Socialist Republic of Vietnam

By Thomas Jandl, The Washington Times, May 29, 2003

(http://www.internationalreports.net/asiapacific/vietnam/2003/human.html)


The annual process of congressional debate over legislation tying human rights in Vietnam to other, unrelated issues is not a strategy that will lead to sustainable progress, says the vice chairwoman of the National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Ton Nu Thi Ninh. “The emphasis should be on promotion of progress, rather than getting this or that individual case resolved in exactly such or such way.”

She heads a delegation with the goal of strengthening the relationship between the U.S. and Vietnamese law-making bodies, the Congress and the National Assembly – a relationship she describes as advancing, but still fragile.

Ninh’s assessment is candid, she acknowledges differences in attitudes over questions of human rights and religious freedom and insists Vietnam has no problem discussing and engaging with the United States over them. But she would want to see a more productive approach than a case-by-case list of grievances.

Speaking in perfect English, she recognizes the deep meaning the issue of human rights has in American society: “Human rights is an important priority in the United States, we know that, and not only vis-à-vis Vietnam. … We do not object to talking about it, including the human rights situation in Vietnam.”

But there are expectations in the United States that progress on human rights means the liberation of one individual, or the reduction of one sentence. In some cases, countries yield to U.S. pressure to get aid or favorable treatment. But in Ninh’s opinion, that is not a long-term approach that solves the disagreement, as it is not designed to change the mind of people, but instead resolves an occasional individual issue as a matter of expediency.

“The improvement of the human rights situation in a society rests with the people in that society.” It would be useful to have expert visits that would advise lawmakers on international standards so that these can be incorporated into domestic legislation. Even if this process takes longer, it is more sustainable, as it appeals to people’s understanding of the problem, she says.

She admits that Vietnam has not been forthcoming enough with access to and information on the situation in the Central Highlands, where land-use issues have caused problems which then have led to reports about human rights abuses, including restriction of religious freedoms of the mostly Christian minority groups in that region. The minorities in the Central Highlands have traditionally had an uneasy relationship with the Vietnamese government and fought alongside the French colonial power and later the U.S.-supported regime in South Vietnam against central rule from Hanoi.

“I recognize we need to provide more information,” Ninh says. She says that she will report to the authorities her belief that it is in Vietnam’s interest to allow as much access and provide as much information as possible.

It would seem there could be a bias

But in Vietnam, there are those who feel that providing access and information is not good enough to overcome institutional bias in the U.S. political process. Ninh conveys her experience with a group of Americans who traveled to Vietnam to look into the issue of religious freedom.

Ninh smiles when she says that the report said that ‘it would seem people in cities are allowed to practice their religion.’ “Why would they say ‘it would seem’ when they could see it for themselves? Even those positive things they could see for themselves they couldn’t write about as it was,” Ninh says.

And Ninh’s group, which met with about a dozen members of Congress, was unable to get a meeting with Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., the sponsor and key supporter of the Human Rights Bill that is making its way through Congress right now.

Aside from Ninh, the delegation includes four more members of the National Assembly, one of whom is also the secretary general of the Vietnam Veterans Association, a foreign affairs staffer at the National Assembly and an expert from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Trade and human rights

Most members of Congress are in favor of improved commercial relations, as the Bilateral Trade Agreement approval has shown, Ninh says. “But human rights is a priority in American society, and there are some persons in the Congress to whom it is the priority, and who believe that as soon as there is a problem somewhere, a piece of legislation is needed.

“From our point of view, it is the linkage between the two [trade and human rights] we cannot accept. If there is a conditionality as suggested in the [Vietnam Human Rights] Bill, I think it does not fit the trend of the time. It’s the Cold War approach.”

The Vietnamese, she insists, don’t like to be pressured. It would be much better to make friends first, and discuss problems among friends.

Vietnam, so Ninh, is on track with World Trade Organization (WTO) accession, scheduled for 2005. The United States’ official policy is to assist Vietnam in WTO accession, although some officials estimate that the realistic date is more likely to be around 2007.

If Vietnam joins WTO, the annual ritual of discussing trade sanctions for human rights violations would automatically end. Under WTO, free trade provisions are removed from the bilateral level and internationalized. Broad U.S. support for China’s WTO entry would indicate that the group of U.S. lawmakers that wants to link trade and human rights does not have the clout to stop WTO accession of countries on their hit list.

Politics of human rights

The difficulties can be traced back to a small minority of die-hards from the old South Vietnamese regime, says Ninh. She mentions a conversation with U.S. officials in which she was told that some overseas Vietnamese group suggested that there is no need for diplomatic relations between the United States and Vietnam.

While the second generation of Vietnamese-Americans return to Vietnam in great numbers, searching for their roots or economic opportunity – and often the two are linked, as understanding the Vietnamese culture ad language are big pluses in doing business in the country – the older generation still has hard feelings.

These feelings have their origins in the traumatic events of having to give up their homeland after it turned out they had been on the losing side in the war. But Ninh points out that the human rights agenda is really just a last-resort argument for them, when what they really reproach Hanoi is being communist – and having won the war.

The Vietnamese who came right after the war were not proponents of human rights under the South Vietnamese regime, says Ninh. “I lived there, and it certainly was not paradise.”

But they hold considerable political influence in a number of congressional districts, from where a lot of the pressure against Hanoi is reaching Congress.

As Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., says: “I don’t have a big Vietnamese community in my district, not many who express bitterness over the past. So for me it is easier to look into the future.”

With little constructive past to speak of, the future is all the United States and Vietnam have to look to.