A Roadmap for Vietnam: Senate Testimony

By Robert A. Seiple on 13 February 2004

The following is a transcript of Robert
A. Seiple's testimony given on Thursday, February 12, 2004 at the Senate Foreign Relations Committe's hearing on the economic and human rights situation of Vietnam. The session was convened by Senator
Sam Brownback. Seiple also testified before the House International
Relations Committee to mark the release of the 5th annual report
by the Department of International Religious Freedom.

I have been traveling back to
Vietnam on a yearly basis since 1988. It is a country that I have
grown to love. I have deep respect for the ingenuity of its people
but I have been deeply concerned with what appears to be a deteriorating
approach to human rights by the Vietnamese government.

I will limit my comments to the harassment of Christians, but the
various expressions of Buddhism have also come under government
oppression. The northwest provinces and the Central Highlands have
produced the worst offences. Beatings, imprisonments, disappearances,
and murders have all been recorded in great detail. Pastors are
not allowed to obtain passports. They are unable to travel freely.
In every way imaginable, they are treated as second-class citizens.

Local police harass worshipers on Sundays. The church is unable
to print and then circulate literature on its activities. The training
of pastors, and specifically the number of pastors who will be trained
in any one year, is carefully regulated by the government. Both
Catholics and Protestants have been detained, beaten, and imprisoned.

In short, the record of the Vietnamese government is terrible in
terms of religious freedom; this record has been carefully documented,
with a great deal of clarity. The actions (or the inactions) of
this government violate every international covenant since the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. The government, unfortunately, seems
to be in total denial. A strict discipline within that government
assures that all of the "talking points" on this issue
are repeated verbatim.

What to do? There are really only two options. The first option
is that the United States government could designate Vietnam as
a country of particular concern. The testimony this day will, I
am sure, provide ample evidence of violations of religious freedom
in Vietnam that can fairly be described as "egregious,"
one of the key thresholds for sanctions designation under the International
Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998. Such a designation, with whatever
sanctions to follow, together with the inclusion on the "list"
of the worst offenders in global history, would certainly show resolve
on our part. We would feel better, knowing that we had done our
duty, regardless of any potential blowback on those who, in the
difficult places of our world, we are called to serve. We could
justify any sanctions, given the words and the intent of IRFA. In
short, we could raise the specter of punishment in the hopes that
this would change bad behavior. That would make us feel better but
it could have a disastrous effect on our long-term hopes for the
people of Vietnam.

Like most countries that have lived through a period of colonization,
the Vietnamese know how to resist. History is very clear on this,
especially to those of us who fought in the Vietnam War. That war
was frustrating. Over these last 15 years I have had occasion to
negotiate specific issues that I felt were clearly in the interest
of the Vietnamese and, at times, those negotiations have been equally
frustrating. The Vietnamese have a long-term view of history, an
exceptionally strong corporate will, and a unique national identity.
We can certainly apply the pressure available under the IRFA, but
Vietnam will most certainly dig in its heels. Additionally, we will
play straight into the hands of the hardliners in the Vietnamese
government. In short, pressure and power will not advance our overall
foreign policy goals (and I am including human rights in those goals)
with the Vietnamese government. We, too, need to take a longer view.

I recommend the following. We need a road map in Vietnam for human
rights in general and, more specifically, religious freedom. A space
has to be created for this issue to be discussed, a space that does
not have the sword of sanctions hanging overhead. A third party
should be enlisted to facilitate these discussions. Moderate voices
need to be identified within the Vietnamese government as well as
the religious communities, individuals that have the trust of their
constituencies, individuals who can speak credibly for those constituencies.

A common "win-win" point of vested self-interest needs
to be discovered against which the issue of religious freedom can
be evaluated and our entire bilateral relationship can be judged.
The pragmatics of this issue need to be mutually discovered and
applied, especially the positive role that religious freedom plays
with national security.

Finally, religious freedom advocates and the business community
cannot be working at cross-purposes. If Vietnam is to be a sound
business investment, the best of human rights-including predictable
rule of law, internal security, international perceptions and a
universal sense of human dignity-all need to be articulated concepts
and practical realities for business leaders and human rights activist
alike.

Much has taken place over the last 30 years to bring closure to
a difficult historic event. It wasn't easy and it wasn't fast. Let's
not give back any ground. No one is saying that the future is going
to be easy. The hard work ahead of us, however, has to be done together.
We all should be looking for a sustainable solution, and that will
never happen if we attempt to impose one, alone, from the outside.

Last updated 12 January 2009