More publicity on crackdown of dissent

Deo Huu deochienhuu at gmail.com

Fri Apr 22 15:01:01 PDT 2016

Below is a link to an article about the seemingly increasing suppression of

any form of dissent. This is very unfortunate, and I cannot help but wish

our government would take this seriously and bring up the subject of the

MFN status of Viet Nam when such violation of human rights becomes so well

known.

R J Del Vecchio

Independent Researcher

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-speech-under-siege-in-vietnam/2016/04/21/76ee3c94-fb5a-11e5-9140-e61d062438bb_story.html

*Free speech is under siege in Vietnam*

David Brown nworbd at gmail.com

Fri Apr 22 17:10:55 PDT 2016

Del, Human Rights Watch, which the Washington Post cites, is not a reliable

tracker of civil liberties trends in Vietnam. An index constructed from

HRW reportage would point steadily down. I suspect the relentlessly

negative picture painted by HRW may have something to do with its business

model, which relies on donations.

It is true that, as the Post observed in an editorial last August 23, that

arrests and prosecutions of bloggers and activists fell sharply in 2015. It

seems also to be true that, as mentioned in the Post editorial you've

linked, the internal securities agencies are now relying more on

extrajudicial muggings to intimidate dissidents.

Skirmishes between the Vietnamese regime and the radical dissident fringe

are significant indicators, of course, but, as I wrote in November

*(http://www.asiasentinel.com/opinion/civil-liberties-vietnam-half-full-glass/

<http://www.asiasentinel.com/opinion/civil-liberties-vietnam-half-full-glass/>)*,

too sharp a focus on these events tends to obscure the fact that the

ordinary citizen of Vietnam enjoys far broader civil liberties then a

decade ago. This is not the result of action by the state but rather of

Vietnam's rapid 'globalization' and of near universal access to free

discussion on Facebook and other internet fora.

Particularly in its last few years, the Dung government seemed to realize

that in this Internet era, the state is no longer capable of controlling

the narrative and perhaps should not aim to. Decree 72, enacted in 2011, is

often cited as terrible because it forbids aggregation and reposting of

stories on the Internet. Yes, indeed it does, but people keep posting

critical articles and snarky comments and to date, to my knowledge, no

one's yet been arrested or prosecuted for doing so.

Police generals and party apparatchiki are heavily represented in Vietnam's

new Politburo. That suggests to me that TPP or no TPP, state policy in the

next several years is unlikely to feature greater openness and tolerance of

dissent. To date, however, we have only one data point on the Trong regime,

the decision to bring blogger Nguyen Huu Vinh (Anh Ba Sàm) to trial soon

after the 12th party congress adjourned.

David Brown

freelance writer/analyst

Fresno, California USA

Thomas Jandl thjandl at yahoo.com

Fri Apr 22 20:54:04 PDT 2016

I fully subscribe to Dave Brown's position, and would like to add one point.

I object to the idea that any restrictions on freedom of expression -- which clearly exist in Viet Nam -- should be addressed by restricting trade and investment relations, as was proposed by an earlier post.

The Vietnamese people would be the last to ask for economic restrictions. Instead, while we in the West have vigorous debates whether TPP, for example, is good for Viet Nam, they themselves have made that decision a long time ago, and a huge majority say yes.

Whatever one says about political rights of self-nominated candidates or free-speech rights of bloggers, the Vietnamese have gained significant, and much-appreciated, economic rights. The vast majority of them would not want to see those restricted by some spat over political debate that affects only a small minority.

As David Brown has pointed out, increasingly free speech is part and parcel of a developing economy that moves from an assembly stage to a productivity-based one. The Vietnamese recognize that (much more than China with its great firewall). Hence, economic development is opening up free speech -- slowly and selectively, but nonetheless. Closing down business would not help the millions who want trade and investment, nor the few who want to debate the party or run for elections. _________________________________ Thomas Jandl, Ph.D. Non-Resident Scholar Viet Nam National University -- Ha Noi Partner, TJMR Asia Consultants Washington: 443-901-2612 Viet Nam mobile: 0121 402 3242thjandl at yahoo.com

From: David Brown <nworbd at gmail.com>

To: Deo Huu <deochienhuu at gmail.com>

Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg at u.washington.edu>

Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 8:10 PM

Subject: Re: [Vsg] More publicity on crackdown of dissent

Del, Human Rights Watch, which the Washington Post cites, is not a reliable tracker of civil liberties trends in Vietnam. An index constructed from HRW reportage would point steadily down. I suspect the relentlessly negative picture painted by HRW may have something to do with its business model, which relies on donations.

It is true that, as the Post observed in an editorial last August 23, that arrests and prosecutions of bloggers and activists fell sharply in 2015. It seems also to be true that, as mentioned in the Post editorial you've linked, the internal securities agencies are now relying more on extrajudicial muggings to intimidate dissidents.

Skirmishes between the Vietnamese regime and the radical dissident fringe are significant indicators, of course, but, as I wrote in November (http://www.asiasentinel.com/opinion/civil-liberties-vietnam-half-full-glass/), too sharp a focus on these events tends to obscure the fact that the ordinary citizen of Vietnam enjoys far broader civil liberties then a decade ago. This is not the result of action by the state but rather of Vietnam's rapid 'globalization' and of near universal access to free discussion on Facebook and other internet fora.

Particularly in its last few years, the Dung government seemed to realize that in this Internet era, the state is no longer capable of controlling the narrative and perhaps should not aim to. Decree 72, enacted in 2011, is often cited as terrible because it forbids aggregation and reposting of stories on the Internet. Yes, indeed it does, but people keep posting critical articles and snarky comments and to date, to my knowledge, no one's yet been arrested or prosecuted for doing so.

Police generals and party apparatchiki are heavily represented in Vietnam's new Politburo. That suggests to me that TPP or no TPP, state policy in the next several years is unlikely to feature greater openness and tolerance of dissent. To date, however, we have only one data point on the Trong regime, the decision to bring blogger Nguyen Huu Vinh (Anh Ba Sàm) to trial soon after the 12th party congress adjourned.

David Brownfreelance writer/analystFresno, California USA

Oscar Salemink o.salemink at anthro.ku.dk

Sun Apr 24 15:27:37 PDT 2016

Dear Thomas Jandl,

It has been clear for a while that you are an enthusiastic supporter for the TPP, but now you draw that trade agreement into a totally unrelated issue, namely the reports on crackdown on dissent. I could not help noticing that in your posting you claim to know what “the vast majority” or “a huge majority” of the “the Vietnamese” want – namely TPP. But how do you know? Have there been free elections where this was openly debated without curbs on freedom of expression in Vietnam? That would be a pleasant surprise. If not, it would seem to me that your pairing of these two issues – “crackdown on dissent” and “TPP” – and the conclusions you suggest come across as somewhat paradoxical.

I have not seen any historical or contemporary indication that business interests have the promotion of democratic freedoms or freedom of expression at heart; nor that “free” trade (free for whom, by the way?) would have such side effects.

Best regards,

Oscar Salemink

Professor in the Anthropology of Asia

Department of Anthropology

Faculty of Social Sciences

University of Copenhagen

Øster Farimagsgade 5

1353 København K.

Denmark

Office: CSS - Bygning 16, Opgang i, room 16.0.24

TLF +45-35 32 44 72

FAX +45-35 32 35 65

E-mail: o.salemink at anthro.ku.dk<mailto:o.salemink at anthro.ku.dk>

Personal webpage at the Department of Anthropology<http://anthropology.ku.dk/staff/beskrivelse/?id=403491>

Personal webpage at the Asian Dynamics Initiative<http://asiandynamics.ku.dk/english/people/vip_staff/os/>

Adjunct Professor at the Institute for Religion, Politics and Society (ACU Melbourne) <https://irps.acu.edu.au/people/professor-oscar-salemink/>

Project Leader of the Sapere Aude project ”Global Europe: Constituting Europe from the outside in through artefacts”<http://globaleurope.ku.dk/>

Project Leader of the HERA-funded project “HERILIGION: The heritagization of religion and the sacralization of heritage in contemporary Europe”<Project%20Leader%20of%20the%20HERA-funded%20project%20“HERILIGION:%20The%20heritagization%20of%20religion%20and%20the%20sacralization%20of%20heritage%20in%20contemporary%20Europe”>

Personal webpage at Academia.edu<https://ku-dk.academia.edu/OscarSalemink>

Personal webpage at Researchgate.net<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oscar_Salemink/contributions>

Thomas Jandl thjandl at yahoo.com

Sun Apr 24 19:16:43 PDT 2016

@ Oscar Salemink: I disagree.

I do not drag suppression of dissent into trade or vice versa. On the contrary, my comments consistently criticize the many attempts by others to do so. In fact, in a lengthy post during an earlier discussion, I laid out why environmental and labor issues are in the agreement at all: Because opponents of NAFTA dragged them in there in the 1990s, and now they have become part and parcel of trade agreement negotiations on the US side.

As I say, TPP or any other trade agreement is not aimed at regime change or free speech -- they aim at trade and investment. When I refer to both at the same time, it is always in response to someone doing the dragging.

As for the support for TPP, there are a number of indicators about support -- and frankly, elections may not be the best one anyway. In the United States, for example, voters consistently say at 2-1 or higher margins that they wish higher taxes on wealthy people and campaign finance reform, and similar majorities support women's choice, yet Republicans who oppose all three continue to win elections. But that is a digression, of course.

The recently published PCI (provincial competitiveness index) has a section on business support for TPP. Among regular people, there is no evidence of opposition -- whenever people do ask, there seems to be widespread support. This is not something that is widely debated, because it is quite clear: Vietnamese realize that their move from starving (72% below poverty in 1986) to today is associated with market reforms. I have spent going on 20 years doing research in Vietnam now, and I barely ever find a Vietnamese who wants less trade. (Less trade in his or her business, yes, if s/he competes with imports, but hardly anybody opposes trade.)

Take the hundreds of thousands of comments on the new constitution that came from all around Vietnam. People commented on all kinds of things constitutional or other, but there was no movement against trade or TPP. On the contrary, a huge number of comments were about the privileged position of SOEs, and as you may know, the TPP contains provisions that would reform that problem. So these comments were in line with TPP requirements. Some people probably knew this, some probably didn't. But there is no anti-trade movement in Vietnam.

But again, I do not bring up trade and dissent, I only comment on it when someone else links the two. If you doubt it, re-read my post (in the thread below). I say (and I cut and paste): "I object to the idea that any restrictions on freedom of expression -- which clearly exist in Viet Nam -- should be addressed by restricting trade and investment relations, as was proposed by an earlier post."

So, I react to someone (Mr. Del Vecchio), who proposes linkage, and I say that the two issues should not be linked. But if someone links them-- and only if someone else does -- then I respond thus ..._________________________________ Thomas Jandl, Ph.D. Non-Resident Scholar Viet Nam National University -- Ha Noi Partner, TJMR Asia Consultants Washington: 443-901-2612 Viet Nam mobile: 0121 402 3242thjandl at yahoo.com

Stephen Denney srdenney at gmail.com

Sun Apr 24 22:58:53 PDT 2016

I disagree with David Brown's comments on Human Rights Watch. The specific

citation in The Washington Post editorial to HRW concerned the beating of

dissidents, that at least 45 dissidents were beaten by plainclothes police

last year. The editorial also links to an HRW report on the trial of two

prominent bloggers. But the editorial cites reports from several other

sources as well on repression against dissidents.

Beatings of dissidents seems to be an increasing pattern in Vietnam. Along

with other forms of repression, it merits our attention.

Steve Denney

retired library assistant, UC Berkeley

Mark Ashwill markashwill at hotmail.com

Mon Apr 25 06:57:37 PDT 2016

Good point. For TJ to say that "the Vietnamese people...made that decision a long time ago, and a huge majority say yes," is disingenuous, at best. Reality check: Most people here have no idea what the TPP entails and what its implications are.

MAA

Hanoi

David Brown nworbd at gmail.com

Mon Apr 25 09:00:24 PDT 2016

@ Steve Denney: It's true that beatings of dissidents have been on the

rise. A litmus test of the Trong regime’s political sense will be how it

deals, or doesn’t deal, with the red-hot issue of police brutality. During

the Dung decade, Vietnam’s police were all too willing to get rough in

support of corrupt local interests. In lieu of arresting and prosecuting

people deemed troublemakers, the police and their auxiliaries have

typically resorted to harassment and physical assault. These are

well-documented tactics (see, for example,

http://www.queme.net/eng/news_detail.php?numb=2625) that outrage ordinary

citizens and have been routinely applied not only to dissidents, but also

to farmers and homeowners resisting expropriation, as well as anyone else

considered a threat to the regime.

David Brown

freelance writer/analyst

Fresno, California USA

Thomas Jandl thjandl at yahoo.com

Mon Apr 25 10:02:49 PDT 2016

My point with regards to the Vietnamese was about economic restrictions. The next sentence references TPP with regards to our debate here.

I agree that knowledge about TPP is not deep in Vietnam, and as a result most people can neither intelligently support nor oppose it.

You do realize, though, that in this whole debate it is always we academics making decisions what's good and bad for the Vietnamese people. In that sense, every opinion voiced here is equally disingenuous when it comes to reflecting the will of regular Vietnamese._________________________________ Thomas Jandl, Ph.D. Non-Resident Scholar Viet Nam National University -- Ha Noi Partner, TJMR Asia Consultants Washington: 443-901-2612 Viet Nam mobile: 0121 402 3242thjandl at yahoo.com

From: Mark Ashwill <markashwill at hotmail.com>

To: Oscar Salemink <o.salemink at anthro.ku.dk>; Vietnam Studies Group <vsg at u.washington.edu>

Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 9:57 AM

Subject: Re: [Vsg] More publicity on crackdown of dissent

#yiv4303170086 #yiv4303170086 -- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv4303170086 Good point. For TJ to say that "the Vietnamese people...made that decision a long time ago, and a huge majority say yes," is disingenuous, at best. Reality check: Most people here have no idea what the TPP entails and what its implications are.

MAAHanoi

Thomas Jandl thjandl at yahoo.com

Mon Apr 25 10:08:46 PDT 2016

@ Oscar Salemink: I disagree.

Deo Huu deochienhuu at gmail.com

Mon Apr 25 10:21:28 PDT 2016

Sure, things are much better than they were, by and large. So are they in

China, where I was recently. But in both VN and China everyone still is

well aware that if you push the envelope just a little too far, life will

become much more complicated and less pleasant rather quickly. A slowdown

in obvious suppression last year doesn't tell me that things will continue

to loosen up, and what I hear from my friends there who are Catholics, Cao

Dai, and Montagnards, the push to hold down those groups is certainly not

getting better. In the case of the Cao Dai, it's gotten noticeably worse

the last two years, they are no longer allowed to bring in young men in any

numbers to the big independent temples to study and possibly become monks.

For the first time this past Tet one of the guys who helps us do charity

work there was "invited" to the Saigon police dept Tet party.... this means

bring money, 5 million dong was the "suggested" contribution.

The belief of my friends and mine as well is that the ruling group remain

paranoid about any kind of dissent, and are very fervent about never losing

any power at all. In a society where it's a big deal to raise the $2K for

a nice motorbike, the kids of the ruling elite drive Mercedes that cost

$100K over there. And go to school in Paris or California.

It's true they cannot suppress things as they used to in the electronic

age, but they can use tried and true tactics like trials, house arrests,

prison sentences, and of course good, oldfashioned serious beatings by

"unknown" assailants to keep the lid on. Like you, I am not optimistic

about how open things will get anytime soon. And while some believe the

best thing we in the USA can do for the Vietnamese is shut up, push the

TPP, and hope for the best, I remain wishful that our government would try

some more focused pushes for human rights there.

R J Del Vecchio

Independent Researcher

Thomas Jandl thjandl at yahoo.com

Mon Apr 25 10:27:35 PDT 2016

THIS is the problem:

"And while some believe the best thing we in the USA can do for the Vietnamese is shut up, push the TPP, and hope for the best, I remain wishful that our government would try some more focused pushes for human rights there."

Are you suggesting nixing a trade and investment agreement that is very likely to be of significant benefit to a large majority of people is a focused approach to free speech issues for the Cao Dai?_________________________________ Thomas Jandl, Ph.D. Non-Resident Scholar Viet Nam National University -- Ha Noi Partner, TJMR Asia Consultants Washington: 443-901-2612 Viet Nam mobile: 0121 402 3242thjandl at yahoo.com

From: Deo Huu <deochienhuu at gmail.com>

To: David Brown <nworbd at gmail.com>; vsg at u.washington.edu

Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 1:21 PM

Subject: Re: [Vsg] More publicity on crackdown of dissent

Sure, things are much better than they were, by and large. So are they in China, where I was recently. But in both VN and China everyone still is well aware that if you push the envelope just a little too far, life will become much more complicated and less pleasant rather quickly. A slowdown in obvious suppression last year doesn't tell me that things will continue to loosen up, and what I hear from my friends there who are Catholics, Cao Dai, and Montagnards, the push to hold down those groups is certainly not getting better. In the case of the Cao Dai, it's gotten noticeably worse the last two years, they are no longer allowed to bring in young men in any numbers to the big independent temples to study and possibly become monks. For the first time this past Tet one of the guys who helps us do charity work there was "invited" to the Saigon police dept Tet party.... this means bring money, 5 million dong was the "suggested" contribution.

The belief of my friends and mine as well is that the ruling group remain paranoid about any kind of dissent, and are very fervent about never losing any power at all. In a society where it's a big deal to raise the $2K for a nice motorbike, the kids of the ruling elite drive Mercedes that cost $100K over there. And go to school in Paris or California.

It's true they cannot suppress things as they used to in the electronic age, but they can use tried and true tactics like trials, house arrests, prison sentences, and of course good, oldfashioned serious beatings by "unknown" assailants to keep the lid on. Like you, I am not optimistic about how open things will get anytime soon. And while some believe the best thing we in the USA can do for the Vietnamese is shut up, push the TPP, and hope for the best, I remain wishful that our government would try some more focused pushes for human rights there.

R J Del VecchioIndependent Researcher

Deo Huu deochienhuu at gmail.com

Mon Apr 25 10:34:04 PDT 2016

No, I did not say that. What I wrote was, I thought, reasonably clear,

that we should be using whatever influences we can in a meaningful way to

get the politburo to think about doing at least a bit better in human

rights. The past record of suppression could justify a reconsideration of

Viet Nam as a CPC (country of particular concern) or their MFN status.

Clearly, doing nothing at all sure isn't likely to help anyone dissenting

in Viet Nam. If you provide no inputs at all to a oppressive ruling group,

they are pretty much guaranteed to keep on doing whatever they wish.

Silence is consent, as some have written in the past.

R J Del Vecchio

Independent Researcher

Mike High mike.high at earthlink.net

Mon Apr 25 12:30:48 PDT 2016

Sadly, I don’t think that the U.S. can have all that much influence in this area. The Vietnamese are well aware that we want to have a partnership for strategic as well as trade reasons, and yielding to our modest pressure on human rights issues is not necessary for them to get what they want.

While I’m deeply sensitive to the human rights equation—having as a friend a man who spent 18 years in prison for advocating democratic reform—I think we have to keep things in perspective. That means forgetting the legacy of the Vietnam War, which gives that country special status in our (American) way of thinking. We’ve already turned a blind eye to much worse human rights violations in China, with whom we have extensive trade relations and a strange symbiotic relationship. And we have little or no influence on human rights in Saudi Arabia, which ranks below Vietnam in some tabulations (http://www.humanrightsdata.com <http://www.humanrightsdata.com/>) and must be somewhere off the charts in the matter of religious freedom.

Taking a broader view, I can recall that, in those heady days when democracy seemed to be the emerging norm, economic “engagement” with totalitarian regimes was expected to accelerate the expansion of human rights. This was perhaps derived from liberal/consrevative theories that linked economic freedom to personal and political freedom (Hayek, et al). Thus, introducing despotic regimes to free market forces would inevitably lead to personal freedom. But it’s become depressingly clear over the past few decades that you can compete in the global market without relaxing government restrictions on communication and dissent.

Having myself chosen to go down the “engagement” path, I think about a lot about what it means. I get the impression that in many quarters, Vietnamese officialdom relies on westerners to do things that they do not trust themselves to do. That means everything from Australian and Japanese cooperative construction projects, to various NGOs, etc. And often, in strange ways, the foreigner’s opinion (even your correspondent’s!) is solicited on matters that are too “sensitive” for public discussion by the citizenry. It strikes me that the “Ancient Town of Hoi An” could never have gotten off the ground had it not been for the unflagging efforts of a Polish intermediary, whose statue stands in one of its pocket parks. In many ways, this reliance on outside expertise, creates a neocolonial environment, though the government controls the till.

I don’t know whether this curious relationship provides precious oxygen for the reformists or ends up being a way of “enabling" the ancien regime. But I do know that America’s leverage with respect to democratic reforms in other countries is extremely limited.

:: Mike High

Author | Researcher

Great Falls, Virginia

USA

PS. I’m also somewhat haunted by comparisons to Mexico, much closer to home. This is a country is wracked by violence and lawlessness, to a degree that we don’t see in Vietnam.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/world/americas/investigators-say-mexico-has-thwarted-efforts-to-solve-students-disappearance.html?emc=edit_th_20160423&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=24043337&_r=0 <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/world/americas/investigators-say-mexico-has-thwarted-efforts-to-solve-students-disappearance.html?emc=edit_th_20160423&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=24043337&_r=0>

Perhaps it is the long “Communist peace” after centuries of war that has kept the Party in power for so long.

Deo Huu deochienhuu at gmail.com

Tue Apr 26 06:42:28 PDT 2016

Dear VSG:

And here is a link to a speech just given in Hanoi by the Deputy Secretary

of State. It's very gracious, but he does hammer a bit about improving

human rights. A nice thought, perhaps it will offer some support to those

wishing to dissent there.

R J Del Vecchio

Independent Researcher

Remarks at University of Social Sciences and Humanities Under Vietnam

National University, Hanoi

> http://www.state.gov/s/d/2016d/256461.htm