Socialist Republic of Vietnam

(This article appeared in The Hill, Dec ,2010)

The annual debate over the State Department’s human rights report brings with it a series of resolutions and bills trying to punish – or at least spotlight – certain countries for violations of
U.S. standards.
Vietnam regularly receives attention for religious rights violations. This year, on top of sanctions bills, the Congressional Human Rights Commission held a hearing on a dispute in the central Vietnamese
village of
Con Dau that pitted Catholic villagers against riot police.

While the debate in Congress tends to be polarized, with the forces of good and evil aligned for easy identification, many working on the ground see the issue more nuanced. Lots of work remains to be done to assure that Vietnam lives up to international – and its own standards. But most observers agree the Vietnamese government does not prevent its citizens from following their faith. With 80% of the Vietnamese adhering to some form of religion, the government would be hard pressed to stamp out religious observance in the first place. More importantly, the government has no interest in internal discord. “We need peace and stability as we develop the economy,” said Ba Long, Political Counselor at the Embassy of Vietnam.

Hanoi is concerned enough about the problems to work with an American Christian organization, the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE), to train church as well as government officials in avoiding standoffs like the one that sparked the Con Dau hearing. In that instance, the government pushed people to cede private land for the public good, a tourism resort. Compensation was an issue, but also that the land included the cemetery of the village where some Catholics are buried. The standoff between villagers and riot police turned ugly when the villagers defied restrictions and tried to conduct a funeral there. Chris Seiple, IGE’s president, said that harassment of religious groups exists, particularly from local officials. But most of the problems are not based on religion alone, but on a variety of factors, such as ethnicity, or wealth and power differences. Land disputes are the most frequent causes for government overreach. In a country that is in the midst of a transition to a market economy and just

35 years away from a brutal war, it doesn’t come as a surprise that land rights issues are not settled and disputes will not always be resolved peacefully, Seiple said.

Live and let live

The government admits it is too slow in register- ing new religious groups, but has granted licenses to several in recent years, including seven Protestant denominations. The total of recognized religious religions now stands at 32. Nonetheless, the shortcomings are known, but they are not a reflec- tion of official policy, but lack of training and dis- trust between the various parties, according to the Vietnamese side. Moreover, groups with a grievance know how to get the U.S. Congress excited. “When they talk about a land issue, it is local,” said Ba Long, “but when you call it a religious dispute, people inAmerica, especially the government, get interested.” As if to prove the point, at the Human Rights Commission’s Con Dau hearing, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) showed dismay that the U.S. Ambassador in
Hanoi declared the incident merely a land dispute.

Andre Sauvageot, a retired U.S. Army colonel who has served there during the war and has since worked in the country in a variety of capacities, agrees that religion is politicized. As far as personal religious choices are concerned, Sauvageot said, the policy is “live and let live.” He adds that the Vietnamese government takes an active stance on religious freedom, preventing religion from being used as a means of power, as opposed to the
United States, where it is constantly politicized. As a result, political actors who use religion run afoul of the law. This represents a difference between the American and Vietnamese views on religious freedom, but one where even some Americans, such as himself, Sauvageot said, side with the Vietnamese interpretation.

The principle of “live and let live” could apply to U.S.-Vietnamese debates on religious freedom. Overall, the relationship has improved swiftly since normalization,andreligionasawedgeissuedoesn’t help the overall progress. The Vietnamese side doesn’t accept to be ordered around by the Congress, but is clearly taking U.S.concerns seriously. Says Seiple: “It is a huge deal that a communist government signs an agreement with a Christian, American organization to work in one of the most sensitive areas on one of the most sensitive topics.”