Statement on US-VN Trade Relations
By Dan Duy-Tu Hoang
Vice-President of Public Relations,
Vietnamese-American Public Affairs Committee (VPAC)
U.S. Congressional Hearing on United States-Vietnam Trade Relations
June 15, 2000
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. The Vietnamese-American Public Affairs Committee (VPAC), a national grassroots organization of Vietnamese American voters, strongly opposes waiving the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Vietnam for two main reasons:
The Vietnamese government continues to deny it citizens fundamental human rights. The essence of the Jackson-Vanik amendment is to promote human rights in communist-ruled countries by conditioning the granting of U.S. government credits and investment. b.. Providing Vietnam with access to cheap U.S. credits and investment, while the Hanoi government stalls on economic and political reform, is a waste of U.S. taxpayer money. Moreover, it is a signal to the Vietnamese government to continue dragging its feet on much needed reform in all areas. Maintaining the Jackson-Vanik amendment in the case of Vietnam will help pressure the Vietnamese government for more concrete reforms. Let me elaborate on the reasons why we oppose extending the waiver.
Repression of Political and Religious Views
At this moment, Dr. Nguyen Xuan Tu, a biologist and writer whose pen name is Ha Si Phu, is under strict house arrest in Dalat city, Vietnam. In the last year, authorities have raided his residence on at least two occasions, each time removing his personal computer and working papers. According to two credible sources, Human Rights Watch and the Free Vietnam Alliance, on May 12, 2000, the public security again entered Ha Si Phu's home and presented him with a written order threatening to bring charges of treason, which carries a maximum penalty of death. Ha Si Phu's only activity has been to write a series of essays critiquing Marxist-Leninist doctrine and advocating political pluralism.
The unjust treatment of Ha Si Phu is of great concern to the Vietnamese American community. Our moral outrage is shared by many others. As I understand, there is an effort underway in the House of Representatives led by the Congressional Dialogue on Vietnam to demand the Vietnamese government to immediately release Ha Si Phu. This parallels the protests of the broader international community, including human rights organizations and scientific groups, against the Vietnamese government's persecution of Ha Si Phu. His case, though, is not unique.
In Hanoi, geophysicist Nguyen Thanh Giang remains under heavy police surveillance and harassment. He was jailed for two months in 1999 for pro-democracy writings. Since May last year, Prof. Nguyen Thanh Giang has been under virtual house arrest with his phone disconnected, mail stolen, and home ransacked by security officials.
In Saigon, a medical doctor named Nguyen Dan Que also faces house arrest. While Dr. Nguyen Dan Que has not been charged with any crime, security police surround his home 24 hours a day, a point that was underscored on April 12, 2000 when a reporter from the French newspaper L'Express tried to pay a visit. Not only was Sylvaine Pasquier turned away by the public security, she was herself detained for intense questioning.
The situations of Ha Si Phu, Nguyen Thanh Giang, and Nguyen Dan Que highlight the government's repression of peaceful dissent. Ha Si Phu has been under house arrest for the last three years without ever being brought to trial. Prof. Nguyen Thanh Giang has been persecuted without ever being formally charged with any crime. Dr. Nguyen Dan Que was released from jail in October 1998 in a much publicized amnesty of prominent political prisoners and then quickly confined to his home. All three men, along with many others in Vietnam, are the victims of the government's administrative detainment policy, which effectively legalizes arbitrary arrest and detainment. Under the infamous Directive 31/CP, signed into law in April 1997, security officials can detain any individual without charge for up to two years. The purpose of the administrative detainment policy is to repress political dissent while avoiding the official trials and lengthy prison sentences which attract international attention.
Arbitrary arrest in Vietnam also extends to religious figures. During his January visit to Vietnam, Congressman Ed Royce met with several prominent religious leaders and heard first hand the government's restrictions on religious worship and persecution of clergymen. Venerable Thich Quang Do, the second highest leader of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and a nominee for the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize by 29 U.S. Members of Congress, told Mr. Royce: "If I walk out the gate of this Pagoda, I know an accident will conveniently happen to me." (This travesty was brought to light thanks to Mr. Royce's insistence on hearing a variety of voices in Vietnam. We earnestly hope that members of the Committee in future trips to Vietnam will seek to visit dissidents to get a balanced view of the country as Representatives Ed Royce, Tom Campbell, Chris Smith and Loretta Sanchez have done in their recent trips.) Perhaps the most worrisome part of the government's record on religion is its ongoing crackdown against the Hoa Hao faith. In May 1999, the government created a state-sanctioned Hoa Hao Representative Board consisting entirely of senior communist party cadres to oversee the affairs of the Hoa Hao Buddhist community. To curtail an independent Hoa Hao organization, authorities have repeatedly tried to stop gatherings by Hoa Hao Buddhists on their most solemn religious occasions and detained large numbers of worshippers. This climate of repression has created the potential for major social unrest in the southern provinces of Vietnam where five million Hoa Hao Buddhists live.
Waste of U.S. Taxpayer Money
It is not unreasonable that American corporations and the Vietnamese government should lobby for a waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Who would want to do business in a corrupt, red-tape, and non-transparent economy without subsidized Export-Import loans and OPIC risk insurance? What is unreasonable, however, is that U.S. taxpayers should have to fund programs which permit investments not economically viable on their own merits and which allow the Vietnamese government to put off economic and political reforms.
Everyone talks about the corruption problem in Vietnam, especially the government. But according to a Reuters article ("Despite campaign, graft hobbles Vietnam," 5/17/2000), Hanoi has nothing to show one year into a major anti-graft campaign. Not a single senior government or party official has been publicly accused, let alone punished, for corruption. The most senior official rebuked for "mismanagement," Ngo Xuan Loc, was dismissed as deputy prime minister only to quickly return as senior advisor to the premier. The root of the problem is that the communist regime is accountable only to itself.
Red tape is another legendary problem. Consider this account from the Rushford Report ("Vietnam, twenty-five years later," 4/5/2000): "Every small business operator one sees has a piece of paper in his or her pocket giving permission to do business, the same kind of noodle shop down the street might have a different set of papers. It is a criminal offense not to have that permission slip." The bureaucratic mess gets worse for larger ventures, especially when they involve foreigners.
Finally, there is the problem of non-transparency in Vietnam. This stems from the lack of reliable information, which follows from the government's monopoly on the media and the "firewalls" it uses to block many Internet sites. The stifling of free information not only discourages foreign investors, but also denies Vietnamese the knowledge they need to do business and take part in their national affairs.
Conclusion
It is in the interest of the United States to encourage Vietnam's transition to a market economy. Such a transition can only be achieved through sustained economic and political reform. Since the president's decision to waive the Jackson-Vanik amendment in March 1998 and to extend the annual waiver since, the Vietnamese government has backtracked on reform. Extending the waiver for another year gives Hanoi more excuse to put off essential reforms. At the same time, it creates a moral hazard as American companies effectively gamble on a flawed economic system by investing when/where they otherwise would not without the benefit of taxpayer subsidies.
Vietnamese Americans in general and VPAC in particular would dearly like to see material improvements in the lives of people in Vietnam. But sustainable development and economic progress that benefits all--not a disproportionate few in power--can only be achieved on a framework of human rights, rule of law, and democracy.
Waiving the Jackson-Vanik amendment now, and then hoping and praying that the Vietnamese government will reform just does not work. The first requirement for free enterprise is free people. As long as the Vietnamese government continues to run a police state, arbitrarily arresting and detaining the country's best minds, don't expect it to respect the laws and conditions good for business either.