U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–098PDF 2016

WILL PRESIDENT OBAMA PRIORITIZE THE

RELEASE OF PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE

IN VIETNAM?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 10, 2016

Serial No. 114–209

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

Ms. Vu Minh Khanh (wife of Vietnamese prisoner of conscience Nguyen 

Van Dai) ................................................................................................................ 5

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Ms. Vu Minh Khanh: Prepared statement ............................................................ 8

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 18

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 19

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations: 

Ms. Vu Minh Khan’s please for her husband from 2007 .................................. 20

Statement from the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California ............................................................................. 22

Statement from the Honorable Alan S. Lowenthal, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California ............................................................ 24

(1)

WILL PRESIDENT OBAMA PRIORITIZE THE 

RELEASE OF PRISONERS OF CONSCIENCE 

IN VIETNAM? 

TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:01 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The hearing will come to order, and good afternoon 

to everyone. 

Among the potential partners in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, 

or TPP, Vietnam is the only country that bans independent religious groups, the only country considered one of the world’s worst 

violators in Internet freedom. Vietnam harbors severe child labor 

and forced child labor violators and regularly jails and tortures 

those who speak out for human rights, political inclusion, or the 

right to practice their religion. There are today over 100 prisoners 

of conscience in Vietnam. 

Nguyen Van Dai spent 4 years in jail and 4 additional years 

under house arrest for defending religious freedom and calling for 

greater democratization in Vietnamese society. He was detained 

again and brutally beaten last December for continuing his work. 

His arbitrary detention undercuts any claim that the current Vietnamese leadership can become a trusted U.S. partner. 

Prior to his arrest, I had the privilege of meeting with him in 

Hanoi at his law office at 10 Doan Tran Nghiep Street in December 

2005. I was deeply impressed with his passion for truth, his defense of universally recognized human rights, his faith, his extraordinary courage, and his deep and abiding love for Vietnam. He is 

truly a patriot. 

Nguyen Van Dai’s wife, Vu Minh Khanh, is with us today to 

speak on his behalf and for the other prisoners of conscience in 

Vietnam. Her testimony is especially timely because President 

Obama will travel to Vietnam at the end of this month. A steady 

stream of State Department officials are going to Vietnam prior to 

the trip. In fact, the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor, Tom Malinowski is in Vietnam today. 

2

The administration should not try to whitewash Vietnam’s record 

prior to the President’s trip, but must make absolutely clear and 

unequivocal statements in support of democracy and free speech 

advocates, disfavored religious and ethnic minority groups, and 

human rights defenders. 

The unconditional release of Nguyen Van Dai and other prisoners of conscience should be a precondition of the President’s visit. 

However, if the President goes without any conditionality, I appeal, 

this subcommittee appeals, to the President to demand the immediate and unconditional freedom and release of Nguyen Van Dai 

and the others. 

I also encourage the President to meet with those in Vietnam 

who share our interests in democracy and human rights in Vietnam. Doing so will send a clear message about U.S. interests to the 

vast majority of Vietnamese, some 66 percent who were born after 

the Vietnam War ended. 

The administration should also make clear to the Communist 

leaders in Hanoi that the further expansion of trade and security 

partnerships, the lifting of the arms embargo is unacceptable until 

there are significant, verifiable, and irreversible improvements in 

human rights in Vietnam. Unfortunately, for the past 7-plus years, 

the administration has failed to deliver such messages to victims 

of abuse anywhere. No tough message was delivered in Cuba, for 

example, despite an escalation of arrests and abuse. 

The administration seems eager to proceed with lucrative trade 

and to lift the ban on lethal arms sales to Vietnam without imposing any real conditions. That would be a colossal mistake. The administration surely will justify extending these generous benefits 

by arguing that lifting the trade barriers and expanding diplomatic 

engagement with Vietnam will bring about human rights and other 

positive advances. Such arguments have long been discredited, 

however. In China, for example, or more recently in Bahrain, and 

there is evidence such arguments failed miserably in Vietnam as 

well. 

In 2007, after the United States lifted its longstanding objection 

to Vietnam’s membership in the World Trade Organization, Hanoi 

responded by launching the first of three waves of arrests that 

jailed more than 100 dissidents and introduced sweeping new laws 

restricting freedom of association, assembly, and the Internet. In 

short, Vietnam’s WTO membership allowed the Communist government free license to jail, torture, and abuse. The pressure was off. 

Why would they not do so again? 

The Communist leadership in Hanoi will take our benefits, our 

trade benefits, our security commitments, and continue repressing 

those seeking political reform and universal freedoms. The business 

of the Communist party is staying in power and repressing those 

who may challenge their power. They will not embrace human 

rights improvements or the rule of law, unless it is a condition of 

better relations with the United States. 

Vietnam needs the U.S. markets and security commitments 

much more than the United States needs Vietnam’s markets and 

security cooperation. The administration should demand additional 

protections for human rights, Internet freedom, and the rule of law 

as a condition of U.S. assistance. Not doing so is shortsighted, misVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:43 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\051016\20098 SHIRL
3

guided, and fails to achieve long-term U.S. interests, and it throws 

the victims under the bus. 

One way to send an important message about U.S. policy priorities is to pass the Vietnam Human Rights Act, H.R. 2140, which 

I have reintroduced in this Congress and is now waiting further action in the House and Senate. I would note parenthetically that 

past iterations of the Vietnam Human Rights Act that I have introduced in previous Congresses have passed the House four times, 

only to be ignored in the Senate. 

The bill stipulates that the United States cannot increase nonhumanitarian assistance to Vietnam until the President certifies 

that the Government of Vietnam has made substantial progress in 

establishing human rights protections. The American people should 

not have to subsidize torture or underwrite the jailing of journalists, religious leaders, labor activists, or advocates of democracy, or 

Internet freedom. 

The bipartisan Vietnam Human Rights Act will restore the right 

priorities to U.S. policy toward Vietnam. The Communist party is 

not Vietnam’s future. That future lies with Nguyen Van Dai and 

many other advocates of political reform and human rights who 

seek our freedoms more than our trade. U.S. policy must send the 

unmistakable message to the Government of Vietnam that human 

rights improvements are fundamental to better relations, critically 

linked to our mutual economic and security interests, and will not, 

I say again, will not be ignored or be bargained away. 

I would like to now introduce our very distinguished witness 

today, Ms. Vu Minh Khanh, who is the wife of human rights lawyer Mr. Nguyen Van Dai, as I said earlier, who was arrested in December, December 16 to be exact, in 2015 under article 88 of the 

Vietnamese penal code for ‘‘conducting propaganda against the 

state.’’

Since his arrest, Ms. Vu has been advocating for his release, 

meeting with international delegates, starting petitions, and giving 

interviews with various media agencies to raise awareness of Dai’s 

case. She has volunteered at a church in Hanoi and has been doing 

so since 2009. The church reaches out to many vulnerable groups, 

including those who suffer from drug addiction, orphans, and 

youth. In addition to providing support and counseling to those 

groups, Ms. Vu also assists with the daily financial management of 

the organization and works to promote and protect human rights 

through the church. 

I would like to now yield to our distinguished chairman of the 

full Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ed Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, thank you. I just would start by thanking Chris 

Smith for holding this hearing at exactly the right time because 

now is the time we have to get the attention of the international 

community on these human rights abuses. 

And so, yes, in a few weeks, the President of the United States 

is going to be traveling to Vietnam. And while maintaining peace 

in the South China Sea and improving trade ties is an important 

shared goal, the administration must carefully take into account 

Vietnam’s human rights abuses as this relationship develops. And 

that is the conundrum, because this has not gotten better. 

4

I met with the Venerable Thich Quang Do as well as one of the 

other religious leaders in Vietnam when they were under house arrest years ago. I heard about the circumstances. I check in with 

human rights NGOs, and as we all know, this situation is not improving. Human rights have to be at the very top of the President’s 

agenda. 

No matter how the administration frames our relationship, the 

reality, as we all know, is that Vietnam remains a one party Communist state with significant human rights abuses. And as we will 

hear today from the wife of an imprisoned human rights lawyer 

and activist—and I want to thank Chris Smith for his efforts here 

to elevate this issue—but as we will hear, Nguyen Van Dai, she 

will share with us the reality that Vietnam has a long, long way 

to go. 

In December, Nguyen Van Dai was badly beaten by government—well, I guess we should call them thugs because they beat 

him. And taken into custody. And since that time, they took her 

husband into custody. And since that time, he has been denied access to his lawyer and even his family. He sits in solitary confinement. His condition is unknown. And Ms. Vu is rightly concerned. 

Sadly, Nguyen Van Dai’s treatment is far from an isolated incident. According to Human Rights Watch, police still frequently torture suspects to elicit confessions and sometimes use excessive 

force in responding to protests over evictions, land confiscation—because land grabbing is one of the things the party does—and other 

social issues. 

Last year, more than 40 bloggers and rights activists were beaten by plainclothes government agents. Not surprisingly, not one of 

these thugs who did the beatings was held responsible. Vietnam’s 

penal code criminalizes criticism of the government and abuse of 

democratic freedoms. While other laws restrict freedom of religion 

and the media, bloggers like Anh Ba Sam, Nguyen Thi Minh Thuy, 

and Nguyen Ngoc Gia remain in prison for their advocacy of 

human rights, in prison for what the state or what the Communist 

party calls abusing the rights to freedom of democracy. 

Not surprisingly, Vietnam now ranks, in the world, 175th out of 

180 countries for press freedom. Now, that means Vietnam is behind Cuba. It is worse than Saudi Arabia. It is worse than Iran. 

That is why we are here at this hearing. 

Freedom of religion is a significant concern in Vietnam as the 

government continues to restrict religious practice through registration requirements, through harassment, and through surveillance. Branches of the Cao Dai and Hoa Hao Buddhist church, and 

independent Catholics and Protestants, are banned. They face government harassment for their peaceful religious practice. The Venerable Thich Quang Do, who both Chairman Smith and I have met 

with, has remained under house arrest since 1998 for his religious 

beliefs. 

If the United States and Vietnam are to build a stronger relationship, the Vietnamese Government must honor the basic human 

rights of Vietnamese people with respect to freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. And that is the message the President of the 

United States needs to send during his upcoming visit. 

5

I wrote to the President last week asking that he carry exactly 

that message. We are all watching. The President’s trip cannot be 

a replay of his trip to Havana. We have to have these issues addressed. 

And, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for calling this important 

and timely hearing. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Royce, thank you for your very eloquent 

and very strong statement and consistent support for the human 

rights advocates in Vietnam, and especially today for Nguyen Van 

Dai who is suffering again. He is back into prison, as I said in my 

opening. He is 4 years of prison, 4 years of house arrest. And without objection, a very, very, very well-written appeal that Ms. Vu 

made at the time of that first arrest. Without objection, I would 

like to make it a part of the record. 

And I yield the floor to Ms. Vu for such time as she may consume. 

STATEMENT OF VU MINH KHANH, WIFE OF VIETNAMESE 

PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE NGUYEN VAN DAI 

[The following statement and answers were delivered through an 

interpreter.] 

Ms. VU. First of all, I would like to deeply thank Chairman Chris 

Smith and also Chairman Ed Royce having given me this precious 

opportunity to speak. 

My name is Vu Minh Khanh, wife of attorney Nguyen Van Dai. 

We both are Protestants, myself serving our church in Hanoi. Dai 

is a human rights defender now in jail. 

My husband was first arrested in 2007, then sentenced to 4 years 

imprisonment plus 4 years of house arrest for violating article 88 

of Vietnam’s penal code for ‘‘conducting propaganda against the 

state.’’ My husband was disbarred and his law office was shut 

down. 

After having just completed his house arrest, my husband was 

arrested again on December 16, 2015, and charged under the same 

article 88. My husband has been detained for almost 5 months 

now, yet I have not received any information about him. He has 

been held incommunicado and not allowed to meet with my family, 

myself, nor with his defense lawyers. 

Twice a month, I am permitted to bring food to detention center 

B14 in Hanoi for his daily needs, but I do not know if he has received any. In fact, I honestly do not know if he is really held at 

B14 because in Vietnam the public security force can do whatever 

they want. If they transfer inmates, they do not inform the family 

members accordingly. For example, this has happened to blogger 

Dieu Cay, and currently happened with Tran Huynh Duy Thuc. 

Thus, if in fact my husband has been tortured physically and/or 

mentally, or given false information, I would not know. 

My husband has not been allowed to receive a copy of the Bible, 

a gift from the U.S. Ambassador, Mr. Ted Osius. 

Specifically, 10 days before his arrest, he was attacked and severely injured following a human rights training session for about 

60 people in Nghe An Province, about 300 kilometers from Hanoi. 

Having been attacked 10 days prior, his injuries had not healed. 

He was then arrested on December 16. 

6

Throughout his human rights activism, my husband was constantly followed, threatened, harassed, and beaten. Each time Dai 

was attacked, it related to his work because the government did 

not like it and had requested him to stop doing human rights work. 

However, my husband believes that his activities are within his 

rights under the Vietnamese Constitution and international law. 

Because the police constantly follow my husband all day, I believe 

that the Vietnamese Government would know clearly who attacked 

him. However, the government has claimed that they do not know 

who the assailants were when my husband filed a complaint. 

My husband accepted the high risks that comes with these activities. And in fact, this is the reality that human rights activists in 

Vietnam have to face constantly. 

My husband also has hepatitis B. Therefore, I am very worried 

about his health condition. 

My husband experienced democracy initially in Germany, having 

witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall. He then returned to Vietnam 

and studied to become a lawyer. In 1997, my husband ran for the 

National Assembly with the hope that he could speak up for the 

people. In 2000, my husband officially began his activism and 

fought for freedom of religion. 

The first human rights case my husband took was in 2000 when 

he defended a member of the Protestant church who was brought 

to court because she tried to stop the police when they came to disband a prayer service at the local church. 

Thereafter, my husband provided free legal services to the Christians who were oppressed based on their religion, those who fought 

for democracy and human rights who are harassed and detained, 

victims of land grabs, or home loss, and to people who were physically attacked and arbitrarily detained. He also led training 

courses about human rights at his law office. 

Since he started his activism in 2000, aside from the 4 years he 

was imprisoned and right upon his release, my husband immediately continued to raise his voice to protect human rights, even 

when he was still under house arrest. And he always fervently 

tried to fight for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly through nonviolent methods and through providing education on human rights. My husband always focused on 

empowering the youth and helped many students who are human 

rights activists. 

He started classes on human rights for different people within 

society and wrote articles on the rule of law. My husband usually 

worked with many others and connected organizations with each 

other within the country. He also advocated with foreign governments, as he had a good working relationship with many Embassies in Vietnam and government officials from around the world.

Regarding my husband’s arrest in 2007, the police arrested him 

at his law office while he was teaching a class on human rights to 

his students. The topic of the class was based on a book on civil 

society which the American Embassy in Vietnam had published. 

As for his arrest this time, it was while my husband was leaving 

the house to meet with the delegation from the European Union 

who were in Vietnam for the annual European Union-Vietnam 

human rights dialogue. 

7

My husband is currently facing from 3 to 20 years imprisonment. 

He has worked hard to protect human rights, and these activities 

cannot possibly be seen as criminal. Therefore, I hope that Congress and the U.S. Government, especially President Obama on his 

trip to Vietnam, will help demand for his immediate and unconditional release. 

I sincerely thank you for spending time to listen to my husband’s 

case. Respectfully. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vu follows:]

8


20098a-1.eps
9


20098a-2.eps
10


20098a-3.eps
11

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Vu, I would like to thank you for your absolutely 

compelling testimony that will be heard by many in America and 

hopefully around the world. As you have been telling your story, 

I am glad that other news outlets have not only carried your opeds and your very profound words and sentiments, but know that 

the Congress as well is listening and listening very carefully. 

I want to thank C-SPAN for being here so that a larger American audience will get to hear you and to realize that things are 

horrific for your husband. 

I do have a couple of questions. And I would like to thank Dr. 

Binh Nguyen for doing the translation today for us. Deeply appreciate that. And for your advocacy as well. 

I have a couple of questions. You know, you point out in your testimony that your husband was arrested this second time as he was 

leaving the house to meet with the delegation from the European 

Union who were in Vietnam for the annual EU-Vietnam human 

rights dialogue. 

First of all, I believe that dialogues are essential, but they should 

not be seen as a substitute for very significant, tangible impacts 

and consequences to countries like Vietnam, the Government of 

Vietnam, that commits egregious violations of human rights 

against its own people. Dialogue is great. We need to talk. No one 

is ever suggesting that talk needs to be suspended. But it needs to 

be linked to real consequences in the real world, like the lifting of 

an arms embargo, like greater trade, and other kinds of interactions between the two governments. 

I am wondering if any of the members of the European Parliament who were here for that dialogue have raised their voices 

in support of your husband after he was arrested, again, en route 

to meet with them to dialogue with him about what the government is doing on human rights in Vietnam. 

Ms. VU. My husband did not meet with the EU delegation and 

I am not sure what would have transpired between them. But I do 

know that after his arrest, they actually contacted me and met 

with me and showed a lot of support. 

Mr. SMITH. That is so extremely important. This is a united 

world, not just the United States speaking about these universally 

recognized human rights. 

I would hope as well, as you point out in your testimony, that 

the continued gross mistreatment of your husband and others 

would become the subject of the Human Rights Council, the U.N. 

Human Rights Council, where Vietnam sits in a place of dignity as 

a member of that council. It is breathtakingly disturbing that an 

abuser of human rights could simultaneously be an arbiter of how 

well or poorly other countries are doing. First, fix your own house 

and get that in order. So I think we need to press the case there 

as well. 

Let me ask you, if I could, about how you have been treated by 

the authorities. You mentioned in your testimony that an attempt 

for his defense attorneys to get certificates has not been allowed. 

Could you further elaborate on what that process is all about and 

how you yourself have been treated when you advocate on behalf 

of your husband? 

12

Ms. VU. So in short, after his arrest when I hired three lawyers, 

they were not able to meet with Dai, nor able to proceed with any 

legal actions for his case, to prepare for his case. Because article 

88 falls under a national security law, Dai has been denied the 

right to see his lawyers. 

As for myself, I noticed that there is a camera constantly in front 

of my house following all my activities. I have tried to visit my husband and always denied to see my husband when he is incommunicado. In addition, I have requested to be able to bring him the 

Bible or have visitation rights, and/or for other family members to 

visit him, but all have been denied. I have written complaints, but 

I have not received any verbal or written response from the government.

Mr. SMITH. Can you tell us, to the best of your knowledge, how 

your husband was treated when he was imprisoned the first time? 

Obviously 4 years in prison followed by 4 years of house arrest. 

What were the prison conditions like? 

Ms. VU. To complete my previous statement, the harassment 

puts a mental stress on me. I know my husband has hepatitis B 

and was beaten severely prior to his arrest. I am constantly worried about him, not being able to see him, as he is incommunicado. 

In 2007, he was put in a very small cell with 60 other inmates. 

Their water was so contaminated with soil and trash that they had 

to use their socks to filter the water. In addition, there was a lot 

of harassment from the prisoners in the same cell. There is also a 

lot of stress with constant observation and surveillance from the 

government during his jail time. 

Mr. SMITH. You mentioned that he was beaten by thugs in the 

taxi, or when he was cornered, and that there were—they beat him 

around the face. Were his teeth broken? Did it require stitches? 

Did he get any kind of medical attention? 

Ms. VU. On the day of Dai’s arrest, approximately 30 security officers stormed our house, giving no specific evidence or reason for 

their actions. During the beating, my husband had suffered a lot 

of beating to the face, especially sustained hemorrhage to the eye 

globes. He was undergoing some evaluation, then he was arrested. 

In addition, his body was covered with bruises all over. 

Mr. SMITH. Has the American personnel at Embassy Hanoi been 

helpful? Have they tried to visit him? Have they been allowed any 

access to him? Have they even made the attempt? 

Ms. VU. Immediately after his arrest, I was invited to the private 

residence of U.S. Ambassador Ted Osius, and he gave a lot of support and comfort. Especially, he also gave me a Bible to give to my 

husband while he is imprisoned. However, when I brought the 

Bible, it was denied so my husband never received the Bible. In addition, the Embassy has mentioned that I could meet with them at 

any time. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just make a couple of final observations and 

ask if you have anything further you would like to say. I can assure you we will continue our efforts. I see Dr. Thang from Boat 

People SOS is here today. 

I met, as I mentioned earlier, your husband in Hanoi on a 

human rights trip in 2005 at his law offices. And even though he 

spoke glowingly about his vision of a Vietnam where everyone posVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:43 Sep 22, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\051016\20098 SHIRL
13

sessed fundamentally recognized human rights, universally recognized human rights, there was a total absence of malice on his part 

toward the people in the government. 

When I hear that the government, as you have pointed out, has 

cited article 88 of Vietnam’s penal code, conducting propaganda 

against the state, I was with him privately. As a matter of fact, 

some of the people who were en route were detained and were not 

allowed to go to his law office that day to meet with me. But there 

was no propaganda against the state. There was a love for the Vietnamese people that was very deep and very profound, and I was 

almost speechless how he could have endured so much, known 

about so much wrongdoing, and yet he spoke about human rights 

in the purest of terms and had such a clarity of purpose about him. 

And so the Vietnamese Government needs to know that we are 

inspired by Nguyen Van Dai, and growing numbers of members of 

parliaments, congresses will rally to his defense. And your testimony has sent a clear message to the world, not just at this venue, 

but everywhere else where you have spoken. How can the government do what they are doing to your husband who only desires the 

best for the country of Vietnam? 

So I want you to know that you have been an inspiration and he 

has been an inspiration. When I met with Mr. Dai, again with Dr. 

Thang, a year later here in my office, again I was touched by that 

absence of malice. He did not engage in tirades against Vietnam 

or its government. He spoke about defending human rights and 

caring for the disenfranchised, the people of faith, which I found 

just incredible. And I do hope that that is not lost. 

There are always reformers in any dictatorship or in any repressive government. They need to know, when he is away from them, 

when he is talking to Members of Parliaments or Congresses in his 

office or in Washington, his message was one of hope for the people 

of Vietnam. So I want you to know what an inspiration your presence here is today. 

If President Obama were sitting here where I am sitting, or if 

the Prime Minister of Vietnam was sitting here, what would you 

say? 

Ms. VU. If the President were sitting here in front of me, I would 

plead with him to help the people of Vietnam. When he fights for 

human rights in Vietnam, he helps the people. The people of Vietnam have suffered a lot through all these years of war, and now 

if the President could help to promote human rights in Vietnam, 

that is what I ask for. 

The reason they arrested my husband, and now I am asking for 

his release while the President is there, is because he represents 

a symbol of nonviolent fighting for human rights and democracy in 

Vietnam, and that is why his release would be crucial for the people of Vietnam and that would also be symbolic of the President’s 

support for such movement in Vietnam. 

And as you have requested, I have just a few more points to add, 

please. 

I would like to present to you, Mr. Chairman, and also the U.S. 

Congress, that I would like to plead the case of my husband. I did 

not understand why he was arrested under the penal code article 

88 when he is a human rights activist for nonviolent movements. 

14

And also, when they came to the house, they took away the civil 

society publication that was put out by the U.S. Embassy in Vietnam. They also took away any materials that my husband has from 

the United Nations Human Rights Council, even the symbol of the 

dove, which my husband believes it represents peace and nonviolent movement for human rights. They took everything, envelopes, papers, anything that has that symbol on it. 

And then one particular thing that I would like to point out is 

all the T-shirts that has the words ‘‘Hong Kong Today, Vietnam Tomorrow,’’ were also confiscated as an artifact to be used against my 

husband. 

To share with you my thoughts why I am here, and first thank 

you so much for holding this hearing. This is very important. It is 

because back in 2007, I had written over hundreds of complaints 

to the President, Prime Minister, Secretary General, National Assembly leaders, various ministries, the court, investigative units, 

and news outlets and never heard anything back. This time I have 

tried the same, written many complaints, and also visited many of 

the agencies just to try and see if anyone would respond to my request. None of them had responded in any way verbally or written 

to me. And I have met with a lot of obstruction and ignorance from 

these agencies. 

In addition, I felt that if I would go outside at my own risk and 

raise this voice to the world, then I would be able to present my 

husband’s case so that more people would know about the situation 

in Vietnam. And my husband is just one of the many people who 

are in a similar situation. 

Just to recount what happened in 2007, the lawyer only had 7 

days to prepare for his trial back then. Specifically, when I went 

to the investigation unit, they had sent the papers to the judicial 

office, but there was no clear evidence against my husband at that 

time. So, in fact, I am very worried about similar situation this 

time. 

I am really worried that if that repeats, that the lawyers for Dai 

only have a few days just like the previous time, then there will 

not be enough time for them to prepare the trial for Dai. 

So I would like to request that my husband be released unconditionally and immediately. But in case he does go to trial, I really 

want a fair trial, and also for his lawyers to have the time to prepare for his case. 

Thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding this hearing. Please accept my deep gratitude, and also to all the staff members who have 

made this possible. I really appreciate all of your caring and support throughout this very difficult time for myself, my husband, 

and my family. 

I would like to know as a request whether, Mr. Chairman, together with other Members of Congress, could write a letter to 

President Obama asking for his response, first to this hearing and 

also to other requests that have been put in my statement previously. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Vu, thank you. We will be more than happy to 

send your statement and a letter encouraging the President and 

appealing to the President to raise your husband’s case and that 

of other prisoners of conscience in a specific fashion. Not an oblique 

15

mention in a wind-up statement or some generality. There need to 

be specific requests made so that we can gauge whether or not 

Vietnam is about to move in the right direction or continues its deterioration when it comes to human rights. 

There are a number of areas where human rights violations are 

worsening. Human trafficking. Religious freedom. And the administration could today designate Vietnam as a CPC country, Country 

of Particular Concern. The facts warrant it. And they also could be 

known as a Tier 3 country when it comes to egregious violations 

of sex and labor trafficking, especially labor trafficking in Vietnam. 

So the President has tools in his toolbox, the President of the 

United States. We hope that he uses them. 

We will send, as per your request, your testimony and your 

strong appeal backed up by our strong appeal. We will do it immediately. And again, I hope the President is specific. Just some general statement about human rights doesn’t cut it. It hasn’t in any 

other country around the world. It hasn’t in Vietnam. He needs to 

be specific. 

So I want to thank you again for your very brave testimony. 

Thank you for your husband’s tremendous personal sacrifice for the 

cause of Vietnam human rights and religious freedom. He is a truly 

remarkable man, as are others who are fighting this battle with 

nonviolence and with faith. Know that our prayers are with you 

and with him. We are in solidarity with him, I can assure you. 

And I would like to note for the record that we will be having 

a follow-up hearing to this hearing in mid June, latter part of June, 

the 22nd or so. And we will be assessing the President’s trip and 

whether or not any progress was indeed made. 

So again, I want to thank you so very much for your testimony. 

And, Dr. Binh Nguyen, thank you for your very fine translation. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(17)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

18

f


20098n.eps
19

f


20098m.eps
20

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


20098b-1.eps
21

f


20098b-2.eps
22

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


20098c-1.eps
23

f


20098c-2.eps
24

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Æ


20098d.eps