Yangon: Former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright, Aung San Suu Kyi’s sons and two dead US congressmen were among 2,082 names removed on Thursday from a Myanmar government blacklist that gives an insight into the paranoia of its former military junta.
Late Philippine President Corazon Aquino, US singer-turned-politician Sonny Bono and Kim and Alexander Aris, the sons of Nobel laureate Suu Kyi, were some of the prominent names taken off a list stacked with journalists, academics, human rights campaigners and exiled Myanmarmese activists.
Its publication on the website of the Office of the President (www.president-office.gov.mm/) is the latest sign of surprise openness by a quasi-civilian government that has legalised protests, abolished media censorship, freed hundreds of political prisoners and embarked on economic reforms since coming to power in the former Burma in March 2011.
No reasons were given for why they had been blacklisted, but many were critics of the reclusive and thin-skinned generals who ruled Myanmar with an iron fist for 49 years and persecuted politicians, reporters and dissidents.
The list included plenty of discrepancies, including individuals mentioned several times under different name spellings. British historian Timothy Garton Ash appears as “Gartonash, Timothy John”, while some unknown individuals had only one name, like “Mr. Nick”, “Li Li” and “Mohammad”.
The announcement said exiled Myanmarmese removed from the blacklist of 6,165 companies, organisations and individuals would be allowed to return. It did not say which remained.
Others removed include retired diplomats once based in Myanmar, the director of Human Rights Watch Brad Adams, late US congressman Tom Lantos, Suu Kyi’s former physician Khin Saw Win and Yuenyong Opaku, the lead singer of popular Thai rock band, Ad Carabao.
One notable name is John Yettaw, a Vietnam War veteran jailed in 2009 after swimming across Yangon’s Inya Lake in home-made fins to warn Suu Kyi of an assassination plot, resulting in the extension of her house arrest.
Among journalists taken off were British author and documentary maker John Pilger, CNN’s Dan Rivers, the BBC’s Sue Lloyd-Roberts and Reuters photographer Adrees Latif, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his photo of a Japanese photographer shot dead in Yangon during a crackdown on 2007 pro-democracy protests.
Authors were also mentioned, like Bertil Lintner, whose books on Myanmar include Outrage: Burma’s Struggle for Democracy, which detailed the military’s savage crackdown on the 1988 protests that first brought Suu Kyi to prominence.
“I feel good, of course, to be able to visit the country I have written about for so many years,” said Lintner.
source: Gulfnews.com August 30,2012
...Read more>>>
Former US State Secretary, Suu Kyi sons among 2,000 removed from Myanmar(Burma) blacklist
US, Southeast Asian navies begin annual joint exercises
Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand also joined SEACAT 2012, which will be held until Sept. 2.
Navy spokesman Col. Omar Tonsay said the exercises are being conducted in Malacca Strait, Sulu Sea and Subic Bay.
The exercises are being held two months after the nuclear-powered US submarine USS Louisville made a port call at Subic.
Louisville is the second US attack submarine that visited the Philippines since Washington bared plans to enhance its presence in the Asia Pacific. The first was USS North Carolina which docked in Subic Bay last May.
Another US vessel, the hospital ship USNS Mercy, also docked in Subic last month to replenish its supplies.
About 200 Filipino sailors from the Naval Forces West and Naval Forces Northern Luzon, four ships and an islander aircraft are involved in the event. The US Navy ship USS Safeguard is also participating in the activity.
“They will participate together with the US Navy in a scenario-driven fleet training exercise against terrorism, transnational crimes and other maritime threats,” Tonsay said in a statement.
The exercises focus on real-time information exchange, coordinated surveillance operations, tracking, and visit, board, search and seizure of target vessels.
“This activity will involve surface, air, and special operations units in the conduct of surveillance, tracking, and boarding of the COI (contact of interest) from the different participating navies within their respective maritime territories.” Navy chief Vice Adm. Alexander Pama said.
A maritime interdiction operations scenario will be conducted at the Subic Bay and at the Sulu Sea.
Coast Watch stations of the participating countries will also be used to exercise their capabilities in surveillance, tracking, communications, and operations.
“With this training, the Philippine Navy will be able to enhance regional coordination, information sharing, and combined inter-operability capability with participating navies in the region,” Tonsay said.
He claimed the activity would also improve the maritime security capability of the military.
SEACAT is an annual exercise conducted at vital sea lanes in Southeast Asia to secure the area from terrorists, poachers, and transnational lawless elements.
It aims to promote regional coordination, information sharing and interoperability in a multilateral environment. -
Source: August 28,2012 Alexis Romero - The PhilStar
...Read more>>>
The U.S. shouldn’t sell out human rights in Vietnam
By Allen S. Weiner, Published: August 26
Allen S. Weiner is a senior lecturer in law at Stanford Law School, where he serves as director of the Program in International and Comparative Law. He has filed a petition with the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention challenging the legality of the arrest and detention of 17 Vietnamese activists last year.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Hanoi last month that the United States would sign a new regional trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with Vietnam by year’s end. Vietnam’s desire to promote economic development through expanded trade is understandable, and U.S. interest in supporting Vietnam’s economic advancement is commendable. But even as Vietnam seeks to move forward economically, its political system remains mired in a repressive and authoritarian past. Indeed, Clinton’s announcement came shortly before the one-year anniversary of the first stage of the Vietnamese government’s detention of activists whose “crime” has been to advocate governmental action on a broad range of human rights and social justice issues, including environmental, health, legal, political, land and corruption-based concerns. More than a year later, almost all remain in detention; one is under house arrest. Real progress in Vietnam will come only when political reform and respect for the rule of law accompany economic progress.
Over the past year, the Vietnamese government has arrested members of an informal network of social and political activists. The detainees are affiliated with the Roman Catholic Redemptorist Church in Vietnam — a reflection of the pattern of discrimination against religious minorities in that country. Eleven of the petitioners are accused of being members of Viet Tan, a Vietnamese pro-democracy party. The detainees have endured a range of human rights abuses, including violations of their fundamental rights of expression, assembly and association. In addition, the arrests and detentions of these activists violate their rights to due process and fair trials guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international legal agreements; violations of international standards include warrantless arrests and lengthy pretrial detentions without the filing of charges. After their arrest, the detainees were held incommunicado for months. Some were even convicted through “trials” at which they were not allowed a lawyer. Today, most of these petitioners are languishing in jail without outside contact or basic knowledge as to why they were arrested and are being held. They have had limited access to family members, or in some cases, no contact with relatives at all.
In keeping with a growing pattern of such human rights abuses by the Vietnamese government, these activists were arrested for violating criminal laws that ban “activities aimed at overthrowing the people’s administration,” the “undermining of national unity” and participating in “propaganda against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.”
The detainees are all online journalists, bloggers or others who have participated in training activities related to citizen journalism. They have written blog posts, signed petitions and joined nonviolent protests related to a range of issues, including calls for multiparty democracy and opposition to large-scale bauxite mining projects that would cause irreparable environmental damage and displace local residents. In short, they are engaged in legitimate forms of political expression.
Such political expression is protected under international human rights law and under Vietnam’s Constitution, which provides in Article 53 that citizens “have the right to take part in managing the State and society, in debating on general issues of the whole country or of the locality.” Article 69 of the Vietnamese Constitution holds that citizens “are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of the press” and have “the right of assembly, association and demonstration in accordance with the law.” Instead of protecting these rights, however, the Vietnamese government has been using the law to prohibit basic freedom of speech, assembly and association.
To her credit, Clinton raised concerns about Vietnam’s human rights record during her recent trip, including the detention of activists, lawyers and bloggers whose only crime is the peaceful expression of ideas. “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-sided bargain,” she said.
The United States must go beyond a rhetorical defense of human rights in Vietnam. Our country should not contribute to the “short-sided bargain” Clinton warned of by promoting deeper commercial ties without simultaneously insisting that Vietnam honor its international human rights obligations. U.S. officials should demand that Vietnam can start by releasing the activists arrested last year and others who have been detained solely for seeking a voice in their country’s future. The United States should not reward Vietnam by including it in the Trans-Pacific Partnership while the government in Hanoi uses its legal systems to stifle dissent and perpetrate human rights abuses
Source: The Washington Post
...Read more>>>
Canadian journalist: China asked me to spy on Dalai Lama
 |
| Canadian author and journalist Mark Bourrie says he quit his job as an Ottawa correspondent for China's state news agency when his editor asked him to spy on the Dalai Lama. |
Mark Bourrie quit his job at Xinhua in April after two years working for the agency.
In his time with the news organization, there were several occasions when Bourrie said he suspected his credentials as a member of the Ottawa press gallery were being used to access information that was meant purely for intelligence purposes in Beijing.
But it wasn't until this spring that "it all came crashing down."
Bourrie said he had been assigned to cover the Dalai Lama's visit to Ottawa, and to find out what was said in a private meeting between the Tibetan spiritual leader and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
When he realized his reports weren't being published, Bourrie asked his boss, Xinhua's Ottawa bureau chief Dacheng Zhang, why he was being assigned to cover the event in the first place.
"I confronted the bureau chief and said 'look, are we here as journalists or are we using our press gallery credentials to get in here to gather information for the Chinese government? Because if it's the latter I don't want anything to do with it,'" Bourrie told CTV News Channel on Thursday.
He said he was told that the agency didn't publish news that would embarrass the Chinese government, or comments from the Dalai Lama, and that all his reports were going straight to Beijing for intelligence purposes.
Bourrie said he quit on the spot -- a decision he has not regretted.
Zhang, who is currently travelling with other journalists on Harper's annual tour of the Arctic, said on Wednesday that Bourrie’s claim was false, and was the product of “Cold War” ideology.”
He told The Canadian Press that Xinhua's policy is to "cover public events by public means." His job, as Ottawa bureau chief, is to cover news events and file the stories to his Xinhua supervisors. Those editors decide what makes it into print, Zhang said.
Michel Juneau-Katsuya, a former senior intelligence officer at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, said it's not unusual for Beijing to use its state journalists as de facto spies.
There have been reports of Xinhua news teams covering Falun Gong protests in Ottawa, taking close-up photographs of attendees and recording transcripts of speeches – though stories are rarely or ever published on the events.
The problem, Juneau-Katsuya said, is that journalists such as Bourrie have no control over how their reports are used once they are sent to Beijing.
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canadian-journalist-china-asked-me-to-spy-on-dalai-lama-1.926863#ixzz24OrIRsdz
...Read more>>>
UN worried over shrinking space for freedom of expression in Vietnam
“We are concerned by what appears to be increasingly limited space for freedom of expression in Vietnam,” Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), told reporters in Geneva.
The office voiced particular concern that the upcoming trial of Nguyen Van Hai (also known as Dieu Cay), Pan Thanh Hai and Ta Phong Tan for “conducting propaganda” against the State is directly linked to their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression, including their online publications about social and human rights issues.
Nguyen Van Hai and Pan Thanh Hai have been in detention since 2010 while Ta Phong Tan has been detained since September 2011. The three face charges under Article 88 of the Criminal Code and could face penalties ranging from seven to 16 years’ imprisonment.
“The trial, which was scheduled for August 7 and was just postponed indefinitely, will reportedly be closed and witnesses will not be called, raising concerns that the process will not comply with fair trial guarantees,” said Shamdasani.
“A number of arrests and harsh convictions in recent years suggest a disturbing trend of curbing freedom of expression, opinion and association of bloggers, journalists and human rights activists who question Government policies in a peaceful manner,” she added.
OHCHR urged the Government to fulfill its commitments with respect to ensuring fair trial guarantees and to consider promptly releasing the accused for the exercise of their right to freedom of expression, opinion and association.
Source: BikyaMasr August 4,2012
...Read more>>>
Vietnam invents a U.N. procedure to silence critics KKF
 |
| Vietnam's ambassador to the UN, Le Hoai Trung |
Vietnam's Communist Party-led government recently blackballed a nongovernmental organization's attempt to secure accreditation to the U.N. The Khmers Kampuchea-Krom Federation, or KKF, is a small group based in New Jersey that tracks the plight of the Khmer ethnic minority in Vietnam. Mainly that involves compiling and disseminating well-respected reports of rights abuses such as Hanoi's harassment of Khmer Buddhists who refuse to join state-sanctioned religious organizations.
That's probably why Hanoi pitched a fit when in May the KKF received an accreditation from the U.N.'s Economic and Social Council, or EcoSoc. This would have allowed the group to participate in a range of U.N. conferences, and would have allowed KKF speaking time in relevant meetings to raise its concerns about Hanoi's rights record. More than 3,000 other nongovernmental organizations have been accredited over the years, so KKF would hardly have stood out.
Vietnam's government launched an aggressive campaign against the group. Rather than pushing to refer KKF's status back to the accreditation committee for additional review, which is the usual course in the rare instances when a decision proves controversial, Hanoi proposed a resolution at a recent meeting to strip KKF's accreditation directly.
In this way, Hanoi was able to put the decision on KKF's accreditation in the hands of a body—EcoSoc's general membership—where Vietnam could trade political horses with its neighbors and harness support from other authoritarians such as Russia and Venezuela. The resolution passed last week with support from 27 states, including democratic members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations such as Indonesia and the Philippines that should know better. Another 14 EcoSoc members, including the U.S., voted in KKF's favor, and 10 countries abstained.
Rights activists note that with this stroke Vietnam has created a new procedural tool that other rights abusers can use to silence their own critics at the U.N. They also suggest that this dust-up raises additional questions about Hanoi's fitness to sit on the Human Rights Council in 2014, a position for which Vietnam—no joke—is currently said to be campaigning despite its long tradition of jailing dissidents.
The mistake these activists make is looking at the U.N. as they'd like it to be, not as it really is. Having thwarted critics of its rights record, Hanoi will fit right in with the likes of China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia on the Council.
Source: The Wall Street Journal July 31,2012
...Read more>>>
Democracy And The US' Pivot To Asia
By Ellen Bork, the Director of Democracy and Human Rights at the Foreign Policy Initiative.
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
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
“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.
"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”!
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
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
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>>>