And why should they? Over the last decade the US relationship with Vietnam has steadily improved, in line with the latter’s cautious progress toward economic liberalisation, democratisation and respect for human rights. During its first term the Obama administration has proved more than willing to extend a few diplomatic carrots Vietnam’s way.
In December 2010, Michael Michalak, then US Ambassador to Vietnam, used a Human Rights Day speech in Hanoi to praise the ‘strong improvements’ that had been made by the Vietnamese government in its protection of religious freedom. In 2011, the US State Department rejected calls by the US Commission for International Religious Freedom, Human Rights Watch, and various Vietnamese–American groups to re-designate Vietnam as a ‘country of particular concern’ (Vietnam was first removed as a CPC in 2006 on the basis that it had made ‘significant improvement towards advancing religious freedom’). US Trade Representative Ron Kirk has even been negotiating with the Vietnamese government about its possible admission to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In a neat demonstration of the budding friendship between the two countries, in late 2011 Vietnam opened a new consulate in New York, while the US added a much-touted ‘American Center’ to its consulate in Ho Chi Minh City.
But after this year’s elections, US–Vietnam diplomatic relations may stray from the path of normalisation. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has so far had little to say about this diplomatic embrace, but there is good reason to believe that a change in the White House may dictate a change of direction for bilateral relations.
In January 2012 House Republicans voiced serious concerns about what they labelled as the Obama administration’s indifference to growing human rights abuses in Vietnam. During several public hearings on the subject, Republican members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee pointed to three areas where they believed the new Vietnamese government, elected in 2011, was going backward in its respect for human rights.
First, the new government has stepped up its suppression of freedom of expression and association. Writers, human rights defenders, land rights activists, anti-corruption campaigners and religious and democracy advocates now routinely face police harassment and unlawful detention. In 2011 alone, 33 peaceful activists were sentenced collectively to 185 years in prison. On September 24 2012, three Vietnamese bloggers, Nguyen Van Hai, Ta Phong Tan, and Phan Thanh Hai, were sentenced to up to 26 years imprisonment after a closed trial of just a few hours. They had been held without trial since 2010 for writing blogs, such as ‘Justice and Truth’, that were deemed hostile to the Vietnamese government. Censorship of print news and the Internet has become both more common and sophisticated.
Second, arbitrary detention, police brutality and torture have become increasingly common tools for suppressing dissent. John Sifton, Asia Advocacy Director at Human Rights Watch, argues that police brutality is now endemic in Vietnam, with at least 13 people dying in police custody in 2011. Political and religious detainees are often tortured to elicit confessions, held incommunicado prior to trial, and denied access to family and lawyers.
Finally — and this appears to be of most concern to Congressional Republicans — the new Vietnamese government has begun cracking down on religious freedom. Though forced renunciations were officially halted in 2005, they have continued in practice. Under a far-reaching ban on all religious activity deemed to oppose ‘national interests’, state police have increasingly interfered in the practices of Buddhist Hoa Hao groups, the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the Cao Dai church, Falun Gong, Catholic Redemptorist churches and Protestant and Catholic Montagnards. In May 2011, alarmed by the prospect of the million-strong Hmong community converting to Christianity, the Vietnamese government went so far as to send troops to seal off thousands of Hmong Christians in Huoi Khon Village. Religious campaigners are also frequently arrested: at least 15 Catholics affiliated with Redemptorist churches in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City were arrested in late 2011.
These recent reversals in Vietnam’s human rights record have prompted US Congressional Republicans to call for a tougher stance toward the Vietnamese government. Chris Smith, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights, has urged the State Department to redesignate Vietnam as a ‘country of particular concern’. His subcommittee also expressed support for the establishment of a satellite consular office in the Vietnamese highlands, to handle human rights complaints on the ground.
A number of US Democrats also support a tougher stance on Vietnam. In March 2012 the House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously passed the Vietnam Human Rights Bill to prohibit any increase in non-humanitarian assistance to Vietnam above Fiscal Year 2011 levels, unless its government ‘makes substantial progress in establishing a democracy and promoting human rights’. The Bill has since been passed in the House of Representatives but awaits approval by the Senate.
Hillary Clinton expressed the view prior to the 2011 East Asia Summit that Vietnam’s human rights record remained a significant impediment to improving bilateral relations — a point she reiterated in a visit to Vietnam in July 2012. Yet the Obama administration has not indicated whether it intends to depart from the path toward normalisation of ties with Vietnam. The hopes of House Republicans who wish for a little more stick and a little less carrot in the US–Vietnam relationship may be realised if they can wrest control of the White House in November.
Patrick Bateman was a Research Fellow in East Asian and Pacific Affairs for US Senator Marco Rubio, and a researcher for the former Prime Minister of Australia John Howard. He now works for a human rights agency in London.
The title of your article and and the article itself is misleading and premature, predicting a Mitt Romney victory in November! You also lose some credibility when you repeatedly mentioned Republican Congress passing bills and holding hearings: as of today, they have passed 37 bills, killing the Obamacare many times over while their approval is reaching single %. Since when that Republicans become champions of human rights?
According to Mitt Romney, you are entitled to your analysis but not your facts:
1. The ” new government ” that you referred to is the same cabinet led by Premier Nguyen Tan Dung since 2005, just got given another 5 years term. No change.
2. There are over 1.5 million Vietnamese-Americans living in the US and their ideological goal is to revert Vietnam back to the old South Vietnam. Human rights, religious freedom, economic transparency… are slogans/means to their ” anti-Vietnam ” end.
3. There are many strong and well known organic political activists critical of Vietnamese government. They got in trouble when making contacts and/or connected with oversea organizations. The threat against Vietnam is often and real.
4. With about 28 million Christians, Vietnam has the 2nd most Christian population in Asia behind only the Philippines. The prospect of 1 million Hmong converting to Christianity should not be a major concern for the government, since they live in remote mountains and spread out hundred of miles apart. The Huoi Khon village incident involved Hmong Christians told to assemble outside in the open because the end of the world was coming.
Thanks for your comment Henry.
Neither the article nor its title predict a Romney victory. Both refer only to the possibility of a change in government, an occasional feature of competitive democracies!
Vietnam does indeed have a new government. While Nguyen Tan Dung has been re-elected, Vietnam has a new president and there have been significant changes in the leadership of the communist party. In a single party state, that’s what a ‘new’ government looks like (cf above)
You haven’t explained what the ‘threat’ against Vietnam is that justifies the repression of civil society actors, even if they were making contact with overseas organisations.
You’re right that the prospect of 1 million Hmong converting to Christianity should not be a major concern for the government. But the Huoi Khon incident, the imprisonmentt of Father Nguyen Van Ly and other religious activists, and crackdowns on Protestant Montagnards all point to grave discomfort with religious freedom among the ruling CP
3.
Thanks for your kind reply, Patrick.
1. When you titled ” The future of US relations with Vietnam ” and included sentences such as “after this year’s election, US-Vietnam relations may stray from the path of normalization ” or ” Mitt Romney has so far had little to say about this diplomatic embrace, but there is good reason to believe that a change in the White House may dictate a change in direction for bilateral relations”…, I concluded that you expected a Republican victory.
2. A new president in Vietnam (more symbolic than the Party boss, the Prime Minister) does not constitute a new government. Furthermore, your article repeatedly emphasizes associated change of policies in accordance with that change. What I see happening in Vietnam is normal peaks and valleys of routine politics, that is yet to become a trend of significant escalation. At any moment, you can cite similar lack of/repression of religious, political, human rights freedom in Africa, Middle East, China, other Asian countries or even in the US. Vietnam does not deserve to be singled out.
3. I did not use threat against Vietnam to justify the “repression ” of civil society actors. In fact, I contend that the government’s activities described by you does not amount to the level of repression. Rather, it can be best characterized as heavy handed policing actions against troublesome individuals. However, threats against the Vietnamese state are constant and real: Chinese leaning members of VCP, economic interest groups vying for corrupt resources, millions of Vietnamese Americans with fervent anti-Vietnam attitude living and growing within an opportunistic US government… It’s safer and more effective for organically grown change agents in Vietnam, to figure out their future direction without external influences. The manner in which the Protestant Church is trying to expand in Vietnam or the case of well connected Father Nguyen Van Ly utilizing the US embassy, and Vietnamese American Catholics to magnify his conflicts… are open invitations for excessive government crack-downs with no winner on either side.
4. Vietnam has different political beliefs system and its associated problems, that are best solved by Vietnamese in due time. We tried to impose our will and system on them once, with deadly consequences very recently. It’s not wise to advocate another dose of that!
It is disappointing to read Patrick Bateman’s analysis regarding Vietnam’s human issues. Bateman’s analysis mainly criticized Vietnam for abusing human rights. To use an antipathy tactic against Vietnam he exacerbated the imprisonment terms of the prisoners by falsely claiming that “In 2011 alone, 33 peaceful activists were sentenced collectively to 185 years in prison”. Vietnam only imposed long term imprisonments for those who are considered potentially dangerous for the government. Many of those Vietnamese prisoners were using human rights as a pretext to gain support from the Human Rights Watchdogs in order carry out their hidden political activities in Vietnam with the purpose to overthrow the Government which has defeated them in the 1970s era.
You have used an inappropriate mathematical approach to produce a false mathematical result of 185 years imprisonment to inspire hatred against the Vietnamese Government and its people. Reading your analysis at this point I became aware that you are really holding strong antipathy against the Vietnamese Government and that you are wishing to bring about a change to the Government of Vietnam. I am not in agreement with the view that to arrest and imprison someone who is attempting to politically undermine a government or to overthrow it is violating human right or abusing it.
In short, Mr Bateman may I advise that, you should write an article urging American politicians to speed up with their policy of friendly relationships with Vietnam encompassing but more importantly the politic and military ones so that Vietnam can stand on the American side to guard against the aggressive and dangerous expansion of China. One important matter you need to know is that Vietnam has never been and will never be forming a threatening force against America or its allies. Whereas Vietnam can be their most reliable and loyal friends in all fields. I belief nations of different governmental systems can still be good and reliable friends.
Mr Henry Ford is right when he addressed to you that “We tried to impose our will and system on them once, with deadly consequences very recently. It’s not wise to advocate another dose of that! I think the US government is gradually winning a different war in Vietnam now. They are winning it without having to use guns and bombs but with mutual good relationship and trust.