From mchale@gwu.edu Wed Jun 22 09:59:46 2005

Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:59:30 -0400

From: Shawn McHale <mchale@gwu.edu>

Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>

To: vsg@u.washington.edu

Subject: [Vsg] Mr. Khai comes to Washington

Dear list,

A few comments on Phan Van Khai's visit to Washington so far. What I find intriguing is how the sharp differences within different constituencies within the Republican Party are playing out.

On June 20th, as Phan Van Khai was in town, a House committee held hearings on religious freedom on Vietnam; the point of the hearings was to criticize Vietnam for its repression of religion. I personally think that no one should minimize state repression of religion. There is clear evidence of such repression. For an interesting take on this, see the very recent testimony by Nina Shea, a major advocate for religious freedom concerns in Washington: who is Vice-Chair of the US Commission for International Religious Freedom: http://www.uscirf.gov/events/cong_testimony/2005/june/06202005_vietnam.html

What is puzzling about this testimony is not the particular facts. It is the world context for ranking countries as "Countries of Particular Concern" over religious freedom issues, a listing which theoretically can trigger sanctions. Right now, Vietnam is one of *eight* countries in the world listed as a country of particular concern by the State Department.One might conclude that Vietnam is one of the eight worst countries in the world in terms of repression of religious rights. And that is a conclusion that engenders utter disbelief.

There clearly is no rigorous comparative process at work here. The list does not include, for example, Pakistan, which has suffered from religious violence. India is off the list. So is Algeria. In Algeria, over 100,000 individuals have been killed in a civil war over the last decade and a half. Religion is at the core of that brutal conflict. One would be forced to the conclusion that believers have have greater freedom of religion in the Sudan, for example, site of another bitter civil war involving religion, or in Turkmenistan, than in Vietnam. The most glaring ommission from the list is Iraq. It simply defies common sense to believe that Iraq has greater religious freedom today than Vietnam.

Of course, much of this debate was bypassed during the visit. Bush soft-pedalled concerns over religious freedom. Capitalism won out over religion. The American Chamber of Commerce hosted a dinner for Phan VÄ~Cn Khai at the Mayflower hotel. . . . Now it's what? On to Harvard and MIT? It's hard to think of a Vietnamese Prime Minister leading a charm offensive, but -- in spite of the demonstrations -- he is doing reasonably well at saying the right things.

Shawn McHale

Associate Professor of History and International Affairs

Associate Director, Sigur Center for Asian Studies

George Washington University

Washington, DC 20052 USA

From markustaussig@mac.com Wed Jun 22 12:17:53 2005

Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:17:31 -0400

From: Markus Taussig <markustaussig@mac.com>

Reply-To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>

To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>

Subject: Re: [Vsg] Mr. Khai comes to Washington

I am also quite a cynic about the US politics regarding promotion of religious freedom abroad, but I think it's quite possible, in this case, that the Bush administration's soft-pedaling of the religious issues could indeed represent the triumph of exactly the practical reasoning that Shawn lays out in his email-- rather than necessarily a triumph of profits over justice.  As I understand it, the Harvard visit will be primarily focused on strategy for improving the Vietnamese education system (and its ability to contribute to economic development).

Another interesting facet on reporting of the Khai visit has been the pretty much universal description of the 80 business representatives as "entrepreneurs". The lists I have seen have been mostly managers of state enterprises, i.e. individuals who, in my experience, generally know their businesses very well, but are better described as managers of public assets than as entrepreneurs-- given the dynamism and initiative implied by the latter term.  Seems journalists have mostly been too focused on the religion issues to provide much depth to their reporting on the actual participants in the delegation.

Markus

_________________________________

Markus D. Taussig

Strategy Unit

Harvard Business School

Doctoral Programs

Sherman Hall

Boston, MA 02163

Mobile: (212) 960-3456

Email: mtaussig@hbs.edu

Skype: markustaussig

Personal Web Page:Â http://homepage.mac.com/markustaussig/

 Steve and all,

As Steve has noted, "landmark" is Bush's term for the agreement, but it is a landmark in the sense that it's the first diplomatic accord to be signed between the United States and another country on religious freedom since the enactment of the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998.  That said, neither the White House nor the State Department has made the agreement (which was actually announced on May 5, when Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick visited Vietnam) public.  The US Commission on International Religious Freedom is protesting the fact that it hasn't been released, and it will be difficult for the USG to keep it under wraps much longer. 

The agreement is the other shoe that dropped when Zoellick announced that the US would not impose sanctions on Vietnam under the Country of Particular Concern framework this year.  My understanding is that it mildly codifies measures that Vietnam must take to avoid sanctions under CPC in

the next year or so.   The decision-making authority on that is given to

the State Department.  In theory, State can make such decisions at any time, although in practice, designating countries as CPC and deciding

whether or not to impose sanctions is an annual exercise.   Vietnam would

like to have the CPC designation removed, but I doubt that's in the cards for the next few years - only Iraq has been taken off the list, and that was after the US intervention.  As with all such policies, there's an obvious political element at play.

The agreement could help to regulate the religious freedom issue in the bilateral relationship, by spelling out what Washington defines as

progress.   Hanoi has also asked that the formal US-Vietnam dialogue on

human rights (which is broader than religious freedom and covers a range of

rights) be resumed.  That dialogue was an outgrowth of the "roadmap" for normalization, but Washington cancelled it a couple of years ago, apparently feeling that it wasn't productive.  It will be difficult to resume the dialogue until the Bush administration nominates an Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights - the position has been vacant for nearly a year. 

Vietnam is mindful that human rights will play a role in Congress' decision to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to Vietnam, a necessary component to the US approval for Vietnam's accession to the WTO.  The PNTR vote will probably take place in late September or early October, assuming a successful conclusion on WTO negotiations between the US and Vietnam this summer.  In the meantime, Rep. Chris Smith has announced that he will re-introduce the Vietnam Human Rights Act, apparently hoping that the third

time will be the charm.   The bill is ultimately likely to be stopped again

in the Senate, as it was in 2001 and 2004.

Steve raises a deeper question, of whether the agreement will improve religious freedom in Vietnam.  External machinations like this can encourage, and sometimes even force, short-term gains but those gains often aren't sustainable unless there is a broader climate of political and social liberalization.  It would be interesting for the group to debate whether those conditions are there in Vietnam at this time.  Even in a relatively liberal climate, however, these kinds of policies can backfire because they can produce a nationalist backlash.  From my experience in the State Department, I will say that I'm a little wary of playing "dissident poker" - focusing too much on high-profile opposition figures - which the USG often does, at the expense of concentrating on institutional reform.

However, until we see the agreement we really can't judge the approach the administration is taking.

Best,

Catharin

From tonthat@homemail.com.au Wed Jun 22 15:03:27 2005

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 08:02:59 +1000

From: Quynh-Du Ton-That <tonthat@homemail.com.au>

To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>

Subject: Re: [Vsg] Mr. Khai comes to Washington

Dear Shawn and list,

Shawn is intrigued by "the sharp differences within different constituencies within the Republican Partying" but another observer of Khai's visit is intrigued (disgusted perhaps) by the sharp differences in the way Khai was prepared to visit the Memorial of the American war dead while Tran Duc Luong has put diplomatic pressure (successfully) on Indonesia to destroy the memorial on an Indonesian Island, the site of a former refugee camp, erected by former refugees to commemorate those who perished at sea during in their exodus.

See the post below, cut and paste from Talawas.

Du

From catharindalpino@earthlink.net Wed Jun 22 15:23:33 2005

Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:23:14 -0400

From: catharin dalpino <catharindalpino@earthlink.net>

To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>, vsg@u.washington.edu

Subject: RE: [Vsg] Mr. Khai comes to Washington

Dear Colleagues,

A couple of comments on top of Shawn's.

1. As a veteran of the State Department's human rights bureau, I can attest that there is, as Shawn says, "no rigorous comparative process at work here." Comparisons of the sort he is suggesting are usually discouraged (usually to avoid short-term political complications), even though their absence leaves the US open to charges of inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worse. Nor is there much enthusiasm for comparing a country's present to its past. The State Department's designation of Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern late last year created some confusion because, as the State official announcing it freely admitted, the Department did not consider that religious freedom in Vietnam had worsened in comparison to recent years. The 2004-2005 Georgetown Southeast Asia Survey (which, in the spirit of disclosure, I co-edit) was released yesterday, with a chapter on Vietnam. The Survey points! out that, current problems in religious freedom notwithstanding, there has been nothing short of a religious revival in Vietnam over the past decade.

2. Shawn is right in pointing out that last night's dinner for Prime Minister Khai (another disclosure: I was there) was organized by the US Chamber of Commerce, but that was only one of the sponsors. Several business councils (most notably the US-Vietnam Trade Council and the US-ASEAN Business Council) were hosts, but several other groups were also sponsors: The Asia Society, the Fund for Reconciliation and Development, Catholic Relief Services, and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, among others. These groups stepped into the breech because the Bush administration offered no social event to commemorate the visit, much less a state dinner. (The PM's visit fell into the category of an "official working visit," which afforded a meeting with Bush, but not a "state visit," which would have provided much more pomp and ceremony.)

3. One of the oddest notes of the past few days was the local NBC television affiliate's well-intentioned but totally off-the-mark attempt to drum up interest in the PM's visit. They asked viewers to vote by phone or email on the question, "Should the United States normalize relations with Vietnam?," apparently missing that event ten years ago. When the votes were in, 61% of viewers were in favor of normalizing with Hanoi, and 39% against.

Catharin