Note: The following is a speech I presented at a human rights for Vietnam conference held in Westminster, California in Nov. 1998. - Steve Denney ------------------------ Thank you for the honor of inviting me to speak at this important conference. I should begin by stating my qualifications -- and lack thereof -- to speak on the subject of human rights in Vietnam and how organizations concerned on this issue can work together. I would not describe myself as a scholarly expert on Vietnam -- I have no academic credentials to speak of, am not fluent in Vietnamese, and have never had the opportunity to visit Vietnam. I would describe myself more as a friend of Vietnamese refugees whose professional and volunteer work has allowed me to keep abreast of contemporary developments in Vietnam. My professional work consists of the last 14 years of working as an archivist at the Indochina Center of U.C. Berkeley, where we have maintained a collection of files on Vietnam dating from the war to the present period; and, until his departure for Texas Tech last year, assisting Douglas Pike in putting out the quarterly Indochina Chronology. Mr. Pike originally began the collection known as the Indochina Archive while he was a Foreign Service in Saigon dating from around 1960. He is widely considered to be a leading authority on Vietnamese Communism, and I have learned much from him. My volunteer work on Vietnam human rights issues began shortly after the war ended in 1975 when I became upset at American anti- war activists who set about defending the new communism regime for the very same human rights violations they would have condemned if committed under the previous regime of South Vietnam. I began writing letters to the editor of various magazines, and with the inspiration of some Vietnamese friends started up a human rights newsletter on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. I published that from 1979 to 1995 (with a three year hiatus) and hope to revive it. One Vietnamese friend who was particularly influential in the development of my views on Vietnam was a former "third force" congressman from central Vietnam. He had opposed Thieu, but after the war ended was imprisoned in a reeducation camp. I remember he once told me twenty years ago: "In South Vietnam before 1975 there was not enough freedom. Today in Vietnam there is no freedom." The difference between "not enough freedom" and "no freedom" is a concept difficult to understand for most Americans because we have known neither deprivation. We who have grown up in America take our freedoms for granted because we have no idea what it is like to live in an authoritarian or totalitarian society. If I may move forward now to a more recent event that took place just a few weeks ago: the Indochina Center where I work sponsored a talk on our campus at U.C. Berkeley by Nguyen Huy Thiep, a well known northern Vietnamese writer whose realistic short stories have angered party and government authorities. However, his visit was protested by some Vietnamese who suspected him because he was traveling in the U.S. under a visa from Vietnam. Thus, while many Vietnamese attended his talk, others protested outside, led by a man with a bullhorn and chanting slogans such as: "Down with Communism!" "Down with Nguyen Huy Thiep!" "Nguyen Huy Thiep is a Communist!" "Communists out of U.C. Berkeley!" Although I helped publicize Thiep's talk, and although I did not agree with the protesters' views of Thiep, I felt sympathetic to the protesters because I can imagine that many of them experienced the horrors of communism first hand. But I mention the above event because it demonstrates how things have changed in Vietnam and the overseas Vietnamese community, and perhaps also how things have not changed. Vietnam over the last ten years has been moving from a society of no freedom to a society of not enough freedom. There have been some significant changes in Vietnam over the last ten years, but the changes have been uneven, and the changes have also provoked different responses within the overseas Vietnamese communities, and among different nations. The changes have in large measure resulted from external pressure on Vietnam, most significantly the collapse of most of the Soviet bloc nations in 1989. With this event, Vietnamese communist leaders were faced with the immediate prospect: change or die. That is, since they could no longer rely heavily on the Soviet bloc for support, they now had no choice but to turn to the West, to neighboring countries in Southeast Asia, and to international organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund for support. This they managed to accomplish, and the change was facilitated with the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia and the beginning of capitalist style reforms after Vietnam's Sixth Party Congress in 1986. But another impetus for change in Vietnam has come from within the society itself. The radical attempts to collectivize agriculture in reunified Vietnam after 1975 and turn the entire country toward totalitarianism proved a disastrous failure, pushing Vietnam to the brink of mass starvation and forcing hundreds of thousands to flee the country in unseaworthy boats. In the fall of 1979, Party leaders backtracked very slightly by allowing peasants some private incentive in agriculture. This proved successful, but it was not until almost ten years later that economic reforms began in earnest. Vietnam's economy has improved as a result of capitalist style reforms, but the progress has been hampered by widespread corruption and heavy remnants of socialism (for example in the role of the Army in society and State Managed Enterprises), along with the confusing legal system. This brings us to the other side of how Vietnamese Communist leaders are trying to keep their political system intact: repression. I recall in 1990 shortly after the Tiananmen Square student protest and government crackdown. A professor from Hanoi told me that what happened in China would never happen in Vietnam. But the reason for that lies in the draconian prison penalties meted out to dissidents, particularly those engaged in any kind of protest that might be considered an organized opposition. Thus we have had since the advent of "doi moi" cases such as Doan Viet Hoat, Nguyen Dan Que, Thich Tri Sieu, Nguyen Dinh Huy, Thich Quang Do, Thich Huyen Quang, and others where dissidents have received draconian prison sentences ranging up to 20 years imprisonment for nothing other than the non-violent advocacy of a more democratic system in Vietnam. In its annual report on worldwide human rights conditions, the U.S. State Department noted other human rights abuses still widespread in Vietnam today: the system of household registration and block wardens still maintained by Vietnam's Ministry of Interior to monitor the population (although it is less pervasive than in previous years); harsh prison conditions; arbitrary political arrests; unfair trials; detention without trial; the prohibition of any independent political, labor and other organizations; government control over religious organizations; discrimination against ethnic minorities; and child labor. The report noted that Amnesty International had listed 54 prisoners of conscience but cited other estimates ranging from 200 to 1,000 political prisoners still detained in the country. In a nutshell, the average individual in Vietnam has more freedom to go about his or her life now then when "doi moi" began ten years ago, but Party leaders fear for their own security and stability of the political system and severely punish any form of dissent that might be considered threatening. This fear of losing power is also responsible for the continued widespread abuses of human rights mentioned in the State Department's report. Last month Vietnam released over 5,000 prisoners on the occasion of National Day; although most were common criminals about 20 prisoners of conscience were also released on this day. The release of these prisoners were welcomed by Amnesty International as a "positive step", and I agree. But I was personally disappointed that more prisoners of conscience were not released on this day, and in particular I was disappointed that Nguyen Dinh Huy was not released. Huy, who like Prof. Hoat and Dr. Que was detained for his non-violent efforts to bring about a more democratic system in Vietnam, has been adopted by an Amnesty International group here in California as a prisoner of conscience. I have worked with them for his release. Also discouraging was that while these prisoners were released, they are still forbidden to play any meaningful role in the society; and it is likely that they will be subject to tight monitoring by the political security forces for the duration of their lives in Vietnam. Furthermore, Prof. Hoat was forced to leave the country. Nevertheless the release of these prisoners, and the prospective release of more prisoners in the near future, is something we should welcome as a victory, not just a personal victory for the released prisoners and their families, but a victory for the human rights movement. After all, if what we are struggling for is a more free society in Vietnam, then the release of each prisoner is one step in that direction (conversely, the imprisonment of each dissident is a step in the opposite direction). As I look at the situation of Vietnam today, and of the conflicting views among Vietnamese at home and abroad over the direction the country should follow, it seems to me that much of the conflict is reflected in a struggle over moral legitimacy. The Communist Party's claim to legitimacy was two-fold: its anti-colonial and anti-U.S. posture, and its egalitarian ideals. But those two claims to legitimacy have collapsed with the failure of Communist leaders to transform Vietnam into a Marxist society and their turn toward neighboring Southeast Asian countries and the West for support, along with the opening of the country to foreign investors and the pursuit of capitalist style reforms. Thus the regime is vulnerable to dissidents within the society who point out continued injustices and inequalities in the society and the failure of the regime to contain negative effects of foreign investment, such as destruction of the environment, displacement of peasants and widespread corruption. Party leaders also may feel threatened by the religious leaders in Vietnam who offer a moral alternative to the Vietnamese. On the other hand, what about the overseas Vietnamese? This brings me back to my opening remarks. It seems to me that there are many different opinions among Vietnamese overseas as to how best to advance the cause of human rights in Vietnam. My own view is that the Vietnamese overseas community should focus more energy into supporting dissidents such as Doan Viet Hoat who are forced into exile, as well as those dissidents who are imprisoned or under house arrest in Vietnam; and less energy into protesting events such as the talk of writer Nguyen Huy Thiep or the tour of Vietnam water puppets. To put it another way, find a more creative way to protest; for example not chanting slogans or urging people to boycott such events but rather handing out flyers about imprisoned dissidents in Vietnam or sitting silently with posters of pictures of dissidents. Beyond this, there are broader issues on which the Vietnamese overseas can work on to promote human rights, such as finding a way to work with those supporting the cause of human rights in neighboring Asian countries, Burma, China, Indonesia, etc. These are a few of my thoughts. We all here share the same goal, of a truly free and humane society in Vietnam, but may differ on some points regarding the best methods and strategy to achieve this goal. I wish you well in your continued struggle for human rights in Vietnam.