SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
26–778PDF
2006
THE HUMAN RIGHTS DIALOGUE WITH VIETNAM: IS VIETNAM MAKING SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS?
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MARCH 29, 2006
Serial No. 109–174
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,
Vice Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DARRELL ISSA, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
CONNIE MACK, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
MICHAEL McCAUL, Texas
TED POE, Texas
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California,
Vice Chairman
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
MARY M. NOONAN, Subcommittee Staff Director
GREG SIMPKINS, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member
NOELLE LUSANE, Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHERI A. RICKERT, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member and Counsel
LINDSEY M. PLUMLEY, Staff Associate
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Vice Chairman
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
RON PAUL, Texas
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
ADAM SMITH, Washington
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
BRAD SHERMAN, California
JAMES W. MCCORMICK, Subcommittee Staff Director
LISA M. WILLIAMS, Democratic Professional Staff Member
DOUGLAS ANDERSON, Professional Staff Member & Counsel
TIERNEN M. DONALD, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
WITNESSES
The Honorable Barry F. Lowenkron, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, U.S. Department of State
The Honorable John V. Hanford III, Ambassador-at-Large, Office of International Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State
The Honorable Eric G. John, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Michael Cromartie, Chair, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
Ms. Kay Reibold, Project Development Specialist, Montagnard Human Rights Organization
Mrs. H'Pun Mlo, Montagnard Refugee, Vietnam
Nguyen Dinh Thang, Ph.D., Executive Director, Boat People SOS, Inc.
Mr. Doan Viet Hoat, President, International Institute for Vietnam
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations: Prepared statement
The Honorable Barry F. Lowenkron: Prepared statement
The Honorable John V. Hanford III: Prepared statement
The Honorable Eric G. John: Prepared statement
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Michael Cromartie: Prepared statement
Ms. Kay Reibold: Prepared statement
Mrs. H'Pun Mlo: Prepared statement
Nguyen Dinh Thang, Ph.D.: Prepared statement
Mr. Doan Viet Hoat: Prepared statement
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
THE HUMAN RIGHTS DIALOGUE WITH VIETNAM: IS VIETNAM MAKING SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS?
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights
and International Operations,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith (Chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations) presiding.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The Subcommittee will come to order and good afternoon to everybody. Today we are meeting to examine the results of the recent human rights dialogue with the Government of Vietnam and the progress, or lack thereof, in Vietnam's respect for human rights and religious freedom, but I cannot begin any hearing on Vietnam without first raising the issue that engages more Americans, including this Chairman, more deeply than any other when we talk of Vietnam, and that is a full and thorough and responsible accounting of the remaining American MIAs from the Vietnam conflict.
As my colleagues know well, of the 2,583 POW/MIAs who were unaccounted for, in Vietnam there were 1,923, in Laos 567, in Cambodia 83, and in People's Republic of China 10. Just under 1,400 remain unaccounted for in Vietnam.
During my last visit to Vietnam in December 2005, when I was accompanied by members of our staff, I met with Lt. Col. Lentin Mitchell, head of the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command. While JPAC is making steady progress and is able to conduct approximately four joint field activities per year in Vietnam, I remain deeply concerned that the Government of Vietnam could be more forthcoming and transparent in providing the fullest accounting. It is our sacred duty to the families of the missing that we never forget and never cease our pursuit until we achieve the fullest possible accounting of our MIAs.
This hearing takes place in the context of the recently concluded human rights dialogue with Vietnam, which our distinguished witnesses from the State Department will report on. The State Department had suspended the human rights dialogue since 2002 because it was clear Hanoi was not serious about our concerns. Since that time Hanoi was designated a country of particular concern, or a CPC country, for egregious and systematic violations of religious freedom in both 2004 and 2005.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Vietnam is currently anxious to receive permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, with the United States to gain admittance to the World Trade Organization and to have President Bush attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, or APEC, summit in November. Indeed, this is the APEC year in Hanoi.
Now that the dialogue has been resumed at Hanoi's request, it is both imperative and opportune for the Administration, and the Congress as well, to pressure Hanoi for more deeds than words. Vietnam needs to show that it is not merely trying to smooth out some minor misunderstandings which get in the way of Vietnam's important economic and political goals, but rather that it has made fundamental commitments to human rights and reform and to fulfilling its international commitments, a fundamental commitment which will not be forgotten after it has achieved those goals.
Section 702 of Public Law 107671 requires the Department to submit a report on the United States/Vietnam human rights dialogue within 60 days of its conclusion, describing to what extent the Government of Vietnam has made progress during the calendar year toward achieving the following objectives: One, improving the Government of Vietnam's commercial and criminal codes to bring them into conformity with international standards including the repeal of the Government of Vietnam's administrative detention decree, Directive 31CP; two, releasing political and religious activists who have been imprisoned or otherwise detained by the Government of Vietnam, and ceasing surveillance and harassment of those who have been released; three, ending official restrictions on religious activity including implementing the recommendations of the United Nations' special rapporteur on religious intolerance; four, promoting freedom of the press including freedom of movement of members of the Vietnamese and foreign press; five, improving prison conditions and providing transparency in the penal system of Vietnam including implementing the recommendations of the United Nations' working group on arbitrary detention; six, respecting the basic rights of indigenous minority groups especially in the Central and Northern Highlands of Vietnam; seven, respecting the basic rights of workers including working with the International Labor Organization to improve mechanisms for promoting such rights; eight, cooperating with requests by the United States to obtain full and free access to persons who may be eligible for admission to the United States as refugees or immigrants and allowing such persons to leave Vietnam without being subjected to extortion or other corrupt practices.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So far as we can see here, however, it appears that Vietnam still has a long way to go before it can convince us that it has made any fundamental or lasting changes in its human rights policy. The State Department's human rights report on Vietnam for 2005 upgrades Vietnam's human rights records from poor to merely unsatisfactory. Freedom House still rates Vietnam as unfree, but it is no longer at the absolute bottom of the repression scale. These are not exactly ringing endorsements.
There are fewer religious and political dissidents in jail but there are still far too many. Even those let out like Father Ly and Father Loi or Nguyen Dan Que, and I met with all three when I was in Vietnam recently, are subject to continued forms of house arrest or harassment. Restrictions on the legal churches have eased but requests to build churches, to receive back confiscated properties and provide charitable and educational services which are allowed under current law are never answered quickly and are often never answered at all.
Hundreds of churches have been closed in the past 5 years. Last year dozens were open and still large numbers are believed to belong to ''illegal'' churches. Worshipers suffer continued harassment; not in all cases, but their rights to believe and practice are still not secured by the rule of law.
Too often the only improvements are based on local arbitrary decisions which can be reversed at any time. The Unified British Church of Vietnam is still illegal and its leaders, the Venerable Thich Quang Do and patriot Thich Quang Quang, remain under strict pagoda arrest and 13 other senior figures remain under similar restrictions. I point out parenthetically that I met with the Venerable Thich Quang Do and it was amazing. As he left to say goodbye, he got to the end of his pagoda and just had to stop there, because had he gone another step forward, as we saw more recently when he was rounded up and arrested, the secret police would have been on him.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The independent Hoa Hao Buddhists are also illegal and their church was singled out for repression last year. Evangelical Protestant House Churches, Mennonites, Bahai, Hindus and others exist in a legal limbo: Technically illegal, often tolerated, but sometimes repressed. Those officials who violate government guaranteed religious rights appear never to be punished. That is not the way a rule-of-law society is constructed.
Reports of forced renunciations of Christianity in the Montagnard regions apparently have diminished but they have not ended. Montagnard House Churches are allowed to operate but have not received their registration and we heard numerous reports about that during our trip there last December. UNHCR and various diplomats are allowed to travel sometimes to some Montagnard regions, but only when carefully monitored. Montagnards eligible for resettlement in the United States get their passports and exit visas, but not in all cases, not everywhere, and hundreds of Montagnards languish in detention.
Vietnam reportedly weakened its two-child policy several years ago after coercive policies involving contraception, birth quotas, sterilization and abortion cut Vietnam's fertility almost in half in 20 years. Yet last year the Deputy Prime Minister called for more drastic measures to cut the birth rate further. It is not clear whether this has yet been enforced, but it hangs there as a storm cloud over all families, especially over Vietnam's long abused indigenous minorities.
Like China's one-child policy, Vietnam's two-child policy has led to a large and growing imbalance in male and female births, which will only increase its already severe problems as a source, transit, and destination country for human trafficking.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
According to last year's State Department human rights trafficking report, Vietnam remained a Tier 2 country because of its serious trafficking problems but was removed from the watch list. Many of us think that this was an error and that Vietnam's response to its trafficking problems remains inadequate.
In December, I met with over 60 people: Government officials, political and religious activists, archbishops, heads of churches and ordinary believers. I could feel even then that there were somewhat stilted conversations with mixed delegations of religious leaders and government officials. That the Vietnamese Government even consented to send these delegations to the United States recently was an important step, but it was also clear that some of the government officials at least are beginning to understand our concerns and hopefully it is not just putting on the right face. What they will now do is the question.
Michael Cromartie, Chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, makes the crucial observation when he says, ''We are not arguing over whether the glass is half full or half empty. We just do not know if a glass so recently constructed will continue to hold any water. Will the developments hold in a country where the rule of law is not fully functioning? Are changes only cosmetic, intended to increase Vietnam's ability to gain WTO membership and pass a congressional vote on PNTR? Their promises of future improvements are encouraging. We should not reward Vietnam too soon,'' he goes on to say, ''by quickly lifting the CPC designation or downplay human rights concerns to advance economic or military interests.''
I could not agree more. We have seen various thaws in other Communist regimes over the years. The Khrushchev fall was followed by the worst persecution of religion in 30 years and then the long stagnation of the Brezhnev regime. In the 1960s we thought Nicholas Ceausescu of Romania would be the next Tito. I remember when we thought that that was an advance. Instead, he decided to be the next Kim Il-Sung.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, who can forget the democratic opening in China which was crushed by Tiananmen Square. We must be sure that change in Vietnam is real and durable. We have a unique opportunity this year to achieve real and lasting progress in Vietnam. We should use the leverage we have and seek to increase it.
The House of Representatives has twice passed legislation authored by me on human rights in Vietnam. HR 1587, Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2004, passed the House by a vote of 323 to 45 in July 2004. A similar measure passed by a 410 to 1 landslide in the House in 2001. The measures called for eliminating future and further increases of nonhumanitarian United States aid being provided to Vietnam if certain human rights provisions were not met, and authorized funding to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia and funding to support nongovernmental organizations which promote human rights and democratic change in Vietnam.
Regrettably, both of those stalled in the Senate Committees and have not yet been enacted into law, but we are again ready to work with the Administration to find ways to encourage and promote civil society in Vietnam. I would be delighted to hear what sort of measure we could add to the bill, which I have reintroduced as H.R. 3190, and would love to hear from the Administration as to how we might shape it to strengthen civil society and the rule of law, to help promote genuine NGOs. I note parenthetically that on one of those trips recently, with some of the pastors there was an accompanying group of NGOs.
I asked the NGOs, who are obviously government people, ''Who pays your salary?'' And they said, ''The government.'' You are not an NGO. You are in the employ of the Government of Vietnam and we should not kid ourselves. There is a distinction between an NGO and somebody who works for a ministry of government, foreign affairs or whatever.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me also point out that we want to promote genuine faith based NGOs to deal with Vietnam's problem with trafficking, addiction to drugs, and street children. Vietnam needs to create an independent bar association and help train lawyers who could defend the rights already guaranteed to Vietnam's people by its own constitution and by its laws.
Human rights are central. They are at the core of our relationship with governments and the people they purport to represent. The United States of America will not turn a blind eye to the oppression of a people, any people, any place in the world. I welcome our witnesses today and the valuable eyewitness testimony they bring so that the world will get a complete and accurate picture of this government with whom we are growing ever closer. I yield to Mr. Payne.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
The Committee will come to order. Today we are meeting to examine the results of the recent Human Rights Dialogue with the government of Vietnam, and the progress, or lack thereof, in Vietnam's respect for human rights and religious freedom.
But I cannot begin any hearing on Vietnam without first raising the issue that engages more Americans, more deeply, than any other when we talk of Vietnam—a full, thorough and responsible accounting of the remaining American MIAs from the Vietnam conflict. As my colleagues know well, of the 2, 583 POW/MIAs who were unaccounted for—Vietnam (1,923), Laos (567), Cambodia (83) and China (10)—just under 1,400 remain unaccounted for in Vietnam. During my last visit to Vietnam in December 2005 I met with LTC Lentfort Mitchell, head of the Joint POW–MIA Accounting Command (JPAC). While JPAC is making steady progress and is able to conduct approximately four joint field activities per year in Vietnam, I remain deeply concerned that the government of Vietnam could be more forthcoming and transparent in providing the fullest accounting. It is our sacred duty to the families of the missing that we never forget and never cease our pursuit until we achieve the fullest possible accounting of our MIAs.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This hearing takes place in the context of the recently concluded Human Rights Dialogue with Vietnam, which our distinguished witnesses from the State Department will report on. The State Department had suspended the Human Rights Dialogue since 2002 because it was clear Hanoi was not serious about our concerns. Since that time Hanoi was designated a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) for egregious and systematic violations of religious freedom in both 2004 and 2005. Vietnam is currently anxious to receive Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with the U.S., to gain admittance to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and to have President Bush attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in November. Indeed, this is the ''APEC Year'' in Hanoi. Now that the dialogue has been resumed, at Hanoi's request, it is both imperative and opportune for the Administration and Congress to pressure Hanoi for more deeds than talks. Vietnam needs to show that it is not merely trying to smooth out some minor ''misunderstandings'' which get in the way of Vietnam's important economic and political goals, but rather that it has made a fundamental commitment to human rights and reform, and to fulfilling its international commitments, a fundamental commitment which will not be forgotten after it has achieved those goals.
Section 702 of Public Law 107–671 requires the Department to submit a report on the U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue within 60 days of its conclusion ''describing to what extent the Government of Vietnam has made progress during the calendar year toward achieving the following objectives:
(1) Improving the Government of Vietnam's commercial and criminal codes to bring them into conformity with international standards, including the repeal of the Government of Vietnam's administrative detention decree (Directive 31/CP).
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(2) Releasing political and religious activists who have been imprisoned or otherwise detained by the Government of Vietnam, and ceasing surveillance and harassment of those who have been released.
(3) Ending official restrictions on religious activity, including implementing the recommendations of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance.
(4) Promoting freedom for the press, including freedom of movement of members of the Vietnamese and foreign press.
(5) Improving prison conditions and providing transparency in the penal system of Vietnam, including implementing the recommendations of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention.
(6) Respecting the basic rights of indigenous minority groups, especially in the central and northern highlands of Vietnam.
(7) Respecting the basic rights of workers, including working with the International Labor Organization to improve mechanisms for promoting such rights.
(8) Cooperating with requests by the United States to obtain full and free access to persons who may be eligible for admission to the United States as refugees or immigrants, and allowing such persons to leave Vietnam without being subjected to extortion or other corrupt practices.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So far as we can see from here, however, it appears that Vietnam still has a long way to go before it can convince us that it has made any fundamental and lasting change in its human rights policy. The State Department's Human Rights report on Vietnam for 2005, upgrades Vietnam's Human Rights record from ''poor'' to merely ''unsatisfactory.'' Freedom House still rates Vietnam as ''unfree,'' but it is no longer at the absolute bottom of the repression scale. These are not exactly ringing endorsements.
There are fewer religious and political dissidents in jail, but there still are too many. Even those let out, like Father Ly, Father Loi, Dan Que (win dan qway), are subject to continued forms of house arrest or harassment. Restrictions on the legal churches have eased, but requests to build churches, to receive back confiscated properties, and provide charitable and educational services, which are allowed under current law, are never answered quickly, and often never answered at all. Hundreds of churches have been closed in the past five years. Last year, dozens were opened. And still large numbers of believers who belong to ''illegal churches'' suffer continued harassment—not everywhere, not everyone, not always, but their rights to believe and practice are still not secured by rule of law. Too often all of the improvements are based on local and arbitrary decisions which can be reversed at any time. The Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) is still illegal, and its leaders, the Venerable Thich Quang Do and Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang remain under strict ''pagoda'' arrest, and 13 other senior figures remain under similar restrictions. The independent Hoa Hao Buddhists are also illegal, and their church was singled out for repression last year. Evangelical Protestant house churches, Mennonites, Bahai, Hindus, and others exist in a legal limbo: technically illegal, but often tolerated, but sometimes repressed. Those officials who violate government guaranteed religious rights appear never to be punished. This is not the way a rule of law society is constructed.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Reports of forced renunciations of Christianity in the Montagnard regions have diminished—but they have not ended. Montagnard house churches are allowed to operate, but have not received their registration. The UNHCR, and various diplomats, are allowed to travel, sometimes, to some Montagnard regions, but only when carefully monitored. Montagnards eligible for resettlement in the U.S. get their passports and exit visas, but not all, not everywhere. And hundreds of Montagnards languish in detention.
Vietnam reportedly weakened its two-child policy several years ago, after coercive policies involving contraception, birth quotas, sterilization and abortion cut Vietnam's fertility almost in half in twenty years. Yet last year the Deputy Prime Minister called for ''more drastic measures'' to cut the birth rate further. It is not clear that this has yet been enforced, but it hangs there as a storm cloud over all families, but especially over Vietnam's long-abused indigenous minorities. Like China's one child policy, Vietnam's two-child policy has led to a large and growing imbalance in male and female births, which will only increase its already severe problems as a source, transit and destination country for human trafficking. According to last year's State Department's Human Trafficking report, Vietnam remained a Tier II country because of its serious trafficking problems, but was removed from the Watch List. Many of us think this was an error, and that Vietnam's response to its trafficking problems remains inadequate.
In December I met with over 60 people: government officials, political and religious activists, archbishops, heads of churches and ordinary believers. I could feel it even in the somewhat stilted conversations I have had recently with mixed delegations of religious leaders and government officials. That the Vietnamese government even consented to send these delegations was an important step. But it was clear that some of the government officials at least are beginning to understand our concerns. What they will now do is the question. I believe that Michael Cromartie, Chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, makes the crucial observation: ''We are not arguing over whether the glass is half-full or half-empty. We just do not know if the glass, so recently constructed, will continue to hold any water. Will legal developments hold in a country where the rule of law is not fully functioning? Are changes only cosmetic, intended to increase Vietnam's ability to gain WTO membership and pass a Congressional vote on PNTR? . . . Though promises of future improvement are encouraging, we should not reward Vietnam too quickly by lifting the CPC designation or downplaying human rights concerns to advance economic or military interests.''
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I could not agree more. We have seen various thaws in other Communist regimes. The Khrushchev thaw was followed by the worst persecution of religion in thirty years, and then the long stagnation of the Brezhnev regime. In the 60's we thought Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania would be the next Tito (I remember when we thought that was an advance); instead, he decided to be the next Kim Il-Sung. Finally who can forget the democratic opening in China which was crushed at Tian An Men Square.
We must be sure that the change in Vietnam is real. We have a unique opportunity this year to achieve real and lasting progress in Vietnam. We should use the leverage we have, and seek to increase it. The House of Representatives has twice passed legislation authored by me on human rights in Vietnam. HR 1587, The Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2004, passed the House by a 323–45 vote in July of 2004. A similar measure passed by a 410–1 landslide in the House in 2001. The measures called for limiting further increases of non-humanitarian U.S. aid from being provided to Vietnam if certain human rights provisions were not met, and authorized funding to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia and funding to support non-governmental organizations which promote human rights and democratic change in Vietnam. Regrettably, both bills stalled in Senate committees and have not been enacted into law. But we are again ready to work with the administration to find ways to encourage and promote civil society in Vietnam. I have re-introduced the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2005, HR 3190. I would be delighted to hear what sort of measures we could add to the bill to cooperate with the Vietnames government if it is indeed serious about strengthening civil society and the rule of law: to help promote genuine NGO's, especially faith-based NGO's, to deal with Vietnam's problems with trafficking, addiction, HIV/AIDS, street children; to create an independent bar association, and help train lawyers who can defend the rights already guaranteed to Vietnam's people by Vietnam's own constitution and laws.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Human rights are central, are at the core of our relationship with governments and the people they purport to represent. The United States of America will not turn a blind eye to the oppression of a people, any people in any region of the world. I welcome our witnesses and the valuable eyewitness testimony they bring today, so that the world will get a true and complete picture of this government with whom we are growing ever closer.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling this very important hearing concerning human rights situation in Vietnam. Vietnam is a wonderful country and a country of great people and I had the opportunity not to visit there recently, but back in the early 1970s I had the opportunity to visit country province in Da Nang in the north as there was attempt to develop the northern part of South Vietnam. That was after the United States troops had withdrawn and I was Chairman of a world refugee committee headquartered in Geneva Switzerland and was going there with that cap as a person concerned about refugees and rehabilitation in Vietnam at that time.
Of course, we recall that shortly after United States troops withdrew the country fell to the North Vietnamese and the National Liberation Front, but this was truly an example of how we got it wrong initially when we mistook the National Liberation movement of independence from colonialism of France and allowed ourselves to get caught into initially a struggle for independence and as we saw throughout the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s, the whole question of decolonialization got caught up with our NATO allies, in particular in Africa where in many instances we found ourselves supporting despots and tyrants like Mabutu and P.W. Bolt in South Africa because they were antiCommunist, but if we had gotten on the right side of decolonization in Namibia and South Africa, although they were not a colony, Mozambique and Vietnam and others, I think a lot of blood would have not been shed.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a matter of fact, a colleague of mine was there when the troops came in from the north. I just missed it by about a day or two. It would have been interesting. But there was a difference even between the National Liberation Front of the Vietcong from the North Vietnam military because you know they wore different uniforms, they had a whole different philosophy and the National Liberation Front the VC were suspect of the North Vietnamese army because they were controlled by the People's Republic of China and were not necessarily welcome. They were almost looked at as we are going to be dominated by another foreign country.
I am glad that we have gotten to normalization and that we are moving forward. Today though, I have concerns that while Vietnam is making great strides on the economic front, the human rights situation especially for rural Vietnamese is in need of vast improvement, particularly in the country's Central Highlands and the northwest region, home of the minorities the Montagnards and the Hmong people. As a matter of fact, the Hmong hill people were very helpful in rescuing United States fighter plane pilots that were downed in that region and the Hmong people were able to find them, locate them and get them across the border into Thailand in a lot of instances and Thailand was the house of many refugees from Vietnam, from Compachia and also the Hmong people who ended up there after the war because of persecution by the authorities because of their support for United States airmen.
I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3190, the Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2005 introduced by our Chairman, Mr. Smith. As you know, the United States and Vietnam relations established in the mid 1990s and we have been trying to urge them to improve their manner of governance. As you probably know, the bill points out that the relationships between the United States and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam under one party ruled by the Communist Government of Vietnam has grown significantly since that time.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The relationship is especially strong when it comes to trade, $6 billion in trade are exchanged between our two countries. Coffee now is becoming a very big export, really destabilizing the coffee markets around the world, but the United States must make human rights a central focus of our policy toward Vietnam.
The economic advances in Vietnam are reflected in the urban centers where civil economic and religious liberties are increasing and we see in many instances things happening in the urban areas. That is where people go. That is where foreigners visit. That is where things seem to be moving along.
However, at the same time these freedoms are not experienced in the country's rural areas and the picture that is developing is increasingly one that can be described as a tale of two Vietnams and we have throughout the world A Tale of Two Cities and the tale of two countries, but we are seeing a tale of two Vietnams also, urban versus rural.
Political freedom in Vietnam, while it has opened somewhat in recent years, still needs a lot of work and this is another area the United States should focus on. The National Assembly's step toward more independence are a welcome feature of the political landscape and I think that the U.S. Administration and Congress needs to do more to provide capacity building and support to fledgling democracies' parliaments around the world. I think we should participate and as a matter of fact, I think we should rejoin the International Parliamentary Union, the IPU, established in 1989.
The IPU is an organization of over 140 national parliaments, which is the focal point for worldwide parliamentary dialogue and work for peace and cooperation among people and for the firm establishment of representative democracy. I implore the leadership of our House and Mr. Hyde of this Committee to explore avenues for future cooperation between the IPU and the United States Congress. I think for us not to be involved in the 140 country organizations where parliaments come together and much can be done with parliaments. They pass the laws. They need to be strengthened. They need to have some recognition and I think that the policy of our International Relations Committee of not participating is once again ostrich with the head in the sand isolation and isolating ourselves from other parliaments where we could have some involvement with them.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
About half of Vietnam's population is Buddhist. Catholics make up about 8 to 10 percent of the population. Smaller religious groups include the Caldi organization, only between 1 to 3 percent, the Hoa Hao Protestant groups and Muslim organizations.
In September 2004, for the first time we designated Vietnam as a country of concern, as the Chairman mentioned, in the State Department's international religious freedom report. Vietnam was also redesignated as a CPC in the 2005 report. An agreement was reached on religious freedom a year ago but it certainly should be followed up with some attention. Although some progress is being made, tremendous strides must still be made and I look forward to listening to our witnesses.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Mr. Payne. Chairman Royce.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing today. I have had the opportunity in the past to make trips to Vietnam and talk with Le Quang Liem and the Venerable Thich Quang Do and others who have been held under house arrest for the simple right to express their religious freedom and in particular the Venerable Thich Quang Do told me that the old Buddhist text had been taken by the central committee and rewritten until they are about 30 percent of what was in them with edits and additions.
Basically what is at stake is the right of freedom to religion and the right of freedom of self expression. When you have a situation today where if you want to go on the Internet in Vietnam in a cyber cafe and do what students do here all the time in the United States, communicate to your friends, that is going to be monitored by the Government in Vietnam.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have been 25 years over that now that we have watched economic freedoms slide back, political freedom certainly nonexistent virtually and religious freedoms be quashed and some are pointing to Vietnam's hope of joining the World Trade Organization as a sign that they would make reforms. Very sadly few of them made. When I was in Vietnam, I talked with French companies and other companies that were pulling out and the reason they are pulling out I think this has been expressed well by the Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom in 2006.
They sum up. They look at 157 nations in the world in terms of their economic propensity to support any measure of freedom and the rule of law and Vietnam ranks 142 out of 157, but I think I will not repeat all of what the Chairman and Ranking Member have expressed, in terms of what has happened to the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and certainly the largest denomination, but Buddhists have probably faired the hardest under this. Certainly ethnic Christians continue to be beaten and they are oftentimes detained by local Vietnamese officials. Protestants have been subjected to eradication campaigns launched by local governments.
I think the Communist government's systematic control of religion from the requirements to register with the government to their forced renunciation ceremonies has created an environment that has led the United States to designate Vietnam as a country of particular concern in 2004 and 2005. I think that terminology comes with a particular concern is such an understatement. I am still amazed we use that choice of words.
Just as the government has gone to great lengths to suppress religious freedoms, so too have they taken such measures to across-the-board suppress freedom of speech. I talked a little bit about what was going on in the cyber cafes where the owners and Internet service providers who are now required by law to monitor their customers' activities and prevent distribution of unsanctioned material. You know a little bit about the sentences that have been handed down to young people who have done no more than try to look up the word democracy and you know how stiff those sanctions can be.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In summation, the Vietnamese Communist party continues to deny its citizens basic human rights and if it wishes to be awarded status under the WTO, we should expect reforms in exchange. Again, I thank the Chairman for calling this hearing and I look forward to the testimony.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Royce. The Chair recognizes Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly would like to offer my commendation to you and Chairman Leach for having this joint Subcommittee hearing specifically on some of the issues affecting the Republic of Vietnam.
I could not say it better, Mr. Chairman, than to again I am not trying to quote you here or to scratch your back, Mr. Chairman, but I truly do believe that certainly as one of our champions in the Congress in promoting and enhancing human rights throughout the world is second to none and I admire and I always respect you for that.
I think this is in terms of what my good friend Mr. Royce had just enunciated about his concerns. Human rights is human rights, whether it be in Vietnam or any other country. I note with interest, Mr. Chairman, that our State Department has issued these human rights reports which were done since 1977 and I think there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding among some of our countries who are reported in this report.
In fact, one of the Prime Ministers of the island nations was very offended at the fact that this report was issued by the State Department without any consultation with any of the leaders of his government as a way to at least express whatever seems to be the nuances, because the reports were very critical and I think in fairness to him his response was, I suggest that the Government of the United States clean up its backyard first before making allegations against my country and others as well in terms of our problems that we are faced with as far as human rights are concerned.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In specific terms, Mr. Chairman, I have a different perspective about Vietnam. It goes beyond just what we are talking about in the State Department report. It has something to do with the colonial legacies of what we had left of these Asian countries. When you talk about the history how we got involved in Vietnam was very interesting. The way we had labeled some of their top leaders like Ho Chi Minh as a Communist, as a Maoist, as a Marxist. Those terms, when these people were fighting the French, colonial legacy has not been positive among the Vietnamese people whether you lived in North or South Vietnam.
What I am trying to say in perspective, Mr. Chairman, is that we have to take the overall picture of this country. Why do you suppose that a lot of these Asian leaders ended up becoming Marxists or Socialists? Because the worst examples of democracy were these colonial powers that came from Europe. I think we have to take it in perspective. Yes, these countries are going through a lot of problems.
Uniquely we have a Communist country, the People's Republic of China and yet they are very capitalistic in many aspects of their economic development. I suspect that probably the leaders of Vietnam are trying earnestly to do the same and when it comes to human rights violations, I am sure that they are not happy with the current status of some of the things that are affecting its citizens. No different than some of the problems that we have in our own country, how we treat our citizens as well.
I want to put that in a bigger picture, not just in specific terms of saying so-and-so human rights have been violated, but we are talking about 70 million people. Only in 1995 we have established diplomatic relations. The domino theory that if Vietnam falls the rest of Asia will become Communist. Guess what? We are trading with a Communist country, Vietnam.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the contradictions that we find ourselves in history and we were a participant in the process. I am not suggesting that we ought to lessen our efforts in making sure that other countries comply with basic human rights issues that we talk about as part of the charter of the United Nations. All countries have signed up to it. Yes, we have constitutions. Yes, we believe in human rights. I am concerned and I sincerely hope that some of the, I say this as a Vietnam veteran and I guess those of us who did serve in Vietnam have an entirely different perspective, for all I knew I could have been among 60,000 body bags that should have come back or did come back and in the worst way I am still bitter about this experience that I had, Mr. Chairman.
I look at it with the sense of understanding what is in the minds of the Vietnamese people and the leaders and what they are trying to do right now in providing for the needs of their country, whether it is a Communist, whether it is a Socialist, whether it is a democratically based government. I want very much to hear from our distinguished witnesses that we have this afternoon.
That is basically my perspective. I could not agree with you more that we need to make sure that citizens and leaders of other countries do have very serious concerns and are addressing the concerns about human rights violations. I can tell you a whole story about what is happening in West Papao New Guinea right now. The genocide committed by the previous dictators in Sukarni and Suhardu, 500,000 to a million tortured and murdered in the name of getting rid of Communists and only to find out that it was because of the dictatorial policies that those regimes had in that country.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Asia Pacific is a very unique situation, Mr. Chairman and not as simple as sometimes I think we Americans make it so and I think there are a lot of gray areas that makes it very difficult sometimes to make a good judgment or a reasonable decision as to what is happening out there. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists and again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing and not only bringing attention to some of the issues and problems affecting Vietnam, but look at the whole region and what has happened and the legacy. The colonial legacy of these countries in the Asia Pacific region, let us not forget how they started and what got them where they are now and some of the problems that they are confronted with as of today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. I want to second what my good friend, Congressman Payne, said. We need to reestablish our membership with the International Parliamentary Union. I tell you I have been to a couple of those IPUs and guess what, Mr. Chairman? I was the only one representing the whole United States Congress among some 146 countries that were represented.
Not only was I embarrassed, Mr. Chairman, here I was singly representing the whole United States Congress and I had about 100 votes to myself that I could have divvied out to all the others. It was exciting, but I sincerely hope that we need to do something about reestablishing our membership and be proactive in participating in the largest parliamentary union composed of parliaments of some 146 countries in the world. I second what Mr. Payne suggested earlier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much. It was a pleasure to be with you in New York as we promoted the human rights agenda on Monday just this week. I appreciate your comments. The Chair recognizes my friend and colleague, Mr. Fortenberry. I would just say, Mr. Fortenberry is a new Member of the Congress and a new Member of this Committee, but has been an extraordinary champion on behalf of human rights in general and Vietnam in particular. We are most appreciative for that and I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those kind words. I am very grateful that you are holding this hearing today and welcome to all of our guests, as well as, Mr. Chairman, your steadfast commitment to emphasizing our country's core principles and the importance of upholding the inherent dignity of every human person around the world as we work to develop effective bilateral relationships throughout the world.
Earlier this year, the House passed a resolution honoring the contributions of Vietnamese Americans to American society over the past 30 years. The resolution urges all United States citizens to work toward the full realization of freedom for all of the people of Vietnam and this issue is of great significance to many of my constituents who are keenly interested in the work of this Subcommittee.
Many people of Vietnamese origins have chosen to make Lincoln, Nebraska, my home, their home and to build their families there. My Vietnamese friends and neighbors contribute immensely to the vitality of our district and I am truly honored to represent them here in Congress. They have literally transformed important parts of Lincoln into an oasis of a diversity of culture with flourishing small businesses, thriving faith communities and markets offering fine cuisine and other products.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While my constituents greatly cherish the opportunity to live in the United States, their roots are in Vietnam and these roots are particularly important to the Vietnamese community. Our office routinely handles constituent requests with matters involving Vietnam and the question of whether the human rights situation is improving in that country is asked very often in the district office in Lincoln.
We often submit congressional inquiries to the United States Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City dealing with certain matters of importance for our constituents. I recently had the honor of attending the wedding reception of a young couple united partly because of the efforts of our office, which worked to unravel the bureaucratic entanglements between our country and Vietnam, resulting in the uniting of this couple and that truly is a very, very gratifying part of this work in this job.
Mr. Chairman, please know that your efforts to convene our nation's top experts on human rights in Vietnam are vitally important to our community back home as well as communities throughout the nation. Before we hear from our distinguished panel, I do wish to commend the men and women of the Department of State for their painstaking efforts to develop the annual country reports on human rights practices. I note that this year's report on Vietnam appears to reflect an improvement in respect for human rights. Several thousand amnesties were granted for prisoners of conscience and there were no reported killing or disappearances tied to the government's security forces.
I welcome the steps that have been taken to redress injustices and hope that the gains which have been made will be continued and consolidated. However, I must also note that Vietnam remains a country of particular concern and its 2005 human rights record remains ''unsatisfactory.'' While economic development and market reforms have spurred a relative improvement in the living standards of many Vietnamese people and these reforms appear to have been accompanied by diminished government intrusion into their daily lives throughout much of the country, the welfare of people in more isolated rural areas, particularly in the Central and Northwest Highlands, remains a particular cause for very grave concern.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In May 2005, the United States concluded an agreement with Vietnam in which Vietnam made commitments to improve religious freedom. It is my understanding that despite improvements in the treatment of Protestant house churches and loosened restrictions on the training of clergy, harassment and oppression of the Montagnard population, Hmong Christians, Buddhists and members of various Christian denominations, these harassments continue.
I also note that the country's report section on torture is rather muted and limited in scope and wonder if this reflects a difficulty in gaining access to document cases of torture. Several hearings and briefings over this past year certainly pointed to more harrowing circumstances as have been alluded to than those which were highlighted in this report.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on the likelihood of a sustained improvement in the treatment of Vietnam's religious minorities throughout the remainder of this year and on the likelihood of a more comprehensive improvement with respect to freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of public religious expression. Religious liberty and freedom of religious expression are inalienable rights of mankind and fundamental pillars of any just society.
Mr. Chairman, once again I am grateful for your leadership and ensuring that these core human rights issues remain front and center in our bilateral dialogue with Vietnam and that our diplomatic engagement fully reflects the core values upon which our nation was founded. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much. Let me now introduce our very distinguished panelists, beginning first with Secretary Barry F. Lowenkron, who has served since October 2005 as the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Lowenkron served as Principal Deputy Director of Policy Planning for the Department of State. Secretary Lowenkron currently is on leave from the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University, where he has been an adjunct lecturer in American Foreign Policy since 1979.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will then hear from Ambassador John V. Hanford III, who is the second United States Ambassador-at-Large for International and Religious Freedom. He has been serving in this position since May 2002. Previously, Mr. Hanford served as an expert on international religious freedom by working on the staff of Chairman Richard Lugar. In 1998, Ambassador Hanford led a team of congressional offices in crafting the IRFA. I would note parenthetically that since that bill went through our Committee and I worked very hard with him, he was indeed critical to its passage. The real glitch was on the Senate side. We got it passed here on the House side and he worked magic in birthing that bill and bringing it to fruition and now it is all very fitting that he serves as the Ambassador-at-Large to implement the very bill he helped craft.
We will then hear from Eric G. John, who became the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs in June 2005. Previously, Mr. John was the Minister Counselor for Political Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea. He also served as the Deputy Principal Officer for the U.S. Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Secretary Lowenkron, if you could begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARRY F. LOWENKRON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. LOWENKRON. Thank you, Chairman Smith. I appreciate your thoughtful comments and those of your colleagues and I must say that so much of your opening statement touched on our human rights dialogue that we had in February on the agenda and in our thoughts, mine as well as my colleague Ambassador Hanford when we were in Hanoi last month and I want to thank you also for the opportunity to report on this human rights dialogue today. I would ask that my full testimony be entered into the record.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection.
Mr. LOWENKRON. Thank you. As required by law, I will shortly submit a formal report of the dialogue to you. More broadly I want to thank you and the Members of the Committee for your work on behalf of human rights in Vietnam. Your markup of House Concurrent Resolution 320 calling upon the Government of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Dr. Pham Hong Son and other political prisoners demonstrates your deep commitment and let me say your act of concern from the hearings you hold to the report mandated by Congress greatly strengthens my hand when I sit down and talk to the Vietnamese officials.
As you noted in your remarks, Mr. Chairman, we suspended the bilateral human rights dialogue with Vietnam in 2002 for lack of progress by Vietnam. In June 2005, the White House meeting if Prime Minister Phan Van Khai and President Bush they agreed to raise our bilateral relationship to a higher plane, but the meeting also reinforced for the Vietnamese the importance this Administration attaches to human rights and democracies.
The two leaders agreed to continue an open and candid dialogue on issues of common concern, including human rights. Vietnam's willingness to discuss human rights also came after Vietnam's designation as a country particular concern and against the backdrop of Vietnam's interest in joining the WTO. In the lead up to the Prime Minister's trip, Vietnam had improved its legal framework for religion and in the months before and after the visit released 17 people who had been on the U.S. Government's list of prisoners of concern. Most were released in general amnesties.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So at the request of Secretary Rice, I led the United States delegation to Vietnam to resume the dialogue with determination and with hope. Determination that the dialogue be frank, that it be transparent and that it be results based and hope that significant progress can be made. We also went to Vietnam, Mr. Chairman, with no illusions about the human rights situation. The Government of Vietnam continues to place major restrictions on freedom of expression, association, assembly and religion. The government censors domestic media, blocks foreign radio broadcasts and Web sites and denies its people the right to form independent organizations. Vietnamese continue to be harassed and imprisoned for their peaceful expression of dissenting political or religious views.
To underscore our commitment to human rights, after the conclusion of the dialogue I traveled to Ho Chi Minh City, where I met with political and religious dissidents. Among them, Mr. Chairman, was Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, a leading democracy activist with whom I know you met during your trip last December. Dr. Que was released from prison in April of last year. He and other dissidents continue to courageously call for peaceful change and freedom for all Vietnamese.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will make some general comments now about the tenure and the thrust of the dialogue itself. In the past, the Vietnamese officials have been unwilling to engage in meaningful discussions. In fact, the dialogues rarely lasted more than 2 hours. This time they were prepared to engage us substantively. At the dialogue they emphasized what President Bush calls the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity will be key considerations as we build our bilateral relationship.
I stated a dialogue without concrete progress would not just be an empty exercise, it would be counterproductive. Concrete progress on human rights would pave the way for a successful visit by President Bush to Hanoi for the November 2006 APEC meeting and I stressed that while it serves our mutual interests to work together on shared concerns, such as stemming the spread of avian flu and HIV/AIDS, fighting terrorism and drug trafficking, human rights are inseparable from the other dimensions of our policy toward Vietnam.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My counterpart, Pham Binh Minh, Director General of the International Organizations at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was ready for a vigorous exchange, so was Vice Minister Le Van Bang, with whom I had a separate meeting and with whom, Mr. Chairman, I understand you met in December and discussed the wide range of issues.
Representatives of many other government institutions also participated. This was a good step. As a result, we were able to press a specific issue of concern with the institution that has direct responsibility for it. For example, we were able to discuss criminal code reform directly with representatives of the Ministry of Justice.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I will briefly characterize the discussions on the topics on which I took the lead: Criminal code reform, prisoners of concern, prison conditions and freedom of the press. Ambassador Hanford, who will testify later in these proceedings, took the lead on religious freedom.
The National Assembly has amended its criminal procedure code to allow more rights for defendants and set a goal of changing courtroom procedures to an adversarial model from the current investigative model. I stressed the need for Vietnam to bring its criminal code into full conformity with international standards, not least by repealing Administrative Detention Decree 31, under which political and religious dissidents have been detained for broad and ill-defined reasons without due process. The Vietnamese stated in turn that the decree is under review, that there is a chance it may be amended, but not abolished. They also stressed that no legal document need be permanent.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My interlocutor said they would welcome United States assistance in implementing criminal code reform. Vietnam does not have enough trained judges and lawyers and the legal infrastructure for long-term improvements. Working with the international NGOs, we can help Vietnam bring its criminal code and practices into conformity with international standards so that laws are not used to punish people for exercising their basic human rights.
With regard to prisoners of concern, I presented a list of names of 21 prisoners consisting of 6 Vietnamese imprisoned for political or religious reasons and 15 who are not imprisoned but are under some form of detention such as house or pagoda arrest. Vietnam claims it does not hold anyone for political or religious reasons and that the people on our list have violated national security laws.
Among the names on our list is Dr. Pham Hong Son, an individual whose case I raised repeatedly in Hanoi. He was convicted for ''espionage'' for translating an essay on democracy from a Department of State Web site. I bluntly told the Vietnamese officials that the American people will not understand why a country that wants to have better relations with us would imprison somebody for translating an article on democracy.
Three weeks prior to our arrival, Vietnam released high profile political prisoner Nguyen Khac Toan. Welcoming his release, we urged Vietnam to release all prisoners of concern before President Bush's trip to Hanoi in November. Based on information provided by Vietnamese officials during the dialogue and checked by our Embassy, I understand that of the six political activists on the list I presented, four remain in prison. Sadly, Tran Van Luong committed suicide late last year. I understand that he fell ill and while in the prison infirmary he leaped from a window to his death.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Tran Van Hoang was released from prison last June, but he is under now house arrest. There is no change in the status of the 15 detainees on the list and we have now added Tran Van Hoang to it for a total of 16 people we now know are under house arrest. Mr. Chairman, in all cases our objective is not just an accurate report of the status of prisoners, but their release and we will continue to press hard for the freedom of all remaining prisoners. With regard to prison conditions, we urged the Government of Vietnam to issue an invitation to the UN working group on arbitrary detention and to allow them full access.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, media freedom in Vietnam remains significantly limited. The government continues to prohibit any reporting that questions the role of the party, criticizes individual leaders, that promotes human rights and political pluralism. Our Vietnamese interlocutors highlighted the increase in the number of media outlets available, radio, television, the press and the Internet. We made the point, however, the issue is not the amount of available programming. The issue is the content of the programming.
I believe that the sizable domestic Internet demand, now 9 percent of Vietnam's population, represents a thirst to enter a globalized world. As the government prepares for the APEC meeting, I told Vietnamese officials that they must decide which Vietnam they will showcase to the world, an open Vietnam or a Vietnam that closes off its people from a world of ideas, information and opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, the United States and Vietnam enjoyed cooperative, productive relations in many spheres. Vietnam is a dynamic, resilient, independent country confident enough to compete in a globalized world, but it is up to the Government of Vietnam to be confident enough to bring the country's laws and practices up to international standards and to allow its people to exercise their rights of expression, association, assembly and religion.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me close, Mr. Chairman, reemphasizing what I repeatedly told the Vietnamese and the message I left with them in Hanoi and in Ho Chi Minh City. The dialogue was a good start, but if it is to continue we must see real results. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowenkron follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BARRY F. LOWENKRON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Chairman Smith, Chairman Leach, Members of both Subcommittees,
Thank you for holding this hearing on the human rights situation in Vietnam and for giving me this opportunity to report on the U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue, which was held on February 20, 2006 in Hanoi. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Section 702 of Public Law 107–671 requires the Department to submit a report on the U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue within 60 days of its conclusion. I will shortly submit a formal report to the Committee, which will reflect my testimony before you today and include the 2005 Country Report on Vietnam's human rights practices.
I also want to thank the Members of the Committee for your work on behalf of human rights and prisoners of conscience in Vietnam. Your mark-up of House Concurrent Resolution 320 calling upon the Government of Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally release Dr. Pham Hong Son and other political prisoners demonstrates your deep commitment. My Vietnamese interlocutors were well aware of the strong Congressional interest in these prisoners and in Vietnam's human rights performance as a whole. Your active concern greatly strengthens my hand during the talks.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the United States suspended the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue in 2002 due to lack of progress by the Government of Vietnam (GVN). The historic June 2005 visit by Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai to the United States, and his meeting with President Bush, raised our bilateral relationship with Vietnam to a higher plane. The meeting with the President also reinforced for the Vietnamese the importance this Administration attaches to human rights and democracy. The two leaders agreed on the importance of continuing an open and candid dialogue on issues of common concern, including human rights practices and conditions for religious believers and ethnic minorities.
We were very much aware that Vietnam's willingness to discuss these issues also came after Vietnam's designation in September 2004 as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act and against the backdrop of Vietnam's keen interest in ensuring that there is no U.S. obstacle in the way of Vietnam's joining the World Trade Organization. In the lead-up to the Prime Minister's trip, the GVN had improved its legal framework with respect to religion, and in the months before and after the visit released 17 individuals who had been on the U.S. Government's list of prisoners of concern. Most were released in general amnesties.
And so, at Secretary Rice's request, I led the U.S. Delegation to Vietnam to resume the Dialogue with determination and with hope—determination that the Dialogue be frank, transparent and results-based, and hope that significant further progress can be made. We also went to Vietnam, Mr. Chairman, with no illusions about the human rights situation and how far Vietnam has yet to go to bring its laws and practices into conformity with international standards.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Government of Vietnam continues to place major restrictions on fundamental freedoms of expression, association, assembly and religion. The government censors domestic media sources, blocks foreign radio broadcasts and websites, and denies its people the right to form independent organizations. Courageous Vietnamese continue to be pressured, harassed, detained and imprisoned for their peaceful expression of dissenting political or religious views.
To underscore the U.S. commitment to human rights, after the conclusion of the Dialogue with Vietnamese officials, I traveled to Ho Chi Minh City where I met with political and religious dissidents. Among them was Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, a leading democracy activist who was released from prison in April 2005. Dr. Que and the other dissidents with whom I met continue courageously to call for peaceful change and a future of freedom for all Vietnamese.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will now make some general comments about the tenor and thrust of the Dialogue, before going into the particulars of the discussions.
In the past, Vietnamese officials had been unwilling to engage in meaningful discussions. This time, in contrast, the Vietnamese clearly were prepared to engage us substantively. At the Dialogue, I emphasized to my Vietnamese interlocutors that the protection and promotion of what President Bush calls the ''non-negotiable demands of human dignity'' are central to our foreign policy and that these non-negotiable demands will be key considerations as we build our bilateral relationships across the globe, including our relationship with Vietnam.
I also stated that while dialogue can play an important role in increasing understanding and narrowing differences, dialogue without concrete progress would not just be an empty exercise, it would be counterproductive. By making concrete progress on human rights, the Government of Vietnam would pave the way for a successful visit by President Bush to Hanoi for the APEC meeting in November. This is a point that Vietnamese officials acknowledged repeatedly during the Dialogue. And I stressed that while it serves our mutual interests to work together on shared concerns such as stemming the spread of avian and pandemic influenza and HIV/AIDS, and fighting terrorism, drug trafficking and other international crimes, the human rights agenda is inseparable from the other dimensions of U.S. policy toward Vietnam.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The GVN agreed to discuss all of the human rights topics that we put forward, which included Criminal Code Reform, Prisoners of Concern, Prison Conditions and Freedom of the Press and the Internet—topics on which I took the lead for the U.S. delegation. We also discussed religious freedom, on which Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom John Hanford took the lead and on which he will be testifying before you later today.
My counterpart, Pham Binh Minh, Director General of the International Organizations Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was ready for a vigorous exchange, as was Vice Minister Le Van Bang, with whom I had a separate meeting. Representatives of many government institutions other than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs participated, such as the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Committee for Ethnic Affairs, the Committee for Religious Affairs, the Office of the Government, the Supreme People's Procuracy, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Culture and Information, and the Supreme People's Court. As a result, we were able to press a specific issue of concern with the government institution that has direct responsibility for that issue. For example, the United States delegation was able to share its concerns on criminal code reform directly with representatives of the Ministry of Justice.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will briefly characterize the discussions of the particular topics on which I took the lead.
With regard to Criminal Code Reform, the Vietnamese National Assembly has amended its criminal procedure code to allow more rights for defendants and set a goal of changing courtroom procedures to an ''adversarial'' model from the current ''investigative'' model. I stressed the need for the GVN to bring its criminal code into full conformity with international standards, not least by repealing Administrative Detention Decree 31/CP.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Decree 31 allows the government to detain individuals for broad and ill-defined reasons and without due process. We know of several political and religious dissidents who currently are detained under Decree 31. GVN officials stated that Decree 31 is now under review and that there is a possibility that it may be amended to better conform to international standards, but not abolished. The GVN stressed that no legal document need be permanent.
The GVN said it would welcome U.S. assistance in implementing criminal code reform. Vietnam lacks sufficient numbers of trained judges and lawyers and the legal infrastructure necessary to make long-term improvements. I believe that the U.S. Government, working with international NGOs, can help the GVN bring its criminal code and practices into conformity with international standards so that laws are not used to punish people for exercising their human rights.
With regard to Prisoners of Concern, during the Dialogue, our delegation presented to my counterpart Pham Binh Minh from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Vice Foreign Minister Le Van Bang a list of names of 21 prisoners. The list included the names of six Vietnamese imprisoned for political or religious reasons and fifteen who are not in prison but who are under some form of detention, such as house arrest. The GVN continues to claim that it does not hold anyone for political or religious reasons, and that the people on our list have been found guilty of violating national security laws.
Among the names on our prisoner list is that of prominent physician Dr. Pham Hong Son. Dr. Son was convicted by the GVN for ''espionage'' for translating an essay on democracy from a Department of State website. I bluntly told GVN officials that the American people will not understand why a country that wants to have better relations with us would imprison someone for translating an article on democracy.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Other prisoners of concern include journalist Nguyen Vu Binh, who was convicted of ''espionage'' for drafting articles on human rights, Do Van My, who is in prison for reporting on forced relocation and his support for grassroots activism in the countryside, and Phan Van Ban, a 69 year-old former police officer, who was arrested for joining an organization calling for peaceful political change.
Three weeks prior to our delegation's arrival in Hanoi, the government of Vietnam released high-profile political prisoner Nguyen Khac Toan. Welcoming his release as a step in the right direction, we urged Vietnamese officials to release all prisoners of concern before President Bush's trip to Hanoi in November for the APEC meeting.
Based on information provided by Vietnamese officials during the Dialogue and conscientiously checked by our Embassy, I understand that of the six political activists whose names are on the list I presented during the Dialogue, four currently remain in prison. Sadly, Tran Van Luong committed suicide late last year. I understand that he fell ill and while in the prison infirmary leaped from a window to his death. Tran Van Hoang was released from prison in June 2005, but was put under house arrest following his release. There has been no change in the status of the fifteen detainees on the list I presented, and we have now added Tran Van Hoang to it, for a total of sixteen people now under house arrest.
Mr. Chairman, in all cases, our objective is not just an accurate report on the status of the prisoners but their release, and we will continue to press hard for the freedom of all remaining prisoners of concern in Vietnam.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With regard to Prison Conditions, we urged the GVN to issue an invitation to the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and allow them full access in accordance with their mandate. The last visit to Vietnam by the UN Working Group was in 1994.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, Media Freedom in Vietnam remains significantly limited. The government continues to prohibit any reporting that questions the role of the Party, criticizes individual leaders or promotes human rights and political pluralism. Nevertheless, journalists continue to test the limits by reporting on corrupt members of the Communist Party.
Our Vietnamese interlocutors highlighted the increase in the number of media outlets available via radio, television, the press and the Internet. We made the point, however, that while the growing number of media outlets is a positive development, the issue is not the amount of available programming but the content of the programming.
Currently, there are 8 million Internet users in the country, representing nearly 9 percent of the population. However, Vietnam blocks access to websites it considers politically and morally ''dangerous,'' including sites of foreign news organizations and human rights organizations. Cyber café owners must register their customers' personal information with the government. To justify these restrictions, Vietnamese officials decried the evils of the Internet and argued that children could be exposed to pornography, violence and gambling if sites were not controlled.
I believe that the sizeable Vietnamese domestic Internet demand represents a thirst to enter a globalized world. As the Government prepares for the November APEC meeting, I told Vietnamese officials that they must decide which Vietnam they will showcase to the international community: an open Vietnam, or a Vietnam that closes off its people from a world of ideas, information and opportunity.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, the United States and Vietnam enjoy cooperative, productive relations in many spheres. We found Vietnam to be a dynamic, resilient, independent country confident enough to compete in a globalized world. Now, it is up to the Government of Vietnam to be confident enough to bring the country's laws and practices into conformity with international human rights standards and allow the Vietnamese people to exercise their fundamental freedoms of expression, association, assembly and religion.
Mr. Chairman, we will continue to press the Vietnamese government for tangible progress on all the areas covered by the Dialogue. Shortly after my return to the United States, Vice Minister Le Van Bang came in for a follow-up meeting, and I reviewed with him all the issues we discussed during the Dialogue. I reiterated to the Vice Minister what I had said to him and his colleagues in Hanoi, that the United States is prepared to help Vietnam advance its reform efforts, and to that end, that I am willing to meet here at any time with Vietnamese officials and also to consider a return trip to Vietnam.
Let me close, Mr. Chairman, by emphasizing to you what I repeatedly stressed to our Vietnamese interlocutors: The Dialogue was a good start, but if it is to continue, we must see real results.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Secretary, thank you very, very much for that eloquent statement. Chairman Leach, did you want to make any opening comments?
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LEACH. I have no opening statements.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. Ambassador Hanford.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN V. HANFORD III, AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ambassador HANFORD. Chairman Smith and Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to be here today and I want to begin by thanking you for holding this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to discuss the United States/Vietnam human rights dialogue and our recent work to promote religious freedom in Vietnam. It has been my great pleasure to work with this Committee over the past several years and I am grateful for the Committee's commitment to religious freedom and for the support that you give our efforts and for the advocacy that each of you do in your own right. May I ask that my entire statement be submitted into the record?
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection, so ordered.
Ambassador HANFORD. Religious freedom in Vietnam has been a high priority for me since I started at the State Department. I have spent more time in Vietnam working for religious freedom than in any other country. The first trip I made as Ambassador-at-Large was to Vietnam and I visited Hanoi four times to engage Vietnamese officials on religious freedom abuses.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Beginning in 2002, I have held a series of intense discussions with Vietnamese officials both here and in Vietnam. We engaged in sustained and vigorous diplomacy and carefully described to Vietnamese officials the religious freedom violations that place them at the threshold of designation as a country of particular concern or CPC.
We work hard as we did with Vietnam to negotiate improvements with countries that are on the verge of such a designation and we make every effort to use this process in a way that offers the greatest potential to bring about positive change. Ultimately, however, the Government of Vietnam failed to respond to our diplomatic overtures and in 2004 the Secretary designated Vietnam a CPC.
The sorts of problems which led us to this designation included pressures on tens of thousands of people to renounce their faith, continued restrictions on religious denominations and clergy, incredible accounts of harassment of religious believers. In addition, beginning in 2001 there were aggressive efforts on the part of officials to crack down on religious practice in the Central Highlands and elsewhere that resulted in the closure of hundreds of churches. We are also aware of dozens of persons imprisoned or under a detention for religious reasons.
Following Vietnam's designation, we intensified diplomatic engagement in an effort to work with the Government of Vietnam to secure an agreement on key religious freedom issues. This began a vigorous period of negotiations that resulted on May 5, 2005, with a formal exchange of letters with the Government of Vietnam that addresses these and other important religious freedom concerns. This agreement was the first of its kind ever attempted, negotiated or signed under the International Religious Freedom Act.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Under the terms of the exchange of letters, the Government of Vietnam has agreed to address a number of the serious issues that we had raised with them and that led to them being designated. These included the need to reopen house churches and meeting places that had been previously closed, to work with us on the release of remaining prisoners and to hold officials accountable for violating the legal framework on religion. The Government of Vietnam also agreed to ensure that local officials fully implement the new legal framework on religion with the understanding that while this new framework holds promise for religious freedom, it means nothing if there is no local implementation.
I am pleased today to report that we are encouraged by a number of significant improvements in religious freedom in Vietnam which have occurred over the past year. Religious leaders in general report that they are allowed more freedom to participate in religious activities, that there is greater acceptance of various types of religious activities including worship and house churches and that they experienced fewer difficulties from Vietnamese authorities. They also confirmed Vietnamese statements that national officials have convoked meetings of provincial officials to explain the new more open regulations and the need to implement them fully.
Perhaps the most significant improvement is the promulgation of the new legal framework. Two of the most important documents, Decree 22 which represents the implementation regulations of the new ordinance on belief and religion and the Prime Minister's Instructions on Protestantism, were brought forward shortly before we agreed on the exchange of letters. This new legal framework reflects many of the issues that we have been working on with the Vietnamese over the previous 3 1/2 years and represents meaningful improvements over previous policy. These include banning forced renunciations, granting churches protections from harassment by allowing them to register and defining conditions that would clarify land use rights for registered and recognized churches.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The new legal framework also provides the possibility that previously unrecognized churches and denominations may be recognized in the future. While these new laws are far from perfect, the Government of Vietnam deserves real credit for significant improvements on the status of religious freedom, which this new legal framework makes possible if in fact it is fully and properly implemented.
We have also worked very closely with the Vietnamese on the release of religious prisoners and have met with notable success. One such case that you mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, is that of Father Ly. On my first trip to Vietnam, I appealed on Father Ly's behalf and he received a reduced sentence from 15 to 10 years, which was later reduced to 5 years until finally in 2005 he was released as part of a Presidential amnesty.
Another important case was that of Baptist Pastor Than Van Truong. Pastor Truong had been detained without charge and committed to a mental asylum in July 2004. In September of this last year, he too was released. While a handful of religious prisoners and persons subject to restrictions remain, we must acknowledge that we have come a long way in working with the Vietnamese Government toward addressing the religious prisoner issue.
Now turning to my most recent trip, last month I was pleased to participate with Assistant Secretary Lowenkron and the bilateral United States/Vietnam human rights dialogue in Hanoi. In addition to the formal human rights dialogue, I held a series of additional talks with the Government of Vietnam specifically on religious freedom issues and on Vietnam's CPC status. During the human rights dialogue and subsequent meetings, we clearly reiterated the message that removal from the CPC list will be possible only when Vietnam has fulfilled its commitments under the May 5 exchange of letters, including consistent and nationwide implementation of its new legal framework.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While we are encouraged by the progress we have seen in Vietnam, we remain concerned about certain continuing problems. While the government is allowing greater freedom for some religious groups to have a greater role in choosing their own leadership, some restrictions on the hierarchies and clergy of religious groups remain in place. We are also troubled by continual reports that local officials have repressed some unregistered Protestant believers by forcing church gatherings to cease and closing house churches. In other cases, some groups have applied for registration but are facing delays without adequate explanation.
In Gialai province in the Central Highlands, in December of this last year, over 200 meeting places and churches were officially registered under the new legal framework effectively legalizing operations for all of the Souther Evangelical Church of Vietnam 75,000 believers in that province. We were very encouraged by this development because it reflects a good faith effort in this part of the country to allow a very meaningful degree of religious freedom.
However, Vietnam's legal framework is not yet consistently enforced throughout the country and as a result, the scope of religious freedom has expanded in some communities much faster than in others. For example, in the Northwest Highlands where there has been a growth of the Protestant community to over 130,000 believers, we have seen little improvement.
We are also concerned that reports that some local officials in this region have pressured ethnic minority Protestants to renounce their religious beliefs. Furthermore, registration and recognition of churches in the Central Highlands province of Daklak and elsewhere have proceeded very slowly and could leave these congregations vulnerable to future abuses and equally important calls for concern is the government's unwillingness to recognize the United Buddhist Church of Vietnam, a Mennonite group and some divisions of the Hoa Hao Buddhist sect.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the human rights dialogue in our subsequent meetings and on a regular basis in both Hanoi and Washington, our message to the Government of Vietnam is that we are closely monitoring developments, seeking additional information on problem areas and will be continuing to press for progress. In both the human rights dialogue and in my private meetings with Vietnamese officials, we were assured that the government will be turning its attention to our remaining areas of concern.
Vietnamese officials have also promised to provide precise information about church registrations, recognitions and other forms of assistance, such as the building of churches, facilitation of seminaries and land grants and indeed since my recent trip to Hanoi, the Vietnamese Government has provided the first of what we hope will be continuing cooperative reports on the state of religious freedom in Vietnam.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I offer my sincere thanks to each of you for your commitment to working toward full freedom of religion in Vietnam and please know of my resolve to continue working with you toward this vital goal.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanford follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN V. HANFORD III, AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE, OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Chairman Smith, Chairman Leach, and Members of the Subcommittees: It is an honor to be here today and I want to begin by thanking you for holding this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to discuss the U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue and our recent work to promote religious freedom in Vietnam.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It has been my great pleasure to work with this Committee over the past several years, and I am very grateful for the Committee's commitment to religious freedom, for the support you give to our efforts, and to the advocacy that each of you do in your own right.
CPC DESIGNATION AND NEGOTIATIONS
Religious freedom in Vietnam has been a high priority for me since I started at the State Department. I have spent more time in Vietnam working for religious freedom than in any other country. The first trip I made as Ambassador at Large was to Vietnam, and I have visited Hanoi four times to engage Vietnamese officials on religious freedom abuses.
Beginning in 2002, I held a series of intense discussions with Vietnamese officials both here and in Vietnam. We engaged in sustained and vigorous diplomacy, and carefully described to Vietnamese officials the religious freedom violations that placed them at the threshold of designation as ''Country of Particular Concern,'' or CPC. The International Religious Freedom Act provides that countries should be designated CPCs when their government has engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom. We try to work hard, as we did with Vietnam, to negotiate improvements with countries that are on the verge of such a designation, but if the time comes that we must designate them a CPC, we make every effort to use it in a way that offers the greatest potential to bring about positive change. We provided the Government of Vietnam with specific steps they could take to improve religious freedom and avoid designation. Ultimately, however, the Government of Vietnam failed to respond to our diplomatic overtures, and in 2004, the Secretary designated Vietnam a CPC.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The sorts of problems which led us to this designation included: pressures on tens of thousands of people to renounce their faith; continued restrictions on religious denominations and clergy and credible accounts of harassment of religious believers. In addition, beginning in 2001 there were aggressive efforts on the part of Vietnamese officials to crack down on religious practice in the Central Highlands that resulted in the closure of hundreds of churches. We were also aware of dozens of persons in prison or under detention for religious reasons.
Following Vietnam's designation, we intensified diplomatic engagement in an effort to work with the Government of Vietnam to secure an agreement on key religious freedom issues. This began a vigorous period of negotiations that resulted on May 5, 2005, with a formal exchange of letters with the Government of Vietnam that addresses these and other important religious freedom concerns. This agreement was the first of its kind ever attempted, negotiated or signed under the International Religious Freedom Act, which states that reaching such an agreement is to be the primary objective when a country has been designated as a CPC.
Under the terms of the exchange of letters, the Government of Vietnam has agreed to address a number of the serious issues we had raised with them and that led to their being placed on the CPC list. These included the need to re-open house churches and meeting places that had been previously closed, work with us on the release of the remaining religious prisoners and hold officials accountable for violating the legal framework on religion. The government of Vietnam also agreed to ensure that local officials fully implement the new legal framework on religion with the understanding that while this new framework holds promise for religious freedom, it means nothing if there is no local implementation. Since the conclusion of the agreement, we have continued our diplomatic efforts to press the Government of Vietnam to fully honor its commitments.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
POSITIVE DEVELOPMENTS
We are encouraged by a number of significant improvements in religious freedom in Vietnam over the past year. Religious leaders in general report that they are allowed more freedom to participate in religious activities, that there is greater acceptance of various types of religious activities, including worship in house churches, and that they experience fewer difficulties from Vietnamese authorities. They also confirm Vietnamese statements that national officials have convoked meetings of provincial officials to explain the new, more open regulations and the need to implement them fully.
Perhaps the most significant improvement is the promulgation of a new legal framework. Two of the most significant documents, ''Decree 22'', which represents the Implementation Regulations of the New ''Ordinance on Belief and Religion,'' and ''The Prime Minister's Instruction on Protestantism,'' were brought forward shortly before we negotiated the exchange of letters. This new legal framework reflects many of the issues we had been working on with the Vietnamese over the previous three and a half years and represents significant improvement over previous policy. These include: banning forced renunciations, granting churches protections from harassment by allowing them to register, and defining conditions that would clarify land use rights for registered and recognized churches. The legal framework also provides the possibility that previously unrecognized churches and denominations may be recognized in the future. While the new legal framework is far from perfect, the Government of Vietnam deserves real credit for significant improvements on the status of religious freedom which this new legal framework makes possible if, in fact, it is properly implemented.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the national and provincial level, there is increasing awareness of the international importance of religious freedom and its link to social and economic progress. The well-established Catholic Church is expanding its outreach and charitable work and gaining the trust of the Vietnamese officials. In November 2005, 57 new Catholic priests were publicly ordained in a Hanoi service attended by thousands. In rural provinces in the Central Highlands, we hear positive reports of impending recognition of new Protestant churches, registration of religious meeting points (or ''house churches''), and training programs for new pastors.
We have also worked very closely with the Vietnamese on the release of religious prisoners and have met with notable success. One such case is that of Father Ly, a Catholic priest who was serving 13 years for ''harming national unity'' and two years for violating the terms of a previous administrative probation order because of his outspokenness on religious freedom. We appealed to the Vietnamese on Father Ly's behalf, first receiving a reduced sentence of 10 years, which was later reduced to five years, until finally in 2005 he was released as part of a Presidential amnesty in February 2005. Another important case was that of Baptist Pastor Than Van Truong. Pastor Truong had been detained without charge and committed to a mental asylum in July 2004. In September 2005 he too was amnestied. While a handful of religious prisoners and persons subject to restrictions remain, we must acknowledge that we have come a long way in working with the Vietnamese government towards addressing the religious prisoner issue.
HUMAN RIGHTS DIALOGUE
Now, turning to my most recent trip, last month, I was pleased to participate with Assistant Secretary Lowenkron in the bilateral US-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue in Hanoi. In addition to the formal Human Rights Dialogue, I held a series of additional talks with the Government on Vietnam specifically on religious freedom issues and on Vietnam's CPC status. During the Human Rights Dialogue, and at the subsequent CPC status talks, we clearly reiterated the message that removal from the CPC list will be possible when Vietnam has fulfilled its commitments under the May 5 exchange of letters, including consistent and nationwide implementation of its new legal framework.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While we are encouraged by the progress we have seen in Vietnam, we remain concerned about certain continuing problems. While the government is allowing greater freedom for some religious groups to have a greater role in choosing their own leadership, some restrictions on the hierarchies and clergy of religious groups remain in place. We are also troubled by continued reports that local officials have repressed some unregistered Protestant believers by forcing church gatherings to cease and closing house churches. In other cases, some groups that have applied for registration are facing delays without adequate explanation.
In Gia Lai province, in December 2005, over two hundred ''meeting points'' were officially registered under the new legal framework, effectively legalizing operations for all of the Southern Evangelical Church of Vietnam's 75,000 believers in the province. We are very encouraged by this development because it reflects a good faith effort in this part of the country to allow a very meaningful degree of religious freedom. However, Vietnam's legal framework is not yet consistently enforced throughout the country and, as a result, the scope of religious freedom has expanded in some communities faster than in others.
Specifically, in the remote Northwest Highlands, where there has been growth of the Protestant community to over 130,000 believers, we have seen little improvement. Some church leaders remain mistrustful of authorities and reluctant to step forward to assert their new rights. We are also concerned about reports that some local officials in this region have pressured ethnic minority Protestants to renounce their religious beliefs. Furthermore, registration and recognition of churches in the Central Highlands province of Dak Lak have proceeded very slowly and could leave these congregations vulnerable to future abuses. For example, though we are pleased to note that 2005 Christmas celebrations in the Central Highlands were allowed to proceed with relatively little interference, in Dak Lak the government failed to register meeting houses, and only ''facilitated'' the celebrations. An equally important cause for concern is the government's unwillingness to recognize the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, a Mennonite group, and some divisions of the Hoa Hao Buddhist sect.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
VIETNAM PLEDGES PROGRESS
At the Human Rights Dialogue, in our subsequent meetings and on a regular basis in both Hanoi and Washington, our message to the Government of Vietnam is that we are closely monitoring developments, and seeking additional information on problem areas. Vietnamese officials, in turn, say that they are committed to continuing to improve religious freedom. In our recent meetings in Hanoi, they acknowledged that, although progress has been made in the Central Highlands, officials in the Northwest Highlands have been slow to implement the new religious framework and register churches. In both the Human Rights Dialogue and my private meetings with Vietnamese officials, we were assured that the government will be turning its attention to our remaining areas of concern. Vietnamese officials have also promised to provide precise information about church registrations, recognitions, and other forms of assistance—such as the building of churches, facilitation of seminaries and land grants. And, indeed, since my recent trip to Hanoi, the Vietnamese government has provided the first of what we hope will be continuing cooperative reports on the state of religious freedom in Vietnam.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I offer my sincere thanks to each of you for your commitment to working for full freedom of religion in Vietnam and please know of my commitment to continue to work with you toward that important goal. I would be pleased to take any questions you may have.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Hanford, thank you very much for that extensive testimony and for your good work in Vietnam and elsewhere in the world. Deputy Assistant Secretary Eric John, please proceed.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERIC G. JOHN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. JOHN. Chairman Smith, Chairman Leach, thank you very much for holding these hearings and inviting me today to participate on this panel. I especially appreciate the opportunity to appear with Assistant Secretary Lowenkron and Ambassador Hanford because our offices do have a very integrated approach in our policy on Vietnam and I think our appearance here together as a single panel does illustrate the nature of this team approach on our policy on Vietnam. I would also like to ask that my entire testimony be submitted to the official record for this meeting.
This hearing is timely not only because of the resumption of our bilateral human rights dialogue, but also because of a convergence of events and issues that have a potential to make 2006 a watershed year for United States/Vietnam relations. Chairman Smith, I first would like to thank you for your longstanding interest in Vietnam. Your many visits to Vietnam and your forceful voice on human rights and advocacy for religious freedom have helped bring positive change in Vietnam.
I was honored to assist in one of your visits from the Vietnam end when I was at the Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City from 1999 to 2001 and I remember how hard all of us worked to get you the appointments that you wanted to meet with dissidents at that time and I am sorry to say we were not successful then, but you have been very persistent over the years, as have many of your colleagues in pushing this issue and it is very much appreciated.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Vietnam is in the midst now of an extraordinary transformation from an inward looking command economy with little space for personal initiative to a more open society with a vibrant free market economy that seeks to engage with the wider world. On March 24 through 26 we conducted a round of WTO accession negotiations with Vietnam. Although we are in the process of assessing the Vietnamese offers and consulting with industry, we are clearly approaching an agreement that will open markets and improve Vietnam's trading rules.
In addition to the human rights dialogue, we are now frankly discussing a broad range of regional issues because we recognize that both Vietnam and the United States have increasingly common interests. For example, Vietnam favors a strong United States role in Southeast Asia and in regional organizations throughout Asia such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and they are a committed advocate for us in negotiating the U.S./ASEAN enhanced partnership for example.
We have regular United States Naval ship visits to Vietnamese ports and we enjoy good cooperation with the Vietnamese Government on accounting for American servicemen who have lost their lives in the Vietnam conflict. The United States will provide Vietnam with $34 million in fiscal year 2006 assistance under the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief to support prevention, care and treatment programs to combat HIV/AIDS.
Since 2004, the United States has committed $24 million to improve Vietnam's basic veterinary and health systems to contain avian influenza where 50 million poultry have been culled and 42 human deaths recorded. We support Vietnam's counterterrorism capacity with police training and through military exchanges. We would like to expand bilateral cooperation to combat illegal narcotics. We support antitrafficking programs at the borders of China and Cambodia. We provide assistance and humanitarian demining, clearance of unexploded ordnance and secure trade.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Through the support for trade acceleration or STAR program implemented by USAID, we promote trade and customs reform in Vietnam's legal system and help the country to update its civil and commercial laws and implement its obligations under the United States/Vietnam bilateral trade agreements. This in turn, the STAR program, is opening the markets for more United States goods to enter Vietnam.
We have a small international military education training or IMET program in which we provide English language training, a necessary skill for Vietnamese officers to participate in future training assignments. Our Fulbright program with Vietnam, including the economic teaching program in Ho Chi Minh City funded at $6.5 million, is one of the largest in the world.
In 2006, Congress appropriated $2 million in economic support funds for individuals and communities in Vietnam's Central Highlands. We have reported to Congress already on our initial planning for the use of these funds and we expect to make final decisions in the near future.
As Assistant Secretary Lowenkron and Ambassador Hanford laid out in detail, there remains serious deficiencies in Vietnam with respect to human rights and religious and political freedoms. We are addressing these deficiencies head-on in the human rights dialogue, in our efforts and dialogue on religious freedom, as well as in our daily diplomatic conversations with Vietnam both in Vietnam and here in Washington.
In short, I see 2006 as a watershed year for our bilateral relationship. We are working toward the successful conclusion of our bilateral WTO negotiations with Vietnam and all of us look forward to working with Congress when it takes up the issue of permanent normal trade relations for Vietnam. We also will continue to press for improvements in the area of religious freedom and human rights.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The culmination of our efforts to advance the bilateral relationship in 2006 will be President Bush's visit to Hanoi for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders meeting in November and I am confident moreover that beyond 2006 both Vietnam and the United States are going to be pushing forward again to enhance our bilateral relationship and improve the relations between our two countries.
I would like to thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. John follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ERIC G. JOHN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Thank you for inviting me to appear before the Subcommittees today.
This hearing is timely not only because of the resumption of our bilateral Human Rights Dialogue, but also because a convergence of events and issues has the potential to make 2006 a watershed year for U.S.-Vietnam relations.
Mr. Chairman, before I delve further into this topic, I would like to thank you for your long-standing interest in Vietnam. Your many visits to Vietnam and your forceful voice on human rights and advocacy for religious freedom have helped bring positive change in Vietnam.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EXTRAORDINARY TRANSFORMATION
In previous appearances before this Subcommittee I have described Southeast Asia as a dynamic and exciting region. There is no more apt way to describe the current situation in Vietnam. It is in the midst of an extraordinary transformation from an impoverished, inward-looking command economy with little space for personal initiative to a more open society with a vibrant, free market economy that seeks to engage with the wider world.
I recall that when I first went to Vietnam in 1989 to interview applicants for the Orderly Departure Program, Vietnam consciously tried to block out the outside world. A uniformed official gathered all the discarded newspapers from incoming airplanes and Vietnamese customs confiscated any papers visitors tried to bring in. Now, the situation is quite different. Like many other foreign goods and services, international newspapers are widely available and sold in hotel lobbies and Vietnam is a destination for hundreds of thousands of tourists, many of them Americans.
Travel between Vietnam and the United States has grown at a rapid rate. This reflects not only tourist and business travel and Vietnamese-Americans who return to Vietnam to invest, trade, visit relatives, or marry, but also increasing numbers of Vietnamese who visit the U.S. Issuance of U.S. student and training visas reached a new high of 3,448 in 2005, which is an increase of 124% since 2001. Business and tourist visas rose sharply last year to 21,765, an increase of 55% since 2001.
In the mid-1980s, Vietnam recognized the failure of doctrinaire Marxist economics and abandoned it in favor of a policy of ''doi moi,'' or renovation. Its goal was to accelerate economic development. The government saw the need to integrate into the world economy; to attract foreign trade, investment, and technology; and to reach out to the United States and others.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since then, we have developed a relationship with Vietnam that serves both countries' interests. Over time, Vietnam has made some progress on human rights and allowed more personal freedoms because it recognized it could not grow its economy without releasing the dynamism of its population and increasing interaction with the international community. With a growth rate of 8 percent, it is now one of the world's fastest growing economies. Their eagerness to study English, business, and high-tech fields creates an enormous opportunity for us to work with the Vietnamese people constructively.
The entry into force of the U.S-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) in December 2001 has led to greatly expanded trade—from about $1.5 billion in two-way trade in 2001 to $7.8 billion in 2005—and heightened cooperation on economic reform.
U.S. businesses have taken advantage of Vietnam's new openness by investing a total of $730 million from 1998 to 2005. Most recently, Intel announced plans to invest $300 million in Vietnam to package and test microchips that power personal computers and mobile phones. The combined cumulative U.S. direct investment and investment from U.S. third-country subsidiaries has made us the largest foreign investor in Vietnam.
On March 24–26, we conducted a round of WTO accession negotiations in Geneva with representatives of the Vietnamese government. Although the U.S. Government is in the process of assessing the Vietnamese offers and consulting with industry, we are clearly approaching an agreement that will open markets, improve Vie