In Support of Jackson-Vanik Waiver
July 07, 1998
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to testify today in support of the President's decision to extend the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam. As you know, I have a deep interest in our bilateral relationship with Vietnam and always appreciate the opportunity to help move that relationship forward. If this statement sounds familiar, it is because I submitted testimony two weeks ago before the House Subcommittee on Trade on the same issue.
Although the Jackson-Vanik waiver may appear to be a minor, technical issue of little relevance to broader US-Vietnam relations, it serves as an important tool for the advancement of American interests in Vietnam. Specifically, the President's decision to waive the Jackson-Vanik amendment in March, and to extend the waiver in June, has encouraged measurable Vietnamese cooperation in processing applications for emigration under the Orderly Departure Program, or ODP, and the Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Returnees agreement, or ROVR.
The Jackson-Vanik amendment exists to promote freedom of emigration from nondemocratic countries. The law calls for a waiver if it would enhance opportunities to emigrate freely. The numbers indicate that opportunities for emigration from Vietnam have clearly increased since the President waived the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and relations with Vietnam should continue to improve with the facilitation of greater levels of trade.
The evidence that Vietnam has liberalized its emigration policy is compelling. As of June 15, 3,267 Vietnamese had departed for the United States under ROVR. Since the waiver was granted, Vietnam has eliminated the requirement for ODP applicants, including Montagnards and former re-education camp detainees, to obtain exit permits prior to being interviewed by American officials. Vietnam has cleared for interview over 80 percent of all remaining ROVR applicants, and we expect many more to be cleared shortly.
Critically, on the day the President announced his decision to extend the Jackson-Vanik waiver, the Vietnamese government announced it would allow U.S. officials to interview all Montagnard ODP cases. Previously, many of these individuals were off-limits to American interviewers, raising concern among many of us that Vietnam was denying Montagnards eligibility for emigration under the ODP. Clearly, the Vietnamese understood that the Montagnard issue was important to the United States, and they responded by meeting our demand for access to this group of people.
In short, Jackson-Vanik is working. Vietnamese cooperation on outstanding emigration applications has increased. Vietnam has made important progress on its commitments under the January 1997 ROVR agreement with the United States. The vast majority of remaining ROVR applicants have been cleared for interview by U.S. officials. Pre-interview exit permits are no longer required for ODP applicants. American officials will soon be actively interviewing Montagnards who wish to emigrate under the terms of the ODP. Remarkably, the Administration expects to complete almost all ODP refugee interviews by the end of this year.
The Jackson-Vanik waiver has given momentum to this process. Revoking the waiver would likely stall this momentum, to the detriment of those who seek to emigrate.
I wish to ask my colleagues who would overturn the President's extension of the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam the following questions: Would a successful resolution of disapproval do anything other than sacrifice the progress we have witnessed since March? Would revoking the waiver advance the cause of those Vietnamese who benefit dramatically from their government's cooperation on emigration matters? How would those individuals who have successfully departed Vietnam this year have fared if the United States had not used the Jackson-Vanik waiver to encourage Vietnamese compliance with our emigration priorities?
We should also note the significant effect of the Jackson-Vanik waiver on U.S. businesses operating in Vietnam. The waiver has allowed the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Export-Import Bank (EXIM) to support American businesses in Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, and elsewhere. Competitors from other industrialized countries have long had the benefit of lending and insurance guarantees provided by their own governments. Without such governmental support, American businesses in Vietnam suffered.
There can be little doubt that the American business community in Vietnam has a moderating influence on the political leadership there. As advocates of economic reform and a healthy bilateral relationship, they deserve our support. Withdrawing OPIC and EXIM guarantees would hurt U.S. business in Vietnam and halt the progress on economic normalization that may soon lead to a bilateral trade agreement and Vietnam's accession to the World Trade Organization. It would reinforce the position of hard-liners in Hanoi who believe Vietnam's opening to the West has proceeded too rapidly. We should do all we can to encourage this opening by supporting the U.S. companies that bring trade and investment to Vietnam.
A number of outstanding differences continue to stand in the way of closer US-Vietnamese relations. Human rights, including the freedom to speak, assemble, and worship, remain subject to the whims of political leaders in Hanoi. Political and economic reforms lag far behind American expectations. Our companies operating in Vietnam suffer from bureaucratic red tape and corruption.
Ambassador Peterson and the embassy staff in Hanoi are working diligently to address these legitimate concerns. At the same time, the 30 Joint Field Activities conducted by the Department of Defense in the past five years, and the consequent repatriation of 233 sets of remains of American military personnel during that period, attest to the ongoing cooperation between Vietnamese and American officials on our efforts to account for our missing servicemen. I am confident that such progress will continue.
Just as the naysayers who insisted that Vietnamese cooperation on POW/MIA issues would cease altogether when we normalized relations with Vietnam were proven gravely mistaken, so have those who insisted that Vietnam would cease cooperation on emigration issues once we waived Jackson-Vanik been proven wrong by the course of events since March. Those of us with long experience dealing with the Vietnamese, including Senator Kerry, Ambassador Peterson, and U.S. military leaders responsible for our POW/MIA accounting, recognize that cooperation begets cooperation, and that the carrot is as effective as the stick in furthering our cause with the Vietnamese.
It is important to stress that the Jackson-Vanik amendment relates narrowly to freedom of emigration. It does not relate to the many other issues involved in our bilateral relationship with Vietnam. The Jackson-Vanik waiver is a tool we can selectively use to encourage free emigration. The waiver has contributed to that objective. Using it as a blunt instrument to castigate the Vietnamese government for every issue of contention between our two countries will not advance America's interest in free emigration from Vietnam.
We cannot process applicants under ODP and ROVR without Vietnamese cooperation. Such cooperation is put at risk by the resolution of disapproval before the Subcommittee today. As one who cares deeply for the Vietnamese people whose fate may hang in the balance, I urge my colleagues in Congress to support the President's decision to extend the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam.
I thank the Chairman for holding this important hearing today.