Following is the statement of Mr. Diem Dp, Co-Chair of The Committee Against Jackson-Vanik Waiver to Hanoi, testifying at the congressional hearing on June 17, 1999.
Distinguished Members of Congress,
First, I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to address this committee today. The Coalition Against Jackson-Vanik Waiver, representing 30 organizations and communities across the nation, strongly opposes the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Vietnam for the following reasons:
the Vietnamese government has not made sufficient progress towards free emigration to warrant the waiver,
(1) the Vietnamese government continues to deny its citizens all basic human rights, and Vietnam's transition to a market economy has slowed down significantly and remains incomplete.
Maintaining the Jackson-Vanik amendment in the case of Vietnam will help to put pressure on the Vietnamese government for more concrete reforms in the areas outlined above. Now, I would like to elaborate more on the reasons why we oppose the waiver.
Free Emigration
Vietnam claimed that it had dropped the exit permit requirement in the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Refugees (ROVR) program. This is a step towards satisfying the free emigration requirement under Jackson-Vanik amendment.
The reality is that Vietnam has not dropped its requirement for exit permit. It has only delayed this requirement until after the applicant is interviewed and approved by the U.S. interviewing team, at which time the problem with exit permit will resurface. In addition, a large number of eligible applicants have been denied exit permit or not processed because they are former political prisoners, former U.S. government employees or religious leaders.
Beside administrative roadblocks, pervasive corruption at all levels of government creates additional obstacles to free emigration. In many instances, applicants to U.S. resettlement programs are demanded huge amount of money that they cannot afford. This in effect violates the spirit of the Jackson-Vanik amendment that requires a country not to impose "more than a nominal tax, levy, fine, fee, or other charge on any citizen as a consequence of the desire of such citizen to emigrate to the country of his choice."
Human Rights
The very first sentence of section 402(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 said that the amendment is "to assure the continued dedication of the United States to fundamental human rights..." With that in mind, clearly Vietnam's human rights record does not warrant the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
Just two months ago, on April 19, 1999, the Vietnamese government issued Administrative Decree 26, titled Decree of the Government Concerning Religious Activities. In this 29-articles long decree, the Vietnamese government laid out some serious restrictions on religious freedom. Following are examples of the most blatant violations committed by this decree:
Article 20 dictates that "the consecration of those who carry the title of "Hoa Thuong" in the Buddhist religion, of cardinals, bishops, administrators in the Catholic Church, and of dignitaries of equivalent function of other religions, must receive the approval of the Prime Minister."
Article 21 reads that "the nomination and transfer of clergy, religious and specialists in religious activities must obtain the approval of the Peoples Committee whose administrative management covers the territory of their activities."
Article 24 requires that "religious organizations and officials, in order to invite to Vietnam religious organizations and officials from abroad, must obtain the authorization of the Bureau of Religious Affairs."
Article 25 dictates that "in order to organize a particular gathering within a place of worship, it is necessary to obtain authorization from the President of the Peoples' provincial committee."
Just weeks after Administrative Decree 26 was issued, on May 7, 1999, Reverend Tran Dinh Ai and 19 others from the Vietnam Assemblies of God Church were detained after police burst in on their second day of a three-day spiritual retreat and bible study session in a Hanoi hotel. Of this 20 people, 18 were released on May 9, 1999 after being charged with breach of the peace. The remaining two, Evangelist pastor Lo Van Hen's whereabouts were currently unknown and Reverend Tran Dinh Ai is still being detained in a hotel with four guards. He has appealed for help for himself and his family to leave the country.
It is important to note that human rights violation in Vietnam is not limited to religious freedom. Two years ago, on April 14, 1997, the Vietnamese government issued Administrative Decree 31, titled Government Administrative Detainment Policy, which gives the police the power to detain anyone suspicious of "infringing on the national security" from 6 months up to 2 years without trial.
More recently, Reuters reported on 5/20/99 that the government "has amended its strict press law to tighten state control over official media and set rules that all reporting must be of benefit to the country." Not only they clamped down on free speech for every citizen, the Vietnamese Communist Party restricted their own party members’ free speech. On 6/7/99, the Associated Press reported that the Politburo decided to ban party members from "distributing documents that question party policies and decisions, and may not write anonymous letters or make accusations against people they disagree with."
Transition to a market economy
One of the reasons that the United States chose to pursue the policy of "engagement" with Vietnam is to facilitate Vietnam's transition to a market economy. Such a transition can be beneficial to both countries. However, since the lifting of the trade embargo in 1994 and more recently since the Jackson-Vanik waiver in 6/98, Vietnam's economic reform has slowed down significantly to the point of inaction.
In a Reuters article on 5/21/99, Ari Kokko, a Vietnam expert from the Stockholm School of Economics, said: "I think the lack of reforms has made it clear Vietnam is really still a command economy at heart, in spite of the changes...over the past few years." That same article also reported that investors still moan about incomplete laws, tough foreign exchange rules, tight labor laws, lengthy licensing procedures, restricted access to certain sectors of the economy, corruption and a lack of infrastructure.
Even our Ambassador Pete Peterson was quoted in the same article that Vietnam had an opportunity to seize some initiative, "but Vietnam failed to do so because they became frightened about the impact of such reforms and they essentially opted for the status quo."
In an article on 5/25/99, reporter Ken Dilanian of the Inquirer quoted Kazi Matin, chief economist of the World Bank in Vietnam, that "the economy is certainly in a tailspin," and "(new) foreign investment has virtually disappeared." In fact, big companies are leaving Vietnam in droves such as Cigna and Chrysler just to name a couple.
The same article reported that there is still a state board that sets the prices of staple products such as cement and steel. In fact, Mr. Bradley LaLonde, director of Citibank's Vietnam operations, who testified last year before this same committee in favor of waiving the Jackson-Vanik amendment, was quoted in that same article saying that "Vietnam is run by a group of people who are resistant to change. They want a government-controlled economy."
Clearly, investors are becoming increasingly disillusioned with a government that makes Vietnam one of the world's most frustrating places to do business. Obviously, pressures are needed to push Vietnam forward in the transition to a market economy.
Conclusion
For more than a decade, foreign investors and the international community have been pouring money into Vietnam with little success. That is because there is no real pressure to force the Vietnamese government toward a more long-term and constructive path of reform. The approach taken by the Vietnamese government since 1986 has been more to stave off their own collapse rather than rescuing the country.
Waiving the Jackson-Vanik amendment now, and then hope and pray that the Vietnamese government will reform just does not work. With billions of dollars already invested in Vietnam, it is now time to take a different approach so that long-term growth and a business friendly environment can be ensured. Pressures must be applied so that the right course and the right pace of reform are taken. The United States should use economic leverages such as the Jackson-Vanik Waiver, MFN status, other forms of preferential tariff treatment and other benefits such as EXIM, OPIC, TDA to exchange for concrete, verifiable steps toward reforms.
We strongly believe that waiving the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Vietnam without any real, tangible concessions from Vietnam is premature at this point. Trade benefits should only be given when Vietnam reciprocates with measurable steps toward full economic and human rights reforms.
In summary, I believe that free trade does not mean trade at any cost and without conditions. In the case of Vietnam, certain conditions must be met in order for meaningful, long lasting trade relations to develop. The guiding principle of our country has always been cooperating and partnering with free government, free country where human rights and values are respected. Let's not betray that principle by making Vietnam an exception.