Socialist Republic of Vietnam

by Ton Nu Thi Ninh, vice-chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Assembly

Since the end of the war, U.S.-Vietnamese relations have made great strides towards the healing of the wounds of war and the making of a unique normal relationship between former adversaries. This has not meant that the differences between the two sides have vanished, but that they have on the whole been tackled wisely, some being put aside in view of their historical sensitivity, others being taken up through frank, constructive dialogue towards the finding of win–win compromise.

In recent years however, "irritants" to the relationship have emerged: perceptions on Vietnam’s side of unfair protectionist practices towards Vietnam’s producers and exporters; on the U.S. side of serious violations of human rights, especially ethnic minority rights and religious freedom, by Vietnam. Such irritants are threatening to stall the hard-won advances in the bilateral relationship.

I see a fundamental problem of both methodology and substance with the American handling of the issue of human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam. Let me focus on repeated attempts to pass legislation condemning and even sanctioning Vietnam for alleged human rights and religious freedom violations, such as the so-called Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2003, H.R 1587.

Such moves are essentially ineffective and even counterproductive, particularly because of the heavily emotionally charged perception of human rights in the two countries. The Vietnamese cannot forget the untold sufferances that the U.S. war in Vietnam inflicted on the Vietnamese people: our own hundreds of thousands of missing in action (MIAs), the millions – including civilians – exposed to the toxic effects of Agent Orange, the old people, women and children massacred at My Lai, among other examples.

Deep in their hearts they believe the United States has a moral debt to the Vietnamese nation, and still, they find it in themselves not only to accept but even to cooperate in assisting the United States in their search for remains of American MIAs. They support the Vietnamese government’s policy of putting aside the past and looking to the future for the broader interests of stable long-term normal relations with the United States.

That is why as an elected Vietnamese lawmaker, I can attest that many of my constituents find it ironic that the United States should feel in a position to "sermonize" and propose to "punish" Vietnam in the field of human rights. Pressure and conditionality simply don’t work with Vietnam.

I believe the only effective way for both the United States and Vietnam to press their respective views on any issue with the other side is through sustained and substantive dialogue based on mutual understanding. I have often heard American interlocutors invoke the strong views of the Vietnamese American community and their calls for withholding trade and aid. I quite honestly think these are the views of only the most strident, small minority within the Vietnamese American community.

Time did not stop in 1975

It is regrettable that a delicate relationship that needs all the nurturing care it can get from both sides should fall hostage to the activism of a small group for whom time stopped on April 30, 1975 [the day of the surrender of the South Vietnamese regime]. One should rather look at the broad picture and recognize the unmistakable overall trend in the Vietnamese American community: the steadily growing flow of cash for relatives and capital for business from Vietnamese Americans into Vietnam (which should exceed $3 billion this year) and the hundreds of thousands who go back to visit every year, including second-generation young Vietnamese Americans who have no personal score to settle.

In the broad picture I would add something unique that both sides can be proud of, namely the moving process of reconciliation between veterans from both sides: exchanges of visits, cooperative projects on MIAs and unexploded ordinance, cooperation on prosthetics and physical rehabilitation. What could be more meaningful? If veterans can overcome the past and look to the future, why should anyone else refuse to?

As I said earlier it is not just the methodology which is not right, but also the way substance and reality are being distorted in pieces of legislation related to human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam, in ways that are truly offensive to us Vietnamese who live here and should know better, and in fact to most foreign residents and visitors.

Sweeping allegations regarding the situation in the Central Highlands [where the United States alleges religious prosecution against ethnic minority peoples] and government policies towards ethnic minorities there make short thrift of both the historical complexities and objective reality of the government’s consistent policies and efforts to improve the living conditions of ethnic minorities across the country, including in the Central Highlands.

U.S. position not helpful on human rights

The least one would expect would be caution to avoid creating an impression of hasty blind assertions from outside as is the case now. I am told that Manhattan was bought from the indigenous Americans, the owners of that ancestral land, for $1 by the European settlers. I would refrain, however, to ask such pointed questions as how fair such acquisition was, or what kind of rights over their ancestral lands indigenous Americans enjoy today? Each country has its own complex history, let us show thoughtful mutual respect in this regard.

Finally I would like to revert to the broad picture. It shows that things may be moving in the right direction. The chief sponsors of H.R. 1587 have been claiming that it was overwhelmingly approved. I suggest to compare with the vote in 2001 on the same piece of legislation. Back then, a lone negative vote was cast; this year 45 negative votes and 65 abstentions – in other words more that 100 members of Congress did not agree with the substance or the usefulness of that bill.

Even more significant was the fact that for the first time, thanks to the political leadership shown by the U.S.–Vietnam House Caucus co-chaired by Reps. Robert Simmons (R-Conn.) and Lane Evans (D-Ill.), there was real debate on the floor on the real implications of the bill beyond the positive sounding title "To promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam," which makes it politically incorrect not to support: how can one not support human rights in Vietnam?

The problem is that rather than help the cause of human rights in Vietnam, such moves create roadblocks to the expansion and improvement of the bilateral relationship. This year’s vote on the so-called Vietnam Human Rights Act means that contrary to the assertions of the sponsors, the consensus is not growing but rather waning on this kind of ill-considered move. Being an optimist by nature I am confident that Americans and Vietnamese of good will and conscience will steer away from futile controversies and maintain a steady sense of the broader long-term mutual interests of the two nations.

The Washington Times, September 28, 2004