 |
| Mass meeting: Churches are
full as U.S. debates sanctions over religious
persecution. |
| Photo by Thomas Jandl |
 |
| Tet celebrations: A prosperous
New Year with a little help from above. |
| Photo by Thomas Jandl |
 |
| Hmong and Kinh: Vietnam counts
54 ethnic groups, the smallest counting less
than 1,000 members. |
| Photo by Thomas Jandl |
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.
|
