Human Rights Watch World Report 1994 - Vietnam
- Document source:
-
Date:
1 January 1994
Events of 1993
Human Rights Developments
Vietnam's efforts to pursue market reforms and improve relations with the U.S. and the international community while keeping the lid on political and religious dissent produced a mixed human rights performance. The government released or reduced prison sentences for a number of well-known dissidents at the same time that it imprisoned others for peaceful expression of their views. Dialogue on human rights with foreign governments and nongovernmental organizations, including Asia Watch, increased, but human rights investigations were not possible and political trials remained closed to foreign observers – and often to the general public. Penal and legal reforms continued, but few tangible improvements were discernible. Both the media and religious institutions remained under state supervision.
Several bomb plots by overseas anti-communist groups heightened Vietnam's concern with internal security. Continuing protests by the Unified Buddhist Church also resulted in clashes between government forces and demonstrators. The government, however, often failed to distinguish between opponents who used violence and peaceful critics, punishing both on national security charges.
Dr. Doan Viet Hoat, a professor of English literature and aformer university administrator, was sentenced to twenty years in prison on March 29 for "attempting to overthrow the government." His offense was producing four issues of a typed newsletter called "Freedom Forum," in which he advocated democratic reform, and recording his ideas on democratic change on a cassette tape. Nowhere did he advocate violence against the government. Two other defendants, Pham Duc Kham and Nguyen Van Thuan, were convicted of producing "Freedom Forum," and five more were found guilty just for possessing copies of it. On July 9, the Ho Chi Minh City Court of Appeals reduced Dr. Hoat's term to fifteen years and five years of probation. Three other defendants were given similarly token reductions.
The government released some political prisoners, but many others remained in jail. U.S. citizens Nguyen Si Binh and Aloysius Hoang Duy Hung were released in June and July respectively, both men having been accused of trying to start alternative political organizations in Vietnam. Do Ngoc Long, a business consultant who was held under a three-year order of administrative detention because of his association with American businessman Michael Morrow, was released on April 6, but Doan Thanh Liem, a law professor also linked to Morrow, continued to serve a twelve-year sentence for "counter-revolutionary propaganda."
Although in recent years Vietnam had allowed citizens greater freedom of worship and has permitted religious communities to resume a limited role in social work, the government kept a tight rein over most other aspects of religion, approving candidates for the priesthood and religious orders, controlling the clergy's movements, and punishing those whose statements offended the Party or who conducted unauthorized meetings.
The greatest conflict has centered on the demands for autonomy of the Unified Buddhist Church (UBC), known for its protests against the Diem regime in the 1960s. Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, who assumed leadership of the UBC in 1992, has been living in government-imposed exile in Quang Nai province since 1982. He made numerous public appeals for the return of church property, the release of imprisoned Buddhist monks, respect for human rights, and freedom from state control. The government responded by searching pagodas and monasteries for his writings and detaining monks and lay Buddhists believed to support him.
Tensions came to a head on May 24 in Hue, when a man immolated himself at the pagoda where the former UBC Supreme Patriarch is buried. Local police immediately removed the man's body and detained the head of the pagoda, Thich Tri Tuu, for questioning. Monks who feared that Venerable Tuu had been arrested organized a sit-down protest in Hue, drawing a large crowd and blocking traffic. Persons in the crowd surrounded a security vehicle transporting Venerable Tuu, removed him and other passengers, and set the vehicle ablaze. At least six monks were arrested in conjunction with the May 24 demonstration, among them Venerable Tuu. On November 15, Venerable Tuu and three others monks were convicted of "public disorder" in a one-day, closed trial and sentenced to four and three year prison terms; five laypersons were also sentenced that day to terms between six months and four years on the same charges.
Another violent confrontation occurred in July, when police forces surrounded the Son Linh pagoda in Ba Ria-Vung Tau province, arresting a number of monks. Among those arrested was Thich Hanh Duc, the head of the pagoda and an open supporter of the UBC leader, who had been ordered evicted by the local government. The conflict began when Thich Hanh Duc challenged the validity of the eviction order in a public letter.
Sources within Vietnam claimed that police and other armed forces used tanks and tear gas to break through a ring of some 2,000 Buddhists surrounding the pagoda. The government charged that monks in the pagoda had collected arms, held an official hostage, and attacked police with rocks and sticks, and it denied that military tanks or units were involved in dispersing the crowd. No independent investigation of the incident had taken place by mid-November.
Asia Watch was concerned that in both confrontations, some monks and supporters of Thich Huyen Quang may have been arrested solely for their religious and political beliefs, rather than for acts of violence. This concern was heightened in August, when the People's Committee of Quang Nai province forbade Venerable Quang to continue any activities in the name of the UBC and ordered him to cease "sowing disunity among the religious" through his demands for church autonomy and religious freedom.
Tensions also remained between the Vatican and Hanoi, despite continued high-level contacts. The government permitted more frequent ordinations but maintained control over the number of candidates for seminary and their selection, and continued to restrict the transfer or movement of clergy within the country.
One well-known Catholic prisoner, Father Dominic Tran Dinh Thu, was released during the year, but at least fifteen other members of the Congregation of the Mother Co-Redemptrix remain imprisoned on charges of "counter-revolution." Also still imprisoned were Father Nguyen Van De and ten other members of the Sacerdotal Maria Movement and the Association of Humble Souls. Protestant pastors Dinh Thien Tu, Tran Dinh Ai and Tran Mai were released from labor camps on April 6, but many other pastors and lay Christians, especially from the highland regions, remained imprisoned for conducting unauthorized religious activities such as home prayer meetings and Bible classes.
Conditions for prisoners of all types remained poor, with continuing reports of abusive treatment, especially during the period of pre-trial investigation. Food and medicine appeared to be grossly inadequate, and prisoners generally relied on supplies brought by their families for sustenance. In at least one labor camp, however, political prisoners were segregated during the year from common criminals, a move that may improve their physical security.
Government officials acknowledged that improvement in prison conditions was needed, and in March, a Law on Imprisonment was passed, prohibiting torture or humiliation of convicts and ordering the separate accommodation of women and minors from other prisoners. The law also gave prisoners the right to complain about official abuses and required investigation of deaths in custody. It was too early to tell how well the law wasbeing implemented.
Vietnam continued to oversee the state-controlled media, which was nevertheless quite lively, especially on officially-condoned subjects such as exposés of government corruption. The press, however, also continued to publish condemnatory articles about political detainees before their trial.
In July, the National Assembly approved a new law on publishing that gave citizens the right to demand corrections or charge libel. But the law also affirmed the government's right to pre-publication censorship "in necessary circumstances decided by the Prime Minister" and maintained state control of all publishing houess. It also set forth many substantive restrictions on the content of published materials, and stipulated as one policy goal "fighting against all ideas and actions which are detrimental to the national interest."
Examples of state censorship abound. At the end of 1992, authorities closed Co Viet, a Quang Tri literary journal, for publishing writings implictly critical of the government. In September 1993, the Far Eastern Economic Review reported that a leading social scientist, Hoang Chi Bao, was ordered to make self-criticism for failing to emphasize in his monograph on social policy the achievements of the international communist movement and the role of the "imperialist forces" in the fall of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Some of contemporary Vietnam's best-known authors, such as Duong Thu Huong, continued to find it impossible to get their works published in Vietnam, and publication of many South Vietnamese writers from the pre-1975 era remained banned.
The Right To Monitor
Vietnam continued to punish open criticism of its human rights record by its own citizens through vaguely-written laws against "counter-revolutionary propaganda" and other political offenses. After UBC leader Thich Huyen Quang publicly demanded that state authorities account for Buddhists who were arrested or who died in custody, the government finally gave a public response, in which it formally denied abuses against some of the individuals whose cases had been raised by Venerable Quang. But it also accused him of raising trumped-up charges of human rights violations in order to turn believers against the state and to encourage foreign trade and investment embargos against Vietnam. He was not arrested, however.
Vietnam allowed restricted access to the country by some international human rights and humanitarian agencies. In March, Asia Watch sent its first mission to Vietnam to initiate a dialogue on human rights with the government. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) maintained a small staff in Vietnam to monitor the treatment of returning boat people. Several foreign delegations were also permitted to visit prisons, but on at least one such occasion, political prisoners were relocated for the duration of the visit.
For the thirteenth year in a row, however, no agreement was reached with the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other nongovernmental group on the regular monitoring of prisonconditions.
U.S. Policy
Human rights took a back seat to POW/MIA issues in the Clinton administration's agenda on Vietnam. New opportunities to raise human rights issues were missed. By the end of the year, the U.S. had cleared the way for the resumption of international financial lending to Vietnam, permitted U.S. companies to bid on projects financed by those loans, and sent three diplomats to Hanoi on an unofficial basis to supplement the U.S. personnel investigating POW/MIA cases.
U.S. officials did consistently include human rights as a policy goal in relations with Vietnam and mentioned both general concerns and specific cases at meetings with Vietnamese counterparts during the year. In July, Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord returned from a trip to Hanoi and announced at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that Vietnam had agreed to open a high-level dialogue on human rights issues; such a dialogue had yet to begin as of early November. At the same hearing, Senator Kerrey proposed the establishment of a high-level delegation to conduct regular talks with Vietnamese counterparts on human rights issues, similar to the regular high-level meetings on POW/MIA matters. This proposal drew no response from the administration.
As in the Bush years, Congress was considerably more voluble in defending the rights of Vietnamese political and religious prisoners than the administration, with members addressing numerous public and private appeals on their behalf to the government of Vietnam. A concurrent resolution adopted by Congress and added as an amendment to foreign aid legislation on September 23 called on the U.S. to support human rights, the rule of law and democratization in Vietnam.
In August, Sen. Charles Robb was rebuffed in an attempt to visit one of Vietnam's best-known political prisoners, Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, an endocrinologist who was serving twenty years of hard labor for his public call for political reforms and respect for human rights. Although Vietnamese officials had approved the visit as part of Senator Robb's itinerary in Vietnam, on arrival Robb was told the visit was indefinitely postponed. Senator Robb criticized the decision, saying it was a missed opportunity for Vietnam to demonstrate sensitivity to human rights concerns. The State Department also expressed disappointment that the visit had been canceled. According to sources in Vietnam, after Senator Robb's visit, Dr. Que was removed to another section of his labor camp, placed in solitary confinement, and assigned hard labor.
On September 13, the White House renewed the embargo against Vietnam, but in an announcement that was conspicuously silent on the issue of human rights, allowed U.S. businesses to participate in projects funded by international financial institutions. This action followed the administration's decision in July to drop its objections to international lending to Vietnam. In October 1993, the World Bank announced approval of two loans to Vietnam worth $228 million, with another loan of $121 million pending for agricultural development.
Section 701 of the International Financial Institutions Act requires the U.S. to cast its vote against loans, other than those for basic human needs, to countries that engage in a consistent pattern of gross human rights abuses. In keeping with this obligation, the U.S. voted for the loan for primary education but abstained on the loan for road improvements. The Asian Development Bank also became a significant lender to Vietnam in 1993, and projected lending as much as $1 billion to Vietnam by the year 1996. It remained unclear to what extent the U.S. was prepared to urge major donors countries, such as Japan, to use their influence to press for human rights improvements.
Limited U.S. aid for humanitarian projects in Vietnam continued in 1993. The Agency for International Development allocated $3.5 million in assistance to private voluntary agencies operating in Vietnam for programs benefiting civilian victims of war and displaced children and orphans. The State Department's Bureau of Refugee Affairs in 1992 had allocated $2 million for projects to benefit returning boat people and their communities, most of which was disbursed in 1993. For 1994 it planned to continue such programs at similar levels of funding. In October, the U.S. Department of Defense flew approximately 2,000 pounds of textbooks to Vietnam under a program that allows nongovernmental organizations to use government transport for free when space is available.
The Work of Asia Watch
Asia Watch strategy on Vietnam had two elements: initiation of a dialogue on human rights with the Vietnamese government and efforts to convince other countries, including the United States, to bring more pressure to bear on Vietnam to improve its human rights record.
In March, an Asia Watch mission visited Vietnam for two weeks, meeting with senior officials in various agencies and ministries, including the ministries of interior, justice, and foreign affairs. The delegation also met with journalists, lawyers, scholars, clerics and returned asylum-seekers. Discussions were lively and wide-ranging, although Vietnamese officials were reluctant to discuss specific cases of political or religious prisoners. Subsequent meetings with government officials took place in New York.
On July 21, Asia Watch submitted testimony on human rights conditions in Vietnam to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. Asia Watch did not take a position on normalization of diplomatic relations with Vietnam, which the U.S. had conditioned on factors other than human rights. Asia Watch did, however, recommend that the administration vigorously raise human rights concerns and press for the release of political and religious prisoners, through public statements if necessary. It also urged the U.S. government to support increased contact and exchange between Vietnam and the international community and recommended that American businesses urge Vietnam to reinforce the rule of law and respect internationally recognized human rights.
Asia Watch continued to publish detailed reports on the cases ofparticular individuals imprisoned for peaceful expression of their views, urging members of Congress, the administration, and representatives of other governments to advocate their immediate release. In January, Asia Watch published "The Case of Doan Viet Hoat and Freedom Forum: Detention for Dissent in Vietnam," which was placed into the Congressional Record in April by Sen. Paul Wellstone. In March, Asia Watch asked to send an observer to Dr. Hoat's trial, a request the Vietnamese government denied. Asia Watch also raised in publications and private meetings with Vietnamese government officials the plight of prisoners suffering from poor health or poor conditions of detention. It maintained regular contact with representatives of the business community and international lending institutions.
Although Vietnam appeared to be making strong efforts to treat repatriated asylum-seekers fairly and reintegrate them into their communities, Asia Watch remained concerned about the international community's ability to monitor closely the increasingly large and dispersed returnee population.
Disclaimer: © Copyright, Human Rights Watch
This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.