[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A BAD YEAR FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 7, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-137
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-344PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
RON DeSANTIS, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
TED S. YOHO, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York NORMA J. TORRES, California
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
Wisconsin ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
ANN WAGNER, Missouri TED LIEU, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina KAREN BASS, California
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York AMI BERA, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
Wisconsin THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Joseph Cao, former Member of Congress.............. 9
Nguyen Dinh Thang, Ph.D., executive director, Boat People SOS.... 18
Ms. Dinah PoKempner, general counsel, Human Rights Watch......... 27
``Anthony Le'' (an alias), spokesperson, Brotherhood for
Democracy...................................................... 37
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Joseph Cao: Prepared statement..................... 13
Nguyen Dinh Thang, Ph.D.: Prepared statement..................... 21
Ms. Dinah PoKempner: Prepared statement.......................... 31
``Anthony Le'': Prepared statement............................... 40
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 56
Hearing minutes.................................................. 57
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International
Organizations:
Vietnam's Persecution of H'Mong Christians, prepared by Hmongs
United For Justice........................................... 58
Statement by the Hoa Hao Buddhist Congregation Central Overseas
Executive Committee.......................................... 65
Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California........................ 68
Written responses from ``Anthony Le'' to questions submitted for
the record by the Honorable Alan S. Lowenthal, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California....................... 70
A BAD YEAR FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in
room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The hearing will come to order and good
afternoon. Sorry for the delay to our witnesses. We did have a
series of votes and both Ms. Bass and I were delayed so I
apologize for that.
It has been, ladies and gentleman, as you know, a very bad
year in Vietnam for human rights. Since the beginning of 2018
alone, the Vietnamese Government has handed out sentences
totaling over 100 years in prison and house arrest to human
rights defenders and democracy advocates.
In the past year alone, 22 bloggers have been jailed as
well as six members of the Brotherhood for Democracy. An
outrageous 15-year sentence was given to Nguyen Van Dai, whose
wife, Vu Minh Khanh, testified before this committee back in
2016.
I will note, parenthetically, we are hoping for his
release. I would note, parenthetically, that I met with Nguyen
Van Dai.
Matter of fact, Dr. Thang helped to arrange it in Hanoi in
the year 2005 and virtually everyone except one other person--
he was a lawyer representing a number of people on human rights
cases--were all detained by police and couldn't come and meet
in his Hanoi law office.
It was really very, very discouraging and also an insight
into how repressive the Communist government regime is in
Vietnam.
I would note that Scott Flipse, who has done yeoman's work
for years and is right behind me here, met with Nguyen Van Dai
in Hanoi in 2007 and 2009 while he was in prison.
So we have had a long-standing concern that we have
expressed over and over again for him and for the others who
have been held unjustly by the Vietnamese Government.
The Vietnamese Government has gotten a free pass on human
rights for far too long. There are currently at least 169
political religious prisoners in Vietnam including bloggers,
labor union activists, and democracy advocates and religious
leaders.
Freedom House rates Vietnam as not free and possessing of
some of the world's highest press in internet restrictions.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
again this year recommended that Vietnam be designated as a
country of particular concern for egregious religious freedom
abuses.
I would note that I am disappointed when the new list came
out and I did personally lobby the administration. We didn't
get any luck with the last administration or with the Bush
administration, which took it off CPC category, and so far not
yet with the new Trump administration.
U.S. policy has failed the Vietnamese people. This is a
bipartisan criticism. We have enriched Vietnam's Communist
leaders and coddled their interests at the expense of the hope
and desires of the Vietnamese people for liberty and human
rights, which they are striving to achieve but have been,
unfortunately, repressed.
The Trump administration does have an opportunity to bring
about real reforms in Vietnam if and only if human rights
improvements are linked to better U.S.-Vietnamese relations.
The U.S. has leverage to encourage reform. Vietnam needs a
strong U.S. partnership, particularly as China's aggressiveness
increases.
The question is will there be leverage and will this
leverage be used to help the people of Vietnam or will our
acquiescence or indifference be used to help the Communist
leaders?
I have been to Vietnam a number of times on human rights
trips. I've met with its rights advocates--young activists--for
decades. The younger generation in Vietnam--66 percent of
Vietnam is under the age of 40--looks to the U.S. as a land of
opportunity and a land of freedom.
This generation wants the same liberties enjoyed by their
relatives living in California, Texas, Virginia, Louisiana, in
my home state of New Jersey, and so many other places where
former Vietnamese have flourished.
They want to speak freely, blog freely, worship God freely,
and be free to choose and change their leaders. Failing to
press for concrete human rights improvements underestimates
U.S. leverage and will disappoint the young generation of
Vietnam, who are that country's dynamic future.
The President will face pressure from his advisors and the
business community, especially the business community, to look
at Vietnam through the lens of trade deals and containment of
China.
Hopefully, he will be able to see the situation more
clearly than past administrations, and that's a bipartisan
criticism. Both Republicans and Democrats in the White House
have not done what they could have done to make a difference.
No government that represses its own people or restricts
fundamental freedoms can be a trusted ally of the United
States.
No government that censors the internet, tortures, and
jails dissidents, crushes civil society should be given
generous trade and security benefits without conditionality.
Robust championing of individual rights will meet with some
success, if recent history is our guide. The Vietnamese
Government has responded to concerns expressed by the last two
administrations when they linked human rights improvements to
better U.S.-Vietnamese relations.
Whether to gain entry into the World Trade Organization--
WTO--the TPP--Trans-Pacific Partnership--or to address U.S.
concerns over religious freedom, the Vietnamese Government took
steps when we insisted and when they were pressed by American
Presidents.
It is when the U.S. loses interest in human rights that
conditions regress, as it has in the past year. The business of
the Communist party is staying in power and repressing those
that they believe will challenge their power.
They will not embrace human rights improvements or the rule
of law unless it's a firm condition of better relations with
the U.S.
Putting human rights and the rule of law at the center of
bilateral relations is the goal of H.R. 5621, the Vietnam Human
Rights Act, bipartisan legislation that I introduced last
month.
I will note parenthetically that that bill--there is
different iterations of it but with a lot of input, including
from some of our witnesses including Dr. Thang, has passed the
House four times.
It always gets over to the Senate and holds are placed on
it, and those holds are to the detriment of the Vietnamese
people. Hopefully this year we will see a change.
The bill emphasizes the connection between human rights
improvements and U.S. interests and states that U.S. policy
should prioritize the freedom of religion, freedom of the
press, internet freedom, independent labor unions--which are
nonexistent--the protection of women and girls from
trafficking, and advances in the rule of law as critical
components of both U.S.-Vietnamese relations and any U.S.-led
effort to ensure free and open Indo-Pacific region.
And I mentioned the bill had passed four times--three times
as a free-standing bill, once as an amendment--and even then
when Frank Wolf was willing to get it into an appropriations
bill, a senator, stepped in and objected and out it came. So
it's time for that to end.
I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague,
Ms. Bass, for any comments you might have.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling today's
hearing and bringing attention to the myriad of human rights
violations in Vietnam.
Just over 1 year ago, we had an important hearing on how
religious freedom and human rights in Vietnam are critical to
the U.S. national interest.
Starting from the restoration of diplomatic relations with
Vietnam in 1995, the bilateral relationship with the United
States has grown considerably, especially in trade and
investment.
Over the past decade, U.S. exports to Vietnam have
increased over ninefold from $10 billion in 2016, U.S. imports
in 2016 were $10 billion, up 43 percent from 2015 and 823
percent over the past decade.
The relationship between our two nations is animated by the
increase of Vietnamese who have immigrated to the United
States. Over 1.3 million immigrants call the U.S. home.
The deepening of this relationship, however, is going to
depend on how much progress the Government of Vietnam makes on
critical human rights, namely, free press and political
descent, land expropriation, religious freedom, workers'
rights, and human trafficking.
Unfortunately, the trend lines are not positive. CNN
reported that six human rights activists in Vietnam have been
sentenced to between 7 and 15 years in jail.
As was mentioned by the chairman, the Hanoi People's Court
has given the longest sentence to human rights lawyer, Nguyen
Van Dai for trying to overthrow the People's administration.
The judgment comes amid a wider crackdown on peaceful
dissent that has seen several bloggers and human rights
activists given long jail sentences in the last 12 months.
During 2017, authorities arrested at least 21 bloggers and
activists or exercising their civil and political rights. They
were arrested for national security offenses but in reality,
the offenses included writing articles critiquing the
government--critical of the government, and peaceful activism.
Added to this, the Vietnam--Vietnam's legislature is set to
pass a Cybersecurity law that would provide the government
another means by which to silence and punish those critical of
the government.
This is a deeply disturbing trend and one that the
Government of Vietnam needs to halt and reverse. I look forward
to hearing the views, perspectives, and recommendations and I
want to thank the chairman for allowing two of our colleagues,
Zoe Lofgren and Alan Lowenthal, to participate in this hearing.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
I'd like to yield to Chairman Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I was not prepared to have an
opening statement but I will just speak from the heart, which
is what makes us all Americans is that we believe in freedom.
That's what it's supposed to do. There are no greater
champions of freedom that I know than Vietnamese Americans who
have suffered tyranny and suffered under what now is not even a
Communist government but a crony capitalist government that is
totally oppressive of its people. There is very little
difference between that and what the Communists believed except
the Communists were sincere.
The gang that now--because they thought they were going to
change the world by oppressing everybody and eliminating
religion, getting rid of democratic notions. The group that now
controls Vietnam is a group of gangsters that have their clique
and they are oppressing anyone who might get in their way.
And one thing I would like to ask the panel, I know--now,
Mr. Chairman, as you know, I opposed the Magnitsky Act--only
the title, however.
I supported and support the idea of holding accountable
those people who are committing human rights violations--those
individuals and those specific offices overseas. I don't think
the Magnitsky was the--was the proper name because I think that
particular case is still decided as to what happened.
But the idea of punishing specific individuals overseas for
their human rights violations is a good idea and I call on you,
Mr. Chairman, and the rest of my members here, let's find out
who specifically in Vietnam are conducting these human rights
and hold them specifically accountable.
And I pledge my support to the Vietnamese community in
achieving that goal. Thank you very much and thanks for holding
this very important hearing.
Mr. Smith. I'd just point out to my friend, and I'll go to
Ms. Zoe Lofgren, in our new bill, as I think the gentleman
knows, we do have a strong admonishment to the administration
to use the Magnitsky Act and also use the tools that are in the
International Religious Freedom Act, which I sponsored.
We named it after Frank Wolf, the great champion of
religious freedom. But there are brand new tools that
Brownback--and of course, the President--has now. Brownback is
the Ambassador-at-Large for religious freedom--he can really
bring to bear on Vietnam.
I do think we missed an opportunity when we did not--we,
the U.S. Government--did not designate Vietnam as a CPC
country. But that can be done at any time.
It doesn't have to be done annually. It can be done anytime
and I think the record absolutely invites that because they
have a horrific record of religious persecution.
I'd like to yield to Zoe Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Bass. I want to thank, you know, Chairman Smith, and
Representative Lowenthal and I co-chair the Vietnam Caucus and
although this is an official Foreign Affairs Committee, it's
very gracious of you to allow us to participate and I
appreciate it very much.
This is an important topic how the government in Vietnam is
using Article 79 to oppress people and to suppress free speech.
Some of the tools that we might have that have not yet been
utilized amid the Human Rights Act that we have passed
repeatedly, the Magnitsky Act that has been mentioned.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and so we can
get to them sooner. I would just like to ask unanimous consent
to put my remarks in the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered, and thank you.
I'd like to yield to Mr. Garrett? No?
Mr. Garrett. I would yield back my time.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Lowenthal, the gentleman from California.
Mr. Lowenthal. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for
all attending and I thank also the chairman, Chairman Smith,
for inviting me to participate and I appreciate that and also
Ranking Member Bass, I appreciate that.
As one of the co-chairs of the congressional Vietnam
Caucus, I've advocated in Congress on the issue of the human
rights abuses in Vietnam.
During my time in Congress, I have adopted several
Vietnamese prisoners of conscience who are unfairly and
unjustly jailed for their political and religious beliefs. Two
of my prisoners of conscience, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh and
Nguyen Tien Trung, have been released.
I want to thank BP SOS for their work in helping to
relocate the pastor, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh, to the United
States.
Unfortunately, this is not the fate of the many of the
others who have been imprisoned for their act. I want to
highlight and point out the case of Nguyen Van Dai, a pro-
democracy activist, co-founder of the Brotherhood for
Democracy.
Mr. Nguyen is one of my current prisoners of conscience.
He's a human rights lawyer, a blogger who was recently
sentenced to--unjustly to 15 years in prison for what? For
speaking out against human rights abuses.
He traveled throughout Vietnam to teach law students and to
train young human rights defenders on human rights reporting
mechanisms, how to deal with police interrogation, and then he
was tried for conducting propaganda against the state. He was
sentenced to prison and forced to close his office.
You know, throughout the Tom Lantos--through the Tom Lantos
Human Rights Commission I've advocated for the release of Mr.
Nguyen.
I want to also acknowledge Mr. Anthony Le, who is here
today. He's a spokesperson for the Brotherhood for Democracy,
and I look forward to hearing from his testimony.
Again, I just want to--in concluding, I want to highlight
another prisoner of conscience of mine, the Most Venerable
Thich Quang Do, the Supreme Patriarch of the United Buddhist
Church of Vietnam.
The Patriarch has been jailed numerous times for leading
nonviolent protests against the Vietnamese Government and for
calling for religious freedom.
He is currently under house arrest. It is unconscionable
that the Venerable--the Supreme Patriarch is kept in jail or at
least under house arrest now.
And then I want to thank--and I'll just end--Chairman Smith
and the other co-chairs of the Vietnam Caucus for Chairman
Smith's work on H.R. 5621. I am glad to participate in that and
to help.
It imposes, among other things, it would invoke sanctions
per the Magnitsky Act. It would impose financial and travel
restrictions for human rights abusers and it calls for the
release of religious and political prisoners and designates
Vietnam as a country of particular concern.
I look forward to the testimonies and, again, I thank the
chair for inviting.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal.
Mr. Garrett.
Mr. Garrett. Thank you, and reclaiming my time. I just felt
like saying that.
I want to speak briefly because I know that sometimes in
this body it's frustrating. We don't feel like we are getting
things done.
But I do that people in the Republic of Vietnam watch these
hearings and so I want to take this opportunity in front of
this assembled group as well as these distinguished guests to
speak to my vision at it relates to our interaction with the
nation of Vietnam.
I had the honor with the ACYPO prior to my entry into this
August body to visit Vietnam and what I watched was a dynamic
emerging economy with opportunity and all sorts of good leading
indicators for the future.
However, the good facts as it relates to Vietnam as well as
their geographic location adjacent to China, who seems more and
more bent on hegemonic behavior within the region and the
emerging economy will not aid in relations with the United
States, despite the fact that we want to encourage those would
stand against that hegemonic behavior by China, those who would
engage in good international economic relations, and those
economies that are vibrant and emerging to do so so long as
human rights violations persist.
And I stress that point and that is the only reason that I
reclaimed time so that those in Vietnam who are watching this
understand that the people in this body on both sides of the
aisle appreciate the tools that are at our disposal.
I don't know what took us so long to get Global Magnitsky
but I think now that we have it we need to be willing to use
it--that we should engage in trade relations with nations who
honor basic human dignities and rights, which include the
freedom of expression, the freedom to love who you wish,
worship how you want, or behave how you will so long as you do
not harm another, and these things aren't occurring in Vietnam.
So, in essence, Mr. Chairman, as long as Vietnam recognizes
basic fundamental human rights it's exciting to think about the
prospects going forward and the relations between our nations,
particularly in light of the history between our two nations.
But so long as they stymie the basic expression of
individuals and disallow individuals from seeking their own
conscience, soul, and self-determination as it relates to their
beliefs, then this will stymie this relationship.
And let that, if I have any contribution to this body
today, be the message that I send.
We want to work with you. We want to trade with you. We
want to be friends with you.
But if we are who we aspire to be as a nation, we will not,
until you recognize basic human liberties.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Garrett.
I'd like to now introduce our distinguished panel,
beginning from my left, your right. It is a high honor and
privilege to welcome back Anh Joseph Cao, the first Vietnamese
American to be elected to the United States Congress,
representing the 2nd Congressional District of Louisiana.
At the age of eight, Anh Joseph Cao was placed by his
mother onto a U.S.-bound plane fleeing Saigon with his 4-year-
brother and 14-year-old sister.
His mother stayed behind to raise five children while her
husband spent 7 years in reeducation camps where he was
tortured repeatedly.
In the United States, Anh was separated from his siblings
and raised by an uncle. Later, he moved to Falls Church,
Virginia, where he volunteered with Boat People SOS, working to
protect the last boat people stranded in Southeast Asia and
Hong Kong, and to secure the resettlement of reeducation camp
survivors.
In the fall of 1997, Anh returned to New Orleans to attend
law school and join the board of directors of Boat People SOS
there.
We appreciate his service here in Congress. He was an
absolute leader on human rights in general but especially for
the Vietnamese. I thank him for the insights that he has
provided years to date and I know will again today.
Next, we will hear from Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang. Dr. Thang
left Vietnam with his family as a boat person in 1978 and
arrived in the United States in 1979 after 7 months in a
refugee camp in Malaysia.
He graduated with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering in 1986
and worked for 15 years at a research lab out of the United
States Navy.
For the past 35 years, he has been involved in community
services, refugee protection, and human rights advocacy in the
United States and in Asia.
Under his leadership, Boat People SOS has grown into an
international organization with operations in 14 locations in
the U.S. and in Asia.
In 2008, he co-founded the Coalition to Abolish Modern-Day
Slavery in Asia called CAMSA, which has so far rescued and/or
assisted over 5,000 victims of labor and sex trafficking.
He travels extensively to Asia and closely monitors the
human rights conditions of Vietnam, and I would just note
parenthetically before going on to our other very distinguished
witness--Dr. Thang--when the comprehensive plan of action was
being closed with about 40,000 stranded refugees in Southeast
Asia, we had very credible insights and information that many
of the people who were true refugees had been improperly
screened out by the Clinton administration.
I held five hearings. Dr. Thang provided insight at those
hearings that pointed out--which became something that we acted
upon--that many people were intimidated if they got anything
wrong in their interviews, which were very, very hostile.
They weren't U.S. adjudicators. They were people from Hong
Kong and elsewhere who didn't want them there, and I remember
going to High Island in Hong Kong and seeing refugees there and
being told how hostile it was.
We had one man who was a double amputee who said, ``I have
a target on my back if I go back. I fought in the war and they
are trying to forcibly repatriate me,'' and they were calling
it voluntary repatriation.
So from those hearings, Dr. Thang and Joseph Rees, who was
then our chief of staff, and I worked on an amendment that led
to the ROVR program and over 20,000 Vietnamese people were
actually given asylum here as a direct result of that program.
That would not have happened without Dr. Thang and I want
to thank him for that. I remember offering the amendment on the
floor and it passed, against all odds. It wasn't supposed to
pass.
And one of the things that they told us--and this is part
of the disinformation campaign that some even--well, many
people told us that anybody who was going back would have a
repatriation monitor.
So I had a hearing on repatriation monitors. Turns out
there were seven of them, and what did those seven do? When
they would go back and talk to someone who was forcibly
repatriated, right next to them would be someone from the
secret police.
Who in their right mind is going to say, ``I am being
discriminated against, or hurt, or in any way maltreated,''
with that person sitting there?
So when the repatriation monitor exits the town or hamlet,
whatever it might be, or a village, they are left to deal with
those consequences. It was a farce. We used that in our debate
and, thankfully, we got the ROVR program out of it.
I would now like to welcome Dinah PoKempner, who is general
counsel for Human Rights Watch. Her work has taken her to
Cambodia, the Republic of Korea, Vietnam, the former
Yugoslavia, and elsewhere, and documenting and analyzing
compliance with international humanitarian law, war crimes, and
violations of civil and political rights.
She has written on freedom of expression, peacekeeping
operations, international tribunals, U.N. human rights
mechanisms, cyber liberties and security in refugee law, among
other human rights topics, and oversees the organization's
positions on international law and policy.
A graduate of Yale and Columbia University School of Law
and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Ms. PoKempner
also teaches at Columbia University. We welcome her here and
are grateful that she's here today to testify.
We will then hear from Anthony Le, who is here today as
spokesman for the Brotherhood for Democracy. He has
participated in the struggle for the basic civil rights of the
Vietnamese workers, farmers, and fishermen under the Communist
regime.
He and other assigned members have organized regular
workshops for workers about their rights and advocacy skills
for their rights and interest in addition to equipping them
with the knowledge about organizing independent labor unions
that currently do not exist, as I said earlier, in Vietnam.
We deeply appreciate his presence here today, and I also
would like to welcome Angela Huyen, who will be acting as his
translator today.
Congressman Cao, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CAO, FORMER MEMBER OF
CONGRESS
Mr. Cao. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith.
First of all, I would like to thank Chairman Smith and
Ranking Member Bass for holding this important hearing today
concerning Vietnam's human rights abuses this past year.
Indeed, it was a bad year for human rights in Vietnam.
Fortunately, the Vietnamese American community has Chairman
Smith and members of this subcommittee who have been champions
for human rights in Vietnam and around the world for as long as
I can remember.
As Chairman Smith stated, my first encounter with him came
in 1996. I first met Chris Smith as an intern of Boat People
SOS to advocate for the rights of Vietnamese refugees.
He listened attentively to an unknown 29-year-old
Vietnamese American who had little experience lobbying for
human rights on Capitol Hill.
I returned to Washington, DC, 13 years later as a Member of
Congress and there was Chris Smith, serving as my colleague and
guide on the legislative process to bring about changes to the
human rights conditions in Vietnam.
Today, I appear before this subcommittee as a former Member
of Congress and here is Chris Smith, still listening with the
same attentiveness and determination to make this world a
better place.
Thus, my relationship with Chairman Smith spans over two
decades, and with the help and sometimes even the lead of other
human rights advocates such as Tham Nguyen, Dr. Tram Ho,
Reverend Tam Huu Pham, Mr. Truc Ho, and countless others, we
were able to bring about some changes, but change has been
slow.
Severe human rights abuses continue in Vietnam and data
suggests these abuses are mounting. Mr. Chairman, the
principles of religious freedom, freedom of expression, freedom
of conscience, freedom to organize, and the freedom to own
property have served as the bedrock of our great nation or over
two centuries.
Not only do we defend our citizens against those internal
forces that seek to suppress these freedoms, we fought and have
given our lives to defend these freedoms against foreign
nations that threaten to destroy these values.
We have demanded of ourselves that these freedoms must be
preserved at all costs and we demand the same from those
nations with whom we associate.
In the case of Vietnam, the U.S. Congress has repeatedly
required that the Vietnamese Government adhere to universal
standards on human rights for decades, but little has been
achieved.
The Vietnamese Government, in 2017, committed what is
regarded as an outright assault on freedom and universal human
rights.
Instead of using the Asia-Pacific Economic Collaboration
Summit, which was held in Vietnam, to demonstrate its adherence
to universal standards on human rights, the government
amplified human rights abuses including against freedom or
religion or belief.
According to the USCIRF, the assault on the freedom of
religion, expression, association, and assembly was nationwide,
signifying a concerted effort to suppress and silence critics
and peaceful activists.
Vietnam systematically harassed, arrested, imprisoned, and
tortured dissidents, democracy activists, bloggers, and
religious leaders on an unprecedented scale not since the end
of the Vietnam War.
Thus, the Vietnamese Government's previous willingness to
engage in dialogue on issues of human rights and religious
freedom was only a ruse to gain benefit, and after the benefits
have been gained, it reverts back to its old ways.
But Vietnam has gotten smarter. To be able to wash their
hands of the crimes committed against those who love freedom,
they conspire with thugs and criminals to silence dissent.
One through of such thugs is the Red Flag Association, a
militant pro-government mob aimed at harassing Catholics. As a
Catholic myself, I find this particular distasteful.
The Red Flag Association's goal is to suppress and hamper
protests against the Formosa Steel Plant, whose illegal toxic
dumping caused one of the greatest environmental disasters in
Vietnam and brought suffering to the hundreds of thousands of
Vietnamese who depended on the rivers and seas for their
livelihood.
Moreover, they sowed division between Catholics and non-
Catholics, intimidate parishioners, vilify priests, attack lay
leaders, and desecrate churches and homes.
The association's membership consists of local security
forces, government employees, members of government-sponsored
organizations, unemployed adults, and street thugs.
The Red Flag leaders, among others, consist of Tran Nhat
Quan, Le Thi Quynh Hoan, Nguyen Trong Nghia. According to the
USCIRF, the harassment and assaults carried out by the Red Flag
Association were government directed or government tolerated.
An egregious incident involving the Red Flag Association
occurred recently in Nghe An Province. On December 23rd, 2017,
a group of thugs belonging to the association went to Ke Gai
Parish and harassed, intimidated, and assaulted the
parishioners while they were working on an irrigation project
on their land near the church.
A criminal complaint was filed with the Nghe An police
against the perpetrators. Instead of arresting the thugs, Nghe
An Province police prosecuted the victim and all witnesses of
the criminal incident.
Groups belonging to the Red Flag Association also carry out
acts of harassment and violence in Song Ngoc, Van Thai, and
Doing Kieu Parishes in Nghe An Province.
Acts were also carried out in Vinh Diocese in central
Vietnam and Tho Hoa Parish in Dong Nai Province.
However, these actions are only the tip of an iceberg.
Government-sanctioned land grab against religious institutions
continues unabated for personal profits and economic gains of
corrupt officials.
One example is Thu Thiem Convent belonging to a
congregation of Catholic nuns who, on May 1st, 2018, received a
notice from the People's Committee of Ho Chi Minh City
requiring that the church be moved or face confiscation because
the church is located on a block of land illegally auctioned to
a developer, who intends to convert the land into a
marketplace.
Furthermore, how ironic that the APEC Summit, attended by
President Trump in November 2017 was held at a resort in Da
Nang City, owned by the very developer that took over the land
illegally seized with the use of harassment, detention, and
torture from Con Dau Parish, and incident that I, and Chairman
Smith, condemned but was unable to prevent as we looked on
helplessly.
However, we are no longer helpless. The passage of the
Global Magnitsky Human Rights and Accountability Act, which
President Obama signed into law on December 23rd, 2016, now
enables this House to bring justice to the victims of Con Dau
Parish.
Pursuant to the Global Magnitsky Human Rights and
Accountability Act, I would like to submit the following
officials who were involved in the illegal land grab of Con Dau
Parish for sanction, and for the sake of brevity I'll just
simply mention their names.
First is Nguyen Ba Thanh, Tran Van Min, Van Huu Chien, Vo
Van Thuong, Le Quang Nam, Nguyen Van Tien, Le Van Tam, Tran
Muu, Huynh Duc Tho, Nguyen Dieu, Nguyen Van Toan, Le Viet Lam,
Ho Thi Nga, Le Viet Hieu, Phan Huu Phung, Dang Hong Phuc,
Nguyen Ngoc Tuan.
The incidents enumerated above is but a fraction of the
abuses that the Vietnamese Government has inflicted on its own
people in the past years.
USCIRF annual report 2018, Vietnam chapter, outlines
numerous accounts of other acts, which I will not enumerate
here, and Dr. Thang Nguyen will direct this subcommittee's
attention to Vietnam's law on belief and religions implemented
in January of this year, which could open the door to further
oppression and restriction on the freedom of religion.
I commend President Trump in his meeting with Prime
Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc on May 31st, 2017, which stressed the
importance of protecting and promoting human rights in Vietnam.
However, I believe more must be done. In agreement with the
USCIRF, I suggest, one, Vietnam be redesignated as a country of
particular concern; two, economic and trade negotiations must
address human rights and religious freedom abuses in Vietnam;
three, Vietnam must be required to provide concrete benchmarks
in the promotion of human rights and religious freedom; four,
Vietnam promptly release prisoners of conscience and democracy
activists who were arrested and imprisoned under dubious laws;
five, return and/or adequately compensate victims of illegal
land grab; six, a transparent system of compensation for the
victims of the Formosa environmental disaster be implemented;
and seven, the passage of the Vietnam Human Rights Act.
In closing, I would like to once again thank Chairman Smith
and members of the subcommittee for holding this important
hearing.
In due respect, I would like to direct the subcommittee's
attention to the work of Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan.
When you deprive people their rights to live in dignity, to
hope for a better future, to have control over their lives--
when you deprive them of that choice, then you expect them to
fight for these rights.
Staying faithful to the principles that make our nation
great, we will fight for the rights of those who do not have a
voice.
We ask that this House and this administration will heed
the voice of the oppressed around the world, particularly those
of the people of Vietnam.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cao follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Congressman Cao, thank you very much for your
eloquent statement and, again, for your leadership.
Dr. Thang.
STATEMENT OF NGUYEN DINH THANG, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOAT
PEOPLE SOS
Mr. Thang. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for using this timely hearing to shine
a spotlight on the worsening human rights condition in Vietnam
and also thank you for bringing us together because this is an
opportunity for me to see Dinah PoKempner after 25 years.
Dinah used to work with us--collaborate with us on projects
to push back forced repatriation of Vietnamese boat people in
Hong Kong.
Since late 2016, we have documented a surge in the number
of prisoners of conscience and the government's more aggressive
drive to force members of unregistered churches to renounce
their faith or to convert to government-created or controlled
religions.
We have documented so far some 170 prisoners of conscience
in Vietnam. I should have added four more--these are Falun Gong
members which just got sentenced to 3 years of prison recently.
And one-third of those prisoners of conscience on our list
are actually religious prisoners. In the first 5 months of this
year, 23 human rights advocates have been sentenced a total of
172 years in prison followed by 41 years of house arrest, and
among them four members of the same Hoa Hao Buddhist family are
serving a total of 17 years of imprisonment.
The ongoing brutal persecution of Hoa Hao Buddhists is
documented in a report by the Hoa Hao Congregation Central
Overseas Executive Committee, which, with your permission, I
would like to include as part of this testimony.
The Government of Vietnam has stepped up its game,
enforcing followers of independent unregistered churches to
renounce their faith.
Forced renunciation of faith has caused the membership of
the Montagnard Evangelical Church of Christ, which was founded
by a former prisoner of conscience, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh,
that was mentioned by Mr. Lowenthal just now, to plummet from
its high of 1,500 members just 18 months ago to merely 500
today, and at least 1,100 families of Hmong Christians in the
north and central Vietnam have been denied citizenship
documents and evicted from their villages because they refused
to abandon their Christian faith.
The circumstances I describe in detail in a report by Hmong
United for Justice, which, with your permission again I would
like to include as part of my testimony.
Registration requirements is the government's most potent
instrument to force members of unregistered churches to abandon
their faith and/or join government-created or controlled
churches.
The growth of the latter spells the decline and demise of
independent religions but is often mistaken as a sign of
improved religious freedom in Vietnam.
One prime example is the massive forced conversion of
millions of Cao Dai followers which has gone unnoticed by the
international community for the past two decades.
In 1978, the Vietnamese Government sweepingly abolished the
Cao Dai Church altogether. Then in 1997, by a directive of the
Communist Party, the government created a totally new sect
which repudiates the most fundamental dogma of Cao Dai religion
and that is direct communion between the Supreme Being and
humanity through spiritualism. For ease of reference, I will
call this newly-created government-created sect the 1997 Sect--
the year it was formed.
With government support, it has occupied the Holy See of
the Cao Dai religion in Tay Ninh Province and has barred Cao
Dai followers--true Cao Dai followers from accessing it.
In 2008, for instance, the Vietnamese public security
issued an arrest warrant against Mr. Zun Sun Lung--and he was
here in Congress to talk to some of you, Members of Congress--
because he was suspected of organizing a gathering on the
grounds of the Holy See. He had to be on the run for 8 years
before he successfully escaped to Thailand and he came to this
country last year.
A more recent gathering in 2015 of 200 Cao Dai followers at
their own Holy See was met with violence by the police and the
security unit of the 1997 Sect.
This sect has systematically seized Cao Dai temples
throughout the country, often using force and violence with
support of the police and thugs.
For more than 8 years, for instance, Cao Dai followers in
Saigon had to conduct prayer services on the pavement outside
of the temple after it had been taken by force by the
government-created sect.
In 2012, as another example, members of the 1997 Sect, with
the support of government officials and thugs, seized the Cao
Dai Temple in Binh Duong Province by force.
The local leader of that sect poured gasoline on a young
Cao Dai follower and was about to set him on fire when other
sect members stopped him. Of the hundreds of Cao Dai temples,
all except 15 have been seized by the government-created sect.
To coerce Cao Dai followers to convert, the 1997 Sect has
routinely disrupted religious activities conducted in private
homes.
On November 11, 2015, its members, accompanied by the
public security police and thugs, entered the home of a female
Cao Dai follower in Tay Ninh Province, broke off the ongoing
religious ceremony, and trashed food being served to guests
because she had not asked the 1997 Sect for its blessing.
We have documented some 20 similar incidents in different
cities and provinces so far. Less than 5 months ago, earlier
this year, the 1997 Sect blocked the burial of a 78-year-old
Cao Dai follower because his mourning family members had
invited clergy members of the real Cao Dai religion to the
funeral, and just last week we received reports that many tombs
of Cao Dai followers being desecrated by the 1997 Sect.
The government-created sect is different from the Cao Dai
religion in all aspects--dogma, name, charter, canonical law,
organizational structure.
Yet, it occupies the Holy See and uses the letterhead, the
seal, insignias, of the Cao Dai religion in all its
communications and publications.
Foreign governments, including our own Government, have
thus mistaken it for the Cao Dai religion and misinterpreted
its activities as greater religious for Cao Dai followers.
This is analogous--the sect that does not recognize Christ
as the son of God occupies the Vatican, persecutes Catholics,
and yet presents itself as the Catholic Church, and the
international community has been fooled.
The new law on belief and religion has even more stringent
registration requirements and will give local authorities even
more power to curtail unregistered independent religions which
represent the vast majority of people of faith in Vietnam.
Three weeks ago, the government of Quang Tri Province
officially declared that under the new law it is now illegal
for the local parish priest to conduct prayer services in the
private homes of his parishioners.
In the case of the Cao Dai religion, the new law will
certainly further tip the balance in the favor of imposter. In
light of the above, I recommend that the U.S. Government,
again, echoing the recommendation of Congressman Cao,
redesignate Vietnam as a country of particular concern or at
least place Vietnam on the international religious freedom
watch list; apply sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act and
International Religious Freedom Act against not only government
officials but also nonstate actors such as the Red Flag
Association or the 1997 Sect that pretends to be the Cao Dai
religion, found to be responsible for gross human rights
violations; press Vietnam to immediately and unconditionally
release all prisoners of conscience and amend its laws
including the law on belief and religion to be in compliance
with all human rights treaties that Vietnam is a state party
of; work with like-minded governments to raise serious concerns
on human rights issues at the Universal Periodic Review of
Vietnam to be held in January of next year; and finally, engage
directly with the unregistered churches to regular roundtable
meetings with the representatives, the leaders both in Vietnam
and in the United States.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thang follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Rohrabacher [presiding]. I am Congressman Rohrabacher.
Chairman Smith will be back, and I am very honored to chair
this hearing while he's gone. Let me say hello to my old friend
as well as new friends and just say that I personally
appreciate what you're doing here today.
You have listed for us the heroes and you listed for us the
villains, and we have news for heroes, which is you are not
forgotten. You may languish away. You may be just suppressed as
the Cao Dai and our Montagnard friends are--or there's others
there who are the villains.
To the heroes we say you are not forgotten. The Vietnamese
people who are standing tall during these bad times, you are
not forgotten. You are not alone.
And to the villains that torture them and conduct
themselves in a repressive way toward their own people, we say
we are going to get you. We are coming for you.
The people who believe in freedom in this world will not
forget the crimes that you committed against your own people
right now.
So thank you for being specific on what people are being
actually oppressed and vilified and they're being treated and
tortured--mistreated and tortured and their rights are being
taken away specifically, which you both have, and thanks for
naming the villains as well so that we can hold them
accountable.
Like I say, I didn't agree with the title of the Magnitsky
Act, but I believe--I vote the actually substance of that act
of holding people accountable. It is a major step forward for
the United States.
And now we will have Ms. PoKempner. Go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF MS. DINAH POKEMPNER, GENERAL COUNSEL, HUMAN RIGHTS
WATCH
Ms. PoKempner. I am truly honored to be here to testify
before you, because the last time I presented testimony to
Congress on Vietnam was around the time of normalization and
Dr. Thang, I remember working with you in the camps in Hong
Kong.
I followed Vietnam for years as the researcher on Vietnam
for Human Rights Watch, and my heart is heavy because I am sad
to observe that the progress in human rights we had hoped that
closer relations might bring has not been realized. To the
contrary, we see a sharp decline in the very recent years.
As everyone at this hearing has made clear, human rights in
Vietnam are deeply restricted in almost every area and it has
not changed significantly in nearly the quarter century in
which I have followed the country.
The Communist Party of Vietnam continues to maintain a
monopoly on political power, suppresses every conceivable
challenge to its authority or prestige, and it equates its
self-preservation with national security.
All basic rights including freedom of speech, opinion,
press, association, and religion are conditioned on the
supremacy of the party and, accordingly, restricted.
Those who try to assert their rights against authority,
promote rights awareness or write or speak about human rights
in any medium face harassment, intimidation, physical assault,
and imprisonment.
These are the facts. Repression is not strictly partisan or
ideological. Criticism of the status quo is enough to bring
retribution.
Farmers continue to lose land to development projects
without adequate compensation. Workers are not allowed to form
independent unions.
The entire system of enforcement serves the interests of
those in power. The courts are not independent. Police use
torture and beatings to extract confessions.
Plain-clothes thugs are deployed to harm and intimidate
people when arrest or more formal confrontation is deemed
inconvenient. Once detained, people may be further physically
tortured, ill-treated, denied family visits, adequate food, or
needed medical care.
This is all well known. It has been known for decades.
Despite this, increasing numbers of bloggers and activists have
called publicly for democracy and greater freedoms but Vietnam
is not letting them speak.
In recent years the government has arrested and criminally
prosecuted an increasing number of people for simply saying
things critical of the government.
In 2017, we know police arrested at least 41 people, by our
count, for sweeping national security offenses that are used to
punish critical speech, peaceful activism.
In the first 5 months of this year, the courts convicted at
least 26 people for political offenses. Although it's always
difficult to get reliable figures, our impression is the trend
in numbers of people being arrested and convicted have been
increasing and the harshness of sentences meted out has
increased as well.
And there's no sign of change or progress. To the contrary,
Vietnam's legislature is scheduled to pass a cybersecurity law
on June 12th that will provide yet another way people who
criticize the government or the party can be silenced and
punished, and it's going to be enlisting local and foreign
companies in this suppression.
We are about to publish a press release on this topic. I
will give you a little preview. This law will give the ministry
of public security the power to command the erasure of all
kinds of forbidden content. Forbidden content in Vietnam can be
anything that is simply disfavoured by the government. It will
force companies to verify the real names of users, keep those
names localized in Vietnam, and produce them to public security
on demand, and then to force companies to deny services to
those who post what the government--that is, the ministry of
public security--considers forbidden content.
It will also access information that is behind a firewall
via a VPN a crime. This is one of the more repressive
cybersecurity laws we've seen. We think it's something that
Congress must take note of.
Mr. Chairman and--sorry, Representative Rohrabacher,
members, our chief recommendation to the committee and to the
U.S. Government in general is to speak much more forcefully and
publicly to the Government of Vietnam about the problems and
use the whole of the U.S. Government to do so.
Every congressional office, every Federal agency that
engages with Vietnam, and whether it's on trade, military
assistance, hardware and software transfers, education, or any
other subject should be expressing deep concern on human rights
to its counterparts.
They should be saying in this kind of frank language: We
see what you're doing and it's tremendously disappointing to
us. The fact that your government continues to beat, detain,
incarcerate people for dissent or religious conviction more
than two decades since the normalization of relations, it's a
constant source of injury to this relationship between our
country and yours. Your actions imperil our security and
economic relationship--a problem which in the context of an
increasingly dominant China is not a good thing for you and
it's not a good thing for us.
Congress should be sending delegations to Vietnam who can
speak these concerns face to face. We also recommend that you
list key cases of concern you'd like to see resolved. Tell them
that you know who they are detaining. Tell them about Nguyen
Van Dai.
Tell them about Tran Huynh Duy Thuc, a 51-year-old
entrepreneur who is serving 16 years in prison for calling for
democracy and a multi-party political system.
Why don't you enquire about Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, also
known as Mother Mushroom, a woman who is sentenced to 10 years
in prison for advocating social and political issues such as
land confiscation, displacement of communities, police
brutality, freedom of expression.
Hoang Duc Binh, 34, a very young man sentenced to 14 years
in prison for his activism to promote the rights of workers and
fishermen in the context of that disastrous 2016 Formosa toxic
spill.
We would also suggest you raise the case of Ngo Hao, a 70-
year-old human rights and democracy activist currently serving
a 15-year sentence after writing articles calling for
transition to democracy in Vietnam.
According to his family, he's suffering from poor health
including high blood pressure, gastric ulcers, high
cholesterol.
We ask that you raise these very specific cases because
pressure on specific cases we know leads authorities to speed
parole or improve conditions for prisoners. I have heard this
directly from released prisoners. Your words, your actions
directly affect their lives.
In fact, they have--even if you--even if it fails to make
an immediate improvement, they will hear about it. It will
provide them comfort on a psychological level. It's a good deed
to do. It's easy.
We also suggest that should the National Assembly enact the
cybersecurity law that I just described to you in detail that
will make online dissent even more dangerous and enlist the
complicity of U.S. corporations in Vietnamese repression that
you react and react very strongly in protest.
Vietnam's actions of this nature should influence how
Congress views its role in keeping U.S. technology and industry
from being used for the purpose of stifling rights.
Freedom of speech, freedom of information, freedom of
opinion, and freedom of conscience are values that are central
to this country, to its people, to its democracy, its security
and, therefore, to its foreign relations.
Attached with my written testimony is a list of 140
prisoners detained for merely exercising their rights who are
currently known to Human Rights Watch.
Each and every one of them deserves your attention. Thank
you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. PoKempner follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith [presiding]. Thank you so very much for your
testimony.
I would like to now go to Anthony Le.
STATEMENT OF ``ANTHONY LE'' (AN ALIAS), SPOKESPERSON,
BROTHERHOOD FOR DEMOCRACY
Mr. Le. Thank you very much.
Dearest members of the United States Congress, guests, and
media organizations who has a concern to human rights in
Vietnam, my name is Thanh Tung and I am a member of Brotherhood
for Democracy.
I have just come from Vietnam. I am here today to speak of
the ongoing crackdown by Vietnamese authority to Brotherhood
for Democracy members over the past 5 years.
Brotherhood for Democracy established in April 2013. There
was a need for democratic society and sustainable development
in Vietnam.
Today, we have more than 100 members of across all regions
of Vietnam including members and some from around the world.
Our goal is to promote democracy in Vietnam, develop civil
society and disseminate the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and support other civil society in various projects.
Our previous work includes the launch of the Brotherhood
for Democracy, meet the needs of those who wanted to promote
human rights and democracy in Vietnam. These are the values of
many Vietnamese and since the founding of the Brotherhood for
Democracy, hundreds of people have joined our organization. We
have 32 members working full time and part time.
Over the 4 years, we have established a solid structure and
various working groups to organize 16 training courses on civil
society both online and offline and we have over 250 candidates
trying to learn.
And face to face training involves over 100 people who are
concerned with Vietnam human rights. We also support the
world's demands of labor rights and we support the fishermen to
demand for environmental justice and lawsuits against the issue
of Formosa following the environmental that left tons of toxins
and fish washing ashore across six provinces in central Vietnam
in 2016.
We support the land rights petitioners and victims of
government land grabs and, of course, without ongoing
harassment from the Vietnamese authorities.
Given that Vietnam is an only one-party state, the
Communist Party of Vietnam does not allow civil society groups
to operate without their knowledge or supervision.
Because of this, it is necessary for Vietnamese authorities
to stop the activities of various civil society groups. This
has happened to the Brotherhood for Democracy. So that our
organization has been harassed from the very beginning.
From May 2014, three members--Nguyen Nam Trung, Pham Minh
Vu and Nguyen Thi Phuong Anh--were arrested for attending the
protest organized by workers in Binh Duong Province.
On November 2014, our worthy brother, Truong Minh Duc and
other member were physically attacked with severe injuries
after supporting workers demanding for labor rights in Binh
Duong Province.
In December 6, 2015, our members, Nguyen Van Dai and Ly
Quang Son, were attacked and beaten after facilitating a
training on the Human Right Declaration on in Nghe An Province.
And December 16, 2015, Nguyen Van Dai and Le Thu Ha were
arrested by the authorities.
In October 2016, eight members in central Vietnam including
Nguyen Trung Truc, Mai Van Tam, Tran Thi Xuan, Nguyen Van
Thanh, Nguyen Ngoc Lanh, Nguyen Van Giap, Vo The Truong and Que
were detained and severely beaten, had their possessions
confiscated and clothing removed before they had been bring to
the jungle in Huong Son Forest in the Ha Tinh Province.
In February 2017, our chairman, Pastor Nguyen Trung Ton,
was assaulted and beaten around the feet with an iron bar,
until now still unable to walk properly.
From the end of July until August 2017, seven members and
one former members--Pham Van Troi, Nguyen Trung Ton, Truong
Minh Duc, Nguyen Trung Truc, Tran Thi Xuan, Nguyen Van Tuc, Vu
Van Hung and Nguyen Bac Truyen were arbitrarily arrested.
Nine members and one former member of the Brotherhood for
Democracy were unlawfully detained between December 2015 and
the end of 2017 for activities aimed at overthrowing the state,
according to Article 79 of the Vietnamese penal code. Many have
been sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
And our remaining members are all being threatened and
issued arrest warrants, with ongoing harassment of family
members. Six members of us have had to flee to Thailand to seek
asylum.
Some members have had to flee their homes for the past
year, with their close ones being continually harassed by
authorities.
And for myself, I personally have been far from home from
August 2015 till now. I am luckier here and have safety in the
United States, but my wife and children continue to be
harassed.
My wife has been attacked by local police within the
confines of her home and my children have been detained while
traveling to school to question them about me.
Police have installed five cameras around my home in Saigon
and anyone who approaches my home is questioned immediately
after. No one has come to my home over the past 2 years.
On behalf of the Brotherhood for Democracy, I would like to
suggest the following. The United States Congress and the
government call on the Vietnamese Government to end its
crackdown on the Brotherhood for Democracy and unconditionally
and immediately release all of our members as well as all
prisoners of conscience, dissidents, and religious activists.
Call on authorities to stop harassing and intimidating
Vietnamese activists. We hope the United Nations and various
NGOs, media, and individuals in Vietnam and around the world to
support the Brotherhood for Democracy as well as the democracy
movement in Vietnam.
Members of the Brotherhood for Democracy as well as their
families express their ongoing struggles and hope there will be
a brighter future for the Brotherhood for Democracy as well as
for all Vietnamese people.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Le follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much.
Chairman Rohrabacher does have to leave.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much. I am sorry I am
going to have to rush out. A very important call--it's really
important. But I want to express my thanks to the witnesses.
Thanks to the chairman. You have done a great service to
the free people of the world today. You have put on the record
names of people who have been oppressed and tortured, and now
there is a record--official record--of these people.
They--the message we will have at the end of this hearing
to those who are the oppressed, to those who are the victims,
they are not alone.
The victims of tyranny in Vietnam are not alone. We are
with them. They are on the--we are on the record now of knowing
who you are, and that's true--as I mentioned before, that's
true of their torturers and the villains that murder and
repress those people.
We need those names--you have given us a few of those as
well--because we do believe in holding accountable the tyrants
in this world.
And Mr. Chairman, we need to hold accountable YouTube and
Facebook and other American companies, as was talked about
today, who collude--people like to use that word nowadays--who
collude with this tyrannical gangster regime in Vietnam.
I spent a little time with the Montagnards back in 1967 and
it breaks my heart to know that they're being--that they found
Christianity and that they're being oppressed because of it.
And I know that the Cao Dai--I remember them as well--who
were so devout even in those days. So perhaps one of the things
we need to feel bad about in America is when we were there--
when I was with those Montagnards we encouraged them to side
with us, and then we ran away.
Well, now we can make it up to the Vietnamese people to
make sure that now, as Vietnam needs us in their confrontation
with China as a nation, that we insist that there be political
reform and social reform there and that the gangster regime
gives up the power to the people of Vietnam.
So we are siding with the people, as we should have always
along and had courage to do so.
Thank you all for your testimony today and thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for all the commitment you have shown to human rights
throughout the world, especially here in Vietnam. So thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Dana, and thank you for your
leadership as well. It's all about team effort.
Let me just ask our distinguished panellists some
questions, and thank you all for your testimonies. Without
objection, anything else you wanted to add to the full
statements and thank you for the list of prisoners from Human
Rights Watch. We need names--always need names. We compare it
with others to make sure we do not leave anybody out
inadvertently. So thank you for that.
Let me just ask you, if I could, Dr. Thang, starting with
you--on religious freedom, the designation of CPC--country of
particular concern--was done away with during the Bush
administration simply because of the bilateral agreement and
promises that were made of what they called deliverables at the
time on human rights.
I travelled, as you might recall, on one of the many trips
to Vietnam. I went to Hue, Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi and met
with probably upwards of 60 different people, all the different
religions--Venerable Thich Quang Do, like so many of my
colleagues and I have met, who is still under pagoda arrest,
and Dr. Li--Father Loi, all these wonderful, wonderful people--
Cao Dai religion adherents.
And they were hopeful. They thought that maybe something
was going to happen for real. There were new policies in
effect, and yet it was a total unmitigated disaster. We now
have a new law that went in effect in January and I think some
of the same people are saying this could be a positive
development. We'll be sorely disappointed by it, and you might
want to speak to that issue.
You really did emphasize--and I am glad you did--that Cao
Dai has been eviscerated by the government. The forced
renunciations of faith by the Hmong and others--the Highland
people, who are being told they can't practice their Christian
beliefs.
The numbers went down right before a bilateral trade
agreement was accepted. But I will never forget the day of the
consummation of that agreement the Vietnamese foreign ministry
put out a statement to the effect of there's no legacy of human
rights.
So they did everything they could to make it look like we
were on the verge of major positive developments and it was
nothing but a ruse.
And I think there's too often--so if you could speak to
CPC, I would also raise the issue. When Nguyen Xuan Phuc, the
President, was here in May, the communique that came out was
very disturbing--between him and President Trump--to the effect
that the U.S. welcomed Vietnam's ``ongoing efforts to refine
its legal system to better protect and promote human rights''
in the face of a gross deterioration of human rights.
They can pass all the policies for international
consumption that they want, but we want it on the ground to
help people and to protect their fundamental rights.
So how did that happen? Any of you might have any insights
on that. I would note for the record--I mentioned it in my
opening statement--that for three successive Congresses and
then once as an amendment, so four times--the Vietnam Human
Rights Act cleared the House.
It was my bill. We worked very hard on it--totally
bipartisan, everybody was here today. Zoe Lofgren, everybody--
were all co-sponsors. It was totally bipartisan.
It got over to the Senate. Holds were put on it. John Kerry
always put a hold on it. But we know the Podesta Group worked
overtime to defeat it, and we know there are other lobbyists
who were trying to defeat it.
I am wondering if maybe even that joint communique--Reuters
suggested in an article that they had--lobbyists had had an
impact on that joint communique from our President and
Vietnam's President which was totally misleading.
So if you wanted to speak to that, then I would also ask,
if I could, Ms. PoKempner, on that cyber law, June 12th, I
think, is when the vote might be. That could always change but
I think that's when they're planning on it.
Back in 2006, I held a hearing as China Commission and
Human Rights Chairman here on the House side on what Google,
Yahoo, Microsoft, and CISCO are doing to enable the
dictatorship in Beijing by censoring, by tracking down
individuals.
Shi Tao--remember they found him via Yahoo and he got 10
years for telling people what Tiananmen Square dos and don'ts
were--and they were all don'ts coming from the government. Ten
years for a simple conveyance of a message to a human rights
group in New York City.
I am very concerned and I know you are as well that Google,
Facebook, YouTube have all removed content, kowtowing to Hanoi.
We need to be, as you said too, as loud and as clear as
possible that these U.S. corporations and multilateral
corporations have to get some backbone and stand up to these
dictatorships.
I remember Jerry Yang said--Jerry Yang from Yahoo--at one
of our hearings that he said they're removing their content in
Vietnam--personally identifiable information--so that the
government would have that easy access that they have had for
years in China.
But this is very, very disturbing--Google, Facebook,
YouTube, and the like. You know, so it's like deja vu all over
again. It's been banned in Vietnam. It's been worse in China.
But now we are seeing catch-up ball on the part of the
Vietnamese.
So if you could start off and then I have some other
questions as well. Maybe, Dr. Thang, and Joseph, if you would
like.
Mr. Thang. Yes.
We sounded the alarm about the new law on belief and
religion when it was still being drafted back in 2015, and we
pointed out three areas of concern.
One is that it still maintains the requirement for churches
and institutions and communities to register and be recognized
and approved by the government.
Secondly, the language is so vague that anyone can
interpret it whichever way he or she wants, right. Just like in
the example that I mentioned in my testimony.
A local authority said that, well, from now on the parish
priest can no longer conduct a prior service at the private
home of his parishioners and he cited the new law. The local
authorities recited the new law to justify that.
The third area of concern is that the definition of what
is--what religion is, what belief is, what an adherent is--are
very restrictive.
For instance, the definition under the new law of an
adherent is that he or she must be recognized by a religious
organization, and a religion organization must be recognized by
the government.
In other words, now a follower--a member of an independent
unregistered church would not be considered as a religious
follower under the new law and, therefore, sentencing that
person to, say, 5 years prison would now be explained as not
religious persecution.
So that is the trick that the Vietnamese Government is
playing and I am afraid that we have fallen into that trap.
Now, not too long ago, I had a one-on-one hour-long meeting
with the new Ambassador to Vietnam, Kritenbrink. He is very
concerned about human rights issues in Vietnam--very genuine--
but he's very new.
And I also spent--I had meetings with the new Ambassador-
at-Large on international religious freedom, Sam Brownback.
He's a champion, and I made two comments--recommendations to
both.
One is to place Vietnam at least on the watch list. At this
time--because this is a very serious time as Vietnam is still
deciding on how to interpret its law on belief and religion.
If we wait for another year it might be too late because
they already have redefined other language intentionally left
vague so as to further restrict religious freedom.
So placing Vietnam on the watch list now for at least 2
years, that will send a very strong signal that we are
watching. That hasn't happened.
Hopefully, after a few months for these two diplomats to
get to know more of Vietnam, maybe with some nudges from
Congress, maybe Vietnam would be placed on either the CPC list
or the watch list.
The second recommendation is that for Mr. Kritenbrink and
also Sam Brownback and others, to hold periodic roundtable
meetings with religious leaders of persecuted communities in
Vietnam--indigenous and religious communities in Vietnam, just
like the IRF roundtables that are being held here--and I know
that Scott Flipse has attended quite a few of them--and make
that into routine.
Initially, the Government of Vietnam would protest against
that, would block people from coming. But if we keep doing that
every 3 months, for instance, then slowly Vietnam would accept
that as a fait accompli, and that would bring confidence to
those communities and it will assure that anything happened in
those communities will be known by the U.S. Government
immediately, or at least by the next roundtable meeting.
So those are my two recommendations and I would like to
offer the same recommendations at this hearing.
Mr. Cao. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that, you know,
both you and I--we fully understand that the concept of
religion and religious faith is more than simply going to
church every Sunday and then go home.
We fully understand that the practice of faith, which
includes fighting for social justice, advocating for the
oppressed, for the poor, for the elderly, all of that is
encompassed in religious faith.
And with the law on religion and belief, with the vagueness
of how they define religion, any of these acts can be
considered as acts against the state and be prosecuted.
So, again, that is something that we have to be concerned
about and to have to pay attention to. And, you know, there is
an old saying that with the Communists--do not listen to what
they say but watch what they do.
What they say is very rosy, oftentimes painted. You know,
when you look at Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi through the Travel
Channel, everybody thinks that wow, these are a paradise that
we should go and visit. But in reality, Vietnam is an oppressed
state.
People are being routinely arrested, prosecuted under
dubious laws, tortured routinely, and that has to be revealed
to the world to let people understand that Vietnam is more than
simply Saigon and Ho Chi Minh City through the Travel Channel.
Mr. Smith. Ms. PoKempner.
Ms. PoKempner. Just to add, because I am a law professor, I
wanted to point out to you that freedom of opinion and belief
are among the very strongest human rights that exist.
They don't admit of any limitation at all, and so when we
learn that things like forced renunciation of faith is still
occurring, this is a violation without a conceivable excuse and
we should be reacting very strongly to it.
On the law, I think you're right to pay special attention
to this. This is one of the most oppressive cybersecurity laws
I've read, and I've read quite a few now, and it puts companies
in a tremendous bind.
As you know, any company is obliged to respect the law of
the market it operates in. But in this case it's going to make
many American companies have this direct conflict that they
could be placed right back where Google and Microsoft were in
China, as you observed, and be forced to essentially condemn
people who would be fully protected under either the laws of
our Constitution or the laws of the United Nations--that
Vietnam as freely agreed to--and condemn them.
And it's going to be essentially a move that puts to them
this stark choice--either help us commit human rights
violations or get out of this market.
And if that is, indeed, the choice and if the Congress
cares about U.S. companies as well as human rights, it ought to
be thinking well, what does this mean for our giving access to
Vietnam on a whole--you know, to our markets to Vietnam--what
does this really mean about international security and the
freedom of companies to operate across borders.
So there are very profound questions for regulators here
and they're not only about blaming the companies. The companies
will have to make their decisions but they're in a difficult
position.
It's people who control the law and the regulation
throughout our Government. We deeply appreciate your role, Mr.
Chairman. I deeply appreciate the many constructive things that
Representative Rohrabacher and many others have done throughout
the years.
I resonate with pain on these tales of Montagnards. I work
to actually identify and protect Montagnards from repatriation
on Hong Kong. There's a long and very noble history of this
House in trying to act on Vietnam's human rights.
But we need the whole of government. We need the entire
administration. We need the Senate, too. And everyone has to
pull together to send this message.
In our experience, the Vietnamese Government is pragmatic.
When it feels it has something to lose, it will act, and in our
experience, the Vietnamese Government is complex, just like
most governments.
It has people who are very entrenched in the old ways,
people who are thinking about new ways and trying to be
progressive and keep the door open to the modern world.
So you have to deal with it and give it time to adjust. But
it won't happen without incentives. So we raised a number of
different avenues--that they all have to be considered.
We are there to support you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Le, if you could. We know about the Formosa
environmental disaster, but if you could bring some additional
focus on it.
How did you become an advocate? The background of the
Brotherhood of Democracy--a little insight into that, if you
would, and also to make very clear--we are concerned--I am
concerned, as chairman, for your family still in Vietnam and
your wife and child--if they are threatened in any way.
In the past we have had--Nguyen Van Dai's wife here who
testified on his behalf--was brilliant in her testimony--like
our witnesses today, just got it very clear, very precise, and
very eloquent as to what needs to be done and what the
situation is on the ground.
And he is on his way to freedom right now but we can't
announce it yet. But I just want to say, we want to give you
every assurance that we will absolutely go to bat for your
family if we hear that something has happened.
So please know that it matters a great deal to my
colleagues and I on both sides of the aisle and let the
Vietnamese Government take note of that, because that crosses a
huge bright line of demarcation if they were to retaliate
against them.
But could you elaborate, if you could, on the environmental
disaster?
Mr. Le. Yes. Formosa is--from April 2016, the Formosa
company, they waste toxins to environmental and the Formosa
they pay $500 million to--for their people there. But actually
our fishermen there don't receive any money from--the
compensation from Formosa, and the compensation it come to
another group of people, and we know that and we organized a
team to come to the fishermen--come to the village to help the
people to make document--to make the legal documentation,
submit to the local authority to ask for the compensation from
the Formosa. That is the first thing we have to do.
Secondly, we cooperate with other NGO and we ask some civil
society local to organize some work group to help the people
and as well as we are together because the people we are
together to support the people there to make the news and bring
the things to the public areas to internets.
That's it--the two things we have done for our--for the
issue of Formosa.
Mr. Cao. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add that the
system--there's no transparent system compensation. I recently
spoke with a bishop from Vietnam and he told me that they don't
know what has been happening with the $500 million that was
being allegedly paid by Formosa.
Most of the victims have not received the money.
Ironically, the fishermen of Nghe An Province they were at the
epicenter of the disaster, and based on my information and
belief, those people were not even in the compensation package.
So, again, I would ask that the Congress request that
Vietnam implement a transparent system of compensation similar
to what happened during the BP oil spill here in the United
States.
It was being controlled by and oversaw by a Federal judge
down in New Orleans. I would highly recommend that a similar
system would be implemented in Vietnam with similar reporting
procedures.
If you would excuse me, I have to meet this deadline for a
few minutes.
Mr. Smith. Yes. Dr. Thang.
Mr. Thang. I would like to add information regarding the
disaster caused by Formosa steel plants in 2016.
First of all, we have--we know that--I have been in touch
with communities in that area every week and the fishing
industry is dead.
It may take decades to revive it. So there's a huge loss of
livelihood among the fishermen, the fishing communities, and
many of those are actually Catholic parishes living along the
coast of five provinces.
Now, one entire province that is the most populace province
that got affected severely by the environmental disaster and
that is Nghe An Province.
It is completely excluded from the compensation package,
and that's why there's a lot of protest and that's why--and
among all those affected the Catholic parishes were at the
forefront of the demonstration to demand fair, just
compensation.
And that's why the government created the Red Flag
Association, to suppress these communities--these advocates.
The second aspect I would like to bring to your attention
is the health issue. They're documenting right now and there
are more and more reported incidents of miscarriage among the
villagers affected by the environmental ecological disaster and
there is more reported prevalence of cancer cases in those
areas, and there has been no studies along that line.
And finally, human trafficking--because of the loss of
livelihood so a lot of these younger villagers, formerly
fishermen, now have to join the labor export program of the
Government of Vietnam.
And we have cases--we know cases where a person applying to
go to Taiwan or to South Korea had to pay $16,000 in service
fees.
Now the law would cap that to just 1 month of salary per
year of contract--say, $2,000 a month for 3 years of contract,
that it should not exceed more than 3 years. So no more than
$6,000.
But a lot of these villagers didn't know the law and they
had to pay $16,000 and they had to mortgage off their homes and
farmlands and the homes and farmlands of their parents and
siblings.
And according to our calculations, most of them would still
be in debt after the 3 years working overseas. And for the
first time last year, the number of migrant workers exported
out of countries exceeded 100,000 by far. It was, like,
120,000.
So I am afraid that human trafficking--labor trafficking is
on the rise because government officials are taking advantage
of the misery caused by the Formosa-induced disaster--
environmental disaster.
Mr. Le. Thank you very much for invitation, for inviting me
here. So now I got bright news. I did receive around 2\1/2\
hours ago. I am here on behalf of the Brotherhood for
Democracy.
I would like to thank you very much for letting us meet the
chairman and some Congress members here and various people have
support for the Brotherhood for Democracy.
Two and a half hours ago, I was with a Brother and his wife
and with his sister was released and now is on a flight to
Frankfurt and hope they will arrive to Frankfurt around
midnight, the time of Washington, DC. His name is Nguyen Van
Dai and Le Thu Ha, and his wife is also on the flight now.
So thank you very much for your support and help the
Brotherhood for--during that time. Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. Through the time I will just ask two final
questions, and thank you very much, and I think, Dr. Thang, you
are aware that I am the author of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act.
I've been very concerned that for 6 straight years Vietnam
has got a Tier 2 rating. Minimally, it should be on the watch
list--if not Tier 3, where I think it really belongs.
They do have a sex trafficking problem but I think the
labor trafficking problem is enormous, and we've had specific
hearings in this subcommittee just on that, and I wondered if
any of you would want to speak to that. The TIP report isn't
out yet.
Designations probably have been made already. We tried to
weigh in as best we could as a subcommittee for countries that
ought to be Tier 3.
But if you could speak to that, and I would just point out
one other law that I wrote that took 8 years to get out of the
Senate, five times passed in the House--known as International
Megan's Law.
It's now been in effect for a little over a year. We notice
countries of destination when a convicted pedophile is
travelling. Its inspiration came from Megan Kanka, my home town
constituent who was brutally murdered by and sexually abused by
a convicted pedophile who lived across the street.
So there are Megan's Laws in every single state of the
union and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. But,
frankly, internationally, there's not many Megan's Laws.
This law, as I think you know, notices countries of
destination when a convicted pedophile plans to travel and
there's a very severe penalty if they don't notice us, us being
state police and then State Department.
And the Angel Watch program now has been built and fully
and very robustly staffed, and a little over a year in
operation 3,600 convicted pedophiles have been noticed to
countries. Many of them have been turned back because we know
why they're going. They're on secret sex tourism trips to
exploit little girls and little boys.
While Vietnam, as it turns out, is a destination country
for many, we know other places like Thailand are working
overtime to deny entry into their country when we notice such
an exploiter coming their way.
Vietnam has been unresponsive. We are trying to tell them
so and so is coming--here's their record and they could abuse
your children horribly--and yet they are unresponsive.
To me, it's an insight like few others about an
indifference that is so callous toward their own children.
Secondly, on the issue of--we just, sadly, remember the
29th anniversary of Tiananmen Square. Much of the world seems
to want to forget it. Certainly, in China, they forcibly forget
it in terms of their news media and what they teach their
children in school.
But there is a concern that with demonstrations against
Chinese investments and incursions into the South China Sea or
environmental disasters that these people who will protest will
be met with violence and there's a very big anti-China
demonstration planned for June 10th and I am wondering what
your concerns might be and is there anything we should be
doing, our Ambassador, to mitigate what could be bloodshed
meted out by the Vietnamese Government.
Anybody want to take those?
Mr. Thang. Yes. About human trafficking--yes, over the
years we have rescued thousands of victims in destination
countries and we continue to work on that--to rescue more
victims.
However, we cannot stop the flow if we don't do anything--
if we cannot stop it at the roots--that is, in the source
country, and there is no way for us to go to Vietnam and stop
it.
However, there might be an opportunity here because of the
Formosa-induced ecological disaster. I would like to propose
that we, our Government, and through Congress we ask USAID to
have programs in those areas to help develop livelihood
opportunities for these fishermen who have been affected--to
have development projects and work directly with the churches--
independent churches--the Catholic churches that have been
doing that.
The Diocese of Vinh has been doing that. They don't ever
get funded by USAID. Now, not too long ago, just last month,
again, Ambassador Sam Brownback brought into our roundtable
meeting representatives of the USAID offices and I think that
they are now willing and open to suggestions that USAID should
fund directly to independent religious organizations to do the
good work that they have been doing.
So USAID, if they are in there, they can work with and
provide technical assistance and coaching to the real people
doing the real work on the ground, especially the independent
churches, to develop livelihood projects.
At the same time, they can educate the people on the
ground. There are simple tips that they can learn on how to
avoid becoming victims of human trafficking, especially labor
trafficking.
For instance, you should not sign a contract without
reading it. You should not agree to go overseas and work
overseas on a tourist visa, for instance.
There are simple red flags and we have developed materials.
But the challenge is to get those materials and that
information directly to the villagers that are vulnerable to
human trafficking in Vietnam.
Thank you.
Ms. PoKempner. I would simply urge that when you look at
this problem of human trafficking, it ought to be a topic on
which you can constructively engage the government.
The Government of Vietnam does spend money and does have a
bureaucracy that is devoted to this problem as well as related
problems.
But, as you pointed out, it's not doing enough. But I think
this is at least an area where cooperation and engagement is
promising as well as the application of American aid.
I would urge you to look not only at victims of sexual
trafficking but labor trafficking generally. We are doing a lot
of research on trafficking in the fishing industries and I am
sure as Dr. Thang knows, this is a big, big problem in Thailand
and a lot of the labor is coming from Burma and Vietnam.
So there's a regional interest in getting a hold of this
and this is affecting American companies when they discover
that there are marketing goods produced by slave labor.
So I think this is a very promising area of engagement
where, fortunately, economic interests and human rights
interests align well.
Mr. Smith. I will just conclude. Any further comments you
might want to make if you do--yes, Doctor.
Mr. Thang. Relating to the case of Nguyen Van Dai and his
wife and his partner, Le Thu Ha, I would like to point out that
collaboration with other governments might make a difference.
I have noted that over the past year there has been
increasing collaboration between human rights offices at our
U.S. Embassy in Vietnam and other Embassies such as the United
Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, and E.U., for
instance.
Mr. Smith. And Germany.
Mr. Thang. And Germany, yes--and Germany, definitely. And
in this case of Mr. Dai, our public--most of the credit should
go to VETO!, our long-time partner in Germany, and the
Government of Germany.
They have been very strong on this. I know that they have
been working with our own State Department on this case, and I
hope that by more collaboration like that, especially you
already know about the Interparliamentarian Panel on Freedom of
Religion and Belief.
We are working with them and they are now connecting
themselves--networking themselves with ASEAN parliamentarians
for human rights in ASEAN.
So a network like that would really, really help to further
many of our common causes.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. I thank you.
I thank you very, very much for your insights, for your
expertise, your leadership, and for your patience, having a
late start because of the votes.
Again, our bill that's pending--hopefully it will be marked
up soon. If ever there was a time--and it does call for a
designation of CPC, country of particular concern, because of
religious persecution by the government. I will never forget
talking to Rabbi Saperstein, who was the predecessor,
obviously, to Sam Brownback as the Ambassador-at-Large for
religious freedom. He did a wonderful job.
But when he was meeting with Tran Thi Hong, she was
beaten--beaten. Government thugs beat the wife of a pastor,
Nguyen Cong Chinh.
I mean, if that isn't a wake-up call, when the highest
official for religious freedom in-country--in Vietnam--and
that's how they respond. It shows the animosity that continues
to be animosity on steroids.
So we have to push back hard, and I think, as you pointed
out, Ms. PoKempner, they take notice. When we say something, we
mean it, it's predictable, we are not kidding, we are not
vacillating, things will happen, and particularly when there's
a penalty attached to it.
So CPC has at least 18 prescribed remedies--penalties--that
are very significant. And I know when other countries have been
put on lists like that--they know we mean it--it has an impact.
So let's hope the administration does the right thing on
that.
I thank you so much. Hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]