Constructive Advocacy: Creating a Context for Action

By Jared Daugherty on 28 March 2007

On 9 March, Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported a slew of arrests of Vietnamese activists, calling it one of the “worst crackdowns on peaceful dissidents in 20 years.” The HRW release was the most prominent among a number of similar online reports ¹. Among those arrested were two Hanoi human rights lawyers and a Catholic priest, each with a tradition of political criticism of the government. The three were charged with carrying out propaganda against the Vietnamese government, facing up to 20 years in prison if convicted. The HRW report also outlined the detainment, interrogation, and release of at least 12 other free speech and democracy advocates, opposition political party leaders, and the arrest of an independent trade union leader in January. Several of the individuals arrested were religious leaders, leading some Western advocacy organizations to call the arrests violations of religious freedom.²

Vietnamese Prime Minister Dung rejected the validity of the HRW release, while Vietnam’s Family and Society newspaper commented: “Their [those arrested] purpose is to form opposition forces, nominate people to run for National Assembly membership and join hands with other forces to cause disturbance. However, all of their activities could not escape the eyes of the security forces and were stamped out.”

The newspaper also accused U.S.-based groups of engineering the recent resurgence of pro-democracy activism in Vietnam, depicting the arrests as the uncovering of a “democracy plot” organizing political opposition with the help of foreign funds.

These arrests occur against the backdrop of a recent swell of positive international opinion regarding Vietnam. On 13 November 2006, the U.S. State Department removed Vietnam from its "Countries of Particular Concern" (CPC) list, which indicates those countries around the world that commit systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.³ On 29 December 2006, Vietnam obtained Permanent Normalized Trade Relations (PNTR) status with the U.S. And early this year, Vietnam became a member of the WTO (11 January 2007). Central to this progression of events was Vietnam’s human rights record, particularly its progress in improving its religious freedom situation. Many felt that if Vietnam was removed from the CPC list, granted PNTR, and allowed to join the WTO, then Vietnam would not be sufficiently motivated to continue its progress in human rights and religious freedom.⁴

As a result, claims of new religious freedom violations in Vietnam must be carefully scrutinized and appropriately addressed through the right set of questions. Do the recent arrests of political activists constitute, as some advocacy groups claim, a violation of religious freedom and reversal of the progress made in 2006? What are the consequences of labeling the arrests as violations of religious freedom? And how can international human rights advocates constructively respond to such occurrences?

Were the arrests violations of religious freedom?

On the one hand, religious freedom is inseparable from other freedoms. Where there is the freedom to believe, so too is there the freedom to speak, associate, and publish. This is certainly our current experience in America. On the other hand, all politics is local, and the establishment and evolution of freedoms related to religious freedom is contextually dependent. (Witness the U.S. example: official state religions were not officially disestablished until the 1830s and African slaves and women did not receive the right to vote until 1870 and 1920 respectively.)

While there is certainly a place for outcry at these arrests, they do not appear to be particular violations of religious freedom for two reasons. First, non-religious activists were also arrested. Over the past five months, independent trade unionists, democracy activists, and opposition party leaders have been either arrested, detained, interrogated, or harassed due to their political stances.⁵ According to various releases, the arrests were targeted at vocal Vietnamese activists advocating a particular political agenda.⁶ While some of these activists happen to be religious leaders, they appear to have been victimized for their political, not religious, affiliations.⁷

Second, Vietnam arrested the activists in violation of a penal code, not in violation of religious codes. The government designated the activists' activities a “democracy plot” in violation of Article 88.⁸ While Article 88 has been a controversial part of Vietnam’s penal code in the past, it is political rather than religious in nature.

What are the consequences of labeling the arrests as violations of religious freedom?

However valid Western advocates might consider the Vietnamese activists' political cause, mislabeling their arrests as a religious freedom crackdown has consequences that contradict the very goals these advocates are trying to promote. For example, mislabeling:

• Fails to fully reflect the activists’ intentions. Rather than expressing solidarity with Vietnamese activists, mislabeling demonstrates a misunderstanding and mischaracterization of their mission. Historically, religion in general has served as a motivating factor for many activists worldwide whose agenda encompasses broad political and social change. To classify religiously-motivated activism as merely a religious cause can limit full understanding of activists’ political intentions, and deny the potential non-religious impact of their message. Likewise, to regard activist imprisonment as a violation of religious freedom can misclassify the issue and delay appropriate solutions. 
• Hinders partnership toward shared solutions. Public mislabeling does not lead to constructive dialogue; instead, it shames the government publicly and forces it into a defensive position that negates openness on politically difficult changes. As a result, there is no way for the government to reverse the recent international criticism except to publicly capitulate to an outside advocacy community with which it has no relationship. Such capitulation seems both unlikely and unsustainable as a means for effecting the long-term change that advocacy groups desire. 
• Discourages Vietnamese officials in reforms they are already making rather than encouraging more. Within a week of the arrests, Vietnam hosted a nationwide tour by exiled Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh,⁹ hosted a high-level Vatican delegation to discuss establishing bilateral ties,¹⁰ and continued with registration of new Protestant house churches--all developments unheard of only a few years ago. That the government would simultaneously arrest political activists while promoting religious activities suggests recognition that not all religious activity constitutes a political or security threat. (Recent statements from the government explicitly suggest this recognition.) In a country that experienced large demonstrations with political and religious overtones as recently as 2001 and 2004, such discernment is significant. 
• Belies the time and resources Vietnam has invested into documents that seriously discuss its commitment to international agreements since its removal from the CPC list and accession to the WTO, particularly in the area of religious liberty. One example of a document discussing Vietnam’s commitment to religious liberty is the government's recent 90-page White Paper on Religion. In addition, significant reform efforts have been made in other areas, such as socio-economic development that go largely unnoticed. 
• Awakens, unnecessarily, old fears. Mislabeling confirms Vietnam’s worst fears about religion and may unwittingly create the situation that human rights advocates want to avoid: increasing traditional suspicion of religion as a potential anti-state force that must be stopped to preserve political control. Religion represents the capacity to organize. The mental leap between organizing for the purpose of religion and organizing for the purpose of political instability is understandable in a country where religion has played a historic role in political instability, and where there is little experience of pluralistic democracy. For example, Vietnam has only been united, and at peace, for fewer than 20 of the last 300 years. Given this history of war and political conflict, if one compares the general environment for freedoms in Vietnam now to even 15 years ago, one can only conclude that there’s been a rapid transition; and for the better. It is not at the point that some in the U.S. would like, but freedom’s progress must be acknowledged. 

In short, re-connecting religion with politics in the minds of Vietnamese leaders is potentially the most serious consequence of mislabeling because it can negatively impact the religious freedom progress that is being made. Understood in this context, mislabeling can not only delay understanding but hinder future growth.

How can international human rights advocates constructively respond to such occurrences?

In this debate, the need to speak sincerely and honestly is paramount. However, any response that obscures fair evaluation endangers productive debate. Through observing several foundational components of constructive dialogue, advocates can create a context in which a problem identified is not only correctly named, but also, as a result, constructively addressed, enabling short-term honesty and long-term solutions. These principles include:

• Build credibility through dispassionate reporting. Several recent releases have worked to include important arrest information such as the date and location of arrests, and Vietnamese laws violated. Details like this serve to create a common point of reference, helpful to all parties. 
• So that expectations are communicated and respect is conveyed, accompany public statements with private conversations. Respect is conveyed when expectations are communicated privately, by acknowledging the possibility of a response. For practical reasons, a combination of public and private engagement broadens the ways a situation can be addressed. 

Rather than conveying respect, limiting communication to a public forum can have a polarizing effect, when both parties feel satisfied for having expressed their perspective publicly without having moved closer to substantive communication, or an understanding of how their views affect the other party. Allowing for both public and private communication guards against this polarizing effect and acknowledges the benefit of divergent opinions, possibility of cooperation, and need for mutual accountability, all fundamental to respectful action.

Practically speaking, if expectations are not communicated, behavior that matches expectations cannot be expected. Furthermore, if expectations are as a rule only communicated in a public forum, the understanding of expectations is limited to that forum. Sometimes this public understanding is sufficient. At other times, however, an isolated public statement may be an insufficient response to an emergent understanding. For example, limiting communication to a news release can delay solutions, while using public and private communication opens more possibilities.

Shrewd engagement recognizes the role of both forms of communication in developing a shared plan of shared benefit, if only because solutions have been developed together. For example, making a Vietnamese translation of public statements available online enables government response, and conveys respect. In addition, by accompanying public releases with private engagement, the impact of a statement can be directed to the correct channels for action more quickly and effectively. At the very least this engagement provides an additional layer of accountability helpful to both the advocate and government.

• Create the kind of dialogue you expect from the other party. If polemics are used, the only response that can reasonably be expected is polemics. If engagement is desired, however, engage. Affirm what’s begun; set out a plan for partnership through which the conditions for dialogue are mutually agreed upon. And be prepared to use multiple channels, both private and public, to encourage the government to respond with affirmation, plans, dialogue, and action toward reform. Finally, listen first. 
• Promote insider-owned reform, not outsider-imposed reform. Ultimately, success is not for the international government to achieve justice for Vietnam, but for those inside Vietnam to achieve justice within their country according to sustainable Vietnamese mechanisms. Advocacy by the international community can have great influence over the growth of press, law, and civil society in Vietnam, all currently nascent in their development. How is that influence stewarded to enable Vietnamese mechanisms to work justice in these matters? Mishandling can politicize locally-owned mechanisms (e.g. transparent forums for policy discussion, church registration, etc.) stunting their development by making them politically sensitive. 
• Avoid jeopardizing long-term objectives while reacting to situations in the short-term. Advocates' reactions in the short-term sometimes preclude any possibility for long-term engagement by using language and methods that alienate the accused government. One might argue that there is no time for equivocation or accommodation when people are suffering: human dignity must be protected immediately when obvious abuses are occurring. However, if advocates’ goal is to support and advance human dignity, their method must support a civil discussion that enables long-term engagement, the only means of promoting sustainable protection of human dignity. 

Affirming this dialogue allows one to decry arrests, but also understand the context without accepting it as an excuse for those arrests. It also communicates the desire for a response in-kind. In this context, the government and the outside community can move together, disagreed or agreed, through constructive debate and thus the possibility of shared solutions.

Last updated 12 January 2009