Socialist Republic of Vietnam

On April 3, 2003, Congressman Christopher H. Smith (R. NJ) and several co-sponsors held a press conference introducing the so-called “The Human Rights Act of Vietnam – 2003”. This move runs counter to the advancing relationship and cooperation between Vietnam and the United States, and creates a false understanding of human rights in Vietnam.

Following are comments of the Press Bureau of the Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on the issue:


I. What are the U.S. views of the relationship between the two countries and ways to deal with the human rights issue?

1. President George W. Bush, in his reply to Vietnamese Ambassador Nguyen Tam Chien on the occasion of the presentation of his letter of credence on October 10, 2001, stated: “We have appreciated the increasing candor of our exchanges as we discuss issues across the full spectrum of our relationship. In areas where we disagree it is important to continue dialogue and to enhance understanding.” “We believe that a prosperous Vietnam will contribute to regional and global peace and stability.”

2. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in his recent letter to Foreign Minister of Vietnam Nguyen Dy Nien, stressed “our normalized political and economic relations have brought direct benefits to both our countries and our people.” Mr. Mathew P. Daley, Deputy Assistant Secretary said in his testimony before the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific on March 26, 2003, “bilateral relations between the United States and Vietnam have expanded dramatically in recent years. From our original focus on full accounting for POW/MIA (which remains central to our concerns) and refugees resettlement, our relations now encompass heightened cooperation on a number of global issues, including counter-terrorism, HIV/AIDS, demining, and disaster preparedness.”

3. During his meeting with Vietnam Deputy Prime Minister Nguyen Manh Cam at the State Department in July 2002, a high-ranking US official said human rights are a universal value, and the U.S. has no intention of imposing its values on human rights on other countries, including Vietnam. This view has been reiterated by US officials in the human rights dialogues between Vietnam and the United States.

II. What are mechanisms already in place?

1. The two governments have developed effective bilateral ways to deal with this issue. Most notable are the Vietnam-US annual dialogues on human rights (the 10th round was held in Washington, DC last November), and the yearly dialogues on political and security issues that started in 1999. Such candid discussions have brought about far better mutual understanding about human rights situation in both countries and mutual respect.

2. In spite of the bilateral efforts, mention must be made of the unilateral measures, unacceptable to Vietnam, being taken by the U.S. to address its “concerns about human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam.” Among them, there are the four US government’s annual reports concerning human rights in Vietnam, including three reports made by the State Department, the fourth by the Commission on International Religious Freedom. In addition, in 2002 the 107th Congress passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, (H. R. 1646, which became public law No. 107-228). Section 702 of that Act stipulates 8 specific monitoring and reporting requirements for these issues in Vietnam. As some U.S. officials have commented, those tools in place are more than enough for the US administration to watch human rights in Vietnam and there is little need for another bill.

III. Vietnam’s position:

1. The people and government of Vietnam totally reject this bill.

1.1 The bill fails to reflect the realities in Vietnam. It is replete with inaccuracies, as observed by several officials from the Administration and Congress. Furthermore, it deliberately ignores Vietnam’s enormous achievements in raising the quality of life of its people which have been widely recognized by the international community, including successive U.S. administrations and a wide spectrum of Americans.

1.2 It attempts to impose prerequisites on mutually beneficial cooperation, contrary to the international practices of settling bilateral issues between countries with full diplomatic relations, namely: dialogues in the spirit of friendship and mutual respect, without preconditions and interference in internal affairs.

1.3 Vietnam advocates the two countries put the past aside and look forward to the future for a true friendship and cooperation. The bill’s offensive and anti-Vietnam language rekindles the receding animosity, running counter to the overall positive trend of the bilateral relationship and the expectation of the people of the two nations.

As such, the bill is to the detriment of the reconciliation between the two nations, and the advancement of the Vietnam-US relationship into a new era of durable and stable friendship and cooperation.

2. The bill, rather than serving the stated purpose of promoting human rights, just promotes a narrow, sectarian agenda. In so doing, it is a smear campaign against the entire nation of Vietnam, presenting to the American public and politicians a distorted image of Vietnam.

3. It is widely shared in the U.S. and in Vietnam that increasing dialogues and interactions between the people and governments of the two countries in economic, political, cultural, military and other fields will advance mutual interests. Good-willed advocates should focus on the preservation of the initial hard-won momentum in the relationship and endeavors for its further growth.

4. It is unfair and inhumane to impose sanctions on the Vietnamese people, who, although suffering the lingering effects of wars, are working closely and effectively with the United States in dealing with bilateral as well as global issues, and striving to become an active partner in the world community.

5. Human rights is a goal that the entire mankind and every nation in the world pursue. Still no nation has a perfect record. That is not to mention the differences that remain among countries with regard to perceptions about human rights, and political, socio-economic, historical, and cultural background on which human rights progress. It is the shared knowledge that higher level of cultural and socio-economic development will bring about better conditions and capabilities for ensuring human rights. Vietnamese President Tran Duc Luong affirmed in his letter to US President George W. Bush, “regarding [the issue] of freedom of expression and freedom of religious worship in Vietnam, I would like to assure you that having lost millions of lives to defend national independence and freedom, pride and human dignity, the Vietnamese people cherish them as sacred rights.”

6. Vietnam Foreign Minister Nguyen Dy Nien has urged his counterpart Secretary Powell “take all appropriate and timely measures to prevent and to remove for good the Vietnam Human Rights Bill from our bilateral relations, making a necessary move to contribute to our joint efforts to go beyond the past and toward the future.” We do respectfully urge that you oppose the bill.