Statement by the Vietnamese Political Action Committee (VPAC)

April 1, 1998

President Clinton's waiver of the Jackson-Vanik requirement for Vietnam on March 10th was a mistake. By prematurely lifting the law that bars American taxpayer money from financing trade and investment with communist countries that violate freedom of emigration, the administration only makes it harder for many Vietnamese, including repatriated boat people, political prisoners, and former employees of the U.S., from escaping their land of persecution.

The simple truth is that even the administration cannot claim that the Vietnamese government meets conditions of free emigration. Instead, it points to a superficial change by the Vietnamese government to argue that "progress toward" free emigration is being made.

Recently the Vietnam government announced that it no longer requires exit permit as precondition for access to U.S. interviews under the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees (ROVR) program. This, however, does not mean Hanoi has removed the requirement on exit permit. It has only delayed the exit permit requirement until after the interview--for those applicants who are approved for resettlement by the U.S.--and only for the ROVR program. Many eligible applicants for other U.S. programs like the regular Orderly Departure Program (ODP) are still denied access for lack of exit permit. According to a recent report to Congress, the State Department acknowledges that some 15,000 former U.S. government employees and their family members have not been issued exit permit. Several thousand montagnards are also believed to have been denied exit permit.

Moreover, the exit permit is only the legal obstacle in Hanoi's emigration policy. There is also the reality of official corruption, which is endemic to the system. Government officials routinely demand several hundred (and sometimes several thousand) U.S. dollars in exchange for exit permit. With annual per capita income in Vietnam at approximately 300 U.S. dollars most Vietnamese wishing to emigrate cannot afford to pay such bribes.

In testimony before the Senate on the day of the Jackson-Vanik waiver, Stanley Roth, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, declared: "There's real reason to believe, not just pie-in-the-sky hope, ... that moving forward with the ... waiver and some of the additional programs will increase our chances of making progress with the Vietnamese" on emigration issues.

The Clinton administration has opted to put its faith in the Vietnamese government. This approach is fine as long as Hanoi ultimately meets the conditions to receive U.S. trade benefits as set forth in the Jackson-Vanik amendment. However, should Hanoi continue to restrict freedom of emigration as it does now, Vietnam's status vis-a-vis Jackson-Vanik must be reassessed. If instituting the waiver now yields little progress, then one cannot keep arguing down the line that maintaining the waiver (and the trade benefits that follow) would increase the chances of making the Vietnamese government respect human rights.

In June, Congress will undertake its annual trade review. Already, there is legislation in the House (H.R. 3158 and 3159) introduced by Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Ed Royce (R-CA) to condition programs of the Export-Import Bank (EXIM) and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) on the human rights record of the Vietnamese government. Many other members of Congress including Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Tom Davis (R-VA) have expressed similar concern about granting further concessions to the Vietnamese government.

In the four years since the trade embargo on communist Vietnam was lifted, the human rights record of the Hanoi government has deteriorated. An especially alarming development is the government's recent policy on "administrative detainment," which gives the security forces power to jail dissidents for up to two years without trial. Ironically, on the very day the administration waived Jackson-Vanik, the communist leadership in Hanoi harshly rejected all calls for democracy and reiterated its intention to maintain exclusive political power.

Going forward, the relevant debate in U.S. policy toward Vietnam is not between the two extremes of either full "normalization" or "isolation" of Vietnam. Normalization is already a fact; and isolation cannot be achieved even if desired. What the last four years show, however, is that normalization without real and measurable human rights conditions attached will result in little improvement in the rights record of the Hanoi government.

The communist government there, as it has repeatedly shown, will not allow democracy and freedoms without pressure. The main pressure is coming from the Vietnamese people, but what the United States does is also important.

Vietnam's continued economic health and development is in the best interests of the U.S. and Vietnam. Yet sustainable growth can only be realized if accompanied by fundamental sociopolitical changes, including respect for basic human rights. Leading Vietnamese dissidents, most recently retired Gen. Tran Do, Prof. Nguyen Thanh Giang, Dr. Phan Dinh Dieu, and Mr. Hoang Huu Nhan, point out this necessity at great risk to their personal safety.

After a decade of economic-only reforms, Vietnam faces serious economic and social crises due to the lack of meaningful sociopolitical changes. Economic slowdown, official mismanagement, corruption, and ever increasing social unrest is the most common observation. Given this situation, the United States can be a force for positive change if it conditions the trade benefits craved by the Vietnamese government on tangible sociopolitical concessions, which are essential to long term economic growth.

The Orange County Register in two informal reader polls conducted in March found huge majorities on both occasions opposed to the immediate lifting of Jackson-Vanik for Vietnam. Of the 3,987 callers participating in the telephone poll conducted after the waiver was signed, 93% said no when asked: "Do you agree with President Clinton's decision to clear the way for full trade with Hanoi?"

In summary, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam should only be granted trade and economic benefits when it meets conditions of free emigration and other human rights. Waiving Jackson-Vanik for Vietnam now was unwise and premature. If the Hanoi government continues to restrict freedom of emigration, then the waiver should be rescinded when Congress reviews Vietnam's trading status this June. U.S. interests are best served when human rights are respected in Vietnam.

For more information, please visit VPAC web site at http://www.vpac-usa.org.