[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WILL PRESIDENT OBAMA PRIORITIZE THE
RELEASE OF PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE
IN VIETNAM?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 10, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-209
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-098PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
DANIEL DONOVAN, New York
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina KAREN BASS, California
CURT CLAWSON, Florida DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee AMI BERA, California
DANIEL DONOVAN, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESS
Ms. Vu Minh Khanh (wife of Vietnamese prisoner of conscience
Nguyen Van Dai)................................................ 5
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Ms. Vu Minh Khanh: Prepared statement............................ 8
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 18
Hearing minutes.................................................. 19
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International
Organizations:
Ms. Vu Minh Khan's please for her husband from 2007............ 20
Statement from the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California........................ 22
Statement from the Honorable Alan S. Lowenthal, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California...... 24
WILL PRESIDENT OBAMA PRIORITIZE THE
RELEASE OF PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE
IN VIETNAM?
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:01 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The hearing will come to order, and good
afternoon to everyone.
Among the potential partners in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, or TPP, Vietnam is the only country that bans
independent religious groups, the only country considered one
of the world's worst violators in Internet freedom. Vietnam
harbors severe child labor and forced child labor violators and
regularly jails and tortures those who speak out for human
rights, political inclusion, or the right to practice their
religion. There are today over 100 prisoners of conscience in
Vietnam.
Nguyen Van Dai spent 4 years in jail and 4 additional years
under house arrest for defending religious freedom and calling
for greater democratization in Vietnamese society. He was
detained again and brutally beaten last December for continuing
his work. His arbitrary detention undercuts any claim that the
current Vietnamese leadership can become a trusted U.S.
partner.
Prior to his arrest, I had the privilege of meeting with
him in Hanoi at his law office at 10 Doan Tran Nghiep Street in
December 2005. I was deeply impressed with his passion for
truth, his defense of universally recognized human rights, his
faith, his extraordinary courage, and his deep and abiding love
for Vietnam. He is truly a patriot.
Nguyen Van Dai's wife, Vu Minh Khanh, is with us today to
speak on his behalf and for the other prisoners of conscience
in Vietnam. Her testimony is especially timely because
President Obama will travel to Vietnam at the end of this
month. A steady stream of State Department officials are going
to Vietnam prior to the trip. In fact, the Assistant Secretary
of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Tom Malinowski
is in Vietnam today.
The administration should not try to whitewash Vietnam's
record prior to the President's trip, but must make absolutely
clear and unequivocal statements in support of democracy and
free speech advocates, disfavored religious and ethnic minority
groups, and human rights defenders.
The unconditional release of Nguyen Van Dai and other
prisoners of conscience should be a precondition of the
President's visit. However, if the President goes without any
conditionality, I appeal, this subcommittee appeals, to the
President to demand the immediate and unconditional freedom and
release of Nguyen Van Dai and the others.
I also encourage the President to meet with those in
Vietnam who share our interests in democracy and human rights
in Vietnam. Doing so will send a clear message about U.S.
interests to the vast majority of Vietnamese, some 66 percent
who were born after the Vietnam War ended.
The administration should also make clear to the Communist
leaders in Hanoi that the further expansion of trade and
security partnerships, the lifting of the arms embargo is
unacceptable until there are significant, verifiable, and
irreversible improvements in human rights in Vietnam.
Unfortunately, for the past 7-plus years, the administration
has failed to deliver such messages to victims of abuse
anywhere. No tough message was delivered in Cuba, for example,
despite an escalation of arrests and abuse.
The administration seems eager to proceed with lucrative
trade and to lift the ban on lethal arms sales to Vietnam
without imposing any real conditions. That would be a colossal
mistake. The administration surely will justify extending these
generous benefits by arguing that lifting the trade barriers
and expanding diplomatic engagement with Vietnam will bring
about human rights and other positive advances. Such arguments
have long been discredited, however. In China, for example, or
more recently in Bahrain, and there is evidence such arguments
failed miserably in Vietnam as well.
In 2007, after the United States lifted its longstanding
objection to Vietnam's membership in the World Trade
Organization, Hanoi responded by launching the first of three
waves of arrests that jailed more than 100 dissidents and
introduced sweeping new laws restricting freedom of
association, assembly, and the Internet. In short, Vietnam's
WTO membership allowed the Communist government free license to
jail, torture, and abuse. The pressure was off. Why would they
not do so again?
The Communist leadership in Hanoi will take our benefits,
our trade benefits, our security commitments, and continue
repressing those seeking political reform and universal
freedoms. The business of the Communist party is staying in
power and repressing those who may challenge their power. They
will not embrace human rights improvements or the rule of law,
unless it is a condition of better relations with the United
States.
Vietnam needs the U.S. markets and security commitments
much more than the United States needs Vietnam's markets and
security cooperation. The administration should demand
additional protections for human rights, Internet freedom, and
the rule of law as a condition of U.S. assistance. Not doing so
is shortsighted, misguided, and fails to achieve long-term U.S.
interests, and it throws the victims under the bus.
One way to send an important message about U.S. policy
priorities is to pass the Vietnam Human Rights Act, H.R. 2140,
which I have reintroduced in this Congress and is now waiting
further action in the House and Senate. I would note
parenthetically that past iterations of the Vietnam Human
Rights Act that I have introduced in previous Congresses have
passed the House four times, only to be ignored in the Senate.
The bill stipulates that the United States cannot increase
nonhumanitarian assistance to Vietnam until the President
certifies that the Government of Vietnam has made substantial
progress in establishing human rights protections. The American
people should not have to subsidize torture or underwrite the
jailing of journalists, religious leaders, labor activists, or
advocates of democracy, or Internet freedom.
The bipartisan Vietnam Human Rights Act will restore the
right priorities to U.S. policy toward Vietnam. The Communist
party is not Vietnam's future. That future lies with Nguyen Van
Dai and many other advocates of political reform and human
rights who seek our freedoms more than our trade. U.S. policy
must send the unmistakable message to the Government of Vietnam
that human rights improvements are fundamental to better
relations, critically linked to our mutual economic and
security interests, and will not, I say again, will not be
ignored or be bargained away.
I would like to now introduce our very distinguished
witness today, Ms. Vu Minh Khanh, who is the wife of human
rights lawyer Mr. Nguyen Van Dai, as I said earlier, who was
arrested in December, December 16 to be exact, in 2015 under
article 88 of the Vietnamese penal code for ``conducting
propaganda against the state.''
Since his arrest, Ms. Vu has been advocating for his
release, meeting with international delegates, starting
petitions, and giving interviews with various media agencies to
raise awareness of Dai's case. She has volunteered at a church
in Hanoi and has been doing so since 2009. The church reaches
out to many vulnerable groups, including those who suffer from
drug addiction, orphans, and youth. In addition to providing
support and counseling to those groups, Ms. Vu also assists
with the daily financial management of the organization and
works to promote and protect human rights through the church.
I would like to now yield to our distinguished chairman of
the full Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ed Royce.
Mr. Royce. Well, thank you. I just would start by thanking
Chris Smith for holding this hearing at exactly the right time
because now is the time we have to get the attention of the
international community on these human rights abuses.
And so, yes, in a few weeks, the President of the United
States is going to be traveling to Vietnam. And while
maintaining peace in the South China Sea and improving trade
ties is an important shared goal, the administration must
carefully take into account Vietnam's human rights abuses as
this relationship develops. And that is the conundrum, because
this has not gotten better.
I met with the Venerable Thich Quang Do as well as one of
the other religious leaders in Vietnam when they were under
house arrest years ago. I heard about the circumstances. I
check in with human rights NGOs, and as we all know, this
situation is not improving. Human rights have to be at the very
top of the President's agenda.
No matter how the administration frames our relationship,
the reality, as we all know, is that Vietnam remains a one
party Communist state with significant human rights abuses. And
as we will hear today from the wife of an imprisoned human
rights lawyer and activist--and I want to thank Chris Smith for
his efforts here to elevate this issue--but as we will hear,
Nguyen Van Dai, she will share with us the reality that Vietnam
has a long, long way to go.
In December, Nguyen Van Dai was badly beaten by
government--well, I guess we should call them thugs because
they beat him. And taken into custody. And since that time,
they took her husband into custody. And since that time, he has
been denied access to his lawyer and even his family. He sits
in solitary confinement. His condition is unknown. And Ms. Vu
is rightly concerned.
Sadly, Nguyen Van Dai's treatment is far from an isolated
incident. According to Human Rights Watch, police still
frequently torture suspects to elicit confessions and sometimes
use excessive force in responding to protests over evictions,
land confiscation--because land grabbing is one of the things
the party does--and other social issues.
Last year, more than 40 bloggers and rights activists were
beaten by plainclothes government agents. Not surprisingly, not
one of these thugs who did the beatings was held responsible.
Vietnam's penal code criminalizes criticism of the government
and abuse of democratic freedoms. While other laws restrict
freedom of religion and the media, bloggers like Anh Ba Sam,
Nguyen Thi Minh Thuy, and Nguyen Ngoc Gia remain in prison for
their advocacy of human rights, in prison for what the state or
what the Communist party calls abusing the rights to freedom of
democracy.
Not surprisingly, Vietnam now ranks, in the world, 175th
out of 180 countries for press freedom. Now, that means Vietnam
is behind Cuba. It is worse than Saudi Arabia. It is worse than
Iran. That is why we are here at this hearing.
Freedom of religion is a significant concern in Vietnam as
the government continues to restrict religious practice through
registration requirements, through harassment, and through
surveillance. Branches of the Cao Dai and Hoa Hao Buddhist
church, and independent Catholics and Protestants, are banned.
They face government harassment for their peaceful religious
practice. The Venerable Thich Quang Do, who both Chairman Smith
and I have met with, has remained under house arrest since 1998
for his religious beliefs.
If the United States and Vietnam are to build a stronger
relationship, the Vietnamese Government must honor the basic
human rights of Vietnamese people with respect to freedom of
speech, religion, and assembly. And that is the message the
President of the United States needs to send during his
upcoming visit.
I wrote to the President last week asking that he carry
exactly that message. We are all watching. The President's trip
cannot be a replay of his trip to Havana. We have to have these
issues addressed.
And, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for calling this
important and timely hearing.
Mr. Smith. Chairman Royce, thank you for your very eloquent
and very strong statement and consistent support for the human
rights advocates in Vietnam, and especially today for Nguyen
Van Dai who is suffering again. He is back into prison, as I
said in my opening. He is 4 years of prison, 4 years of house
arrest. And without objection, a very, very, very well-written
appeal that Ms. Vu made at the time of that first arrest.
Without objection, I would like to make it a part of the
record.
And I yield the floor to Ms. Vu for such time as she may
consume.
STATEMENT OF VU MINH KHANH, WIFE OF VIETNAMESE PRISONER OF
CONSCIENCE NGUYEN VAN DAI
[The following statement and answers were delivered through
an interpreter.]
Ms. Vu. First of all, I would like to deeply thank Chairman
Chris Smith and also Chairman Ed Royce having given me this
precious opportunity to speak.
My name is Vu Minh Khanh, wife of attorney Nguyen Van Dai.
We both are Protestants, myself serving our church in Hanoi.
Dai is a human rights defender now in jail.
My husband was first arrested in 2007, then sentenced to 4
years imprisonment plus 4 years of house arrest for violating
article 88 of Vietnam's penal code for ``conducting propaganda
against the state.'' My husband was disbarred and his law
office was shut down.
After having just completed his house arrest, my husband
was arrested again on December 16, 2015, and charged under the
same article 88. My husband has been detained for almost 5
months now, yet I have not received any information about him.
He has been held incommunicado and not allowed to meet with my
family, myself, nor with his defense lawyers.
Twice a month, I am permitted to bring food to detention
center B14 in Hanoi for his daily needs, but I do not know if
he has received any. In fact, I honestly do not know if he is
really held at B14 because in Vietnam the public security force
can do whatever they want. If they transfer inmates, they do
not inform the family members accordingly. For example, this
has happened to blogger Dieu Cay, and currently happened with
Tran Huynh Duy Thuc. Thus, if in fact my husband has been
tortured physically and/or mentally, or given false
information, I would not know.
My husband has not been allowed to receive a copy of the
Bible, a gift from the U.S. Ambassador, Mr. Ted Osius.
Specifically, 10 days before his arrest, he was attacked
and severely injured following a human rights training session
for about 60 people in Nghe An Province, about 300 kilometers
from Hanoi. Having been attacked 10 days prior, his injuries
had not healed. He was then arrested on December 16.
Throughout his human rights activism, my husband was
constantly followed, threatened, harassed, and beaten. Each
time Dai was attacked, it related to his work because the
government did not like it and had requested him to stop doing
human rights work. However, my husband believes that his
activities are within his rights under the Vietnamese
Constitution and international law. Because the police
constantly follow my husband all day, I believe that the
Vietnamese Government would know clearly who attacked him.
However, the government has claimed that they do not know who
the assailants were when my husband filed a complaint.
My husband accepted the high risks that comes with these
activities. And in fact, this is the reality that human rights
activists in Vietnam have to face constantly.
My husband also has hepatitis B. Therefore, I am very
worried about his health condition.
My husband experienced democracy initially in Germany,
having witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall. He then returned
to Vietnam and studied to become a lawyer. In 1997, my husband
ran for the National Assembly with the hope that he could speak
up for the people. In 2000, my husband officially began his
activism and fought for freedom of religion.
The first human rights case my husband took was in 2000
when he defended a member of the Protestant church who was
brought to court because she tried to stop the police when they
came to disband a prayer service at the local church.
Thereafter, my husband provided free legal services to the
Christians who were oppressed based on their religion, those
who fought for democracy and human rights who are harassed and
detained, victims of land grabs, or home loss, and to people
who were physically attacked and arbitrarily detained. He also
led training courses about human rights at his law office.
Since he started his activism in 2000, aside from the 4
years he was imprisoned and right upon his release, my husband
immediately continued to raise his voice to protect human
rights, even when he was still under house arrest. And he
always fervently tried to fight for freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly through nonviolent
methods and through providing education on human rights. My
husband always focused on empowering the youth and helped many
students who are human rights activists.
He started classes on human rights for different people
within society and wrote articles on the rule of law. My
husband usually worked with many others and connected
organizations with each other within the country. He also
advocated with foreign governments, as he had a good working
relationship with many Embassies in Vietnam and government
officials from around the world.
Regarding my husband's arrest in 2007, the police arrested
him at his law office while he was teaching a class on human
rights to his students. The topic of the class was based on a
book on civil society which the American Embassy in Vietnam had
published.
As for his arrest this time, it was while my husband was
leaving the house to meet with the delegation from the European
Union who were in Vietnam for the annual European Union-Vietnam
human rights dialogue.
My husband is currently facing from 3 to 20 years
imprisonment.
He has worked hard to protect human rights, and these
activities cannot possibly be seen as criminal. Therefore, I
hope that Congress and the U.S. Government, especially
President Obama on his trip to Vietnam, will help demand for
his immediate and unconditional release.
I sincerely thank you for spending time to listen to my
husband's case. Respectfully.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vu follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Ms. Vu, I would like to thank you for your
absolutely compelling testimony that will be heard by many in
America and hopefully around the world. As you have been
telling your story, I am glad that other news outlets have not
only carried your op-eds and your very profound words and
sentiments, but know that the Congress as well is listening and
listening very carefully.
I want to thank C-SPAN for being here so that a larger
American audience will get to hear you and to realize that
things are horrific for your husband.
I do have a couple of questions. And I would like to thank
Dr. Binh Nguyen for doing the translation today for us. Deeply
appreciate that. And for your advocacy as well.
I have a couple of questions. You know, you point out in
your testimony that your husband was arrested this second time
as he was leaving the house to meet with the delegation from
the European Union who were in Vietnam for the annual EU-
Vietnam human rights dialogue.
First of all, I believe that dialogues are essential, but
they should not be seen as a substitute for very significant,
tangible impacts and consequences to countries like Vietnam,
the Government of Vietnam, that commits egregious violations of
human rights against its own people. Dialogue is great. We need
to talk. No one is ever suggesting that talk needs to be
suspended. But it needs to be linked to real consequences in
the real world, like the lifting of an arms embargo, like
greater trade, and other kinds of interactions between the two
governments.
I am wondering if any of the members of the European
Parliament who were here for that dialogue have raised their
voices in support of your husband after he was arrested, again,
en route to meet with them to dialogue with him about what the
government is doing on human rights in Vietnam.
Ms. Vu. My husband did not meet with the EU delegation and
I am not sure what would have transpired between them. But I do
know that after his arrest, they actually contacted me and met
with me and showed a lot of support.
Mr. Smith. That is so extremely important. This is a united
world, not just the United States speaking about these
universally recognized human rights.
I would hope as well, as you point out in your testimony,
that the continued gross mistreatment of your husband and
others would become the subject of the Human Rights Council,
the U.N. Human Rights Council, where Vietnam sits in a place of
dignity as a member of that council. It is breathtakingly
disturbing that an abuser of human rights could simultaneously
be an arbiter of how well or poorly other countries are doing.
First, fix your own house and get that in order. So I think we
need to press the case there as well.
Let me ask you, if I could, about how you have been treated
by the authorities. You mentioned in your testimony that an
attempt for his defense attorneys to get certificates has not
been allowed. Could you further elaborate on what that process
is all about and how you yourself have been treated when you
advocate on behalf of your husband?
Ms. Vu. So in short, after his arrest when I hired three
lawyers, they were not able to meet with Dai, nor able to
proceed with any legal actions for his case, to prepare for his
case. Because article 88 falls under a national security law,
Dai has been denied the right to see his lawyers.
As for myself, I noticed that there is a camera constantly
in front of my house following all my activities. I have tried
to visit my husband and always denied to see my husband when he
is incommunicado. In addition, I have requested to be able to
bring him the Bible or have visitation rights, and/or for other
family members to visit him, but all have been denied. I have
written complaints, but I have not received any verbal or
written response from the government.
Mr. Smith. Can you tell us, to the best of your knowledge,
how your husband was treated when he was imprisoned the first
time? Obviously 4 years in prison followed by 4 years of house
arrest. What were the prison conditions like?
Ms. Vu. To complete my previous statement, the harassment
puts a mental stress on me. I know my husband has hepatitis B
and was beaten severely prior to his arrest. I am constantly
worried about him, not being able to see him, as he is
incommunicado. In 2007, he was put in a very small cell with 60
other inmates. Their water was so contaminated with soil and
trash that they had to use their socks to filter the water. In
addition, there was a lot of harassment from the prisoners in
the same cell. There is also a lot of stress with constant
observation and surveillance from the government during his
jail time.
Mr. Smith. You mentioned that he was beaten by thugs in the
taxi, or when he was cornered, and that there were--they beat
him around the face. Were his teeth broken? Did it require
stitches? Did he get any kind of medical attention?
Ms. Vu. On the day of Dai's arrest, approximately 30
security officers stormed our house, giving no specific
evidence or reason for their actions. During the beating, my
husband had suffered a lot of beating to the face, especially
sustained hemorrhage to the eye globes. He was undergoing some
evaluation, then he was arrested. In addition, his body was
covered with bruises all over.
Mr. Smith. Has the American personnel at Embassy Hanoi been
helpful? Have they tried to visit him? Have they been allowed
any access to him? Have they even made the attempt?
Ms. Vu. Immediately after his arrest, I was invited to the
private residence of U.S. Ambassador Ted Osius, and he gave a
lot of support and comfort. Especially, he also gave me a Bible
to give to my husband while he is imprisoned. However, when I
brought the Bible, it was denied so my husband never received
the Bible. In addition, the Embassy has mentioned that I could
meet with them at any time.
Mr. Smith. Let me just make a couple of final observations
and ask if you have anything further you would like to say. I
can assure you we will continue our efforts. I see Dr. Thang
from Boat People SOS is here today.
I met, as I mentioned earlier, your husband in Hanoi on a
human rights trip in 2005 at his law offices. And even though
he spoke glowingly about his vision of a Vietnam where everyone
possessed fundamentally recognized human rights, universally
recognized human rights, there was a total absence of malice on
his part toward the people in the government.
When I hear that the government, as you have pointed out,
has cited article 88 of Vietnam's penal code, conducting
propaganda against the state, I was with him privately. As a
matter of fact, some of the people who were en route were
detained and were not allowed to go to his law office that day
to meet with me. But there was no propaganda against the state.
There was a love for the Vietnamese people that was very deep
and very profound, and I was almost speechless how he could
have endured so much, known about so much wrongdoing, and yet
he spoke about human rights in the purest of terms and had such
a clarity of purpose about him.
And so the Vietnamese Government needs to know that we are
inspired by Nguyen Van Dai, and growing numbers of members of
parliaments, congresses will rally to his defense. And your
testimony has sent a clear message to the world, not just at
this venue, but everywhere else where you have spoken. How can
the government do what they are doing to your husband who only
desires the best for the country of Vietnam?
So I want you to know that you have been an inspiration and
he has been an inspiration. When I met with Mr. Dai, again with
Dr. Thang, a year later here in my office, again I was touched
by that absence of malice. He did not engage in tirades against
Vietnam or its government. He spoke about defending human
rights and caring for the disenfranchised, the people of faith,
which I found just incredible. And I do hope that that is not
lost.
There are always reformers in any dictatorship or in any
repressive government. They need to know, when he is away from
them, when he is talking to Members of Parliaments or
Congresses in his office or in Washington, his message was one
of hope for the people of Vietnam. So I want you to know what
an inspiration your presence here is today.
If President Obama were sitting here where I am sitting, or
if the Prime Minister of Vietnam was sitting here, what would
you say?
Ms. Vu. If the President were sitting here in front of me,
I would plead with him to help the people of Vietnam. When he
fights for human rights in Vietnam, he helps the people. The
people of Vietnam have suffered a lot through all these years
of war, and now if the President could help to promote human
rights in Vietnam, that is what I ask for.
The reason they arrested my husband, and now I am asking
for his release while the President is there, is because he
represents a symbol of nonviolent fighting for human rights and
democracy in Vietnam, and that is why his release would be
crucial for the people of Vietnam and that would also be
symbolic of the President's support for such movement in
Vietnam.
And as you have requested, I have just a few more points to
add, please.
I would like to present to you, Mr. Chairman, and also the
U.S. Congress, that I would like to plead the case of my
husband. I did not understand why he was arrested under the
penal code article 88 when he is a human rights activist for
nonviolent movements. And also, when they came to the house,
they took away the civil society publication that was put out
by the U.S. Embassy in Vietnam. They also took away any
materials that my husband has from the United Nations Human
Rights Council, even the symbol of the dove, which my husband
believes it represents peace and nonviolent movement for human
rights. They took everything, envelopes, papers, anything that
has that symbol on it.
And then one particular thing that I would like to point
out is all the T-shirts that has the words ``Hong Kong Today,
Vietnam Tomorrow,'' were also confiscated as an artifact to be
used against my husband.
To share with you my thoughts why I am here, and first
thank you so much for holding this hearing. This is very
important. It is because back in 2007, I had written over
hundreds of complaints to the President, Prime Minister,
Secretary General, National Assembly leaders, various
ministries, the court, investigative units, and news outlets
and never heard anything back. This time I have tried the same,
written many complaints, and also visited many of the agencies
just to try and see if anyone would respond to my request. None
of them had responded in any way verbally or written to me. And
I have met with a lot of obstruction and ignorance from these
agencies.
In addition, I felt that if I would go outside at my own
risk and raise this voice to the world, then I would be able to
present my husband's case so that more people would know about
the situation in Vietnam. And my husband is just one of the
many people who are in a similar situation.
Just to recount what happened in 2007, the lawyer only had
7 days to prepare for his trial back then. Specifically, when I
went to the investigation unit, they had sent the papers to the
judicial office, but there was no clear evidence against my
husband at that time. So, in fact, I am very worried about
similar situation this time.
I am really worried that if that repeats, that the lawyers
for Dai only have a few days just like the previous time, then
there will not be enough time for them to prepare the trial for
Dai.
So I would like to request that my husband be released
unconditionally and immediately. But in case he does go to
trial, I really want a fair trial, and also for his lawyers to
have the time to prepare for his case.
Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding this hearing. Please
accept my deep gratitude, and also to all the staff members who
have made this possible. I really appreciate all of your caring
and support throughout this very difficult time for myself, my
husband, and my family.
I would like to know as a request whether, Mr. Chairman,
together with other Members of Congress, could write a letter
to President Obama asking for his response, first to this
hearing and also to other requests that have been put in my
statement previously. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Vu, thank you. We will be more than happy to
send your statement and a letter encouraging the President and
appealing to the President to raise your husband's case and
that of other prisoners of conscience in a specific fashion.
Not an oblique mention in a wind-up statement or some
generality. There need to be specific requests made so that we
can gauge whether or not Vietnam is about to move in the right
direction or continues its deterioration when it comes to human
rights.
There are a number of areas where human rights violations
are worsening. Human trafficking. Religious freedom. And the
administration could today designate Vietnam as a CPC country,
Country of Particular Concern. The facts warrant it. And they
also could be known as a Tier 3 country when it comes to
egregious violations of sex and labor trafficking, especially
labor trafficking in Vietnam. So the President has tools in his
toolbox, the President of the United States. We hope that he
uses them.
We will send, as per your request, your testimony and your
strong appeal backed up by our strong appeal. We will do it
immediately. And again, I hope the President is specific. Just
some general statement about human rights doesn't cut it. It
hasn't in any other country around the world. It hasn't in
Vietnam. He needs to be specific.
So I want to thank you again for your very brave testimony.
Thank you for your husband's tremendous personal sacrifice for
the cause of Vietnam human rights and religious freedom. He is
a truly remarkable man, as are others who are fighting this
battle with nonviolence and with faith. Know that our prayers
are with you and with him. We are in solidarity with him, I can
assure you.
And I would like to note for the record that we will be
having a follow-up hearing to this hearing in mid June, latter
part of June, the 22nd or so. And we will be assessing the
President's trip and whether or not any progress was indeed
made.
So again, I want to thank you so very much for your
testimony. And, Dr. Binh Nguyen, thank you for your very fine
translation.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and
chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights,
and International Organizations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and
chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights,
and International Organizations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and
chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights,
and International Organizations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]