AP Reporter Beaten and Arrested in Hanoi
From: Stephen Denney <sdenney@ocf.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:59 PM
To: vsg@u.washington.edu
Since some reporters from Vietnam are on this list, it might be of interest that AP reporter Ben Stocking was arrested and beaten while photographing a Catholic demonstration in Hanoi, according to Reporters Without Borders. See:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=28616
excerpt:
"A video of his arrest clearly shows police officers forcing him to leave the site of the demonstration. Stocking said the police took his camera and, when he asked for it back, hit him on the head with it and punched him in the face. He spent two and a half hours in a police station and need four stitches to his head afterwards. The Associated Press has asked the Vietnamese authorities to apologise and return Stocking's camera."
- Steve Denney
----------
From: Judith Henchy <judithh@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 2:53 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Folks,
Ben himself is a member of this list. We wish him well and a speedy recovery from this assault.
Judith
------------------------
From: Pierre Asselin <asselin@hawaii.edu>
Date: 2008/9/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Why are some western (i.e., white) reporters so eager to defy the rules/laws governing the press in authoritarian states and make a spectacle of it? While the treatment by Vietnamese authorities of the reporter in question is deplorable, the recording of the incident shows that he contributed to no insignificant degree to its "escalation." We saw similar behavior by white reporters during the Beijing games. Are there not more constructive ways of advancing press freedom in Vietnam and elsewhere than this type of self-induced martyrdom?
p.a.
----------------
Pierre Asselin
Associate Professor of History
Hawai'i Pacific University
1188 Fort St., Suite MP 405
Honolulu, HI 96813
Tel: (808) 544-1479
----------
From: phuxuan700@gmail.com <phuxuan700@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
If Ben Stocking is a member of the list, I first would like to wish him well. I guess we all wanted to hear his side of the story soon.
Prof. Asselin's comment leads me to some other questions: What is the difference between what Ben Stocking did and other journalists who risk or lose their lives reporting news ?
The second part of his comment makes me wonder whether there is a "cultural" issue involved: That is whether "colored" journalists are more "submissive" to rules/laws (governing the press) in authoritarian states than "non-colored" ones.
Calvin Thai
----------
From: Cox, Pamela <pamcox@essex.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:44 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>, Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
There are indeed many ways to contribute to advancing press freedom in Vietnam. The value, in my view, of filming events like these is that this offers rare evidence of press restrictions in action. Interventions like this by the authorities are often flatly denied. Such denials can be countered by 'spectacles' like this.
Dr Pam Cox
Department of Sociology, University of Essex, UK
----------
From: Stephen Denney <sdenney@ocf.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 5:36 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I don't see any cultural issues here. He was just trying to do his job, taking pictures of Catholic demonstrators in Hanoi, when he was arrested and beaten.
- Steve Denney
----------
From: Skyler Wiet <skyler.wiet@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
The clip only purported to show the beginning of any violence that may have occurred, so let's hope that he is all right.
I also hope Pierre was not implying that Ben intended to interfere with the advancement of press freedom in Viet Nam. Given the available footage, even without Ben's story, it would still appear that the authorities were unnecessarily overstepping their bounds and should take responsibility for their actions. Acceptance of these actions in open forums, like this one, hurts the advancement of press freedom more than Ben trying to do his job, peacefully.
Skyler Wiet
----------
From: Sidel, Mark <mark-sidel@uiowa.edu>
Date: 2008/9/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
With all respect, I disagree with Pierre Asselin. Stocking was covering a major story on a public street - that's just his job. The treatment was an over-reaction, probably because senior officials are nervous about the dispute and have ordered the coverage contained. Stocking and the coverage are the victim here, and we shouldn't be blaming the victim.
Best wishes.
Mark Sidel
mark-sidel@uiowa.edu
Sent: Fri 9/19/2008 5:49 PM
----------
From: Jeffery Kim <jefferykim73@yahoo.ca>
Date: 2008/9/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I truly wish Mr. Ben Stocking well. For having lived under the Vietcongs regime not too longer ago, I strongly support Mr. Ben Stocking's courage and his dedication to his work--to get the un-told stories of the repressive regime out to the free world.
If one were to look into the Viet Nam's Constitution, "free press" is guaranteed:
Article 69
The citizen shall enjoy freedom of opinion and speech, freedom of the press, the right to be informed, and the right to assemble, form associations and hold demonstrations in accordance with the provisions of the law.
Therefore, Mr. Ben Stocking and the free world are doing the right thing, while the Vietcongs themselves are betraying their own Constitution. Vietnam also have ratified numerous UN's Human Rights Treaties.
Vietnam, China, Burma, Lao, Cambodia, etc. are still holding on their old communist ideology and imposing strict control on their helpless citizens. The free world must help rid of this backward tyrannies and human rights violators once and for all.
The suffered do need our attention, and not just the powerful!
Jeffery Kim
Vsg@u.washington.edu
http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/vsg
----------
From: Thomas Jandl <thjandl@yahoo.com>
Date: 2008/9/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To add to the debate about "martyrdom by white journalists:" Vietnam's laws assure freedom of the press. So my first question to Pierre Asselin would be, "What laws were violated?"
_________________________________
Thomas Jandl
School of International Service
American University
202-363-6810
thjandl@yahoo.com
----------
From: Anthony Le <leductony@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:54 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
From the Catholics' point of view, what Stocking was doing is a great service to their cause. A story by AP, AFP, BBC, or Reuters is worth more in term of international opinion than a story from VietCatholic or other Vietnamese outlets. Without people like Stocking, the story will always be confined to something internal and local. From the video, I certainly don't see Stocking doing anything beyond his duties. Vietnamese reporters who have written favorably about the Catholics and publishing their writings in unofficial media outlets have also been threated with punishment from the government. So what happened to Stocking is also not outside of the actions of the government. It simply speaks to the reality of press freedom in Vietnam.
----------
From: jkirk <jkirk@spro.net>
Date: 2008/9/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Well, I have to admit that I have often had the same thought. If such reporters want to get a scoop, then they need to learn the furtive use of an i-pod cam Mmp4, or something similar? Some of the best video on YouTube has been captured that way.
Most photo-journalists know in advance if some situation is going to be surveilled--so why make trouble, get their equipment ruined, and or get hurt or killed? Not every place subscribes to the idea of free speech, and photo journalism is not going to make them change, for that matter. It never did and it never will.
Joanna Kirkpatrick
----------
From: Stephen Denney <sdenney@ocf.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:09 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Since Ben Stocking is on the list, he can speak for himself on this piont, but my impression is that he did not go out there with a camera in order to provoke authorities to arrest him and beat him up. Have not similar demonstrations been covered by other journalists without such incidents?
- Steve Denney
----------
From: Nguyen Qui Duc <DNguyen@kqed.org>
Date: Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:23 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>, Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I believe a point to consider here is service to the public.
Ben and other reporters throughout the world, for decades and decades, put themselves in harm's way in order to bring us a better, fuller picture of what's happening around us.
Without such efforts, we're all be in the dark - nothing gets exposed.
Often, it just takes that kind of dogged and courageous effort to tell the story to the public.
It's the duty and responsibility and pride of journalists.
I am not sure the point is to provoke new attitudes towards the media in Viet Nam.
What happened in Tiananmen Square may have been worse had photographers and journalists not gone there.
The bombing and fighting and killings and repression in Viet Nam and Cambodia and Indonesia and East Timor and Israel and Rwanda, and Palestine, etc., would have been worse, I suspect too, were it not for the efforts of journalists - and governments and people around the world would not have been involved.
If "photojournalism is not going to make them change," we journalists hope it gives them pause. In some cases, it might mean stricter control, but it also means a re-thinking process has started, both within the circle of pwoer, and with the general populace.
Duc
----------
From: Vern Weitzel <vern.weitzel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:29 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
The comments on this list have been almost as interesting as
the incident itself.
Maybe I have been in Viet Nam too long, but my perception
(as distinct from my moral values) are differ from some of yours.
I suspect that all parties may want this incident to go away.
Ben (I hope!) may not want to lose his press accreditation.
The authorities, as Anthony Le pointed out, probably do not need
the international publicity that this generates. Ben has been in
Viet Nam for, what, 5 years or more, and I believe he has written
both with balance and sensitivity about some pretty tough issues.
It has not been cool to bash US journalists in VN for some time.
Plus his spouse has an important role in disbursing significant
US funding on in a critically important area. I don't think that
he's the kind of guy they'd want to lose - but, then, I'm not one
of the authorities.
So, I suspect that it is unlikely that the Government of Viet Nam
wanted to further escalate the Catholic protest issue. Though,
I could be wrong.
I have a couple comments on the video clip. First, Ben was so
enthusiastic in his photography that it appears he delayed obeying
the order to stop shooting. Generally, when the cops say to stop,
they mean right now! This could have led to an unfortunate impresion
that he was uncooperative, even if he he did not resist being arrested.
[An aside, not long ago I was warned by the young police officer
not to take a photo of the fron of the UNDP compound, you know, the
one that appears behind the staff group photo every year. I had to
go inside the compound, then it was OK. Why make trouble - he was
a nice guy with a lousy job. Westerners often have trouble getting
this point, I'm not sure why.]
Second, I don't know about you, but I try not to be obvious when
I take photos. If you act like a photojournalist, you tend to get
noticed. You see, the videocam person was unobtrusive and got the shot.
Many of you have spoken about press freedom and that is fine. But life
in Viet Nam is always complicated. Things happen step-by-step.
The Catholic protest has put many authorities on edge. They have not
seen this before. One can see two sides trying hard to claim the
moral high ground, to woo the sympathy of the populace. And this
may be very different from what westerners may think is correct.
It is fair to say that most Vietnamese people want stability.
They don't like problems of corruption, overspending, mismanaging
and so on around them, but they can put up with a lot, if there
are no great disruptions.
Most Vietnamese are not Catholic, so they may not be too sympathetic.
They may think that the Catholics are jumping the queue to regain
this land and not following the due process of the law. So why can't
they wait in line - and the law will decide? ... presumably the law
is the voice of stability. Well, there is a pretty good point in
this, even if the same people will then grumble in the next breath
about how inefficient and slow the law is.
Newspapers are saying that it is wrong to take photos of "people
doing wrong things". It is against social cohesion and stability.
Do ordinary people agree? My close advisor says that this is quite
often so.
It does not matter much what us foreigners think. We are not the People
of Viet Nam.
Still attitudes are changing. A younger generation may not be so
convinced by formulae of persuasion that worked in the past. It will be interesting how this continues to develop.
While many of us, Vietnamese and foreign alike, may have had issues
with certain bureaucratic mindsets, we should all be aware that this
is a time of great change - and change is difficult for most of us.
Like the rest of us, I hope to see lot's more of Ben's reports.
Vern
----------
From: Matt Steinglass <mattsteinglass@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/20
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
<i> Why are some western (i.e., white) reporters so eager to defy the rules/laws governing the press in authoritarian states and make a spectacle of it? </i>
To my knowledge, Ben Stocking neither “defied the rules/laws governing the press” in Vietnam nor has he been accused of doing so by the Vietnamese government.
Freedom of the press is guaranteed under Vietnamese law. According to regulations, press bureaus must be located in Hanoi and reporters are obliged to request permission from the Press and Information Department when we leave Hanoi. We are generally considered free to report and photograph inside Hanoi. In special circumstances such as the incident at the Nunciature yesterday, the authorities sometimes declare that photography is forbidden. It is unclear to me what the legal authority is for doing so, but foreign press generally comply with such restrictions. However, no signs forbidding photography were posted at the Nunciature on Friday morning as far as I could see.
In situations like this where the rules are unclear, it is easy for misunderstandings to arise. For the authorities to stop a Western journalist from photographing is routine. It is not routine for violence to be employed. Vietnam has in general done a good job of keeping relations between the government and the foreign press friendly and civil, even when there is disagreement over our understandings of the idea of freedom of the press, or simply confusion over press regulations which may appear self-contradictory. There have been very few instances of violence between authorities and the press in Vietnam and one would hope this will remain a rare exception.
As for the “spectacle”, it is not Ben Stocking’s fault that a video of him doing his job was posted on YouTube. We live in an era in which anyone can become a “spectacle” at any moment by happenstance, by being posted on YouTube or having discussions about them pop up on academic email lists. Concepts like “making a spectacle of yourself” need to be rethought.
Matt Steinglass
----------
From: ryan nelson <sociolgst@yahoo.com>
Date: 2008/9/20
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Perhaps there are a number of explanations to why some western reporters (not necessarily Mr. Stocking) have righteously challenged the norms governing the press in foreign authoritarian states: the popularity of civil disobedience in the Western world; a freedom of the press movement; the likelihood of westerners in authoritarian countries to be roughed up or deported rather than imprisoned; and the exposure a story gathers after a journalist-police confrontation has ensued.
Whether civil disobedients intend to be spectacles or not, it's not unusual, VSGers, for individuals to question or be agitated by their actions.
I'm sure many U.S. conservatives and liberals asked similar questions and expressed stronger feelings about the more radical methods of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (S.N.C.C.) and YIPpies during the 1960s and 1970s. Specifically, about the effectiveness of their well publicized, self-induced, norm defying martyrdom spectacles of demonstrating for social change.
In a revealing 1976 interview the late cultural icon Allen Ginsberg put a great deal of the issue to rest. Referencing leftist sectarianism through YIPpy leader Jerry Rubin and Co.'s copping of an angry fix at the 68' D.N.C. by torpedoing Humphrey's campaign, he stated, "I think all of our activity in the late sixties may have prolonged the Vietnam war."
Mr. Stocking's act being on the milder side of the civil disobedience spectrum I don't think too much harm has been inflicted to the state-media relationship. If anything, the incident has provided a superb and exciting ending to any narrative he planned to pen about media restrictions in Vietnam. After all, ending a story with being beat up worked for Hunter S. Thompson's piece on the Hell's Angels.
Pierre, about your question concerning more "constructive ways [to] advance . . . freedom[s]." From a conflict resolutionist's viewpoint, bilateral talks between a foreign press core and the Vietnamese government may be helpful. Though it may take several years and a handful of different geometric negotiation tables until both parties are satisfied and able to begin.
Peace
Ryan Nelson
----------
From: Hue-Tam Ho Tai <hhtai@fas.harvard.edu>
Date: Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 5:59 AM
To: vern.weitzel@gmail.com, vern@coombs.anu.edu.au, Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
A reply to one point that Vern makes:
It is my understanding that in many areas, Vietnamese rely on foreigners and overseas Vietnamese to raise issues that it would be too difficult for them to raise. This happens in scholarship, as I have often been told in private. It is not helpful to be excessively deferential to established authority whether scholarly or political.
As for the Catholic church trying to reclaim its properties, this, too, may be looked upon, not with disapproval, but with an eye to raising similar claims by non-Catholic groups. I actually have a set of documents from 1995 put together by some scholars at the behest of a village that was trying to reclaim a temple in Hanoi that had been built in previous centuries by the villagers for use by villagers when they traveled to Hanoi. After 1954, the temple was used to house Hanoi residents. In 1995, the villagers tried to reclaim their property but were rebuffed by the Hanoi People's Committee (and why should it care about rights of ownership when housing was in such short supply?) Reclaiming property has become a very hot issue. The villa on Dien Bien Phu Street belonging to the woman in whose house Ho Chi Minh wrote the Declaration of Independence is a more recent case. I would not surmise, therefore, that Vietnamese are resentful of Catholics "jumping the queue." They are more likely to see how the claims are going to be resolved, if at all. And it is precisely this which makes the authorities nervous.
Hue-Tam Ho Tai
----------
From: phuxuan700@gmail.com <phuxuan700@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/20
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
My questions were intended for the original poster, based on his comment.
I have read many of Ben Stocking's reports and respected him for his professionalism.
As many others have said, Ben did his job - reporting news - when the incident took place.
In the video, Hanoi police chief MG Nguyen Duc Nhanh stood next to Ben at the time. Nhanh walked away with Ben at the end of the footage. Probably they just wanted to show who has real power in Vietnam!
Eventhough the video capture was seen around the world within hours of the arrest, Hanoi flatly denied of any violent act involved:
http://hanoimoi.com.vn/vn/41/181090/
Calvin Thai
----------
From: jkirk <jkirk@spro.net>
Date: 2008/9/20
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I need to clarify here--I meant only to suggest that there's no need to get killed or wounded by doing one's job if such deadliness can be avoided, and suggested a technical (less obvious, visible) way to avoid it.
Photo-journalism gets out the data the rest of the world needs to know, even if such data are locally prohibited or suppressed. I am not against photo-journalism or reportage!
I still doubt, however, that such records are effective locally in producing official change. But besides producing a world-wide data record, of course they provide support to those who are trying to bring about change.
Joanna Kirkpatrick
----------
From: Vern Weitzel <vern.weitzel@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:03 AM
To: Hue-Tam Ho Tai <hhtai@fas.harvard.edu>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
This has been an interesting aspect of being a foreigner in Viet Nam.
Foreigners are seen both as a 'friend' who must have good connections
with their embassies - hence potential benefits for them. We all know
that the Vanguard class was there in part, as a buffer between the
Masses and foreigners. Some managers still think that way.
Not so long ago, society was more structured than our Internet age.
People complained that they had "no channel" to resources which,
potentially, could help them. Conversely, people in authority could
manage access to information/benefits, leaving ordinary people
feeling disenfranchised. [It is really a horrible feeling to know
that know that things are happening, and you have no way to challenge
or even comment upon them.]
At another level, foreigners could promote issues that may be more
difficult for the public to pursue. As a small example, you may remember some years ago, that I launched
an eList for Vietnamese People with Disabilities (PWD). They asked
me to call it "Khuyet tat", to popularise the new, more assertive
term for PWDs, over "Tan tat", which was common in legislation.
My NGO colleagues were worried how the Government would respond, and
so used me to test the waters. I am happy to say that the Government
was favourable.
We foreigners are so "ignorant" of common practice in Viet Nam, that
we can raise sensitive issues, yet if we are careful, we are not
likely to get in trouble. We get cut some slack because we are
"ignorant" foreigners.
Increasingly, people are aware of their rights and how to express them.
I am reminded of a person close to me who does not mince words.
When confronted by a rude, officious uniformed traffic assistant at
Long Bian bridge, she told him, "Who are you? Were you at Pac Bo?
Go away and be more polite." It is a real world out there and I have
not found Vietnamese people to be (at root) particularly subservient.
They just discuss things a lot more than many of us foreigners may
expect.
So. problems, yes. But it is important to appreciate the degree of
independence that ordinary people can craft into their lives.
Some mischievous people have called it "anarchy". It would be a good
research study to see how rights awareness is working (and also
what are its limitations).
Another, important issue is that all ministries/offices are not
the same. To paraphrase, there is no "monolithic" authoritarianism.
different Government bodies often have a different, even conflicting,
agendum from other bodies.
Some 15 years ago I worked with a Vietnamese NGO to attract foreign
(Western) academics interested in meeting counterparts at universities.
The then Ministry of Culture and information (MocI - now part of
the Ministry of Information and Communications (MoIC) then had a
vrtual monopoly on incoming academics. This meant they made a raft
of money on cars, hotels, interpreters, permissions to provide an
often inadequate service, when the Universities (or even MoeT) could
do a much better job.
MoCI has had a tendency to cast their Ministerial decisions as
Government decisions applicable to everyone. Not so long ago,
MoCI gazetted rules on publications and the Internet which created
something of a flurry in the UN. Our response was to defer response
to our counterpart, the Ministry of Planning and Inestment (MPI) who
did not answer MoCI's claim. Different umbrella, different rules.
Needless to say, it is common for an individual to wave a local
decision or circular in someone's face as a ticket for personal
advancement. Easy to avoid if one knows one's rights.
A few years ago, a colleague who was a web designer learned about
the MoCI circular on Internet content and went in to see what he
was supposed to do. Not only did MoCI's International Office provide
a fee schedule, they also told him that THEY would create the
website. In other words, they had a company lined up to build
websites, for which they would get a their 10 phan tram. This
would hardly impress the other Government agency which footed
the bill for the website.
So, there are reasonably clear avenues to tell off offices and
officials. And no doubt, remaining obstacles. Thanks, I get your point, and you are correct that the many
continuing claims on land is a "hot topic".
Though I do not know much more, there is an office in Ha Noi which
assists people who have property claims. As I understand, they are independent of the land management authorities, hence positioning
themselves to defend citizens' rights.
Little wonder that Ha Noi UBND is worried. Some claims for property in
the old quarter have been ongoing for decades.
Good weekend all, Vern
----------
From: phuxuan700@gmail.com <phuxuan700@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
A youtube video was included in this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/19/ap-hanoi-bureau-chief-arr_n_127735.html
The guy in uniform with no hat standing next to AP Ben Stocking is Major General Nguyen Duc Nhanh, Hanoi Police Chief.
The last several video clips captured in broad day light may deserve some comments.
Calvin Thai
----------
From: Nhu Miller <trantnhu@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/19
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Ben was my colleague at the Mercury-News and a fine reporter who was
doing what reporters do: covering the news. Being beaten and harassed
is an occupational hazard. Note what happened to Amy Goodman at the
Republican Convention in Minneapolis a few weeks back. It isn't just in
Viet Nam and China where reporters are personae non gratae.
He sent this jaunty message:
i'm fine. my head hurts. my leg hurts. my neck is sore. (they choked me!) i look funny because they had to shave a patch of my hair to put the stitches in.
T.T. Nhu
Ben Stocking
Chief of Bureau
Hanoi, Viet Nam
Tel. 844 8250732
e-mail: bstocking@ap.org
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel C. Tsang <dtsang@uci.edu>
Date: 2008/9/21
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Reporter incident [official version] -- On Orwell...
To: "dtsang@uci.edu >> dt" <dtsang@uci.edu>, Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
On Orwell... this might be instructive... (USA falls into Brave New World context more perhaps, with police beatings still occuring); Books need not be banned in USA since fewer read books while Vietnam still bans books...but the corporate media in USA floods us with celebrity trivia...look at the election coverage ... all focused on Democrats vs. Republicans without any mention of third parties.
Audio of Aldous Huxley talking about Orwell's 1984 and his Brave New World...
http://schol.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/aldous-huxley-talks-about-brave-new-world-and-1984/
And from the Wikipedia entry on Brave New World... subentry on comparisons between the two...quoting Neil Postman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World#Comparisons_with_George_Orwell.27s_1984
Comparisons with George Orwell's 1984 [excerpt]
Social critic Neil Postman contrasts the worlds of 1984 and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1986 book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He writes:
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.
On 9/21/2008 9:43 AM, Thomas Jandl wrote:
Hmmmm ... I know a few journalists in Vietnam who are not AP ... Enough said.
_________________________________
Thomas Jandl
School of International Service
American University
202-363-6810
thjandl@yahoo.com
--- On Sat, 9/20/08, Christoph Giebel <giebel@u.washington.edu> wrote:
From: Christoph Giebel <giebel@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: [Vsg] Reporter incident [official version]
To: vern@coombs.anu.edu.au, "Vietnam Studies Group" <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Date: Saturday, September 20, 2008, 11:10 PM
With apologies (and best wishes) to Ben Stocking, but what is it
about AP reporters that makes authorities become violent and resort
to Orwellian language?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONVENTION_ARRESTS?
SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
--
Daniel C. Tsang
Social Science Data Librarian
Bibliographer for Asian American Studies,
Economics and Political Science
----------
From: Vern Weitzel <vern.weitzel@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/20
To: Hue-Tam Ho Tai <hhtai@fas.harvard.edu>, Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Hi Hue-Tam.
True. Perhaps there is an 'as needed' clause in some regulation.
I am working on the apparent perception by some people in VN, that the
police can just do this. They are not convinced by the fact that this
is a busy public thoroughfare, so it is clearly related to the
incident, not the context.
It has something to do with maintaining public order, rather like our
censoring of explicit scenes in movies for TV, to protect children
and the impressionable. That "people should be shown doing wrong things".
I had an interesting conversation which went something like this:
VN person: They must have made a mistake, and hit him like he was a
Vietnamese.
Me: What do you mean?
VN person: The police are not supposed to touch foreigners. But they
can hit Vietnamese people.
Me: But isn't it wrong under the law for police to hit Vietnamese people?
VN person: Yes, but they won't say anything.
There still may be more of a gulf than we imagine between 'chung ta' and 'chung toi'.
One thing that bothers me in recent *Western* movies and TV shows,
is the depiction of police using physical violence on suspects.
So, we commit similar crimes among ourselves and similarly we use
media to justify them.
Cheers, Vern
----------
From: Vern Weitzel <vern.weitzel@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:59 PM
To: vern@coombs.anu.edu.au
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
In this story, Foreign Ministry denies beating.
AP offers photos of proof of assault.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93AS1R80&show_article=1
Best wishes, Vern
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai <aoverl@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: 2008/9/21
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Actually, the video footage attached to a previous post suggests that as long as the journalist was engaged in the supposedly subversive activity of taking photos, the Vietnamese policemen behaved in a rather calm way as if being in control. They slowly escorted him away, and neither he nor the cops made any sudden, emotional gestures. There was no sign of any of the policemen being carried away by hot temper. In this light, the beating to which he was subjected appears even more unnecessary and unjustifiable. On the other hand, it may be a bit far-fetched to assume that it was a pre-planned act. I cannot really figure out why it would have suited the police to beat him up instead of resorting to some bureaucratic reprisal.
----------
From: Jeffery Kim <jefferykim73@yahoo.ca>
Date: 2008/9/21
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>, aoverl@yahoo.co.uk
This best describes the real behavior of the communist State--the authories (police) always know best?! I thought the Hanoi police were "mistaken" Mr. Ben Stocking as a Vietnamese individual, hence they resolved to using violence means for the reprisals.
And if it were to happen to a Vietnamese individual, instead of Mr. Stocking, the police would get away with another murder!
I remember growing up in Vietnam as a child in the 80s, I dared not to look at any police straight in the face while walking by, as a way to respect their superiority.
In term of Mr. Stocking's case, I strongly believe that it had to do with the gross behaviors of the State and its authorities toward any kind of threat-- of an independent media AP.
Jeffery Kim
----------
From: Matt Steinglass <mattsteinglass@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/21
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
There is no shortage of Vietnamese journalists who have been arrested in recent months while covering Vietnamese subjects for a Vietnamese audience, so I don’t think your reference is apposite.
Matt Steinglass
----------
From: Bill Hayton <bill.hayton@bbc.co.uk>
Date: 2008/9/21
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
All of this has prompted me to write the following... If I'm lucky it might get published in the near future. If not at least I've got something off my chest!
Best wishes
Bill
A beating for the press in Vietnam
The four stitches in the back of Ben Stocking’s head are just the latest warning that things are getting nasty in Vietnam. Ben, the bureau chief of the Associated Press in Hanoi had been watching a protest by a Catholic congregation demanding the return of confiscated Church land when he was attacked by police. What’s just as significant as the protests and the beating was the official statement offered by the government’s ever-smiling spokesman, “Ben Stocking was not beaten by police.” The implication was that Ben had coshed himself in order to besmirch the good name of Vietnam.
It’s perhaps not the spokesman’s fault that he has to parrot this obvious idiocy. His job is just to repeat in good English whatever nonsense the Public Security Ministry has told him to say. I experienced the same thing when I was assaulted by police a year and a half ago during my time as the BBC’s reporter in Hanoi. I wasn’t hurt as badly as Ben, merely kicked and punched, but the MPS statement was just as stupid, “There were no police or security personnel in the area at that time” they said. That incident took place during a demonstration in the centre of Hanoi about 300 metres from the main police station. The MPS statement was simply for show but Vietnam’s securocrats have never had to worry about whether they make sense or not. They know they aren’t going to face any challenging questions or criticisms at home.
There is much to write about in Vietnam at the moment. A series of Catholic land protests around Hanoi are taking place at a delicate time in negotiations between the Vietnamese government and the Vatican over diplomatic recognition. There’s an ongoing crisis in the Mekong Delta where up to three million tons of rice might rot because the government has refused to adjust its official export price to match the world market price. Warehouses and farmers’ yards are already full and another harvest is arriving which may simply end up being dumped in the river. There’s unhappiness in the cities over surging inflation and fears among some economists that the country is building a highly unstable financial structure. In their eyes some parts of the Vietnamese economy already resemble oligopolies where family contacts and a nest of corrupt relationships count more than business sense. We’ve seen this before in East Asia and it always ends in tears.
But international news coverage of all this is severely constrained. Last week the BBC’s Vietnamese Service correspondent was expelled. The Singapore Straits Times reporter left some time ago. Now only the news agencies still have a permanent presence. The fact that Vietnam continues to impose official minders on visiting journalists speaks volumes about the authorities' attitude to openness.
Vietnam has come a long way in the past 30 years but it seems to evolve through crisis. The contradictions of trying to simultaneously have communist control and eat capitalist cake have come to breaking point at the end of each decade: 1979, 1988, 1997 and now 2008. Each time the Party has found a peaceful way through. Let’s hope they can do it again. In the meantime the atmosphere in Hanoi is said to be grim.
END
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
----------
From: Anthony Le <leductony@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:35 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
>From Bill Hayton's essay, it sheds some light for me personally on why I have been thoroughly disappointed by the amount and quality of news coverage that comes from the mainstream news agencies in this matter. Especially in the last few days, the matter has escalated to extremely tense and dramatic heights, but (with apologies to Ben Stocking), the matter of Ben Stocking being beaten by the police has received more news coverage from the thing that he was trying to cover itself.
Everyday, I search for stories from the various news agencies, but I hardly find anything new at all. The few stories that are written on the matter are general and repeat information that has already been given months ago. And I simply feel that Western reporters do not have a good grasp of the implications of the struggle that is going on between Hanoi's Catholics and the government.
The lack of news coverage is probably in part, as Bill Hayton said, due to severe government restrictions and the lack of people stationed in Vietnam. However, it seems to me that international reporters need to be a little bit more industrious in looking into the various aspects of the issue and report more in depth on what has been going on in Vietnam's capital.
Anthony
----------
From: Bill Hayton <bill.hayton@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:56 PM
To: leductony@yahoo.com, Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I think I'm correct in saying that Reuters is currently without a bureau
chief in Vietnam - I think that means it's without any foreign reporter
based in Vietnam at all. The 'foreign' part is important for all the
reasons rehearsed during this discussion. Local assistants are far more
constrained in what they can write. Reuters haven't filed a single
non-business story for days, weeks even.
I think the roll call of the English-language press in Vietnam now
consists of just six people:
AFP - Aude Genet and Frank Zeller
AP - Ben Stocking, Margie Mason
Bloomberg - Jason Folkmanis
Dow Jones - (unstaffed - I think)
DPA - Matt Steinglass
Reuters - unstaffed
...and they're expected to cover a country of 80 million people.
(Apologies if I've overlooked anyone)
Bear in mind that the press law says that ALL journalistic activities by
foreigners have to be approved five days in advance (in theory every
phone call, every interview every picture taken) and you will understand
why it is difficult to cover events outside Hanoi. Of course resident
journalists break the law every time they work. It's just that the
authorities only choose to enforce the law when it suits them. I don't
think journalism is the only instance where that applies in Vietnam.
Bill
----------
From: Nguyen Qui Duc <DNguyen@kqed.org>
Date: 2008/9/21
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
To your list, I'd like to add, just off the top of my head...
Michael Sullivan, who covers Southeast Asia for National Public Radio, and is based in Hanoi.
Nga Pham comes in and out (as often as she is expelled), and writes for BBC World.
So does Seth Mydans come in and out from Bangkok for the New York Times.
Martha Ann Overland does cover Viet Nam for American magazines and other publications.
For a while there was a person covering "Intelligence" for the Economist who lived in Hanoi and Bangkok.
There are others based in Singapore, Bangkok and Hong Kong who also cover Viet Nam.
I am not sure whether Roger Mitton has left.
----------
From: Rob Hurle <rob@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Date: Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:48 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Beth Thomas was here for Bloomberg about a month ago. Not sure if
she's still around.
Rob Hurle
----------
From: Bill Hayton <bill.hayton@bbc.co.uk>
Date: 2008/9/21
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Thanks for the note - I forgot Martha Ann - who writes for Time now - apologies for the oversight
Roger Mitton has now left, Nga Pham has been expelled.
Michael Sullivan is based in Hanoi but covers a very large area of Asia not just VN
The Economist Intelligence Unit person is based in Bangkok and the EIU is a business service more than a media outlet. And as for the others, good journalists that they are, there's quite a difference between being based somewhere and just flying in from time to time.
Bill
----------
From: Rob Hurle <rob@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Date: Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:59 PM
To: vern@coombs.anu.edu.au, Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Hello to those following this thread:
2008/9/21 Vern Weitzel <vern.weitzel@gmail.com>:
>...
A few of my Vietnamese friends here (in Hanoi) have spoken about this
- they are appalled, but not surprised. To them the police are just
uneducated thugs who delight in "teaching lessons" to their betters.
It's not so unusual elsewhere, of course. We've just had the case in
Australia where Chief Mr Plod had a foreign (medical) doctor jailed
and then thrown out of the country on rather spurious grounds. It
seems that in some countries Mr Plod can do no wrong :-(
Cheers,
Rob Hurle
--
----------
From: Matt Steinglass <mattsteinglass@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:07 PM
To: rob@coombs.anu.edu.au, Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
In other words, we have no excuse! There are plenty of us.
I have a few inadequate excuses for the shallowness of the coverage which I won't bore you with. It's true that this is an important development and we should be covering it in more depth.
Off to try and do a better job!
Best,
Matt Steinglass
----------
From: Minna Hakkarainen <minna.hakkarainen@helsinki.fi>
Date: Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 4:39 AM
To: vsg@u.washington.edu
Dear list,
when following the discussion on Ben Stocking's case and some even very contradicting points of views, I was particularly happy to read Anthony's comments. Why so? Because so far we have mainly discussed the press freedom, which is of course an important topic as such. However, Anthony pointed out something which, according to my understanding, would be even more relevant to analyse in connection to this particular case: Why did the police act the way it did (particularly when they do not touch foreigners as easily as Vietnamese reporters)? Are there ongoing processes going on between the government and the catholics that seem particularly problematic and sensitive according to the governments judgement? If yes, what are they and what kind of possible effects they may have to a wider audience?
As we all now, religious groups have a special place in Vietnam to test the real level of freedom and as organized groups, they are seen as potential threat to the state. Partly, I assume, because they openly possess a different world view than official state does and hence challenge the ideological hegemony of the marxist-leninist-hochiminh -thought. If this is seriously challenged, what is left from the current state of Vietnam? A market economy?
With Best regards,
Minna Hakkarainen, Ph.D. candidate
Institute of Development Studies
University of Helsinki
FINLAND
----------
From: Christina Firpo <christina.firpo@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/22
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Re: :Stocking was doing what Asian boys can't do for themselves"
Please explain. That comment seems to negate the necessity of foreign reporting in any country. Personally I find it very important of any reporters--local or foreign-- to cover news and push the limits of state authority in any country, especially my own.
Stocking explained he was just doing his job. Doing his job or not, no one deserves to be beaten. I'm not sure why violence is an issue of debate.
Best,
Christina Firpo
--
Christina Firpo, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Southeast Asian History
CalPoly University
San Luis Obispo, California
----------
From: Christina Schwenkel <cschwenk@ucr.edu>
Date: 2008/9/22
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Re: "Whilst everyone is entitled to their views, I find myself appalled by the suggestion that a journalist taking a photograph is responsible for his own assault. This sounds worryingly like the "rape-victim-as-perpetrator-because-of-the-way-she-dresses" line of argument."
I agree with these concerns. But to be frank, this is an inappropriate comparison. To relate the assault of a white male American (and yes -- gender, race, and nationality are important here because we are talking about specific relations of power) to the rape of a woman is offensive.
I am also taken aback by the uncritical faith in western liberalist ideologies of the press that some have expressed here, which includes reproducing the myth of the white male journalist as hero -- saving the world (and Vietnam) through "news" and knowledge [i.e. Knightley 1975, Pedelty 1995...], as well as the "free" West / oppressive Vietnamese state binary that keeps resurfacing here. If anything, these exchanges show that it's is much more complicated than "just doing a job."
Respectfully,
Christina Schwenkel
Department of Anthropology
University of California, Riverside
----------
From: Matt Steinglass <mattsteinglass@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/22
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear Christina,
Regarding “the "free" West / oppressive Vietnamese state binary that keeps resurfacing here”: you need to account for the arrests by the Vietnamese police of Vietnamese journalists writing highly popular scandal-driven stories about Vietnamese issues for Vietnamese audiences, which drive advertising revenue at profitable Vietnamese newspapers getting ads from Vietnamese companies.
Without injecting charged terms like “hero”, I tend to find myself more sympathetic to journalists or academics who get arrested, be they Vietnamese, Chinese, Thai, Singaporean or American, than to the policemen who arrest them. Though perhaps if I worked as a policeman rather than a journalist I would feel differently.
Sincerely,
Matt Steinglass
----------
From: Skyler Wiet <skyler.wiet@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/22
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
It seems that you are placing Ben Stocking in some sort of imaginary position of power when he clearly was not. The whole idea that he can be assaulted demonstrates that. And to be frank, it is inappropriate to introduce abstract gender-power relationships into a discussion about a fellow member's well-being, especially when the original post was meant to demonstrate concern that blame was being placed on Ben, rather than undermine the plight of rape victims. Hijacking the discussion in this way takes attention, and thus responsibility, away from the original perpetrator, the VN gov't.
Furthermore, I am disappointed that the forum would be accused of 'reproducing the myth of the white male hero' because of the anti-violence and free press stances that many have taken. It is uplifting to see this perspective receiving support across national and ethnic backgrounds, rejecting assertions of cultural relativism that are used too frequently as an excuse to oppress populations and suppress the free exchange of information.
Lastly, if anything, Ben's comments and the video show that he was simply trying to do his job, peacefully, rather than searching to become a symbol ("white male hero") for free press, at the price of a beating.
----------
From: Bill Hayton <bill.hayton@bbc.co.uk>
Date: 2008/9/22
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I hope this doesn't sound facetious but did anyone else notice (in the youtube clip) the size of the Cong An guy who arrested Ben? If he's not the tallest man in Vietnam he must be close. He towers above his colleagues.Which makes me wonder if was drafted in specifically to confront any westerners at the protest. Add to that the assault taking place in a police station and it seems to me that we're looking at a deliberate policy of intimidation of the foreign media.
By the way what does the 'CSCD' stand for on the riot police helmets? CS is Canh Sat - but the CD? I first saw uniformed detachments of this force outside the hotels during the APEC summit but they seem to be used more widely now.
Bill Hayton
----------
From: Nguyen Qui Duc <DNguyen@kqed.org>
Date: 2008/9/23
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Canh sat co dong, or if you have vietnamese font, C?nh Sát Co D?ng
"Mechanized movement" would be a rough and literal translation.
Riot police would be my guess.
There are many of them around the church area, evry night now since the incident started.
also a few around the Sheraton. Wonder who is staying there.
----------
From: Hoang t. Dieu-Hien <dieuhien@u.washington.edu>
Date: 2008/9/23
To: vhtuong@yahoo.com, Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
My response has nothing to do with freedom of the press, but has everything to do with unnecessary and excessive use of power by the state.
This story reminds me of another story, which occurred right here in civilized Seattle and was posted not long ago on this forum, of an internationally renown scholar who was arrested prior to a public speaking engagement at the University of Washington to a federal prison where she was denied appropriate medical treatment and died a slow and lonely death. This scholar had no history of violence, no history of resisting arrest, no history of jumping bail, a history of frail health and an amputated leg, but was arrested due to "flight risk." The "authorities" somehow did not feel they could invite her in for questioning before or after her talk. They were so afraid of her escaping that they had to arrest her on a Friday afternoon so that she had to sit in jail and wait until Monday for a hearing to determine whether she should be detained or not? She was too sick to appear in court Monday, but not sick enough to receive adequate medical treatment. She died in the middle of the night crying for help according to other inmates.
Roxanna Brown's story was but one among hundreds of questionable deaths in detention by the government of the United States of America. I hold with high respect people -- journalists and non-journalists, local and foreign -- who work to bring to light these stories of oppression on vulnerable populations the world over.
Respectfully,
Hien
--
Hoang t. Dieu-Hien
Psychosocial & Community Health
Box 357263
University of Washington
Seattle WA 98195
----------
From: Nguyen-Vo, Thu-Huong <nguyenvo@humnet.ucla.edu>
Date: 2008/9/23
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I am in complete agreement that instances of violence (particularly state violence) and repression should be noted and criticized as such where and whenever they occur. I am always amazed at arguments that say since the US government grossly abuses human rights at Guantanamo Bay, other governments should not be criticized for their abuses however hideous; or those that say since press freedom is abused in the US and elsewhere, it is ok for it to occur in Vietnam. Should we let the US government set the standard of decency and democracy in the world? I understand there is the well-known issues of false universalism and its instrumental use for power by the west towards the rest. But I am unconvinced that an argument can be made on that basis to defend state violence and repression, even when you empty out the universality of such concepts as 'violence' or 'repression.'
nguyen vo thu huong
----------
From: Christina Schwenkel <cschwenk@ucr.edu>
Date: Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:22 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Thu-huong,
I appreciate and agree with your comments, but it is unclear to me who exactly is defending state violence and repression and who has argued that "since press freedom is abused in the US and elsewhere, it is ok for it to occur in Vietnam."
Some people on VSG have tried to understand the disturbing assault of Ben Stocking with greater complexity. It worries me that many of these comments have been taken as either blaming the victim (or showing a lack of concern for him), defending the police, or justifying abuse of press freedom in Vietnam. To the best of my knowledge, no one has argued any of this here. In my view, these are unfair portrayals that overlook important points made by everyone involved in this conversation, and even more problematic, they risk stifling critical discussion about what took place and what it all means.
Best,
Christina
UC Riverside
----------
From: Hue-Tam Ho Tai <hhtai@fas.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 5:24 PM
To: Pierre Asselin <asselin@hawaii.edu>, Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I find the cavalier acceptance of state violence and authoritarianism deplorable, especially by those who are not in the least threatened by it. By the same token, I have sympathy for those who have a great deal to lose by opposing the state. Not just their freedom, but sometimes their very lives.
My position has a lot to do with the fact that my father was arrested in 1978 for publicly calling on the state to observe human rights. He was sent to the Ham Tan re-education camp and allowed to starve to death. In supporting those who seek a more open society, I am honoring his memory. You can google him: Ho Huu Tuong,a founder of the Trotskyist Party. As a professor of History, you probably know his name already. Many Vietnamese both in Vietnam and abroad have told me how much they admire him for being willing to stick his neck out, something he did throughout his life.
I am very well aware that our --or at least my-- Vietnamese colleagues depend on non-Vietnamese not just to introduce them to new scholarship but also to push the boundaries of what can be said publicly. My own books, which were not allowed to circulate freely in Vietnam when they were published in the US, have been plagiarized. I welcome this plagiarism because it allows my ideas to circulate. Keith Taylor's notion of regional tensions as the motive force of Vietnamese history was too controversial to print when it was presented at the first International Vietnamese Studies conference, but it has slowly and discreetly been incorporated into recent scholarship. I could give many more examples.
I thought your comments peculiarly ill-thought.
Hue-Tam Ho Tai
Kenneth T. Young Professor
of Sino-Vietnamese History
----------
From: Balazs Szalontai <aoverl@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: 2008/9/23
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
The list members may forgive if I also put the issue in a somewhat personal perspective. In my own country, Hungary, where the political system is supposedly and formally much more democratic than in Vietnam (after all, we have multi-party elections, various opposition newspapers, whatever you want), there were some serious abuses of police authority during the (admittedly violent) demonstrations held in 2006, for which there has not been any official apology or reprimand. Does it mean that if such things could happen in a European country (and an EU member, at that), then we should be careful not to judge the Vietnamese cops too harshly? I think that the very opposite is true. If such practices are tolerated in Vietnam, Russia, and other countries, then it becomes more likely that we will eventually face them in Europe as well. It is frightening enough to hear certain journalists saying that maybe Putin's Russia represents the successful future model for Europe, since liberal democracy is "outdated."
All the best,
Balazs Szalontai
Mongolia International University
------------------------
From: Chung Nguyen <Chung.Nguyen@umb.edu>
Date: 2008/9/22
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Since the matter of press freedom has been raised, and appears to lie at the crux of the matter, let me add my two cents. As it's like motherhood and apple pie, who could be against it ?
The issue, however, is not so simple.
At the micro-level, the level that has the least impact on critical national policies, yes, there is a great deal of press freedom. At the macro-level, however, that turns mostly into a mirage.
This fact has been well documented but rarely taught in schools or discussed in the mainstream media (MSM). Some interesting quotes:
"Landholders ought to have a share in the government to support these invaluable interests and check the other many.
They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
James Madison
"Those in power are blind devotees to private enterprise. They accept that degree of socialism implicit in the vast subsidies to the military-industrial-complex, but not that type of socialism which maintains public projects for the disemployed and the unemployed alike."
William O. Douglas, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice
" I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world -- in the field of advertizing -- and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency ... Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious ... I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours ... and we tend to disbelieve ours. "
a Soviet correspondent based five years in the U.S.
For a brief description of how the MSM's macro-level public relations (Pentagon's new jargon is "perception management) are being practiced, see the two short pieces:
Michael Parenti's Method of Media Manipulation
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaManip_Parenti.html <http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaManip_Parenti.html>
Or with a more historical treatment:
Chomsky's Media Control
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html <http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html>
For a full sample of articles, please refer to:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html <http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html>
I certainly appreciate Ben's attempt to cover the news, and wish him all the best for a speedy discovery. The violence is, certainly, unjustified.
As I had expressed my view on a previous occasion on VSG re: Ben's coverage of the event, I found its total disregard of the historical background troubling.
First, there is the fact that the Toa Kham (Nunciature) is built on the land of one of the most famous pagodas of Vietnam - Bao Thien. Bishop Puginier, in league with Governor Nguyen Huu Do and the French Resident Bonal, got the old pagoda demolished and ownership transfered to the Church at no cost.
Second, the Buddhist Church has officially written to the government requesting that it should be consulted. It does not ask for the land to be returned but, because of the historical nature of how the land was illegally seized, it believes that it should have a voice in the final resolution. This is but one example for there were many other pagodas erased in order to build Catholic churches under the colonial regime.
Third, the view of the majority of non-Catholics in Vietnam, as represented in various internet websites. It generally does not support the return of the land to the Church.
All three have practical no impact on Ben's report.
By removing these three, the reporting portrays the conflict as strictly a matter of Church-State conflict, that is, by implication here, a "totalitarian communist regime" against a Christian church, a HR issue.
The most one-sided reporting was done by the BBC, which principally sided with the view of the Vietnamese Catholic Church, providing little historical background, or the views of the majority of non-Catholics in Vietnam. Interestingly, it provided links to two vocally anti-government Catholic websites, but none to any Buddhist ones.
Omission, as Parenti explains in the short excerpt above, is one of the main techniques of media manipulation.
This bias, esp. the BBC, has been noted by Tran Dinh Hoang on Talawas, and certainly by others in Vietnam.
I understand that Father Peter Hansen did mention the historical background about the Buddhist pagoda, but Ben, or his editor, chose not to include it.
----------
From: phuxuan700@gmail.com <phuxuan700@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/9/22
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I've found the view presented here very much in line with the view of "Giao Diem" group.
These so-called "Buddhists" for years have done their best to drive a wedge between Vietnamese Buddhists and Catholics while ignoring critical issues that Vietnam is facing.
The following is one of their latest articles:
http://giaodiemonline.com/noidung_detail.php?newsid=2811&PHPSESSID=1ea06097883138d0e462cd7ac76416d0
Land complaints are not new in Vietnam, especially in the last 10 years, as shown below:
http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/?catid=3&newsid=20616
Vietnam local administration vows to settle land complaints
A Vietnamese provincial government promised Wednesday to resolve all public grievances against government land acquisition moves by this year.
Lam Minh Chieu, chairman of the An Giang province people's committee [local government], made the pledge at a meeting with 50 members of the public who recently lodged complaints against government decisions to acquire land paying low or no compensation, favoritism in resettling displaced people, and delay in processing their grievances.
Chieu said he would even seek reviews of decisions issued by the highest authorities including ministries and central agencies.
In neighboring Ben Tre province, chairman of the Ba Tri district people's committee, Nguyen Thanh Hong, met 21 people with similar grievances on Thursday.
Their grievances were mostly against the local government seizing their land for housing projects or building collectives years ago, with some cases even dating back to right after the country's unification in 1975.
Source: Thanh Nien, Tuoi Tre – Translated by Hoang Bao
===========================
Hundreds, at various times, have staged protests, from North to South Vietnam.
Hanoi can not tolerate the Catholic church when they join others in this sensitive issue.
Besides freedom of the press - many journalists and free-lance writers have been arrested in the last several months -, I hope we can focus on the real problem, not on distractions!
Calvin Thai
----------
From: Jeffery Kim <jefferykim73@yahoo.ca>
Date: 2008/9/22
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I do not think this is the case between Catholic vs. Buddhist institutions over a piece of historical land. It is fundamentally about the communist State vs. Religious institutions in Vietnam today-- a State that still does not respect any present of religion institutions within its own sphere of control.
If it were to be land rights issue between Catholic and Buddhist institutions, why then the State has to interfere? Why not let the law of the land settle the dispute?
Jeffery
----------
From: Hue-Tam Ho Tai <hhtai@fas.harvard.edu>
Date: 2008/9/23
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I won't go into the details of the problems over land. They are even more complicated than the relationship between the state, the Catholic church, and Buddhists. In fact, I believe religion plays a very small role in them. In my opinion, the state is intransigent because so many other possible claims could be raised by all sorts of groups and individuals.
I'll stick to the issue of press coverage and press freedom. I share Chung's deep concerns about news coverage and news manipulation in the US. As a reader and a historian I might wish that journalists provided more of a context when reporting on events; but the rights and wrongs of journalistic coverage is a separate issue from police behavior.
Hue-Tam Ho Tai