ON
HUMAN RIGHTS
rrrr
European Union is one of the
international institutions that has
provided Hanoi regime with considerable aids for humanitarian and
reconstruction projects in the last decades. Recently, EU Parliament has
focused on the human rights issues in Vietnam and has exerted some efforts to
press Hanoi for better human rights in Vietnam after reports of human rights
violations by Vietnamese Communist regime increased sharply.
In
July 2001, European Parliament passed a resolution calling for the release of
all religious prisoners in Vietnam. Last week, European Parliament sent its
official delegation to Vietnam in a fact-finding mission regarding human rights
records amidst continuous complaints from human rights activists and groups
outside Vietnam.
The
delegation of six EP members were visiting Hanoi for four days. The head of the
delegation, Hartmut Nassauer, requested
Hanoi permission to visit with
different religious leaders including those who are in in prison or under house
arrest.
However,
Hanoi leaders refused to allow the EP delegation to meet with the religious leaders in the EP list. Hanoi
Communist leaders proposed the EP members to meet with a monk of the
state-controlled Buddhist church instead. The Nassauer's delegation rejected the
proposal.
Hanoi did not allow the delegation to visit with the Most Ven. Thich Quang Do, Secretary General – second highest rank– of the Vietnam Unified Buddhist Church, who is under strictly enforced house arrest in his bedroom at Thanh Minh Buddhist Monastery in Saigon. Hanoi officials maintained that the old monk was under legal investigation. Hanoi also turned down the delegation's request to visit the Rev. Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest currently in prison after his protests against Hanoi's religious intolerance.
Hanoi
authorities say that the delegation might visit the Most Ven. Thich Huyen
Quang, the highest ranking monk in the Vietnam Unified Buddhist Church. The
church declines to put itself under the Communist control.
The
permission was only a trick. The Most Ven. Huyen Quang, a fragile
octogenarian, is not well enough to
make a long trip to Hanoi, and the
delegation had too little time left to travel to the small pagoda located at
a remote hamlet in Quang Ngai province
where he is under house arrest to see him.
Hartmut Nassauer, says the delegation will return to Brussels to
discuss EU spending in Vietnam in the context of human rights, law and the
protection of Vietnam's minority groups.
Members of the delegation are not satisfied with Hanoi's response,
and Mr Nassauer says the EU budget of
more than a US$ 100 million gives the parliament an opportunity to put pressure
on Vietnam Communist leaders.
Why do Hanoi leaders behave so rudely towards the EU Delegation while they are lobbying the American
Congress to deliver them from HR-2833's
stern measures against human rights violations? There is no easy answer as Vietnam
Communist leaders' capriciousness is concerned.
Meanwhile, the Vietnamese Americans all around the United States
continue their campaign of petition, demanding Senators John Kerry and McCain
that Bill HR-2833, or the Vietnam Human Rights Act, be discussed and voted at
the Senate.
Most Vietnamese Americans contend that the two senators should not
waste American taxpayers' money in supporting the Hanoi regime without the
least conditions, one of which is human rights to the poor Vietnamese people.
Their primary opinion is "no American's dollar should be given for free to
the Hanoi tyrants while there is no way to be sure that most of foreign aids
reach the objectives without being lost to the corrupted officials.
Following are some articles related to the
debate on HR-2833: one of Hanoi news agency VNS' comment about UMASS Dr. Kelvin
Bowen's opinion; another of Dr. Nguyen Van Canh, a Stanford scholar, director
of the Indochina Studies Center, San Jose, California; still another of Hoang Duy Hung, a lawyer in Texas; and the fourth is of Jeff
Jacoby on the Boston Globe.
|
|
NEW KIND OF
SCHOLARSHIP AT UMASS
by Nguyen van Canh (In an open letter to the Boston
Herald) September 5, 2002
I have read an
article entitled "Human rights bill threatens to force new US-Vietnam
rift" on your August 25, 02 newspaper (Editorial Section, p.22). It
was authored by Kevin Bowen, a Vietnam veteran and director of the William
Joiner Center for the Study of War and Social Consequences of the University of
Massachusetts at Boston.
1) According to Mr.
Bowen, "the lifting of the embargo and the opening of diplomatic relations,
which McCain and Kerry supported... have meant new life for the people of
Vietnam, a better quality of life". ... "This is real progress".
In fact, the
communist totalitarian regime adopted, then implemented "Doi Moi" or
Renovation in Dec. 1986, nine years before the diplomatic relation was
established. As a result of implementation of changes, "the new life"
already began at that point in time. By 1989, in 3 consecutive meetings at the
Ky Dong Catholic Church, Saigon, over 3,000 worshippers gathered and listened
to Father Chan Tin 's talks. Larger groups of faithful were seen at religious
institutions. The communist party of Vietnam (CPV) allowed people to have some
limited freedom. The reasons for the change were cuts of the Soviet aid which
was US$ 14.5 billion for the 4th five-year (1986-1991) economic plan (or US$
2.9 billion/year). By 1990, the Soviet Union granted Vietnam US $ 100 million
only and required the CPV to pay cash for all purchases, using strong
currencies like US dollars or French francs for that purpose. In 1991, all the
aid was cut off.
But for the Soviet
Union putting a stop on aid, there would not be any change, or no "new
life". Therefore, saying "supporting the lifting of embargo
and opening of diplomatic relation by John McCain and John Kerry" lead
to the "new life" is not justified.
Remember that the
trade embargo was not lifted until Feb.3, 1994 and diplomatic relations
established in July 1995.
The kind of
"better quality of life" mentioned by Mr. Bowen was a direct result
of pressure exerted by the US that forced the CPV to accommodate with the new
situation. The CPV just followed the Road Map which was handed by Richard
Solomon to Trinh xuan Lang, at his office in New York in April 1991.
2). Mr. Bowen
stated that" there is real progress, but the Vietnam Human Rights
bill threatens that progress. It would require any humanitarian, educational or
business organization, working in Vietnam to submit an annual report on human
rights progress in Vietnam, or lose federal support. Under the bill, Vietnam's
favorable trade status would depend on continued progress in human rights as
reflected in these reports....".
In fact, the bill
does not cut humanitarian assistance to Vietnam. Par. A. 2, Title II, Subtitle
A, Section 201 (c) (2) forbids any non-humanitarian (economic) assistance under
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 other than (i) disaster relief
assistance, including any assistance under chapter 9 of part I of the Act; (ii)
assistance which involves the provision of food ( including monetization of
foods) or medicine; and (iii) assistance for refugees.
So, the bill continues to provide humanitarian assistance. It does not
threaten any progress of human rights. It requires improvements of human rights
as a condition of economic aid. The authors of the bill clearly defines the
four following areas of human rights that need improvements: "a)
the Government of Vietnam (GVN) is required to release all political and
religious prisoners from imprisonment, house arrest and other forms of
detention, b) GVN makes substantial progress toward respecting the right to
freedom of religion, including the right to participate in religious activities
and institutions without interference by or involvement of the Government; c)
GVN makes substantial progress toward respecting the human rights of members of
ethnic minority groups in the Central Highlands or elsewhere in Vietnam, and d)
neither any official of the GVN nor any agency or entity wholly or partly owned
by the GVN was complicit in a severe form of trafficking in persons (
women and children)".
The conditions stipulated in the bill clearly have nothing to do with
the humanitarian assistance. As a consequence, service providers such as
humanitarian, educational or business organization working in Vietnam have no
duty to make reports, or "submit annual reports on human rights. It is
the duty of International Human Rights Commission, an arm of the US Congress to
deal with that situation.
At the present
time, the 'state sector' has monopoly over the economy. It is done through
State-owned enterprises (SOE's) owned by the CPV. 'Private sector' is limited
and strictly controlled. Under these circumstances, it is clear that economic
assistance made to Vietnam means aid to the SOE's or the CPV. On the other
hand, only those who rule or hold power violate human rights. In this case it
is the CPV members who just do that. They cannot and should not be rewarded for
their acts.
Holding back the bill is a scheme of encouragement of such
violations.
It is quite disturbing to find out that the article is really
misleading the American public and that the points made by Mr. Bowen are truly
false.
It is unfortunate for the University of Massachusetts at Boston to have
Mr. Kevin Bowen, director of the William Joiner Center of the accredited
academic institution to wage such a propaganda campaign. This is a new kind of
scholarship at UMASS.
***
OPPOSITION TO DR. KEVIN BOWEN'S ARTICLE
By Hoang Duy Hung (In an open letter to the Boston
Herald)
The Law Office of Aloysius Duy Hung Hoang @ Associates
1900 North West Loop Suite 500
Houston TX 77019
September 9, 2002
The Boston Herald
One Herald Square
Boston MA 02106
RE: Opposition to Dr. Kevin Bowen's Article.
Dear Mr. Editor:
My name is Aloysius Duy Hung Hoang, a licensed attorney in Houston Texas. Recently, your respectful newspaper
published an article written by Dr. Kevin Bowen whereby he stated the
following: "Denying aid to Vietnam would actually slow human rights
improvements while cutting aid off humanitarian relief,
already going to some of the neediest people on the planet." Reading this
article, I am very upset for such propaganda by Dr. Kevin Bowen misleading the
public. Dr. Kevin Bowen disregarded the reality violating fundamental rights in
Vietnam and the authentic content of the H.R 2833 for the following:
1/ For the past years, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam confiscated properties
of Churches, persecuted many religious leaders such as father Thadeus Nguyen
Van Ly, Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, Thich Quang Do, respected leaders of Hoa
Hao Church, Cao Dai Church, etc. They also silenced all
democratic voices such as professor Tran Khue, attorney Le Chi Quang, Dr. Pham
Hong Son, Mr. Nguyen Vu Binh etc.;
2/ The Vietnam Human Rights Bill provides humanitarian aid to Vietnam.
Under Title II, Subtitle A, Section 201
(c), the Bill forbids any (economic) assistance under the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, OTHER THAN (i) disaster relief assistance including any assistance
under Chapter 9 of Part I of that
Act; (ii)assistance which involves the provision of food (including monetization of foods) or medicine; and
(iii) assistance for refugees. The Bill clearly states that non-humanitarian
assistance only it accompanied with certain condition: "a) They release
prisoners of conscience such as religious leaders asking for freedom of
worship, and those who raise their voice for freedom from jail; b) they allow
people to freely join religious organizations; c) they discontinue measures to
persecute highlanders in Central Vietnam or elsewhere; and finally d) they are
no longer involved in trafficking in persons (women and children).
Clearly, the intent of the authors of this Bill was not to reward the violators
of fundamental rights for their brutal and barbarian acts against human
dignity. Passing the Bill is an effective mean to protect the Vietnamese people
and to impede the Socialist Republic of Vietnam its further persecutions
against humanity and its own people.
By supporting Senator John Kerry to hold back the Bill, Dr. Kevin Bowen exposed
himself to the public that he is a supporter of dictatorial regime, an
associate of human rights violators. And, by misleading the public, he has
shown himself that he is a liar not worthy of the public's trust in his position as the Director of the William
Joiner Center for UMASS. In his position, he has a duty to inform the public of
true information for academic research benefiting future generations, yet, he
blinded his conscience to
distort the truth.
Please review the Bill to compare for yourself of such propaganda by Dr. Kevin
Bowen.
Thank you for your concern in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Aloysius Duy Hung Hoang, Esq.
***
Kerry's betrayal of Vietnam
By Jeff
Jacoby,
BOSTON
GLOBE, August 25, 2002. Page D-7.
I HAVE
LONG thought that John Kerry is wrong on Vietnam. I don't mean wrong 30 years
ago, when, as a decorated combat veteran, he returned from Vietnam and became a leading antiwar activist. I
mean wrong in the years since, when he has been, with John McCain, the Senate's
foremost advocate of normalized relations with Vietnam.
There are two objections to treating Vietnam as a normal trade
and diplomatic partner. The first is
that the government in Hanoi - the Communist Party - is the same ruthless
tyranny that caused so much bloodshed a generation ago. The regime that plunged
Vietnam into war, that killed 50,000
Americans, rules Vietnam to this day.
Normal relations with a former enemy are not unusual. The United
States long ago normalized its ties to Germany, Italy, and Japan, the Axis
powers of World War II. But it did so only after the Nazis, the Fascists, and
the Tojo dictatorship were defeated and deposed. Vietnam, by contrast, has
never been de-Nazified. There is no difference between the power in Hanoi today
and the one that ruled when US soldiers were being tortured in the Hanoi
Hilton.
That might not matter if the Vietnamese Communist Party had
metamorphosed by now into something decent and enlightened. It hasn't. Vietnam
remains a land of repression and persecution. On a scale of 1 (most free) to 7
(most unfree), Freedom House, the storied human rights monitor, rates it a 6.5.
In its latest report on human rights worldwide, the State Department notes that
Vietnam's ''poor human rights record worsened'' last year and the government
''continued to commit numerous, serious abuses,'' from crushing
ethnic minorities to tormenting religious believers. Granted,
there are other countries whose atrocious human rights records have not barred
normal relations with the United States. China and Saudi Arabia are two
prominent examples. But the crimes and cruelties of those governments are often
denounced in this country, and the nature of our relations with them continues
to be a subject of debate.
Kerry and McCain are not the first members of Congress to make the
diplomatic rehabilitation of a despicable regime their personal crusade. A
''Cuba working group'' on Capitol Hill has undertaken something similar for the
dictator in Havana. But Castro never invaded a US ally or excruciated
American POWs.
Kerry and McCain worked passionately for the normalization of
US-Vietnam ties. Why don't they work with equal passion to bring freedom and
justice to Vietnam's people? Why do they never cry out against Hanoi's
brutality?
They more than most know how steep a price Americans paid in the
struggle to hold that brutality in check.
I had planned to write about this last fall, after Kerry and
McCain were honored at a gala dinner by the World Affairs Council for their
role in normalizing US-Vietnamese relations. I was going to point out that just
a few days earlier, a leader of Vietnam's independent Buddhist church had
immolated himself in Danang to protest the government's denial of religious
freedom. I was going to urge Kerry, who chairs the Senate's East Asia
subcommittee, to take the lead in moving the Vietnam Human Rights Bill through
the Senate. That bill, which would link non-humanitarian aid to progress on
human rights, had just passed the House, 410-1.
But the dinner took place on Sept. 10, and the next day there were
more pressing matters to write about.
Almost a year later, the issue hasn't gone away. Normalization is
now a done deal, yet Kerry still says very little about human rights in
Vietnam.
Far from taking the lead on the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, he has
prevented it from coming to a vote. He claims that making an issue of Hanoi's
repression would be counterproductive. ''Freedom and democracy in that country
will continue to come through engagement,'' he says, ''not through symbolic
self-defeating acts in the United States.'' Any sanctions - even the mild slap
on the wrist allowed by this bill - would ''strengthen the hand of Vietnamese
hardliners'' and set back human rights.
But Kerry has it backward. By refusing to make an issue of
Vietnam's denial of human rights, he encourages the despots to continue denying
them. Why should they have second thoughts about jailing people for their
beliefs or blocking free elections if a key member of the US Senate is ensuring
that
there will be no penalties for doing so?
On the Web site of its Washington Embassy, Vietnam insists that
''the practicing of human rights is mere internal affairs of each country.''
Does Kerry believe that? If not, he should say so, loudly and clearly. Silence
in the face of tyranny is unseemly - especially in one who dreams of becoming
the leader of the Free World.
Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
(Posted on SAIGON HAI NGOAI EGROUP)
***
========================