News-Info-Alerts

To: ALL

From: Andi Wolos & Bob Necci

(POW-MIA InterNetwork)

Re: Ros-Lehtinen Statement

Date: November 02, 2000

Statement by Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
Chair Subcommittee on
International Economic Policy and Trade for Joint Hearing on:
"Prelude to New Directions in U.S.-Vietnam Relations: The 2000 Bilateral Trade Agreement"
September 19, 2000

I welcome the opportunity for this hearing to be held jointly by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, chaired by my colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, and the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade, which I chair. I commend Chairman Bereuter for his initiative.

While the witnesses appearing before us today may be of like mind in their approach to U.S.-Vietnam relations, there are vast differences among the Chairs of the two Subcommittees regarding the viability and wisdom of trading with a Communist regime such as Vietnam.

In fact, some of us view Vietnam as a classic example of what happens when economic engagement begins without first requiring fundamental concrete changes in government and civil society. The result? A sprinkling of limited economic reforms to mask the strengthening of Communist totalitarian regimes.

In Vietnam, such entrenchment was clearly demonstrated in 1999 with the passage of a resolution which stated that: "Party committees should strictly criticise and punish those party members who...after being assisted by the party organisation keep disseminating their own opinion or distributing documents contrary to the platform, statutes and resolutions of the party."

In August of this year, a report for the Vietnamese Communist Party’s congress was drafted making reference to the so-called process of reform started 15 years ago. However, that same document reiterated that: "During the process of reform, it is essential to persist with the goal of socialism based on Marxist-Leninism and Ho Chi Minh ideology." This coincides with the April 1992 Vietnamese constitution reaffirming the role of the Communist Party as the leading force of the State and society.

Article 4 of the Vietnamese Constitution enables the security apparatus to enforce an extra-legal administrative decree against any dissidents under the pretext of "endangering national security."

The Vietnamese government continues to systematically violate the human rights, civil liberties, and religious freedom of its people. It utilizes a maze of laws, decrees, and regulations to prohibit religious worship and to justify the arbitrary arrest, detention, harassment, physical abuse, and censorship of those seeking to exert their religious liberty and right to free association.

The Vietnamese regime is among the "totalitarian or authoritarian regimes" specifically rebuked by the State Department for its religious restrictions. The intense governmental suppression and control came under scrutiny and harsh criticism when the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom was released earlier this month. However, these denunciations fell on deaf ears as the Vietnamese government had already been rewarded in August with the signing of the bilateral trade agreement.

Despite the trade agreement, the Supreme Patriarch of the Unified Church of Vietnam, is still being detained without trial under pagoda arrest. Members of the Hoa Hoa sect of Buddhism have been subjected to police surveillance and remain in jail. Members of the Cao Dai religion have had their church property confiscated. Protestants are still being suppressed through police raids, surveillance and negative propaganda.

Even foreign investors in June of this year questioned the "fanfare and hype" of communist Vietnam’s reform process and issued complaints about over-regulation, inconsistent application of laws, discriminatory pricing, and government bureaucracy.

Timothy Reinhold, head of the legal working group for the private sector forum at which these concerns were raised, said: "It prompts one to ask the question whether those currently directing policy really want foreign participation in the development of the country." Further, newspaper reports cited Vietnam’s Minister of Planning and Investment as "generally unsympathetic to investor complaints."

Vietnam is still one of the most repressive countries in the world which, in turn, keeps it as one of the poorest with an average annual per capita income of $330.

The most recent Index of Economic Freedom published by the Heritage Foundation lists Vietnam 148, out of 161 nations, in lack of economic freedom. This marks a decrease from the 1995 rating -- that is, Vietnam’s economy is considered to be less open today than it was five years ago.

Despite these realities, the single most powerful reason for demanding much more from Vietnam before affording it the enviable position of U.S. trading partner and preferential trade status, is the yet unresolved issue of American POWs/ MIAs.

During my investigation into the torture of American POWs in Vietnam by Cuban agents at a camp known as "The Zoo", I asked Ambassador Pete Peterson and other U.S. government officials to secure specific information and materials from the Vietnamese authorities. The response from the Vietnamese clearly depicts the unreliable, duplicitous nature of Vietnam’s Communist regime.

The statement read: "The evading war of the American(s) in Vietnam had caused great damage in human lives and property to the people of Vietnam. However, with a policy of clemency and humanity, Vietnam treated the American POWs in due form. There were absolutely no cases in which American POWs in Vietnam were tortured."

Is this the type of regime the U.S. should reward? Is this a reliable trading partner? An ally?

I hope the witnesses who will testify today will address these issues, along with other concerns raised by my colleagues on these Subcommittees.