Democracy And The US' Pivot To Asia

By Ellen Bork, the Director of Democracy and Human Rights at the Foreign Policy Initiative.

President Obama's announcement last fall of a "pivot" to Asia has been greeted with skepticism. For one thing, there will be no appreciable increase in U.S. military assets in the region any time soon. Furthermore, even for an administration generally unconvincing in its commitment to the promotion of democracy and human rights abroad, Team Obama has been remarkably timid in advancing any such agenda in this region of 4 billion people.

So it was encouraging that on her swing through Asia last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a conference in Mongolia that support for democracy and rights are at the "heart" of the Asia pivot. She also left no doubt about the biggest obstacle to democracy's success in Asia. In several passages that seemed directed at China, Clinton rejected the idea that economic success could be sustained in the absence of political reform and the rule of law. Repression, she said, can "create the illusion of security, but illusions fade because people's yearnings for liberty do not." Unfortunately this welcome rhetoric was absent when it came time to meet China's foreign minister and Vietnam's Communist party general secretary.

The administration also raised doubts about its commitment to democracy and human rights when it took a backward step in its Burma policy, easing sanctions on investment there, including in the energy sector. President Obama abandoned an earlier "step by step" approach that was supposed to maximize the benefit to Burma's people by allowing investment in sectors like tourism, manufacturing, and agriculture first, and only later, after progress on institutionalizing democracy, in sectors controlled by the unreformed, brutal military, like natural gas.

Washington's move undermined Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's democracy leader, who recently warned against allowing investment in the state-controlled oil and gas industry until guarantees of transparency could be implemented. With a small presence in Burma's parliament, Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy party have limited political capital during a precarious phase that will last at least until elections in 2015 offer a chance for the popular democratic movement to consolidate its position. American support during this time is vital.

America's conduct of its foreign policy can never be separated from its identity as the world's leading democracy. "It is who we are," President Obama likes to say of America's commitment to democratic values and human rights. Indeed, the United States contributed to democratic transitions in the Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea that transformed the region.

Those of course were small authoritarian regimes, ones that did not seek to project their power or political model. In China, Washington faces a bigger and more complicated challenge. The secretary of state staked out an ambitious position in her Mongolia remarks. If the United States fails to follow through, the Asia pivot will lose credibility. Asia's people will lose much more.
...Read more>>>

Effort to dump ambassador to Vietnam over human rights gains steam

By Julian Pecquet (THE HILL) - 07/24/12Three lawmakers have signed on to Rep. Frank Wolf's (R-Va.) effort to have the Obama administration replace its ambassador to Vietnam over concerns that he hasn't done enough to boost human rights in the country.

Reps. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.) and Chris Smith (R-N.J.) signed on to a letter – Wolf's third – to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging the dismissal of David Shear. Wolf began gunning for Shear's head earlier this month after finding out that he had not contacted the family of Vietnamese-American imprisoned in Hanoi and did not invite many prominent human-rights activists to the embassy's July 4th party.

“We do not believe that this administration, especially Ambassador David Shear, have sufficiently advocated for basic human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam,” the letter states. “In fact, Ambassador Shear has sidelined these issues, which has been a cause for concern.”

Shear was sworn in as ambassador in August 2011 after serving since 2009 as deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the Department of State. His nomination was held up temporarily by Sens. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) over concerns that Vietnamese children in the process of getting adopted by U.S. citizens were being left in limbo.

The full text of the letter is below:

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
2201 C St NW Ste 7276
Washington D.C. 20520


Dear Secretary Clinton:
We strongly believe that human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam need to be at the forefront of bilateral relations with Vietnam, including any discussion about a strategic partnership with the United States. While we were pleased to hear that you mentioned democracy activists, lawyers and bloggers on your recent trip to Vietnam, we were deeply disappointed that there was no public mention of imprisoned Vietnamese-American Dr. Nguyen Quoc Quan. In fact, in a letter sent earlier this month prior to your trip, several members of Congress urged you to raise the matter of his continued detention and press for his release.

We do not believe that this administration, especially Ambassador David Shear, have sufficiently advocated for basic human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam. In fact, Ambassador Shear has sidelined these issues which has been a cause for concern. The people of Vietnam yearn for American leadership in this realm – leadership which Ambassador Shear has been simply unable or unwilling to provide. As such, we urge you to dismiss Ambassador Shear from his post, and move swiftly to appoint an individual who will embrace the struggle of the Vietnamese people and advocate on their behalf.
Unfortunately, the outstanding congressional request for the list of invitees to the Embassy Hanoi’s July 4th celebration remains unfulfilled. As such, we also urge you to make sure that the list is provided in a timely fashion so that we are able to see which religious freedom and democracy activists were invited, if any.

We wish to see a mutually beneficial relationship with Vietnam. In order for this to happen, we must have confidence in this administration’s efforts to promote religious freedom and democracy in Vietnam. We have lost confidence that Ambassador Shear is up to the task.

Sincerely,


Frank Wolf
Dan Lungren
Joseph Pitts
Chris Smith

...Read more>>>

UN caves in to Vietcongs pressure, rejects the consultative status of the NGO KKF

JOINT PRESS RELEASE - THE OBSERVATORY

Viet Nam: UN caves in to Vietnamese pressure, rejects human rights group’s consultative status

Bangkok-Paris-Geneva, July 24, 2012. The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders (an FIDH and OMCT joint programme) and the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR) condemn the resolution passed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) overturning a previous decision to grant consultative status to the non-governmental human rights organisation Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation (KKF).

In May 2012, ECOSOC’s Committee on Non-governmental Organisations, in a consensus decision, approved KKF’s application for special consultative status with the Council. Vietnam protested strongly against the decision. On July 23, member States of ECOSOC, in a vote of 27 in favour to 14 against, with 10 abstentions, adopted a resolution to rescind that decision. The resolution was tabled by Vietnam along with El Salvador and fellow ASEAN member States Burma, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.

In a joint letter[1] issued on July 18, 2012, the Observatory, along with 12 international and regional human rights groups across the globe, urged ECOSOC member states to oppose the draft resolution and to “support the ability of civil society organisations to freely participate in the work of the United Nations”. Special consultative status is granted to non-governmental organisations that “have a special competence in, and are concerned specifically with, only a few of the fields of activity covered by the Council and its subsidiary bodies, and that are known within the fields for which they have or seek consultative status”.

Before the vote, representatives of Cuba, Indonesia, Philippines, Lao PDR, Nicaragua, Russia, and Venezuela took to the floor in support of the resolution. On the other hand,, the United States and Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, expressed their opposition to the resolution. “It was not appropriate to oppose accreditation for an organization simply because it expressed views different from those of Governments represented on the Council”, said the representative of Ireland.

“It is shameful that many UN member states caved in to Vietnam’s pressure and became an accomplice in stifling the rightful voices of human rights defenders. It sends a chilling signal to the people in Vietnam that the international community is not on their side in their quest for greater freedom”, said Vo Van Ai, president of VCHR.

KKF is headquartered in the United States and conducts human rights advocacy globally. KKF aims, “through the use of peaceful measures and international laws, to seek freedom, justice, and the right to self-determination for the Indigenous Khmer-Krom Peoples”. It has an established track record in engaging with UN human rights mechanisms and providing valuable and quality information on abuses against the Khmer Krom minority group in Vietnam. Vietnam’s ambassador to the UN, Le Hoai Trung, labeled KKF’s activities as “politically motivated” and characterised KKF’s aim to seek freedom and justice for the Khmer people as a “grave offence” to the “sacred, national value” of national unity.

In the 2010 joint report Vietnam: From “Vision” to Facts: Human Rights in Vietnam under its Chairmanship of ASEAN, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR) documented human rights violations against the Khmer Krom, including religious persecution, land confiscation, and excessive use of force. In the last five years, the Observatory and VCHR documented instances of arbitrary arrests and forced defrocking of Khmer Krom Buddhist monks in retaliation of their peaceful protests against religious persecution[2].

In another example of its diplomatic offensive against criticisms abroad, in September 2010, Vietnam lobbied the government of Thailand to obstruct a press conference in Bangkok where FIDH and VCHR were to launch their joint report on Vietnam.[3] Vietnam’s hostilities against independent human rights defenders and groups at home and abroad are nothing new and reflect its consistently dismal human rights records, said FIDH and VCHR.

Vietnam intends to run for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, which requires member States to uphold the highest human rights standards. “Before it is even elected to the Human Rights Council, Vietnam is already busy obstructing human rights groups from cooperating with the UN to promote human rights. This kind of intimidation must not be tolerated anywhere in the UN system”, said Souhayr Belhassen, President of FIDH.

"The political intervention led by a coalition of Asean States overturning the decision of the competent committee excluding civil society access is an expression of fear to hear unpleasant truths and opinions. The basis of any commitment to human rights defenders is the recognition of their very existence and their right to speak and to be heard, and the states have failed in this test - Vietnam in the first place", said Gerald Staberock, Secretary-General of OMCT.

Press contact:
VCHR: Vo Tran Nhat: +33 1 45 98 30 85
FIDH: Karine Appy +33 1 43 55 14 12 / + 33 1 43 55 25 18
OMCT: Isabelle Scherer: +41 22 809 49 39
...Read more>>>

Congressman wants ambassador to Vietnam fired over human rights issues

Washington D.C., Jul 12, 2012 / 12:07 am (CNA).- Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) has called for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam David Shear, charging that he has marginalized human rights and religious freedom concerns.

“Sadly, his sidelining of serious human rights issues in Vietnam is symptomatic of this administration's overall approach to human rights and religious freedom,” the congressman said in a July 9 letter to President Barack Obama. “Time and again these issues are put on the back-burner -- to the detriment of freedom-loving people the world over.”

Rep. Wolf said that U.S. embassies should be “islands of freedom – especially in repressive countries like Vietnam,” but he criticized the U.S. embassy in Vietnam for appearing to not play this role.

Rep. Wolf, who co-chairs the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, cited embassy inaction in the case of Vietnamese-American democracy activist and U.S. citizen Dr. Nguyen Quoc Quan, who was imprisoned after he was detained upon arrival at Tan Son Nhat International Airport in Ho Chi Minh City this past April.

The embassy did not initiate contact with Quan’s wife until Rep. Wolf asked. The congressman said there seemed to be “little urgency to securing his release.”

He said that Ambassador Shear also failed to invite many of the most prominent democracy and human rights activists in Vietnam to the U.S. embassy’s July 4 celebration, despite Rep. Wolf’s urging that he open the embassy to Buddhist monks and nuns, Catholic priests, Protestant pastors and bloggers and democracy activists.

Rep. Wolf said that the ambassador should be replaced by a Vietnamese-American who would not be “tempted to maintain smooth bilateral relations at all costs.”

In recent years Catholics have sought the return of confiscated Church property, but the dispute with the Vietnamese government has sometimes turned violent.

The government has also previously arrested Fr. Nguyen Van Ly, a religious freedom advocate, on charges of spreading anti-communist propaganda.
Source: Catholic News Agency, Jul 16,2012
...Read more>>>

Hillary Clinton's Message to Hanoi!

The U.S. Secretary of State connects human rights and prosperity.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have been disappointed in her efforts to push Southeast Asia toward unity on South China Sea territorial disputes, but that doesn't mean her pass through the region last week yielded no results. During her brief stay in Hanoi, Mrs. Clinton delivered a particularly important message on human rights.

"I know there are some who argue that developing economies need to put economic growth first and worry about political reform and democracy later, but that is a short-sighted bargain," Mrs. Clinton said after meeting her Vietnamese counterpart. U.S. officials said that during her private session with Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh, Mrs. Clinton raised specific cases of bloggers and other activists who have been detained in recent years for peaceful dissent.

The Secretary's comments continue an unsung but important and potentially effective aspect of the Obama Administration's strategic "pivot" to Asia. Mrs. Clinton has consistently pressed Hanoi to improve its rights record. Vietnam's authoritarian government is susceptible to pressure on this point because it is increasingly eager to cultivate closer ties with America to counterbalance China's influence.

Hanoi has been backsliding on rights despite some limited progress on religious freedom in the middle of last decade. The most notable example is the April arrest of U.S. citizen Nguyen Quoc Quan on charges related to peaceful pro-democracy activism. Presumably Mrs. Clinton raised his case in private, although it's disappointing she didn't do so in public. That followed a string of arrests of bloggers—many pushing Hanoi to take a stronger stand against China in South China Sea disputes—that have been part of a long-term crackdown on online dissent.

Mrs. Clinton also helpfully tied the rights issue to economic development. This isn't mere rhetoric. Hanoi already blocks its citizens from accessing uncensored social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Now the regime also is contemplating a draconian Internet regulation that would force foreign service providers to block access to Vietnamese-language content that Hanoi deems objectionable, no matter where the company is based.

Meanwhile, Vietnam will need to undertake major domestic reforms to boost growth, which at 4.4% lags many of its Asian peers. Challenges include privatizing large state-owned enterprises, encouraging greater foreign investment, and fostering more private entrepreneurship at home. Those reforms will be helped by the kind of freedoms and rule of law that Hanoi today undermines in its crack-down on political dissent. Developing a healthy economy will make Vietnam a stronger ally for the U.S. in the region.

One speech won't convert Vietnam's Communist Party. And it must be noted that the Obama Administration's human-rights stance in Asia hasn't always been either strong or effective. But in Vietnam, Mrs. Clinton is talking the right talk. One way to follow up would be to keep pressing Hanoi, often and publicly, to release activists such as Mr. Quan and to rethink its proposed Internet law.

Source: The Wall Street Journal July 16,2012
...Read more>>>

FATF Blacklists Ecuador, Yemen, and Vietnam

The Financial Action Task Force(FATF) said Friday it added Ecuador, Yemen and Vietnam to its list of countries that haven’t made sufficient progress in tackling money laundering and terrorist financing.

The three countries were slapped with a label saying they either didn’t address deficiencies in fighting money laundering and terrorism finance, or that they didn’t commit to an action plan with the FATF to deal with the issues.

“The FATF calls on its members to consider the risks arising from the deficiencies associated with each jurisdiction,” it said in a statement.

Ecuador, Yemen and Vietnam have each, the FATF said, taken some steps toward fixing the problem, though none of them have done enough to prevent the blacklisting.

Countries that fail to implement FATF’s recommendations run the risk of being labeled as high-risk or uncooperative jurisdictions, thereby making it even more costly and difficult for those nations to do business with the banking systems of FATF members. The FATF’s members include the U.S., Mexico, France and the U.K.

The FATF’s last plenary was in February, when it updated its recommendations to include tax evasion and smuggling as “predicate offenses” to money laundering. It met last week in Rome.

Turkmenistan was cited as having “largely met its commitments” under the action plan, and is therefore no longer subject to monitoring by the FATF, it said.

In addition, the FATF added Afghanistan, Albania, Kuwait and the Philippines to its list of countries seen as countries making progress toward implementing plans to fight terrorism finance and money laundering.

The countries on the so-called “gray list” have strategic deficiencies in their systems for fighting the issues, but they have committed to action plans and are making progress in dealing with them.

The Philippines is by far the most notable in the list, because it was identified in February after the last FATF plenary session as not having made sufficient progress, putting it on a so-called “dark gray” list.

This month, the Philippines enacted an amendment to its money laundering law and a law to combat the financing of terrorism, both of which were lauded by the FATF on Friday. It “strongly encourages” the country to pass another pending change to the country’s money-laundering law.

The FATF’s announcement Friday upgraded the Philippines from the “dark gray” list to the “gray list.” More coverage of the Philippines is available here, here and here.

Calling the announcement “positive news…particularly for our overseas workers and our economy,” the country’s Anti-Money Laundering Council said in a statement that the pending legislation would expand the definition of money laundering under Philippine law and increase the predicate crimes to include bribery, human trafficking, tax evasion and environmental crime.

“The Philippines will continue to contribute and support the global efforts against money laundering and terrorist financing in keeping with its commitment to good governance and upholding peace and order,” the statement said.

Source: The Wall Street Journal June 25,2012
...Read more>>>

Human rights can't be led from behind: US Expert

Are Democrats ceding the human rights mantle to Republicans? The recent spectacle of a blind Chinese dissident being whisked by wheelchair from our embassy in Beijing suggests that the issue of human rights still has the ability to command Americans' attention.

In fact, it might be one of the few foreign policy issues where daylight remains between the two presidential candidates.

Consider the following: A recent survey by the political scientists Josh Busby, Will Inboden and Jon Monten found that Democratic foreign policy specialists were less likely to identify human rights as a "very important" policy priority (about 50 percent, compared with nearly 85 percent of such Republican specialists). Indeed, on this issue the Democratic Party has shifted to the center.

Republicans, meanwhile, have continued their embrace of neoconservatism, which places greater weight in the sanctity of U.S. force to protect human freedom abroad (Mitt Romney's foreign policy team is stuffed with such dewy-eyed conservatives).

The reasons for this shift are manifold: Progressive Democrats might feel that human rights have been co-opted to serve other interests and no longer have faith in Washington's ability to promote them with integrity. They may associate the cause with the failed democracy-promotion agenda of Obama's predecessor. Or perhaps the party has strategically softened its stance to project a more macho air on national security and win over undecided voters.

Still, the survey suggests progressive Democrats could be at risk of abandoning, or at least de-prioritizing, deeply held principles of human rights that have guided the party from its inception.

Spotty record

Take Obama's own spotty record. He balked at granting the Dalai Lama an Oval Office invitation and didn't press the issue of human rights on his visit to China. He punted on his campaign promise to shutter the Guantanamo Bay prison. And his administration has tried to block the a measure that would freeze assets and deny visas to Russian officials guilty of human rights abuses.

Perhaps most controversially, Obama has stepped up the use of drone strikes abroad, killing undisclosed numbers of civilians.

Obama has also been a reluctant interventionist, preferring a hands-off approach to the Arab Spring and protests in Russia, Iran and other authoritarian states. While accepting his Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, Obama preached the importance of "just" interventions. "To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism," he said, "it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."

Yet, his speak-softly stance has drawn fire from his Republican opponent, particularly Obama's policy toward Iran and Syria.

"President Obama's lack of leadership has resulted in a policy of paralysis that has watched (Bashar) Assad slaughter 10,000 individuals," Romney said recently.

Shifting sands

Part of the shift from human rights is a function of today's Democratic elite, Obama included. While the Baby Boom generation's world view was shaped by Vietnam, the new elites' formative years were the 1980s and 1990s. This era included intervention successes, notably Iraq in 1991, but also disasters (Lebanon in 1982-83 and Somalia in 1993).

As Peter Beinart noted in his 2006 book, "The Good Fight," the party of Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman has traditionally focused on U.S. legitimacy abroad and self-improvement at home. Democrats from Obama's generation understand America's moral fallibility, as well as the importance of international institutions. In the political scientists' survey, Democrats were much more favorable toward strengthening institutions such as the International Criminal Court than Republicans were.

Yet liberalism has also been about promoting America's core values, especially human rights, on the world stage, both through international institutions and, at times, military intervention. Democrats cannot allow the failures, dramas and expenses of the latter to deter them from supporting the full spectrum of U.S. tools, including force, when necessary to support their ideals.

When a Pakistani doctor is tried for treason for assisting American forces or the Syrian government slaughters thousands of its own citizens, these are moral issues that should not come at the expense of U.S. strategic concerns with Islamabad or Moscow. There are times when hard-won principles such as the responsibility to protect have to trump pragmatic interests.

Human rights, of course, involve trade-offs and prioritization -- not every crisis should command U.S. intervention. And some notable progress on this front has been made by this administration. Burma's release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest and our intervention in Libya top this administration's list of achievements. Obama also deserves kudos for launching the Atrocities Prevention Board, a government panel to appraise the threat of mass killings, and for enacting tougher sanctions against governments' use of technology to trample human rights.

But as we disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan, and as the fight against global jihad recedes, human rights should return to the forefront. No, the issue is not expected to top voters' concerns this election season, but by ceding the moral high ground on this issue to their opponents, Democrats do themselves, and their intellectual forefathers, a disservice.

Human rights are the last issue the White House should be seen as "leading from behind."

Lionel Beehner is a fellow at the Truman National Security Project and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.
...Read more>>>

ASEAN Rights commission like a 'train wreck' says director

Human Rights Watch director says participation of society needed

Manila Ten member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) should include non-government rights groups in the drafting of the region’s much-awaited human rights declaration, activists have said.

“The international community must demand that Asean’s Inter-government Commission on Human Rights (AICHR ) permit full civil society participation in the drafting of the Asean Human Rights Declaration (AHRD),” Phil Robertson Asia deputy director, Human Rights Watch (HRW), said in an article in The Nation.

As of now, the commission is like “a full blown train wreck,” Robertson added.

Because of its intransigence, the AICHR is like a “commission shrouded in secrecy,” said Forum Asia, the region’s coalition of human rights groups.

About 100 civil society organisations and networks in Asean countries have already called for the release of AHRD’s draft, to check if the commission is progressive or conservative, said the Manila Times.

Earlier, Navi Pillay the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said in Bali, Indonesia, in November 2011: “No discussion of human rights can be complete or credible without significant input from civil society and national human rights institutions.”

Rights groups are extremely frustrated because they are not participating in the drafting of the AHRD, Pillay said.

Last January, during AICHR’s meeting in Siem Reap, Cambodia, “officials from Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, provided comment as a block of nations, [and] proposed more progressive wording [of the declaration],” Manila Times quoted Mizzima Publications as saying.

A human-rights advocate on Myanmar affairs, Mizzima accused Laos and Vietnam of proposing conditional upholding of human rights in the region.

Limiting rights

Reading from a leaked copy of AHRD’s draft, Mizzima quoted Laos as proposing that the “exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms [in Asean] shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely... to meet the just requirements of national security, public order, public health and public morality and the general welfare of the peoples in a democratic society”.

Laos wanted to limit “the right to practice one’s religion or belief” and wants these to be subject to the country’s national laws,” said Mizzima, adding this would make Asean countries’ exempted from AHRD’s mandate because of their respective laws on security, public morality and other issues.

Vietnam showed reservations “about the right to freedom of opinion and expression and to freely receive information,” reported Mizzima.

Laos also called for “non-confrontation, avoidance of double standards and non-politicisation” in the upholding of human rights, said Robertson who also got a copy of AHRD’s draft.

Malaysia called for the upholding of “rights and freedoms within the regional context” or within “Asean core values,” said Robertson, adding that those in charge of AHRD’s draft focused more on “limiting rights — rather than promoting and protecting them”.

In all, AHRD “seeks to undermine international standards,” assessed Robertson, referring to the benchmark already reached by the United Nations Human Rights Council and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

‘Grave abuse’

As a rule, AHRD should be the region’s “strong voice for human rights everywhere, because citizens of Asean countries are everywhere, some of them, including Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), are subjected to grave human rights abuses by their employers,” the Manila Times editorial said.

“We hope it is not one of those documents that — true to Asean’s tradition — will state lofty goals but will leave member governments the option of acting or not acting on the matter.” the Manila Times added.
AHRD’s final draft will be reviewed by Asean foreign ministers in June.

Asean has been promising that the AHRD will be a landmark in the democratisation of Asean member countries.

It will be the “road-map for regional human rights development in the region,” vowed Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan.

Asean adopted the Asean Charter in 2007, which paved the way for the drafting of its human rights declaration.

Asean members are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Source: By Barbara Mae Dacanay- Gulfnews.com
...Read more>>>

Chinese General warns US “we will not attack - unless we are attacked”!

According to the China Daily, the US is seeking to “reposition” its naval forces so that 60 percent of them will be in the Pacific by 2020. This has been confirmed by the US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the 11th Asia Security Summit in Singapore on Saturday, giving the world the first details of a new US military strategy announced earlier this year.

CHINA WATCHING CLOSELY

“This is something the Chinese military will have to watch closely”, said one Chinese military official , speaking “off the record” by email communication on Monday.

“China retain the right to defense ourselves against a US attack”, the official said.
Lieutenant-General Ren Haiquan, a People's Liberation Army (PLA) commander.

General Haiquan is also vice-president of the PLA's Academy of Military Sciences in Beijing, who led the Chinese delegation to the Singapore forum, said on Saturday that Washington's planned naval redeployment is neither something "desperately serious" nor something that "doesn't matter".

WE WILL NOT ATTACK FIRST

"We will also improve our military strategy, our national defense and the PLA's fighting ability. We will not attack unless we are attacked," the General told reporters."We have the measures to strike back when fundamental national interests are under threat," he said.

"We still face a very complex, sometimes severe, situation. We will be prepared for all complexities. There's a saying: work for the best and prepare for the worst," said Lt. General Haiquan.

These comments are seen as a warning to certain members of Congress and the entire US military industrial establishment - "don't mess with us in China."

In the China Daily report, Chinese officials indicated it would "improve" the capability of its forces and has the capacity to "strike back" when its "fundamental interests" are under threat.

IS CHINA THE TARGET?

"The shift is not wholly against China, but China is definitely one of its targets”, Wenzhao said.

Tao Wenzhao, from the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said: "What really matters is not the distance to China, but US equipment and activity in the Asia-Pacific region, an area which it regards as less stable than the Atlantic region.”

"Panetta (specifically) mentioned carriers, destroyers and cruisers but what about submarines? Where they are going to be based? Basing them in Pearl Harbor is not as threatening as basing them in Guam. And how are they going to be used?", said Gary Li, a London-based intelligence and military analyst with Exclusive Analysis, a business intelligence agency.

Currently, the US Navy fleet strength of 285 ships is almost evenly divided between the Atlantic and the Pacific.

PHILIPPINES

In addition the US is seeking to pre-positioned about 2,500 US Marines in Australia and there may be a similar arrangement in the Philippines (see RT news report: China infuriated by US-Philippines defense plans RT news report ).

VIETNAM

The US is also seeking to establish a US naval base in Vietnam, which is seen as an effort to threaten China, since there is no other real challenge to US military dominance in the region. It is unclear if Vietnam will grant such permission given the US record on human rights and war crimes abuses, both now and in the past (see article: US seeks to establish a naval base in Vietnam to threaten China see article ).

See also: US warships USS Blue Ridge, the destroyer escorted warship USS Chafee in Vietnam US warships USS Blue Ridge .

Regardless of the repositioning of naval forces and the development of more accurate missiles and weapons, China will always have the ability to devastate the US because of its construction of thousands of underground silos and tunnels housing thousands of Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM’s) see video: Chinese Nuclear Tunnels, the Underground Great Wall: The DongFeng 21D Chinese Nuclear Tunnels


“In the end the US Naval buildup in the Pacific will be largely ineffective as well as hugely expensive waste of money, because China cannot be threatened in such a way”, said one official at the Pentagon, speaking on the strict condition of anonymity. “You can’t tell that to the people upstairs they have made up their minds already, this is what they want to do”, the official said.

China, it should be understood, maintains one of the largest, best trained armies in the world.

Source: Robert Tilford- Wichita Military Affairs Examiner
...Read more>>>

U.S. Defense Secretary Visits Vietnam

HANOI—Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is in Vietnam this week trying to build closer ties with the government in hopes of forging a stronger military partnership, a key element in the United States’ new Asia strategy.

At a news conference Monday with Vietnamese Defense Minister Gen. Phung Quang Thanh, Mr. Panetta said he hopes to strengthen the U.S. defense relationship with Vietnam and help the country’s military to develop.

Mr. Panetta said he and Gen. Quang Thanh discussed additional high-level dialogues and increased visits to Vietnam by U.S. Navy ships.

“The whole thrust of what we discussed in our meeting is to try to take this relationship to a new level,” Mr. Panetta said.

But Vietnam, keen to guard its independence, is moving gingerly. Gen. Quang Thanh said his country wants good relations with both China and the United States.

“We do not depend on any country,” Gen. Quang Thanh said.

U.S. officials have worried in the past about China’s actions in the South China Sea and have said they believe if they don’t help other nations in the region to improve their militaries, China will come to intimidate smaller countries.

Mr. Panetta said the U.S. wants to help strengthen Vietnam and other nations, which he said would help to increase regional stability.

“The goal of the United States is to advance exactly what the general refers to: advance the independence and sovereignty of all nations in the region,” Mr. Panetta said.

For his part, Gen. Quang Thanh said he wants the U.S. to lift its ban on selling Vietnam lethal weapons. Congress currently allows some nonlethal military equipment to be sold to Hanoi.

Selling a wider range of weapons, Gen. Quang Thanh said, would “help fully normalize relations.”

Mr. Panetta did not explicitly comment on the arm-sales issue, but noted that “assistance” to Vietnam will have conditions.

“That additional assistance depends on progress that is being made on human rights and other reforms,” Mr. Panetta said.



Source: The Wall Street Journal June 5,2012 ...Read more>>>

Human rights deteriorating in China, Vietnam, U.S. says

WASHINGTON — Human rights conditions have deteriorated in China with a "closing of space" for activists and lawyers, while Vietnam also continues to severely restrict freedom of expression, the U.S. State Department said Thursday.

The judgments were made in the department's annual assessment of human rights in countries around the world, that also took aim in Asia at post civil-war Sri Lanka and vast penal labour camps in North Korea.

But the U.S. hailed "remarkable" improvements in military-dominated Myanmar, including releases of political prisoners and democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi's participation in April special elections. It held up the country also known as Burma as an example of reform that it hoped could inspire change in other closed societies.

The report, which covers 2011, singled out China as a place in Asia where things had gotten worse. The government exercised tight control over the Internet, stepped up efforts to silence political activists and resorted to extralegal measures, including enforced disappearance and house arrest of family members, the report said.

Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labour, said the past several years have seen a "closing of space" for human rights lawyers and activists and China. He also voiced concern over repression of religious minorities and the self-immolations of Buddhist monks and nuns in Tibetan areas.

Among the Chinese activists singled out for mention in the report is blind lawyer Chen Guangcheng, who had campaigned against forced abortions and other abuses. His case has moved on dramatically since the report was drafted, following his escape from house arrest to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing last month. That triggered several days of frantic, closed-door diplomacy before Chen was allowed last week to travel to New York to study.

Posner said the U.S. was closely monitoring what is happening with Chen's elder brother and detained nephew, and lawyers and others who have supported them. But he stressed how the resolution of Chen's case demonstrated that the U.S. and China could address human rights without it derailing ties.

As its steps up engagement in Asia, the Obama administration has also cultivated relations with former enemy Vietnam. The report took aim at Vietnam's one-party rule and its restrictions on Internet content and bloggers. It criticized arbitrary arrests of peaceful activists and said more than 100 political detainees are currently held.

On North Korea, the report cited estimates that between 130,000-200,000 detainees are held in political, penal labour camps. It said based on satellite imagery, once such camp was thought to be 31 miles (50 kilometres) long and 25 miles (40 kilometres) wide and hold 50,000 inmates.

Defectors from the impoverished, closed country continued to report extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, severe punishment of some refugees and their family members repatriated after fleeing to China. It said many prisoners in political prison camps and the detention system were not expected to survive.

In Sri Lanka, the U.S. reported disappearances and killings by pro-government paramilitary groups, predominantly in minority ethnic Tamil areas. It referred to attacks, intimidation and harassment of civil society activists, journalists and persons viewed as sympathizers of the Tamil Tigers - the rebel group that was crushed after a 26-year civil war that ended in 2009.

"A disproportionate number of victims of human rights abuses were Tamils," the report said.

In Indonesia, widely viewed as the most democratic country in Southeast Asia, the U.S. still cited major human rights problems, including continuing arbitrary and unlawful killings by security forces and others in the restive provinces of Papua and West Papua.

The report noted the escalation in another of the region's democracies, Thailand, of prosecutions under the tough lese-majeste law, which carries up to 15 years in prison for insults of the nation's top royalty.

In the decade before 2006, there had been about five cases on average annually, but in 2010 there were 478 new cases, and in the first 10 months of 2011, 85 new charges. It said the overall conviction rate remained nearly 100 per cent.

Source: The Associated Press, Thursday May. 24, 2012 1:01 PM ET
...Read more>>>

Vietnam Still Abuses Human Rights and Religious Freedom

Dr. Robert P. George serves as a Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). This article was adapted from Commissioner George’s testimony of May 15, 2012 before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has testified before Congress on Vietnam numerous times over the past seven years. Before each appearance, USCIRF had hoped to bring news of dramatic changes; greater respect for universal rights; lifting draconian controls over free expression, religion, and association; and the cessation of the silencing of dissent. Sadly, the Commission cannot report such changes today. In fact, Vietnam has been backsliding on human rights for the past several years and religious freedom conditions remain very poor and are deteriorating.

Religious Freedom Conditions

The U.S.-Vietnamese relationship has grown rapidly in recent years, but it has not brought needed improvements in religious freedom and related human rights in Vietnam.

The government of Vietnam continues to control all religious communities in some manner, actively suppresses independent religious practice, and detains individuals viewed as challenging its authority, particularly those who publicly advocate for fewer religious freedom restrictions.

To be sure, religious activity continues to expand in Vietnam. The government has made important concessions over the past decade in response to international pressure, including the 2004 designation of Vietnam by the United States as a “Country of Particular Concern” or CPC for its severe religious freedom abuses.

Nevertheless, individuals continue to be imprisoned for engaging in independent religious activity or religious freedom advocacy; new converts to ethnic minority Christianity face discrimination, harassment, and forced renunciations of faith; and religious communities face violence from police and “contract thugs,” including Catholics peacefully protesting land disputes and forced disbandment of the “Plum Village” Buddhist order.

The most egregious violations have targeted the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, independent Hoa Hao and Cao Dai groups; ethnic minority Protestants in the Central Highlands and northwest provinces; and ethnic Khmer Buddhists in the Mekong Delta.

Over the past year, there have been more than a dozen new arrests of ethnic minority Protestants and Catholics and two Hoa Hao activists who met with the Commission during 2009. Violence continues to occur, targeting Catholic communities protesting land confiscations and Hmong religious gatherings.

Relations between the Vietnamese government and Catholics, particularly clergy and laity affiliated with the Redemptorist Order, have deteriorated significantly in recent years. Peaceful protests in land disputes and prayer vigils to honor detained human rights defenders have led to violence by police and more than a dozen arrests. Ethnic minority Protestants continue to experience campaigns of forced renunciations of faith, focused on curtailing both independent religious activity and new converts. Fr. Nguyen Van Ly was also returned to prison last year after being given medical parole.

Recommendations for U.S. Policy

USCIRF is not alone in its conclusions about religious freedom conditions in Vietnam. Its assessments are shared widely by members of Congress in both parties and Vietnamese-Americans and by others committed to the advance of human rights and religious freedom. The Commission’s conclusions are also those of the Obama Administration. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated publicly that Vietnam and the United States have distinct differences in the area of human rights. She has expressed her “concern about [the] arrest and conviction of people for peaceful dissent, attacks on religious groups and curbs on Internet freedom,” and said that if the U.S. and Vietnam are ever to develop a “strategic partnership,” “Vietnam must do more to respect and protect its citizens’ rights.”

The U.S. government has political leverage and diplomatic resources to advance religious freedom and related human rights in Vietnam. The question is whether or not such leverage and resources will be used.

USCIRF believes that CPC designation is warranted for Vietnam.

The CPC designation worked when used previously from 2004 to 2006, producing tangible results without harming progress on other issues. The Vietnamese government released some prisoners and loosened some controls over religious activity. Meanwhile, trade, humanitarian programs, and security cooperation expanded.

A CPC designation will produce progress again if used as the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 intended. The idea that vigorous human rights diplomacy will curtail advances on other bilateral interests fails the test of fact.

In addition to a CPC designation, both the Administration and the U.S. Senate can demonstrate its commitment to human rights in Vietnam by signaling support for passage of the Vietnam Human Rights Act. This bill should be discussed, considered, and passed during the current session of Congress.

Both the CPC designation and the Vietnam Human Rights Act are powerful tools to spotlight abuses of religious freedom and related rights, encourage future improvements, and clearly signal that the United States supports those in Vietnam who seek to advance both prosperity and guaranteed rights.

Conclusion

The Obama Administration’s newly unveiled East Asia policy, the so-called “Asia Pivot,” offers an opportunity for the United States to demonstrate that its interests in human rights and religious liberty are pursued in tandem with its interests in trade and security.

A CPC designation for Vietnam would convey that message. Any expansion of U.S. economic or security assistance programs in Vietnam should be linked with human rights progress and the creation of new and sustainable initiatives in religious freedom and programs in non-commercial rule of law and civil society development.

Vietnam and the United States share a unique and tragic history. Their engagement is no longer one of bullets and bombs, but of ideas and institutions. The Vietnamese leadership out of necessity abandoned its Marxist economic ideals and now simply clings to political control. The same vigilance and pressure that dragged Vietnam onto the path of a market economy need to be applied to weaken its grip on totalitarian authority and end its silencing of dissent and repression of religious communities.

United States policies and programs should reflect this goal and support those who seek greater freedoms and guaranteed rights in Vietnam. Our diplomacy must send the clear message that U.S. interests in Vietnam are not only economic, but humanitarian, and include the universal desire to speak freely, worship without fear, and organize openly without suffering persecution. This is a message that will register when delivered clearly by the U.S. government, giving hope to millions among Vietnam’s people.

SOURCE: Cornel International Affairs Review (The Diplomacist) May 23, 2012
...Read more>>>

Human Rights Status in Vietnam ‘Unacceptable’

US official says relations with Vietnam hinge on improving its rights record.

Michael Posner speaks with Mai Huong Ngo ahead of a hearing in Washington, May 15, 2012.

The U.S. State Department expressed “great concern” Tuesday over the deteriorating human rights situation in Vietnam, saying it is studying whether the tightly-governed state should be included in a blacklist of nations suppressing religious freedom.

Describing the situation as “unacceptable,” the department’s human rights chief Michael Posner said Hanoi’s desire to increase engagement with the U.S. is contingent on measurable progress in improving its rights record.

“In Vietnam today, respect for human rights continues to deteriorate, as it has for the past several years,” Posner, who is Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, said at a hearing held by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission of the U.S. Congress in Washington.

“These are issues of great concern to the United States government.”

When asked how Posner would grade Vietnam’s human rights record, the State Department official called it “discouraging and unacceptable.”

“We’ve made it clear to the government of Vietnam that our joint desire to have a closer strategic relationship is dependent on their making substantial progress on human rights,” he said.

“We’re not satisfied that that’s happening and we continue to raise these issues.”

At the hearing, Chairman of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Congressman Frank Wolf recommended the sacking of U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam David Shear, saying the diplomat had not effectively engaged the country’s dissident community.

“He has not treated this issue seriously … He’s been a failure when it comes to human rights,” Wolf said.

US concerns

Posner specifically pointed to four areas where the U.S. State Department had raised concerns with the Vietnamese government, including the continued imprisonment of human rights activists and restrictions on the free flow of information.

He also condemned Vietnam’s use of vague legal provisions, which he called “inconsistent with international norms,” and Hanoi’s limiting of religious freedoms.

Posner said the U.S. estimates that Vietnam is holding around 100 prisoners of conscience, calling for their release.

He also pointed to a number of new laws meant to limit the rights of the media.

Specifically, he mentioned decree No. 2, which allows for greater punishment against journalists for publishing material “against the interests of the state,” decree No. 20, which restricts access to television stations, and a draft decree which would place new limits on Internet providers and netizens’ access to Internet content.

Posner also called for the repeal of a number of ambiguous legal codes which he said allow the government to “target citizens at will,” including Article 79, which outlaws activities aimed at “overthrowing the people’s administration,” and Article 88, which outlaws “propaganda against the state.”

He went on to criticize Hanoi’s limiting of religious freedoms, including the harassment of Christian and Buddhist groups, and registration obstacles for religious groups.

“Although Vietnam’s Constitution laws guarantee freedom of religion, these laws are not applied consistently,” he said.

He said that the U.S. State Department is aware that many people in Vietnam, particularly the younger generation, want to share ideas freely and be connected to the rest of the world, and that they desire democracy.

“We support their aspirations and our efforts to publicize the human rights problems there are part of our effort to help them find their voices,” Posner said.

But despite acknowledging major concerns over Vietnam’s rights record, Posner stopped short of pledging anything more than continued dialogue with the one-party Communist nation.

When asked whether the State Department would consider including Vietnam on its list of Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) on religious freedom, Posner said the U.S. plans to evaluate the country on a continuing basis.

“Our impression is … in terms of religious freedom the situation has not gotten better, but it’s at a sort of steady stage,” he said.

“It is an open process and we can make a judgment at any time … We are looking at it on an ongoing basis.”

A CPC designation can carry economic sanctions unless governments address U.S concerns over their restrictions of religious freedom.

In March, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), a congressional watchdog, recommended Vietnam be returned to the State Department list of the world’s worst religious freedom offenders.

The State Department had included Vietnam in the CPC list from 2004 to 2006 but has since ignored repeated calls by the commission to reinstate the country on the blacklist.

Imprisoned husband

Also present at the hearing was Mai Huong Ngo, the wife of Vietnamese-American Nguyen Quoc Quan who was arrested April 17 as he deplaned in Tan Son Nhat airport while “trying to enter Vietnam to instigate a demonstration and undermine celebrations,” according to Vietnamese state media.

Authorities said the member of the banned opposition group Viet Tan planned to disrupt the anniversary of the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, which forced U.S. forces to withdraw at the end of the Vietnam conflict.

Mai Huong Ngo said that in the nearly four weeks since her husband was arrested, the U.S. Consulate in Ho Chi Minh city had only been allowed to meet with him once and would not be able to meet with him again until the end of May.

She said that she was worried about his health because he had not brought adequate clothing for Vietnamese weather and had asked the consulate to bring some to him.

Mai Huong Ngo said that she had not been contacted by either U.S. Ambassador Shear or by Vietnamese officials.

She said that she had been sent a message from her husband through the consulate asking her to “stay strong for him and to make sure that the children study hard,” but had not had a chance to speak with him directly.

Mai Huong Ngo said that she had been advised by the consulate not to try to enter Vietnam to visit her husband, lest she also face imprisonment.

She called on U.S. Ambassador Shear and U.S. State Department Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to pressure Vietnam for his immediate and unconditional release.

SOURCE: RFA May 15,2012 Reported by Joshua Lipes
...Read more>>>

Whose are Vietcongs' Friend(s) Now?

To the north is China and across the Pacific is the United States, two powers facing off. In the middle and no less a part of this confrontation is Vietnam.

Vietnam is bordered by Cambodia and Laos to the west and China to the north. To the south, its nearest neighbors are Brunei, Malaysia, and Singapore; and east across the South China Sea, one can find the Philippines. Vietnam has little reason to feel abandoned; yet, as Hanoi fights for possessions over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, it finds itself increasingly alone.

India and Russia have waded into the South China Sea despite Chinese protests; but neither India nor Russia is a particularly close friend of Vietnam, rather business partners. Vietnam, joined with the Philippines is not alone in defying China, but even this "front" is one born out of shared interest--their opposition to Chinese control of the entire South China Sea as laid out in the nine-dash map, and claims over the Spratly Islands.

If not India, Russia, or the Philippines, then who might Vietnam call a friend? The answer may be surprising, if not startling?enter the United States, former foe of the Communist Party of Vietnam on the battlefield. But is the US a friend or merely another strategic partner? More importantly, does the US view Vietnam as a friend or merely another strategic partner?

Joint naval exercises are nothing new between Vietnam and the US. The exercise may also be seen as an extension of Washington's pivot to Asia-Pacific, along the lines of its deployment of 2500 Marines to Australia.

Making amends with a former foe

Holding on to past grievances is far from healthy behavior. The Vietnam War, one of the most violent in the latter half of the 20th century, had a profound effect on the American psyche and its people; but no more was an effect felt than in the country in which the war was fought.

Following the long and bloody struggle, millions of refugees from the former US-backed South Vietnam (unified with the North to become today's Socialist Republic of Vietnam) fled their homeland, with many taking to the seas. And who can forget that image of desperate South Vietnamese civilians scrambling to a rooftop near the American embassy, struggling for a place on the last helicopter out of Saigon?

For years after the war, US foreign policy was always made with "not another Vietnam" in mind (one can also argue that mentality continues to persist). And for two decades after the war, diplomatic relations between the US and Vietnam were non-existent. Yet, since 1994, these two foes have moved forward in reconciling past differences.

Although the US and Vietnam are far from the best of friends, the warming relations between them have raised some concerns in China. Fears that the US is trying to contain China by allying with an old enemy are magnified by Washington's pivot to the Asia-Pacific region. That Vietnam is an historic enemy of China (and as such, perhaps does not require much incentive to make amends with the US to confront its northern neighbor over the South China Sea) does little to assuage Beijing's fears.

However, the question to Washington from observers is just how far the US is willing to go with Vietnam.

Vietnam is still a single-party state under the rule of the Communist Party. Its record on human rights is poor, to say the least. Human rights activists as well as politicians have opposed or questioned Washington's increasing business with Hanoi unless and until the latter undertakes much-needed reform. The warming of relations has particularly irked Vietnamese-Americans, who fear that the expansion of US trade with Vietnam is being conducted at the cost of human rights. However, to their credit, the US has refused to sell arms to Vietnam until improvements are made in the areas of democratic and human rights.

Much can be said about the US's refusal to sell arms to Vietnam. Either the US is simply building on past diplomatic achievements and nothing more, or the US believes it can pressure Hanoi to undergo necessary political reform. In both cases, the current government in Vietnam, as it exists today, is seen as an obstacle to greater US-Vietnamese relations. For Vietnam to truly call on the US as a friend, it must first change.

Walking a fine line with China

Nevertheless, the strengthening of relations between the US and Vietnam cannot be overlooked; and when, in 2010, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that the US was interested in resolving the South China Sea disputes, Hanoi celebrated. It had been the desire of Vietnam's leaders to see the disputes handled multilaterally. China, which has claimed all of the South China Sea and islands in the area, and desires to resolve the disputes on a bilateral basis with claimant states, opposes any kind of international intervention. Moreover, it regards Hanoi's attempt to internationalize the issue as threatening to Beijing's interests.

Vietnam is in a delicate position in which it must walk a fine line between opposing China and outright disobedience. Although relations between the US and Vietnam have improved, Hanoi does not have a mutual defense treaty to fall upon, unlike the Philippines. Having refused to sell arms to Vietnam, there is no guarantee that the US would rush to Vietnam's defense in the event of a war, especially a war fought against China.

To oppose China is one thing. However, to move openly against China is another. While Hanoi has maintained a balance between Beijing and Washington, all signs point to Hanoi moving closer to the West, not because they are ideologically similar, but because Vietnam cannot stand by itself in facing against China.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, Vietnam cannot afford to burn any bridges with China. Its neighbor will forever be its neighbor, and it is not in Vietnam's best interest to have China as an outright enemy, if only because the threat of war is disastrous for all parties involved. Moderation and sound diplomacy are necessary for Vietnam to move forward with strengthening its relationship with the US while maintaining an air of polite opposition to China.

Changing for a new Vietnam

Presently, the current Vietnamese government appears to have little in the way of concrete direction. While the Communist Party has attempted to balance relations between China and the US, it has done so more out of a desire to remain in power rather than for the benefit of its citizens.

As said, the greatest obstacle to improving US-Vietnamese relations is the Communist Party itself, which is rightly criticized for its treatment of human rights and democratic activists. Unless necessary reform is undertaken, the US will continue to withhold the sale of arms so desired by Hanoi. This presents a dilemma for the Communist government, which has succeeded in inviting the US to the South China Sea disputes but failed to acquire weapons technologies.

However, if one assumes that Vietnam does change (including much needed political reform), where then does that leave a nation stuck between two giants? Success in acquiring US weapons will only fuel Beijing's paranoia that Vietnam is an agent of American foreign policy. Vietnam has the unenviable position of wanting to develop closer ties with the West while maintaining a productive relationship with China.

To do so, there must be a new Vietnam whose policies at home and abroad are for independence, freedom, democracy, peace, and neutrality. Ideally, Vietnam should not be seen as an agent of one country against another; rather, a democratic government of Vietnam should best reflect the hopes and aspirations of its people.

Vietnam?s neutrality does not mean it will never take part in any foreign conflict. Instead, Vietnam must be free to decide how best to approach any situation in order to satisfy the needs of its citizens. It must not be forced to take part in a situation it has no desire to participate; however, this is more of a matter of governance than foreign policy. The government that captains a nation must do so responsibly and with integrity.

Ultimately, reform is necessary if Vietnam wishes to call the United States a friend. There is much to do, and unless the Communist Party of Vietnam carries out immediate change, it will find itself with another partner, of which it has many. What Vietnam lacks and desperately needs is someone to watch their back.

(Khanh Vu Duc is a Vietnamese Canadian lawyer focusing on various areas of law. He researches on International Relations and International Law.)
...Read more>>>

Vietnam Clamps Down on Bloggers

Picture of Nguyen Van Hai (Dieu Cay)

Bangkok - A pioneer of citizens’ journalism in Vietnam is risking 20 years in jail for defending Internet freedom and exposing the draconian censorship laws in this communist party-ruled country.

Nguyen Van Hai, who writes under the pen name ‘Dieu Cay’ (Peasant’s Pipe), has refused to accept the charges brought up against him, limiting the possibility of an acquittal, his lawyers have told human rights groups.

The lawyers fear that if Dieu Cay persists with his attitude, "they would have little chance of obtaining an acquittal or even a light sentence," the Paris-based Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR) said ahead of his impending trial.

Dieu Cay’s refusal to sign on the dotted line comes as Hanoi gears up to implement in June the new ‘Decree on the Management, Provision, Use of Internet Services and Information Content Online’.

The 60-year-old war veteran has been detained for the past 17 months for postings critical of the Vietnamese government on the Club for Free Journalists (CFJ), a blog established in September 2007 to promote independent journalism in a country where media are in the iron grip of the one-party state.

"He should have never been arrested in the first place," Vo Van Ai, president of VCHR, said in a statement on the charges Dieu Cay faces for violating Vietnamese criminal laws on "spreading propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam."

The maximum sentence for those charged under this law is 20 years in prison.

"Courts in Vietnam are kangaroo courts because the entire outcome is fixed ahead of the trial. What is decided at the trial is the extent of the sentence," Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch (HRW), the New York-based global rights campaigner, told IPS.

"Nguyen Van Hai may be slapped with the maximum 20-year prison term by refusing to sign any papers that he committed any crime, which rules out the option of negotiating a lower sentence," Robertson said.

The plight of this famous blogger is shared by two other founding members of the CFJ, Phan Thanh Hai, 42, and Ta Phong Tan, 43. The former has been detained for 16 months and the latter for seven months.

The one-day trial for all three scheduled for Apr. 17 was suddenly postponed, a human rights activist said. "The government wanted to avoid negative media coverage ahead of the Apr. 30 (1975) anniversary (when the communist forces finally took complete control of the country after decades of war)."

The state’s prosecutors are armed with 421 blogs posted by all three on the CFJ’s website from September 2007 till October 2010, as these accounts were "distorting the truth (and) denigrating the (communist) party and the state," said a report this month in the state-run ‘Thanh Nien’ newspaper.

That charge runs along lines that the only woman among the victims predicted two years ago.

"The government endlessly repeats that ‘Vietnam respects and promotes human rights’. But the way they have treated me proves that they do the opposite of what they say to the international community," Ta Phong Tan, a former police officer and former communist party member, blogged on Apr.4, 2010.

"Everybody knows that I don’t belong to any organisation, no political party. I don’t call for the overthrow of the regime and I have violated no laws," she wrote in the blog titled: "I am facing a plot (against me)."

"I am just a journalist, a free-thinker ... I denounce anything I believe is unjust, things that my friends and I have suffered directly, and I speak out for ordinary people who are victims of injustice. That is what the state holds against me," she then wrote.

Her words reflect the mission of the CFJ, which broke new ground to tap cyberspace, the only avenue available for free expression. It drew a huge following in the months that followed its launch, because it covered topics that the mainstream media barely touched.

Issues that CFJ took up ranged from local anger at China’s role in a controversial bauxite mine to China’s pressure on Hanoi regarding claims over the South China Sea, growing labour unrest, illegal land confiscation and heavy taxation of the poor.

Vietnam’s relationship with China has been fertile ground for critics who accuse its rulers of kowtowing to the more formidable communist party that governs from Beijing. And blogging has provided Vietnamese an "escape route" to air their views.

"Many blogs vocally supported public protests held in Hanoi last year about Chinese encroachment in the South China Sea," Vo Tran Nhat, executive secretary of Action for Democracy in Vietnam, a Paris-based group of Vietnamese political exiles, told IPS. "They were surprisingly bold in their criticism of the government and the party."

The CFJ was a new phenomenon in Vietnam and the authorities took some time before striking out at these pioneers of blogging in the country, said Robertson of HRW, whose organisation informed the European Union earlier this year of the 33 bloggers and rights activists convicted in 2011 "of crimes for expressing their political and religious beliefs."

Such crackdowns come at a time when Internet usage in Vietnam is growing. "Internet penetration grew to 24.2 million users, representing 28 percent of the population," the Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based media rights campaigner, said in its annual report last year.

But the space for bloggers is bound to shrink further, warns another media rights watchdog, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), once the Decree on the Management, Provision, Use of Internet Services and Information Content Online is implemented.

"(It) would increase online censorship to an utterly unacceptable level and exacerbate the already very disturbing situation of freedom of expression in Vietnam," RSF added in a mid-April statement. "It could criminalise any expression of dissident views and reporting of news that strays from the Communist Party official line."

SOURCE: Inter Press Service - By Marwaan Macan-Markar April 27,2012
...Read more>>>

Khmer Krom Group Says It Shares Goals of Other Minorities in Vietnam

Members of the Khmer minority in Vietnam recently met with State Department officials and are now looking for ways to unite with other minorities like the Hmong and Montagnards to protect themselves from persecution, a leading advocate says.

Thach Ngoc Thach, president of the US-based Khmer Kampuchea Krom Federation, told VOA Khmer the main goals of these minorities are the same.

Khmer groups in Vietnam face persecution for their religion and separate culture, activists say, including land seizures and arbitrary arrest.

“Khmer Krom, Montagnards, and Hmong face similar social and economic issues,” a US State Department official said. “We continue to encourage Vietnam to implement policy that will encourage greater economic and social opportunities for all ethnic minorities.”
The State Deparment “continues to press Vietnam to improve its human rights practices, including in minority regions,” the official said.

“The government of Vietnam has always accused us of being a terrorist group, a group to break up the country,” Thach Ngoc Thach said.

Kok Ksor, president of the Montagnard Foundation, in South Carolina, told VOA Khmer his group too had met with State officials to outline continued rights concerns in Vietnam.

“In our church, they placed a statue of Ho Chi Minh, to worship him before we worship God,” he said. “We have to put the [communist] party above all. But that is not right according to our beliefs in Jesus Christ.”

Large congregational worship is also banned, he said. “If we do, they will arrest us and send us to prison to torture our people.”
Vietnamese officials have in the past denied accusations of human rights abuses and persecution.

Kok Ksor said that as a member of the United Nations, Vietnam should better respect people’s rights.

Joshua Cooper, a senior adviser to the Khmer Kampuchea Krom Federation, said indigenous groups must now come together to push for more rights, especially because Asean is creating its own rights doctrine.

“So that is bringing people together in the Lower Mekong Initiative, to make sure human rights is at the forefront of it,” he said.

Source: VOA News April 20,2012
...Read more>>>

Vietnamese Bloggers Charged For “Anti-State Propaganda”

The US government and human rights groups have expressed alarm over growing restrictions around the internet in Vietnam – most recently demonstrated by the Vietnamese authorities’ decision to charge three bloggers for conducting “propaganda against the state.”

Three bloggers, Nguyen Van Hai, Phan Thanh Hai and Ta Phong Tan, were charged on Monday with posting articles on their respective blogs that opposed the state and “propagating against” the socialist country. The charges carry up to twenty years in prison if they are convicted, under Article 88 of Vietnam’s penal code.

“As in other countries, those who violate the law will be disciplined with severely according to law provisions,” said a spokesperson from Vietnamese government’s press department.

The bloggers are currently awaiting trial, scheduled for this Tuesday but unexpectedly postponed. But the three are not unfamiliar with backlash from the Vietnamese authorities for their work. The bloggers belong to and have contributed articles to the “Free Journalists Club,” a rare independent media organization in a state where official media is heavily controlled and websites like Facebook are periodically restricted.

One of the most famous of the activists, Nguyen Hoang Hai (also known as Dieu Cay), has been in prison since 2008 on tax fraud charges, according to human rights groups who have labeled him a “prisoner of conscience”.

“The persecution of Nguyen Hoang Hai is blatant and unjust. He is detained and faces trial solely for the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of expression,” said Donna Guest, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Programme.

A report in the state-run Thanh Nien newspaper said that the bloggers posted 421 articles on the Independent Journalists’ Club website between September 2007 and October 2010, and accused them of “distorting the truth, denigrating the party and state”.

Representatives from the US State Department expressed concern over the cases, saying they are part of a “disturbing pattern” of increasing restrictions around Internet-speech in Vietnam.

The bloggers have also been accused of attending courses aimed at overthrowing the government, the Associated Press reported. They have written articles critical of China’s foreign policy regarding Vietnam, participated in protests and used their blogs to promote human rights and freedom of expression in the country.

“Blogging is an escape route for those whose ideas and actions are imprisoned. It allows one to express resistance against injustice and violence,” said one of the convicted bloggers, Phan Thanh Hai, in a blogpost back in 2007, according to a release from Human Rights Watch, one of the human rights groups who have been following the bloggers writing since their Free Journalists Club was established.

“With more than seven hundred state-controlled media outlets and thousands of pro-government web portals, the Vietnam government has a giant propaganda machine working to beautify the face of the state,” said Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia Division. “So what do the authorities have to fear from a handful of bloggers?”

Responding to queries from the Wall Street Journal, representatives from the Vietnamese government added that the prosecution and trial of the bloggers “was conducted in accordance with the procedure and criminal law provisions of Vietnam.”

In a 2011 report, Reporters Without Borders labeled Vietnam as an “enemy of the internet,” and has accused the government of using cyberattacks to silence dissidents on the internet.

– Source: Wall Street Journal: April 18, 2012 Nguyen Anh Thu contributed to this report
...Read more>>>

US urges Vietnam to free bloggers

WASHINGTON — The United States on Tuesday urged Vietnam to free three bloggers facing charges over political articles, voicing alarm over what it said were growing restrictions on the Internet.

Well-known blogger Nguyen Van Hai, along with two others who also posted to a website banned in the communist nation, each face up to 20 years in prison if convicted of charges of "propaganda against the state."

"We call on Vietnam to release him and other bloggers who have done nothing more than exercise their universally recognized rights to freedom of expression," US State Department spokeswoman Darragh Paradiso said.

"These cases are part of a disturbing pattern of increased restrictions on Internet-based speech in Vietnam," she said.
The state-run Thanh Nien newspaper said that Nguyen Van Hai, along with Phan Thanh Hai and Ta Phong Tan, posted 421 articles on the site and accused them of "distorting the truth, denigrating the party and state."

In January, Human Rights Watch said that Vietnam "intensified its repression" of dissidents last year, jailing dozens of bloggers, peaceful political and religious advocates and land rights activists.

The United States has been stepping up its cooperation with the former war foe, with the two nations planning next week to hold five days of non-combat naval exchanges amid high tensions between China and its Southeast Asian neighbors.

But the United States has also repeatedly urged Vietnam to improve its human rights record.

Source: AFP April 18,2012
...Read more>>>

Myanmar(Burma) Turns ASEAN's Democracy Beacon

BANGKOK, Apr 12 , 2012 (IPS) - Long Southeast Asia’s black sheep, Myanmar is enjoying an image change following its landmark Apr. 1 by-elections. Tongues are now wagging about the region’s new beacon of hope for democratic change.

The just concluded summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the Cambodian capital revealed hints of the new image of Myanmar (also known as Burma) as it embraces political reform after 50 years of military dictatorships.

Activists and opposition politicians point to the landslide victory of Myanmar’s pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD) party as a sign of openness - absent in ASEAN countries such as Laos, Vietnam and Brunei and under siege in Cambodia and Singapore.

"In Cambodia, we are already taking Burma as a good example of a democratic feature: justice will prevail," Mu Sochua, parliamentarian from the country’s opposition Sam Rainsy party, told IPS. "If Burma can do it, why not Cambodia?"

"In Vietnam, freedoms and human rights are not even discussed in the country as it is considered treason," she added. "When I was in Singapore as a guest of the opposition Democrat party that has no seats in parliament, the meeting was cancelled and the organisers continue to be questioned even two years later."

Others expect Myanmar’s small steps towards democracy to reverberate across ASEAN, whose other members include Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand.

"The reform in Myanmar will not be limited to its borders but holds out the possibility of spilling over across the rest of ASEAN," says Yuyun Wahyuningrum, senior advisor at Indonesia’s non-governmental organisation, Coalition for International Human Rights Advocacy (HRWG), who attended the regional summit on Apr. 3 - 4 in Phnom Penh.

"More people in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and even Singapore are talking of this possibility," she told IPS from HRWG’s office in Jakarta. "I am looking forward to this moment in the sub-region."

But there are other implications from the democratic dividend that Myanmar’s President Thein Sein is enjoying after his one-year old quasi-civilian government held the by-elections, where the NLD party of Nobel Peace laureate Suu Kyi, won 43 of the 45 seats contested.

In easing the pressure off a reforming Mynamar, ASEAN will lay open the democratic deficits of its other members who have not been exposed for their harsh treatment of opposition figures, of suppressing the media or refusing the rights of political and civil liberties.

"For many years the non-democratic countries in ASEAN had been hiding in a very comfortable place behind Myanmar, evading international criticism," reveals Yuyun. "Now I think they will begin to panic since they will soon be exposed for their human rights record and practices."

"Eyes will move to Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and the rest," she added. "Until 2010 Vietnam spoke on behalf of Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and itself, especially when Myanmar faced criticisms."

ASEAN’s attempt to improve its image through an intergovernmental human rights commission and drafting an ASEAN human rights declaration will add heat on these countries, says Sinapan Samydorai, director of Think Centre, a Singaporean think tank. "They will be exposed to more critical reviews in terms of civil and political rights.

"Lack of freedom of expression and association, corruption and the abuse of political power and the lack of the rule of law will place Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam in an awkward corner," Samydorai told IPS. "Civil society groups in Cambodia and in other ASEAN countries have begun to express this view."

The singling out of Myanmar as an embarrassment began in 2001, four years after it joined a bloc that has two communist-ruled countries, Vietnam and Laos, and an absolute monarchy, Brunei. ASEAN also has one-party authoritarian states such as Cambodia and Singapore.

Malaysia and Thailand have democratic credentials that are under a cloud, leaving Indonesia and the Philippines as the only ASEAN members with claims to being robust democracies.

ASEAN summits typically end with a statement on the political situation in Myanmar, under ‘Regional and International Issues’. ASEAN summits, with the United States as dialogue partner, were under pressure to get the junta in Myanmar to ease its iron grip on power.

Myanmar as a diplomatic embarrassment even precipitated tension within the bloc as governments talked of "constructive engagement" and "flexible engagement" to shield their regional neighbour from Western criticism.

"ASEAN has now reached a stage where it is not possible to defend a member when that member is not making any attempt to cooperate or to help itself," a visibly frustrated former Malaysian foreign minister Seyed Hamid Albar said in 2006. And in 2007, ASEAN expressed "revulsion" at the brutal crackdown on protesting Buddhist monks in Myanmar’s cities.

"It is easy to find black sheep in this region," says Pavin Chachavalponpun, associate professor at the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies at Kyoto University, in Japan. "As much as ASEAN liked to support political developments in Burma, it was content to see the global attention being paid only to Burma all along.

"This way they could get away with certain behaviours that potentially undermined democracy," the academic told IPS. "Thailand I think is a country that could also be exposed, because the 2006 coup weakened democratic institutions by the concentration of royal power."
Source:By Marwaan Macan-Markar - IPS April 12,2012
...Read more>>>

Australia: Calls To Promote Human Rights In Southeast Asia

Australia should make human rights a priority in developing closer ties with Southeast Asian countries, Human Rights Watch said today in a letter to Australia’s new foreign minister, Bob Carr. On a recent trip to Cambodia, Singapore, and Vietnam, Carr focused on the importance of Southeast Asian countries as friends and trading partners, but said little about the rights of people in the region.

“Trade alone is not enough for the people of Southeast Asia who are being denied their basic freedoms,” said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “As a longstanding successful democracy, Australia is uniquely poised to talk frankly with the region’s leaders about addressing specific human rights concerns.”

The letter discusses human rights issues in Burma, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam where pressure from Australia could advance human rights protections.

Australia should be doing more to protect and promote the rights of people in Southeast Asia fleeing persecution, Human Rights Watch said. On a regional level, Australia has tried to raise standards and cooperation to counter people-smuggling through the Bali Process. However, continued emphasis on punitive crackdowns on people-smuggling, without a corresponding regional framework in place to protect refugees and asylum seekers, could exacerbate the harm to people who are fleeing persecution.

Instead Australia should encourage member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Australia should also use its leadership to ensure that the Bali Process addresses humane treatment of migrants, ensures that asylum seekers can access asylum processing systems, and respects the principle of non-refoulement – not returning refugees to places where their lives or freedoms could be threatened.

“Efforts to counter people-smuggling won’t be solved by simply paying countries to police waters better,” Pearson said. “All ASEAN countries should first agree to treat asylum seekers humanely, in line with international standards, and commit to not returning them to countries where they face persecution.”

In its letter, Human Rights Watch also raised the lack of accountability for crimes committed by state security forces – including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and torture – in many of the countries where Australia trains and assists security forces. Human Rights Watch urged the Australian government to systematically vet the human rights records of security force personnel and units being considered for training and to make this vetting procedure public.

“Training security forces is only effective if accompanied by measures to hold human rights abusers accountable,” Pearson said. “A transparent vetting procedure would ensure that prestigious training programs aren’t wasted on abusive units with no interest in respecting rights.”



Source: Eurasia Review April 16,2012 ...Read more>>>