Senate Testimony Video on Vietnam

By The Editor on 14 July 2006

Vietnam, Religious Freedom, and PNTR

(transcript)

Chairman Grassley, Senator Baucus, Members of the Committee, thank you for the privilege of speaking with you about Vietnam.

This September marks my fourth trip to Vietnam since the U.S. designated Vietnam a “country of particular concern” (CPC) in September 2004. Over the course of these visits, to include several meetings with Vietnamese officials visiting the U.S., I have had the opportunity to meet and observe many government and religious leaders in Hanoi, and at the provincial level (particularly in the Central and Northwest Highlands).

These visits have been punctuated by a 1 July 2005 agreement between our organization, the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE) and the Vietnam-USA Society (VUS) to strengthen U.S.-Vietnam relations by working together on religious freedom. This agreement has already witnessed ground-breaking delegation visits to the U.S. and Vietnam this year, and will include the first-ever conference on religion and the rule of law in Vietnamese and Southeast Asian history this September (in Hanoi).

While there are many technical and tactical issues to debate, I believe that we can distill these discussions to two strategic questions:

1) Has Vietnam begun to move toward a rule-of-law system that will preserve, protect and promote religious freedom in Vietnam, as well as enhance the trade between our two countries?

2) And, if so, how should the United States practically encourage Vietnam to continue moving in the right direction?

Irrespective of its origin, a strategic shift has taken place in the Vietnamese mindset regarding religious freedom. Evidence of this shift began with the promulgation of national ordinances (November 2004), instructions (February 2005), and guidelines (March 2005) on religious freedom. Although significant discrepancies among these documents must be clarified, the government has begun the unprecedented process of training officials at all levels about these decrees and how religious freedom should be addressed.

This shift has also created the space in which religious freedom organizations like IGE can contribute to an opening civil society by providing third party accountability regarding religious freedom. Finally there is increasing awareness among government officials that faith-based groups contribute to social stability by: 1) providing for the poor and needy, 2) alleviating the financial responsibility of the state to provide the same services; and 3) by serving as a moral bulwark against the increased corruption that inevitably accompanies an economy in transition.

This evolution of word and deed among government officials at the national and provincial level mark the beginning of a new pattern in the history of Vietnam’s human rights.

To be sure, the implementation of these changes is uneven and there are too many examples of people of faith being harassed because of their belief system (in some places much more than others). Yet these positive changes continue to take place, deepening and broadening the opportunity for a rule-of-law system to take root and permanently provide for religious freedom as well as normal trade relations.

In this overall context, I believe that the United States should honor Vietnam’s good faith effort in religious freedom, lift CPC, and then establish PNTR.

These two particular actions send the strong signal that we both respect the efforts made thus far by the Vietnamese government to establish the rule of law (especially the protection of religious freedom), and that we expect the government of Vietnam to continue creating the rule-of-law structure necessary to promote religious freedom and free trade in a sustainable manner. If such efforts do not continue at a reasonable pace, the U.S. should be ready to re-designate CPC, possibly with sanctions.

Perhaps most importantly, removing CPC and establishing PNTR encourages the progressive elements among Vietnam’s leadership. Vietnam possesses many true patriots amidst its government’s bureaucracy. I have met many of these national servants who want what is truly best for their country and their citizens. If we do not tangibly support them, hardliners gain the advantage and impede the progress that we all seek.

Progress is often not pretty and never comes easy. In fact, it is the direct result of the difficult and long-term work of building relationships of trust and respect. Through relational diplomacy—between states and between peoples—it is indeed possible to understand one another and, as a result, develop solutions that are sustainable, if only because we have developed them together.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to participate in this vital discussion.

Last updated 12 January 2009