[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5378-5379]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 THE HUMAN RIGHTS DIALOGUE WITH VIETNAM: IS VIETNAM MAKING SIGNIFICANT 
                                PROGRESS

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, April 5, 2006

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, on March 29, I co-chaired a 
hearing 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. While the 
hearing revealed that there have been some improvements in Vietnam's 
human rights record, the testimony showed that the evidence of abuse is 
still too strong for us to relax our efforts.
  It would be inappropriate, in any discussion of Vietnam, not to first 
raise the issue that engages more Americans, more deeply, than any 
other when we talk of Vietnam--the need to complete 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.
  This hearing took place in the context of the recently concluded 
Human Rights Dialogue with Vietnam, which our distinguished witnesses 
from the State Department, the Honorable Barry F. Lowenkron, Assistant 
Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, the 
Honorable John V. Hanford III, Ambassador-at-Large for the Office of 
International Religious Freedom, and the Honorable Eric John, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 
reported 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 
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 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 311/CP).
  (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.
  So far, all the evidence suggests, however, 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, upgraded 
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, 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 5 years. Last year, a 
few dozen were opened, which does to begin to redress the earlier harm. 
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, sometimes 
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.
  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.

[[Page 5379]]

  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 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 have had several, somewhat stilted, I must admit, 
conversations recently with mixed delegations of religious leaders and 
government officials. That the Vietnamese government even consented to 
send these delegations was an important step. It does seem 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, has made 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.''
  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 30 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 Tienanmen 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. H.R. 1587, The Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2004, 
passed the House by a 323-45 vote in July 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 United States 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, H.R. 3190. I would be 
delighted to hear what sort of measures we could add to the bill to 
cooperate with Vietnam's 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.
  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 in any region of the world. Our non-governmental 
witnesses: Ms. Kay Reibold, project development specialist for the 
Montagnard Human Rights Organization; Mrs. H'Pun Mlo, a Montagnard 
refugee who after many years of abuse, was finally allowed to join her 
family in the U.S.; Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang, the executive director of 
Boat People SOS; and Mr. Doan Viet Hoat, the president of International 
Institute for Vietnam, gave us valuable independent testimony, so that 
the world will get a true and complete picture of this government with 
whom we are growing ever closer.

                          ____________________