|
On the Hill: Examining the U.S.-Viet Nam relationship
March 12, 2008
By Beth Hearn
The United States government’s line on the relationship with Viet Nam was summed up by Christopher Hill, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Wednesday when he said that “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.”
These areas where interests coincide seem to center on trade. Hill described at length Viet Nam’s economic progress, as the country turned away from central planning and “launched what has turned out to be one of the most rapid economic revolutions in modern history.” Promotion of the private sector and integration with the world economy has helped to attract foreign trade, investment and technology to the region, he said. This development has culminated in Viet Nam being granted a two-year term on the U.N. Security Council and membership in the World Trade Organization, as well as a significant expansion of its relationship with the U.S.
On the issue of human rights, Hill was also optimistic. He cited the influence of Viet Nam’s economic and cultural integration into the international community on opening its society and expanding social freedoms, saying that “Vietnamese citizens today enjoy greater freedom to live, work, and practice their faith, and most enjoy significantly improved standards of living.” He cited several human rights violations, including the arrest of pro-democracy activists and other prominent dissidents such as Father Nguyen Van Ly, Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thi Cong Nhan, but asserted that there have also been positive developments.
Sophie Richardson of Human Rights Watch took a much more cautious view of the progress being made in Viet Nam. She cited a leaked internal document detailing the conclusions of a Politburo meeting on August 6, 2007, which unequivocally established that political trials are conducted in Viet Nam.
The purpose of these trials, the document says, is “making an example or teaching a lesson, to effectively prevent the contrarian political activities of the enemy forces while they are still in the embryonic stages.” It says that there are conspiracies to “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 accusations against the state.”
In addition to this document, Sophie Richardson drew attention to ongoing restriction of freedom of religion and provided a list of hundreds of Central Highlanders imprisoned by the authorities, illustrating that the Vietnamese government seems to be saying one thing and doing another. It is still a requirement that all religions register with authorities, Richardson maintained, and followers of religions not recognized by the government continue to be persecuted. There are still significant limitations on freedom of expression, information, association and assembly, she said, despite some laws being in place to protect these rights.
This view of the human rights situation in Viet Nam was echoed by Do Hoang Diem, Chairman of Viet Tan, the Vietnam Reform Party; an unsanctioned pro-democracy party based in the U.S. He emphasized the growing sentiment within the country for democracy and human rights, but asserted that a corresponding crackdown from the government is also at hand.
Janet Nguyen, County Supervisor from the first district in Orange County, California, dismissed the bilateral dialogue as “mere window dressing,” arguing that the removal of Viet Nam’s status as a Country of Particular Concern for religious freedom was premature.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who chaired the hearing, responded to the witnesses’ remarks by saying “you get the sense that trade and other things may be trumping human rights.”
There were several recommendations put forward by the panel for ways in which to move forward in developing the status of human rights in Viet Nam. Richardson emphasized the importance of pushing to amend several laws and provisions within Viet Nam’s criminal code in order to allow freedom of expression, religion, and assembly. She maintained that it is also critical to recognize this legislation and put it into practice.
What is important, said Do Hoang Diem, is that we continue to speak out on the human rights abuses in Viet Nam, focusing both on individual cases and the situation at large. He urged the Senate to pass the Vietnam Human Rights Act (H.R. 2096), which was overwhelmingly passed by the House of Representatives last September.
Boxer echoed this, pointing to the vital role the U.S. can play in bringing greater human rights to Viet Nam. “I think we are making some progress through trade, and I think we should continue along that line, but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing else we can do,” she said, referring to the possibility of incentives, or of threats to limit the relationship between the two countries without significant reform. “If we’re not the ones to do it, then who is going to step up?” she asked.
|
