Trump factor weighs as Vietnam intensifies crackdown on dissidents
Trump factor weighs as Vietnam intensifies crackdown on dissidents
------------------------
From: Paul Mooney <pjmooney@me.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 8:05 PM
To: Minh Bui Jones <Vsg@u.washington.edu>
Was not able to paste this article, but the link is good. Paul
Trump factor weighs as Vietnam intensifies crackdown on dissidents
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-arrests-idUSKBN1AI0LF
Paul Mooney | Freelance Journalist | Berkeley (510) 984 8780 | pjmooney@me.com | www.pjmooney.com | Twitter @pjmooney | Skype pjmooney
----------
From: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl@tx.rr.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:09 PM
To: Paul Mooney <pjmooney@me.com>, Minh Bui Jones <Vsg@u.washington.edu>
It's fascinating how the media lies to make their desired points. The headline says "Trump factor weighs as Vietnam intensifies crackdown on dissidents"
Yet, when you read the article, you come across this:
"Over the past 18 months, Nguyen said he had been detained 12 times without being charged, compared to not once in the previous 18 months."
Trump has been President for one third of that time. President elect for one half of it. So, how is this the Trump effect when it began under the previous administration? More to the point, what proof is there that Vietnamese communists base their policy decisions on US policies or positions?
Later in the article, you read this:
"The start of the crackdown is dated by activists, diplomats and analysts to the Communist Party congress in January 2016, when the leadership balance shifted toward conservatives prioritizing internal security and discipline."
So, it has nothing at all to do with the US. The headline is a lie.
"The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who
reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer the truth than he
whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." - Thomas Jefferson
Paul Schmehl (pschmehl@tx.rr.com)
Independent Researcher
----------
From: Chuck Searcy <chuckusvn@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:27 PM
To: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl@tx.rr.com>
Cc: Minh Bui Jones <Vsg@u.washington.edu>
The link in the story to Trump's cancellation of the TPP is also odd -- gratuitous and unexplained.
========================
CHUCK SEARCY
International Advisor, Project RENEW
Vice President, VFP Chapter 160
Co-chair, Agent Orange Working Group
71 Trần Quốc Toản
Hà Nội, Việt Nam
Email chuckusvn@gmail.com
----------
From: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl@tx.rr.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:41 PM
To: Chuck Searcy <chuckusvn@gmail.com>
Cc: Minh Bui Jones <Vsg@u.washington.edu>
Well, the link was explained by this: "removed a clear incentive for Hanoi to show a better rights record,"
I suppose it could be argued that the TTP provided an incentive, but given the long history of Vietnamese communists, I don't think they are motivated by outside forces. They've historically breached every treaty they've signed, so they clearly could care less what the world thinks of their actions.
Paul Schmehl (pschmehl@tx.rr.com)
Independent Researcher
----------
From: David Payne <payne.dave@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:44 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Others are far more expert than me on this, but I understand the TPP link as being the view (I've heard this fairly widely expressed) that the demise of the TPP agreement removed significant incentive and thus leverage on GoVN moving ahead on reforms across a wide range of areas and also regarding US expressions of concern over human rights issues.
Regarding the headline/link to US policy settings under the current president, the section of the article under the subheading "Trump Factor" includes this quote:
Every activist and analyst that Reuters interviewed mentioned a perceived shift in U.S. priorities under Trump as a new factor in reducing pressure on Vietnam's government.
David Payne
Hanoi
----------
From: Shawn McHale <mchale@gwu.edu>
Date: Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 7:39 AM
To: David Payne <payne.dave@gmail.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I would like to remind Paul Schmehl that this is a list founded by an academic organization, and should follow norms of reasoned debate.
To the story. I think it incontestable that the Trump factor "weighs" on Hanoi's decisions. That's not the issue -- the issue is how much it weighs. For example, under the TPP, Vietnam had agreed to allow what would essentially be independent trade unions. Now, I am skeptical that this change would have really come to pass -- but this legal agreement would provide pressure towards more openness. Now, that pressure is gone, as Trump has renounced the TPP.
In other ways, it is clear that Trump has little interest, so far, in promoting human rights. As a person who subscribes to the now risible State Department weekly e-mail roundup of major events, I have seen no major human rights statements from Secretary of State Tillerson.
All that being said, Paul Schmehl is right that Vietnam's attitude long predates Trump. Just remember Lê Quốc Quan, the Catholic human rights activist, who was a National Endowment for Democracy fellow in 2007, went back to Vietnam, and was arrested four days after arrival? Obama protested, the powerful Senator Feinstein protested, and it made little difference. Or Lê Công, arrested in 2009 after being on a Fulbright fellowship, and sentenced to prison. One could go on and on. But those are examples of persons FUNDED BY THE US FOR FELLOWSHIPS, and Vietnam went ahead and imprisoned them. (But as Ben Kerkvliet has argued, who is allowed to speak and remain free, and who is put on trial, is complicated.)
My personal belief is that while a small part of the answer to Vietnam's actions on human rights is linked to the US, more important are regional trends. China, alas, is a model. From 2006, when protests began roiling Thailand, and eventually with the crackdown on Red Shirts, Thailand has moved from democracy to dictatorship. And obviously, one other Southeast Asian democracy, the Philippines, is now going through the Duterte challenge. So Trump is just confirming long-term trends.
Shawn McHale
George Washington University
--
Shawn McHale
Associate Professor of History
George Washington University
Washington, DC 20052 USA
----------
From: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl@tx.rr.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:18 AM
To: mchale@gwu.edu, David Payne <payne.dave@gmail.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Shawn, I'm certainly open to instruction regarding what I wrote that may have violated the standards.
Regarding this, "To the story. I think it incontestable that the Trump factor "weighs" on Hanoi's decisions. That's not the issue -- the issue is how much it weighs. For example, under the TPP, Vietnam had agreed to allow what would essentially be independent trade unions. Now, I am skeptical that this change would have really come to pass -- but this legal agreement would provide pressure towards more openness. Now, that pressure is gone, as Trump has renounced the TPP."
My question would be, how can it carry any weight at all considering how little weight has been given to previous treaties. You openly admit that you are skeptical that they would have honored that part of the treaty. It seems to me a fool's errand to trust them to do something they have repeatedly demonstrated they will not - honor the elements of a treaty.
The Vietnamese communists were in violation of the 1954 Geneva Accords, The 1962 Laos Neutrality Treaty and the 1973 Paris Accords while signing them and never had any intention of honoring those agreements.
The mere fact that they agreed to TPP is not evidence that they would have complied with it either. While they may outwardly appear to be influenced by outside pressure, they have a long history of secretly ignoring those treaties where and when it suited them. I fail to see how the TPP would be any different.
Paul Schmehl (pschmehl@tx.rr.com)
Independent Researcher
----------
From: Benjamin Swanton <benswanton@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 8:43 AM
To: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl@tx.rr.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I was following this at the time and the rhetoric coming out of the Obama administration when they were seeking TPA (fast-track) was that the TPP (and the arms embargo) provided the US with leverage to promote labour and human rights in Vietnam (see attached statement by Assistant Secretary to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee). Notably, in the statement it was claimed that "if Vietnam then meets the conditions for TPP itself, we will still have leverage, such as via Vietnam’s strong desire for a full lifting of restrictions on the transfer of lethal arms." We know that the leverage offered by the arms embargo never materialised.
As far as I can discern, there is little reason to think that the leverage offered by the TPP would have been used to enforce the protection of labour rights either. Washington has a terrible track record of monitoring and enforcing labour provisions in the so-called free trade agreements they have signed. The United States Government Accountability Office has submitted several reports to congress on this issue. A 2009 report (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-439) found that the labor provisions of trade agreements were not being enforced. A follow-up report in 2016 (http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666787.pdf) found the US Trade Representative and Department of Labor were only systematically monitoring and enforcing compliance with labour provisions for a few priority countries. In some cases, even the worst abuses have been ignored. Years after signing CAFTA, Guatemala was declared the most dangerous place in the world to be a trade unionist. I understand the situation in Colombia is not much better. Both of these countries continue to be ranked as "no guarantee of labour rights" by the International Trade Union Confederation with frequent murders of union members and activists ongoing.
Given this record and Hanoi's determination to prevent independent social/ political organisations from forming, it is difficult for me to see how the TPP would have been "a win for Vietnam's workers" (www.thediplomat.com/2016/04/the-tpp-a-win-for-vietnams-workers/) as many last year were claiming.
Best,
Ben Swanton
PhD Student - The University of Sydney
--
--
Benjamin Swanton
PhD Student - The University of Sydney
Independent Gender Justice Consultant
T +1-512-686-8217 | Skype Benjamin Swanton
----------
From: David Brown <nworbd@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 11:18 AM
To: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl@tx.rr.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
In February 2016, Party ideologues and their allies in the Ministry of Public Security regained full control of Vietnam's policy on dealing with dissidents. Making liberal use of old methods and new cyber surveillance tools, they have turned back the clock. The revived hard line is becoming increasingly evident. On a list of reasons why the party/state's leaders might moderate their effort to re-establish a tight grip on public discourse and civil society generally, admonitions by democracies rank last, just after worry that said democracies may, in some minor way, burden bilateral relations by way of response.
----------
From: Michael Karadjis <mkaradjis@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:05 PM
To: Benjamin Swanton <benswanton@gmail.com>, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl@tx.rr.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Thank you for this necessary perspective Benjamin. Indeed, for many years running and perhaps still, Colombia was the country where the majority of teade unionists in the world are murdered, with impunity. Very close US ally and recipient of loads of US arms.
----------
From: Bill Hayton <bill.hayton@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM
To: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I think something has certainly changed in the MPS’s approach to dissidents. My view is that the change was prompted by the spread of social media and the increasing ease of connection between critical thinkers inside and outside Vietnam. The CPV seems to have taken a decision to tolerate a much wider set of views online while simultaneously policing the ‘street’ much more violently. It may be that it is just the reporting of incidents that has increased but it seems to me that there has been a definite shift in tactics with a dramatic increase in physical attacks against dissidents. The message is clear – it’s one thing to chat about radical reform online but taking such ideas into the real world is absolutely forbidden and those who do so will face physical harm. This is the CPV’s method of managing the modern connected society – to break the connection between the online and real worlds in order crush the chances of a Saigon Spring.
Bill Hayton
----------
From: David Brown <nworbd@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 8:59 PM
To: Bill Hayton <bill.hayton@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Bill, something has changed indeed, and apparently you are seeing only part of the story. Yes, the regime has cranked up the pressure on demonstrators and organizers. Human Rights Watch published an important report on the use of thugs to mete out extra-judicial beatings, a phenomenon I expanded on in a June 20 story for Asia Sentinel (www.asiasentinel.com/politics/vietnam-thugs-surrogates/).
But also, the new crew in Hanoi has cranked up the pressure on bloggers. It has dragged a number of the best (Ba Sam, Thuy Nga, Me Nam) to trial, meting out unusually severe sentences as a warning to the rest, deploying hundreds of trolls to roil the social media and, to considerable effect, bringing Facebook and Google (You Tube) to heel. Both FB and Google now meekly take down posts when Hanoi complains; it's the price they pay to stay inside the firewall.
Eighteen months ago, the 12th Party Congress voted CPV Secretary General Nguyen Phu Trong the mandate he needed to reorient the regime's attitude toward dissidence. Out went Nguyen Tan Dung and his cronies, kleptocrats admittedly, but fairly relaxed vis a vis calls for freer speech, freer press, and a looser lid on civil society. In came an alliance of Party ideologues and the Internal Security folks that aims to wrest public discourse back to the halcyon days of, say, 1990 or maybe earlier.
.
David Brown
Former diplomat
Independent writer
Fresno, California
----------
From: Bill Hayton <bill.hayton@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 9:34 PM
To: David Brown <nworbd@gmail.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
But, as a conversation with almost any urban, connected Vietnamese will demonstrate, the range and depth of critical content that they encounter each day has vastly expanded in recent years and their ability and willingness to grumble online is unabated. This can’t be put back in the bottle. Hence the need to police the streets more violently.
I think it’s also the case that the CPV believes that regimes are at their most vulnerable when they try to reform. There’s no contradiction between continuing economic reform measures and cracking down on political dissent.
Bill
----------
From: David Brown <nworbd@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 10:03 PM
To: Bill Hayton <bill.hayton@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
As you correctly perceive, Bill, the internet in a few short years eroded the Party's grip on information, thus de facto civil liberties expanded rapidly during the Dung decade. I believe that Dung was perceived to be relatively lax on thought control, and that was the crux of the intra-party indictment of Dung. And yes, the current bunch won't succeed in stuffing the free speech genie back into the bottle.
And also yes, the CPV fears liberalising tendencies and is willing to sacrifice some economic growth and bragging rights with the democracies to keep the lid on tight, if it can.
----------
From: Bill Hayton <bill.hayton@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 10:08 PM
To: David Brown <nworbd@gmail.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
But Decree 72 was introduced in July 2013, at which time RSF said there were “35 cyber-dissidents currently jailed in Vietnam”
I’m not convinced that Feb 2016 was such a significant turning point
----------
From: David Brown <nworbd@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 10:25 PM
To: Bill Hayton <bill.hayton@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
True, Decree 72 was on the books from July 2013. However, Google and FB refused to cooperate, and Dung's government made only token efforts to employ the new powers. The 12th Congress -- or rather the Central Committee meetings just preceding it -- was a game-changer. db
----------
From: phuxuan700@gmail.com <phuxuan700@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 8:45 AM
To: Shawn McHale <mchale@gwu.edu>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
While it is impossible to quantify the weight of Trump factor on Hanoi's decisions, i.e. 30% or 40%, countries like Vietnam or China always act based on two things: fear or opportunity.
I think a combination of both has resulted in Vietnam's current crackdown on bloggers and dissidents:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/27/vietnamese-activist-sentenced-9-years-one-day-trial
Calvin Thai
----------
From: Hollis Stewart <hollisstewart90042@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 2:14 PM
To: "phuxuan700@gmail.com" <phuxuan700@gmail.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
As I read all these messages with an anti-Vietnam slant I hope that VSG is not just a collection of Trump lovers and people who have lost their objectivity and intellectual ability when looking at VN. Democratic countries from the US to South Korea and many capitalist countries in the Global South, the Middle East (and some northerners too) seem to be having trouble guiding the world toward "democracy" that is not affected by attempts at dictation of global capitalism and the 1%. Right now our own nation, the US, is not much of an example of democracy what with Citizen's United. As serious folks who try to look at history, foreign affairs, labor, social democracy, socialism, communism, and neo-liberalism/colonialism we must try to understand what small nations with different histories are going through as they try to find their place/s in the modern world without giving up their own cultures, values, and sense of history.
_______________________________________________
Vsg mailing list
http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/vsg
----------
From: Shawn McHale <mchale@gwu.edu>
Date: Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 2:23 PM
To: Hollis Stewart <hollisstewart90042@gmail.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I don't think that these messages are "anti-Vietnam," and I think only one was by a pro-Trump person. If one is pro-Vietnamese, one simply does not like to see Vietnamese thrown in prison for spurious reasons.
I also don't think that making comparisons to the US, and its failures, and implying that Vietnam should get a pass, is all the helpful. Many thoughtful Vietnamese today want a better Vietnam. They want to be able to express their views and critiques. The reality is that the Vietnamese government today is cracking down on some of these individuals, which should be a concern to many.
Shawn McHale
----------
From: Hollis Stewart <hollisstewart90042@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 3:09 PM
To: Shawn McHale <mchale@gwu.edu>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I don't think I saw a pass thrown to anyone. What is said was that we need to be honest about looking at the world and the on going turmoil in many areas and realize that there is not an easy way or a sure way. When in 2013-2014 and 2015-2016 I did volunteer work at educational institutions in Vietnam and traveled to many parts of the nation I met many Vietnamese citizens.The fact is almost every, probably every, Vietnamese, including many from ethnic groups, I met in scores of cities, towns, villages, and communes, want a better or a wonderful Vietnam and are working hard to achieve that goal. At the same time some of the people who want a better VN and are working for that also support their government and institutions including the Communist Party while having complaints about their local government and or the national government, sound familiar?. On several occasions I asked people with complaints, "Why don't you get in involved with local elections or your party or something to work for your ideas?" And the answer was, just like here, "Oh I am too busy working and with my family or this or that to get involved."
On a couple of occasions meeting with Vietnam NGOs funded by US NGO money I heard bitter complaints about Vietnam institutions or government and when I asked why the person didn't get involved locally with their government or the party they said their sponsors bringing them NGO money wanted to see "independent groups". That was fascinating so I have tried to find out about NGOs in the US funded by foreign countries hostile to the US which are involved in US issues and elections and you know what, I have been told that it illegal for other countries to fund anti-US government activities in the US.
Reacting to the intelligence of the Vietnamese peoples I met in Vietnam as well as the large number of Vietnam students I worked with at several colleges in the US I have no doubt that the Vietnamese are able to solve problems of the highest order and that Vietnam will move ahead in the world, but doubtlessly Vietnam will make mistakes, who doesn't?, but that they will keep on moving forward in their history. I only meant to suggest is that no people nor any nation is perfect and that we in VSG as good people keep our eyes on the prize of a better world, a better Vietnam, and a better USA. As we do that we will create something that is better, more vested in a better humanity and expresses our hopes for the best possible world with a bright future for our and the world's children, grand children, and great grand children in a world of peace. I did not mean nor do I mean to offend anyone because I believe everyone in VSG realizes we must be a world of peace or the nuclear holocaust will erase our species. So, if I offended please accept my apology.
----------
From: Joe Berry <joetracyberry@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 8:16 PM
To: Michael Karadjis <mkaradjis@gmail.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
As a labor educator who has taught in both the US and VN, I must both actively agree and partially disagree with the previous messages. The material about Guatamala, Columbia (and other places) is definitely true. However VN has a very different history. Unionists are not mudered there and most strikes, though they are technically illegal, (There are provisioins for legal strikes, but they have never been used.) result in wins for the workers partly because of informal government and VGCL mediation with owners. My impression in VN at the time TPP was being actively sought and debated (2015-6) was that many there saw it as an opening for a more vibrant labor movement at the base, both within the VGCL and outside it. TPP also had great risks since it compromised VN sovereignty in a way the US government would not (and has never) tolerate if the shoe were on the other foot.
I look forward to further exchanges on this topic. I am about to return to VN this week and I look forward to finding out more about how much of the process of change in the labor laws and the union movement is continuing even without TPP and the US “hammer”.
Joe Berry, Ton Duc Thang U, HCMC
_______________________
Joe Berry
510-527-5889 phone/fax landline
21 San Mateo Road,
Berkeley, CA 94707
----------
From: Jonathan Sutton <jonathan.i.sutton@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:54 PM
To:
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
Dear all,
An interesting discussion, and thank you for the multiple perspectives. It seems that underlying this is an empirical question: has there in fact been an uptick in repression since the election of Trump (or Trong, as the case may be)? Is anyone aware of research that is being carried out on this issue, either in isolation or in comparative perspective? I've read Carlyle Thayer's 2006 chapter in Derichs & Heberer's The Power of Ideas which addresses dissent and repression up to 2002 but haven't seen anything more recent than that.
Best regards,
Jonathan Sutton
PhD candidate, National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand
----------
From: Bill Hayton <bill.hayton@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 9:23 PM
To: Jonathan Sutton <jonathan.i.sutton@gmail.com>
Cc: Vietnam Studies Group <vsg@u.washington.edu>
I guess you’d have to try Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Reporters San Frontieres for up-to-date information on numbers of arrests etc. You’d also need a methodology that allowed you to tell the difference between dissidents who blog and bloggers who write plus their degree of closeness to overseas anti-communist organisations and whether being barricaded inside your house is better or worse than being bashed over the head.
Sounds like an ideal subject for a PhD…
Bill Hayton