in April 2006.
(C) Threat perception (plays key role--can be positive or
negative)
The degree of civil liberties granted to the citizens of any
country may be greatly influenced by the degree to which a country's
leadership believes it (or the country at large) is threatened by
hostile forces--whether domestic or external or a combination thereof.
The U.S. regression in human rights and civil liberties after the 9/11
terrorist attack provides a recent stark example.
Vietnam's leadership understands the role of threat perception and
that it applies in some degree to all countries. The difference is that
the perception of threat may be paranoid or pathological in the case of
ruthless dictatorships as existed under the former Taliban regime in
Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein's Baath Party in Iraq, or the Khmer Rouge
in Cambodia to cite some of the most extreme examples.
However, even relatively moderate governments will restrict civil
liberties given a reasonable perception of threat.
The United States provides a number of examples:
During the civil war President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeous
corpus.
After Japan attacked the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor 7 December 1941,
President Roosevelt signed an Executive order to imprison many
Japanese-Americans who were not guilty of any crimes and against whom
there was no evidence.
After the terror attack of 11 September 2001, Congress quickly
passed the Patriot Act, and the executive branch has assumed many
powers which remain very controversial in the United States and abroad.
Vietnam provides other examples. Although committed to political
and economic reform it is not surprising that Vietnam's Communist Party
leadership is very sensitive to the possibility that they may face
covert, hostile actions against Vietnam's basic political system.
Consider:
--The United States maintained a trade embargo against Vietnam during
the same time that it advocated and practiced ``constructive
engagement'' with China.
--The United States supported China and the genocidal Khmer Rouge
against Vietnam's liberation of Cambodia, e.g., by lobbying the
U.N. to keep ``Democratic Kamphuchea's'' seat at the U.N. and
lobbying ASEAN to form a united front against Vietnam in Cambodia.
--Various groups from the United States have from time to time
infiltrated into Vietnam through Thailand or Cambodia. Even if
these activities were illegal and had no support from the U.S.
Government they still exacerbated Vietnam's threat perception.
Therefore, the more that Vietnam ascertains that the United States
is serious about improving overall relations in a serious manner based
on mutual benefit the less Vietnam will feel threatened by unreasonable
hostility. And the sooner that Vietnam's leadership will be amenable to
constructive U.S. ideas on human rights. Setting a better example would
also help--not only with Vietnam but many other countries with human
rights situations much worse than either Vietnam or the United States.
(D) Freedom of religon
Vietnam with its ``live and let live'' attitude about religion
provides a relaxed atmosphere from the very devout to agnostics and
atheists. My secular humanist philosophy did not dissuade a devote
Roman Catholic friend from episodic efforts to convert me through
conversation and books such as a Vietnamese language copy of the new
testament. Vietnam's Party leadership is strongly supportive of
religious freedom qua religion, maintains strict separation of church
and state, with no stigma attached to being an atheist or agnostic.
The Vietnamese enjoy essentially 100 percent freedom of religion
qua religion. Buddhists, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hoa
Hao, and Cao Dai are all free to practice their religion. Vietnam's
secular state combines freedom to believe in any religion with the
freedom to not believe in any religion. Thus, there are no pressures
against agnostics or atheists. It is ``live and let live.''
Some religious leaders get into trouble mixing politics with
religion in a manner that violates existing law and exacerbates
perceptions of threat reasonably derived from experience. For example,
some foreigners visiting Vietnam have visited rural villages in the
highlands and presented themselves as Protestants who offered money and
a so-called religious or political rationale to entice people to flee
to Cambodia and request political asylum.
In view of the history, it is quite commendable that Vietnam's
leadership has put the past behind and that devout Roman Catholics
attend mass and are very open about and proud of their religion. Their
brand of religion tends to be humane, long on self-discipline and
ethics and short on marginalizing others who do not share their
religion.
III. United States and Vietnam have many shared interests. Consider:
(1) United States and Vietnam (SRV) have full diplomatic relations;
(2) United States has granted Vietnam PNTR status in compliance with
our respective WTO membership; (3) United States now Vietnam's single
largest export market, with implicit leverage to work cooperatively
toward shared objectives; (4) SRV is one of the 21 most trade dependent
nations (trade as percent of GDP) in the world--North Korea is the
least; (5) SRV plays an increasingly important role in ASEAN in which
it is the second most populous member and among the most politically
stable; (6) the United States and SRV have shared geopolitical
interests in a prosperous, peaceful region in which critical sealanes
are not dominated by East Asia's emerging giant; (7) Vietnam maintains
a secular state--a natural ally against terrorism generated by Islamic
(or any) extremism; (8) SRV cooperates with the United States against
trafficking in drugs and people.
IV. Vietnam's cooperation on MIA accounting
I had the honor of serving as the interpreter for the U.S.
Government's most senior officials heading delegations visiting Hanoi
with, at first the sole, but always the primary objective of achieving
the fullest possible accounting of Americans missing in action from the
war in Vietnam. These included Richard Armitage (1982-1986, first
Deputy Assistant and later Assistant Secretary of Defense,
International Security Affairs; General John W. Vessey, U.S. Army
retired) then-Special Emissary for MIA/POW Affairs for Presidents
Reagan and Bush (1987-1991) and Senator John Kerry, then-chairman,
Senate Select Committee on MIA/POW Affairs (1991-1992).
Since then I have continued to follow events from personal
interest, both because of its intrinsic value (to families who lost
loved ones) and also because it is an important component of the
overall bilateral relationship from which both countries derive
significant and growing benefit.
My key observations from years of intense, albeit episodic,
exposure are:
1. Vietnam's cooperation has increased through the years as a
function of improvement in the overall relationship, e.g., lifting the
trade embago, establishing diplomatic relations, signing a bilateral
trade agreement, waiving the Jackson-Vanik amendment, ship visits, etc.
2. Vietnam's aforementioned humanitarian and pragmatic propensities
have combined to enable its leadership and specialists to work
effectively with the U.S. Government and our MIA/POW specialists,
notwithstanding initial perceptions (understandably) among many
Vietnamese who suffered more dead or missing from the war than we did,
that there was something unseemly about their own leaders devoting so
much effort (and publicity) to MIA accounting for their erstwhile
enemies who many perceived had ``invaded'' their country. Tough sell,
but sell it they did, and public cooperation has grown over the years.
3. The U.S. Government's effort over the years has been of the
highest quality, from the senior officials for whom I had the honor of
interpreting to the many specialized and dedicated officials, most
notably Department of Defense personnel, who worked directly with the
Vietnamese though the years.
The facts speak for themselves: Since the end of the war in
Vietnam, the United States has repatriated and identified the remains
of 627 Americans lost in Vietnam during the war. Efforts continue to
account for some 1,353 remaining. The Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command
(JPAC) normally executes three joint field activities (JFAs) per year
in Vietnam. The next JFA is scheduled for March 1-April 14, 2008.
My current contacts at the Department of Defense tell me that they
appreciate Vietnam's assistance in the accounting mission, but also say
that they are urging Vietnam to take some additional steps with
potential mutual benefit to both countries. These are quite technical
and Department of Defense personnel would be better to address these
point by point. However, whatever the technical issues, I strongly
believe that on MIA accounting, past is prologue, i.e., Vietnam's
cooperation, for years amazingly good, will only grow as our overall
relationship continues to move forward in accordance with our
multifaceted interests.
conclusion
The Vietnamese leadership's commitment to economic reform and to
the diversification of Vietnam's international relationships, poverty
alleviation and the growth if individual freedom adumbrate a bright
future for Vietnam and an increasingly significant regional role.
The strategic geopolitical question is how close a relationship
will we form with Vietnam--a natural ally against terrorism and
political or religious extremism. Clearly, as the United States-Vietnam
relationship continues to improve on the basis of mutual respect and
mutual benefit, progress will continue on all fronts.