U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–973PDF 2005

HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN 

RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 20, 2005

Serial No. 109–76

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, 

Vice Chairman 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BARBARA LEE, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

MARY M. NOONAN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

GREG SIMPKINS, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member 

NOELLE LUSANE, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

LINDSEY M. PLUMLEY, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Ms. Nina Shea, Vice Chair, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom ........................................................................................................................ 13

Ms. Minky Worden, Media Director, Human Rights Watch ................................ 58

Ms. Helen Ngo, Chairwoman, Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam ... 66

Nguyen Thang, Ph.D., Executive Director, Boat People S.O.S. ........................... 70

Mr. Vo Van Ai, President, Vietnam Committee on Human Rights and Que 

Me: Action for Democracy in Vietnam, France .................................................. 75

Mr. Y-Khim Nie, Executive Director, Montagnard Human Rights Organization ........................................................................................................................ 84

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

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

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

Human Rights and International Operations: Prepared statement ................ 5

Various testimonies submitted for the record .................................................... 42

Ms. Nina Shea: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 30

Ms. Minky Worden: Prepared statement ............................................................... 61

Ms. Helen Ngo: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 68

Nguyen Thang, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .......................................................... 73

Mr. Vo Van Ai: Prepared statement ....................................................................... 77

Mr. Y-Khim Nie: Prepared statement .................................................................... 86

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 103

(1)

HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM 

MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS

AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m. in room 

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

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee will come to order. Today, ladies 

and gentlemen, I want to welcome each and every one of you to 

this hearing to examine the Government of Vietnam’s lack of respect for human rights and religious freedom. 

Let me just say at the outset I remain deeply concerned about 

obtaining a full, thorough and responsible accounting of the remaining Americans missing in action from the conflict in Vietnam. 

As my colleagues know well, of the 2,583 POW/MIAs who were unaccounted for: Vietnam, 1,921; Laos, 569; Cambodia, 83; and China 

10; just under 1,400 remain unaccounted for in Vietnam alone. 

While the joint POW/MIA accounting command normally conducts 

four joint field activities per year in Vietnam, I remain deeply concerned that the Government of Vietnam could be much more forthcoming and transparent in providing the fullest possible accounting. It is our sacred duty to the families of the missing that we 

never forget and never cease our pursuit until we achieve the fullest possible accounting of our MIAs. 

This hearing takes place this afternoon in the context of an official visit this week by Prime Minister Phan Van Khai, designed to 

mark the 10 years of diplomatic relations between the United 

States and Vietnam. The visit is the highest level since the end of 

the Vietnam War. Prime Minister Khai will meet with President 

Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The meeting will 

conclude with intelligence agreements on terrorism and transnational crime, as well as begin IMET military cooperation; he will 

meet with Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, and then ring the bell 

on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. 

Vietnam hopes to gain United States support to join the World 

Trade Organization this year. Trade with the United States has exploded in the past decade from $1.5 billion to $6.4 billion in 2004. 

Vietnamese exports to the United States have also jumped from 

$800 million in 2001 to $5 billion last year. An outside observer 

looking at this activity would in all likelihood conclude that Vietnam is a close and political partner of the United States in Asia, 

2

and that observer, if asked, would also likely deduce that in order 

to cooperate so closely, Vietnam must also share the core values of 

the United States that make our country great, values such as the 

promotion of democracy, respect for human rights and the protection of religious freedom, free speech and the rights of minorities. 

A quick look at the State Department’s annual Human Rights 

Report on Vietnam, however, reveals exactly the opposite. According to the 2004 report just released 3 months ago, and I quote it, 

the State Department says that:

‘‘Vietnam is a one-party state, ruled and controlled by the 

Communist Party of Vietnam. . . . The Government’s human 

rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit serious abuses. The Government continued to deny citizens the 

right to change their Government. Several sources reported 

that security forces shot, detained, beat, and were responsible 

for the disappearances of persons during the year. Police also 

reportedly sometimes beat suspects during arrests, detention, 

and interrogation. . . . The Government continued to hold political and religious prisoners. . . . The Government significantly restricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. . . . Security 

forces continued to enforce restrictions on public gatherings 

and travel in some parts of the country, particularly in the 

Central Highlands and the Northwest Highlands. The Government prohibited independent political, labor, and social organizations. . . . The Government restricted freedom of religion 

and prohibited the operation of unregistered religious organizations. Participants in unregistered organizations faced harassment as well as possible detention and imprisonment. The 

Government imposed limits on freedom of movement of some 

individuals whom it deemed a threat. . . . The Government 

did not permit human rights organizations to form or operate.’’

Moreover in 2004, the State Department designated Vietnam as 

a ‘‘Country of Particular Concern,’’ or CPC, for its systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom. 

Congress also expressed its grave concern about the state of 

human rights in Vietnam. The House of Representatives has twice 

passed legislation, authored by me and co-sponsored by many of my 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle, called the Human Rights in 

Vietnam Act. H.R. 1587 passed the House 323 to 45 in a vote that 

took place in July 2004. A similar measure passed 410 to 1 in the 

House in 2001. Both measures call for limiting further increases of 

nonhumanitarian United States aid from being provided to Vietnam. In other words, we want the humanitarian aid to flow unfettered, but that other aid needs to be halted unless certain human 

rights provisions are met. It authorized funding to overcome the 

jamming of Radio Free Asia, which continues to be jammed significantly, and the funding of nongovernmental organizations which 

promote human rights and democratic change in Vietnam. Regrettably, both bills stalled in the Senate and have not been enacted 

into law. We will try again this year. 

I regret that no one from the State Department was available 

today to explain the incongruity of the United States’ support for 

3

the Government of Vietnam, as expressed in our close and growingever-closer trade and military relations, and United States’ concern 

for the appalling lack of respect for basic human rights of its citizens that the Vietnamese Government has consistently demonstrated. 

The Human Rights Report, the Report on International Religious 

Freedom, the Trafficking in Persons Report, reports of leading 

international human rights organizations and countless witnesses, 

some of whose testimonies we will hear today, all testified that the 

Government of Vietnam has inflicted and continues to inflict terrible suffering on countless numbers of people. It is a regime that 

arrests and imprisons writers, scientists, academics, religious leaders and even veteran Communists in their own homes and lately 

in Internet cafes for speaking out for freedom and against corruption. In fact, this statement I am giving here today would easily 

fetch me a 15-year prison sentence replete with torture if I were 

a Vietnamese national or a member of the Parliament making 

these comments in Vietnam. It is a government that crushes thousands of Montagnard protesters, as they did in the Central Highlands during the Easter weekend in 2004, killing and beating many 

peaceful protestors. 

The government has forcibly closed over 400 Christian churches 

in the Central Highlands, and the government continues to force 

tens of thousands of Christians to renounce their faith. I am happy 

to say that it is inspiring, but not unexpected, that many of these 

Christians have steadfastly resisted those pressures and refused to 

renounce their faith in Christ. One pastor estimated that 90 percent have refused to renounce their Christian faith despite government efforts to compel them to do so. 

This is a government that has detained the leadership of the 

Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and continues to attempt to 

control the leadership of the Catholic Church. This is a government 

that imprisoned a Catholic priest by the name of Father Ly and 

originally gave him 15 years, lowered it to 10 in an act of so-called 

benevolence. 

Father Ly was imprisoned in 2001 when he was arrested after 

submitting testimony to a hearing of the United States Commission 

on International Religious Freedom. We will be hearing from Nina 

Shea, the Vice Chair of that Commission. For simply submitting 

some testimony, Father Ly got 15 years in prison. I was the author 

of H. Con. Res. 378, which called for the immediate release of Father Ly and cleared the Congress overwhelmingly, 424 to 1, on May 

12 of 2004; again, another bipartisan bill. 

Thankfully Father Ly, along with Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, were released from prison early this year. This was, in all likelihood, due 

to the pressure from the United States and its CPC designation, 

but there are many others who still languish in prison. Their release was part of the process called for in the 1998 International 

Religious Freedom Act, which mandates that the U.S. Government 

engage in dialogue with severe violators of religious freedom to improve conditions or face Presidential actions, which could include 

sanctions or the withdrawal of non-humanitarian assistance. 

The Vietnamese Government took some other positive steps in 

response to the CPC designation. These include a new law streamVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
4

lining the application process for religious groups registered with 

the government, and Prime Ministerial directives which prohibit 

forced renunciations of faith and allow Protestant house churches 

in ethnic minority provinces to operate if they renounce connections 

to certain expatriate groups, particularly the Montagnard Foundation, which is based in the U.S. 

In May, the State Department announced it had reached an 

agreement on religious freedom, although it is secret. Under the 

agreement, the Vietnamese Government committed to: (1) fully implement the new legislation on religious freedom—or so called—

and render previous contradictory regulations obsolete; (2) instruct 

local authorities to strictly and completely adhere to the new legislation and ensure its compliance—Mrs. Helen Ngo in her testimony 

later will say that this law has actually given the local authorities 

more power to obstruct and to try to break up the free exercise of 

religious freedom at the local level. But the agreement also calls for 

the United States and Vietnam to: (3) facilitate the process by 

which religious congregations are able to open their houses of worship; and (4) to give special consideration to prisoners and cases of 

concern raised by the U.S. during the granting of prisoner amnesties. 

Time will tell whether or not the government will respect this 

agreement and comply with its provisions, or whether there will be 

a return to business as usual once the spotlight is removed. But 

the agreement does show that the provisions of the International 

Religious Freedom Act seem to be helping to improve the respect 

for religious freedom at least in word, and remains to be shown 

whether or not it works in deed. 

The more important point is that religious freedom is not a matter of compliance with an agreement, but an attitude of respect for 

citizens who choose to worship and peacefully practice their religious beliefs that extends from the highest government leaders to 

local authorities and the village police. 

In recent interviews given prior to his visit to the United States, 

Prime Minister Khai stated, and I quote: ‘‘We have no prisoners of 

conscience in Vietnam.’’ And he declared that political reforms and 

economic reforms should be closely harmonized. That, my friends 

is unmitigated nonsense, especially the fact they are stating—or 

the assertion that there are no prisoners of conscience in Vietnam. 

His statement is typical of the attitude of the Government of Vietnam, which has scoffed at the Human Rights Act for Vietnam and 

dismissed charges of human rights abuses, pleading that tired 

mantra of interference in the internal affairs of their government, 

and that our struggle is some way related to the war in Vietnam. 

They say, ‘‘Vietnam is a country and not a war.’’ That is their protest, and I would say that is precisely the issue. 

Today’s hearing is about the shameful human rights record of a 

country, more accurately of a government, and it is not about the 

war. And, of course, Vietnam is a country where millions of people 

yearn to be breathing free and to enjoy the blessings of liberty. We 

say, ‘‘Behave like an honorable government. Stop bringing dishonor 

and shame to your government by abusing your own people, and 

start abiding by internationally-recognized U.N. covenants that you 

have signed.’’

5

When is enough, enough? Vietnam needs to come out of the dark 

ages of repression, brutality and abuse, and embrace freedom, the 

rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights. Vietnam 

needs to act like the strategic partner of the United States we 

would like it to be, treating its citizens—even those who disagree 

with government policies—with respect and dignity. 

Human rights are central, are at the core of our relationship 

with governments and the people they purport to represent. The 

United States of America will not turn a blind eye to the oppression of a people, any people in any region of the world. 

So I welcome our witnesses today and the valuable eyewitness 

testimony that they bring to the table, to the Congress, and by extension to the country and to the world, so that the world will get 

a true and accurate and complete picture of this government with 

whom we are growing ever closer. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

The Committee will come to order. Today we are meeting to examine the government of Vietnam’s respect for human rights and religious freedom. 

But let me say at the outset that I remain deeply concerned about obtaining a 

full, thorough and responsible accounting of the remaining American MIAs from the 

Vietnam conflict. As my colleagues know well, of the 2, 583 POW/MIAs who were 

unaccounted for—Vietnam (1,921), Laos (569), Cambodia (83) and China (10)—just 

under 1,400 remain unaccounted for in Vietnam. While the joint POW/MIA accounting command normally conducts four joint field activities per year in Vietnam, I remain deeply concerned that the government of Vietnam could be more forthcoming 

and transparent in providing the fullest accounting. It is our sacred duty to the families of the missing that we never forget and never cease our pursuit until we 

achieve the fullest possible accounting of our MIAs. 

This hearing takes place in the context of an official visit this week to Washington 

by Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai. Designed to mark 10 years of diplomatic relations between the United States and Vietnam, the visit is the highestlevel since the end of the Vietnam War. Khai will meet with President Bush and 

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, conclude intelligence agreements on terrorism and 

transnational crime, as well as begin IMET military cooperation, meet with Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, and ring the bell on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. 

Vietnam hopes to gain U.S. support to join the World Trade Organization this 

year. Trade with the United States has exploded in the past decade, from $1.5 billion to $6.4 billion in 2004. Vietnamese exports to the United States have also 

jumped from $800 million in 2001 to $5 billion last year. 

An outside observer looking at all of this activity would in all likelihood conclude 

that Vietnam is a close business and political partner of the United States in Asia. 

And that observer, if asked, would also likely deduce that in order to cooperate so 

closely, Vietnam must also share the core values of the United States that make 

our country great. Values such as the promotion of democracy, respect for human 

rights, and the protection of religious freedom, free speech, and the rights of minorities. 

A quick look at the State Department’s annual Human Rights report on Vietnam, 

however, reveals the opposite. According to the 2004 report released just three 

months ago, 

‘‘Vietnam is a one-party state, ruled and controlled by the Communist Party of 

Vietnam (CPV). . . . The Government’s human rights record remained poor, and it 

continued to commit serious abuses. The Government continued to deny citizens the 

right to change their government. Several sources reported that security forces shot, 

detained, beat, and were responsible for the disappearances of persons during the 

year. Police also reportedly sometimes beat suspects during arrests, detention, and 

interrogation. . . . The Government continued to hold political and religious prisoners. . . . The Government significantly restricted freedom of speech, freedom of 

the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. . . . Security forces conVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
6

tinued to enforce restrictions on public gatherings and travel in some parts of the 

country, particularly in the Central Highlands and the Northwest Highlands. The 

Government prohibited independent political, labor, and social organizations. . . . 

The Government restricted freedom of religion and prohibited the operation of unregistered religious organizations. Participants in unregistered organizations faced 

harassment as well as possible detention and imprisonment. The Government imposed limits on freedom of movement of some individuals whom it deemed a threat. 

The Government did not permit human rights organizations to form or operate.’’

Moreover, in September 2004, the State Department designated Vietnam as a 

‘‘Country of Particular Concern’’ or ‘‘CPC’’ for its systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom. 

Congress has also expressed its grave concern about the state of human rights 

in Vietnam. The House of Representatives has twice passed legislation authored by 

me on human rights in Vietnam. HR 1587, The Vietnam Human Rights Act of 2004, 

passed the House by a 323–45 vote in July of 2004. A similar measure passed by 

a 410–1 landslide in the House in 2001. The measures called for limiting further 

increases of non-humanitarian U.S. aid from being provided to Vietnam if certain 

human rights provisions were not met, and authorized funding to overcome the jamming of Radio Free Asia and funding to support non-governmental organizations 

which promote human rights and democratic change in Vietnam. Regrettably, both 

bills stalled in Senate committees and have not been enacted into law. 

I regret that no one from the State Department was available today to explain 

the incongruity of United States support for the government of Vietnam, as expressed in our close and growing-ever-closer trade and military relations, and U.S. 

concern for the appalling lack of respect for the basic human rights of its citizens 

that the Vietnamese government has consistently demonstrated. 

The Human Rights Reports, the Report on International Religious Freedom, the 

Trafficking in Persons Report, the reports of leading international human rights organizations, and countless witnesses, some of whose testimonies you will hear today, 

all testify that the government of Vietnam has inflicted and continues to inflict terrible suffering on countless people. 

It is a regime that arrests and imprisons writers, scientists, academics, religious 

leaders and even veteran communists in their own homes, and lately in Internet 

cafes, for speaking out for freedom and against corruption. In fact, this statement 

I am giving today would easily fetch me a 15-year prison sentence replete with torture if I were a Vietnamese national or Member of Parliament making these comments in Vietnam. 

It is a government that crushes thousands of Montagnard protestors, as they did 

in the Central Highlands during Easter weekend in 2004, killing and beating many 

peaceful protestors. 

The government has forcibly closed over 400 Christian churches in the Central 

Highlands, and the government continues to force tens of thousands of Christians 

to renounce their faith. I would note here that it is inspiring but not unexpected 

that many of these Christians have steadfastly resisted those pressures and refused 

to renounce Christ. One pastor estimated that 90 percent have refused to renounce 

their Christian faith, despite government efforts to compel them to do so. 

This is a government that has detained the leadership of the Unified Buddhist 

Church of Vietnam and continues to attempt to control the leadership of the Catholic Church. 

This is a government that imprisoned a Catholic priest by the name of Father Ly 

and meted out a 10-year prison sentence. Father Ly was imprisoned in 2001 when 

he was arrested after submitting testimony to a hearing of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. In his testimony, he criticized the communist government of Vietnam for its policies of repressing religious freedom. In 

fact, I was the author of H Con Res 378, which called for the immediate release 

of Father Ly and cleared Congress 424–1 on May 12, 2004. 

Thankfully Father Ly, along with Dr. Nguyen Dan Que, were released from prison 

earlier this year, in all likelihood due to the pressure from the United States with 

its CPC designation. 

Their release was part of a process called for in the 1998 International Religious 

Freedom Act, which I co-sponsored, which mandates that the U.S. government engage in dialogue with severe violators of religious freedom to improve conditions or 

face ‘‘Presidential actions,’’ which could include sanctions or withdrawal of non-humanitarian assistance. 

The Vietnamese government also took some other positive steps in response to the 

CPC designation, including a new law streamlining the application process for religious groups registering with the government and prime ministerial directives 

which prohibit forced renunciations of faith and allow Protestant ‘‘house churches’’ 

7

in ethnic minority provinces to operate if they renounce connections to certain expatriate groups, particularly the Montagnard Foundation, which is based in the 

United States. 

And in May, the State Department announced it had reached an agreement on 

religious freedom with Vietnam. Under the agreement, the Vietnamese government 

committed to:

• fully implement the new legislation on religious freedom and to render previous contradictory regulations obsolete;

• instruct local authorities to strictly and completely adhere to the new legislation and ensure their compliance;

• facilitate the process by which religious congregations are able to open houses 

of worship; and,

• give special consideration to prisoners and cases of concern raised by the 

United States during the granting of prisoner amnesties.

Time will tell whether the government will respect this agreement and comply 

with its provisions, or whether there will be a return to business as usual once the 

spotlight is removed. But the agreement does shows that the provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act seem to be helping to improve the respect for religious freedom in some of the worst violator countries. 

The more important point is that religious freedom is not a matter of compliance 

with an agreement, but an attitude of respect for citizens who choose to worship 

and peacefully practice their religious beliefs that extends from the highest government leaders down to local authorities and the village police. 

In a recent interview given prior to his visit to the United States, Prime Minister 

Khai stated, ‘‘we have no prisoners of conscience in Vietnam,’’ and declared that ‘‘political reforms and economic reforms should be closely harmonized.’’

His statement is typical of the attitude of the government of Vietnam, which has 

scoffed at the Vietnam Human Rights Act and dismissed charges of human rights 

abuses, pleading the tired mantra of interference in the internal affairs of their government and that our struggle is some way related to the war in Vietnam. They 

say, Vietnam is a country, not a war. That is their protest, and I would say that 

is precisely the issue. 

Today’s hearing is about the shameful human rights record of a country, more accurately, of a government, and it is not about the war. And, of course, Vietnam is 

a country with millions of wonderful people who yearn to breathe free and to enjoy 

the blessings of liberty. We say, behave like an honorable government, stop bringing 

dishonor and shame to your government by abusing your own people and start abiding by internationally recognized U.N. covenants that you have signed. 

When is enough, enough? Vietnam needs to come out of the dark ages of repression, brutality and abuse and embrace freedom, the rule of law, and respect for fundamental human rights. Vietnam needs to act like the strategic partner of the 

United States we would like it to be, treating its citizens, even those who disagree 

with government policies, with respect and dignity. 

Human rights are central, are at the core of our relationship with governments 

and the people they purport to represent. The United States of America will not 

turn a blind eye to the oppression of a people, any people in any region of the world. 

I welcome our witnesses and the valuable eyewitness testimony they bring today, 

so that the world will get a true and complete picture of this government with whom 

we are growing ever closer.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague, 

Mr. Payne, for any opening comments he may have. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for calling this 

very important hearing of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Human Rights and International Operations. I think the issue 

today is a very important issue. Of course, as we move forward in 

the world today, human rights and the behavior of governments 

must be paramount as we move through this new millennium. 

April 30 marked the 30th year since the fall of Saigon. We may 

recall the history in Vietnam, the battles at Dien Bien Phu, which 

created the Geneva Accords, which partitioned North Vietnam and 

the French South Vietnam-administered zone. And we do remember that many of the problems that we have today, primarily 

8

through many, many years, is because of the desire of colonized 

people to become free. 

Especially after World War II, we found in Africa where countries were under the domination of Europeans that revolutions 

began—whether it was in Angola, the Congo, or in Mozambique—

people were fighting for their independence to remove the colonial 

powers who had been in their countries for over 100 years. 

And in the case of Vietnam, as you know, it was the National 

Liberation Front, the Viet Cong, who fought to liberate South Vietnam from the French. And we recall that during that struggle, the 

French withdrew, and the United States, without declaring war, 

continued to escalate our involvement in that country, not realizing 

that we were simply picking up the French’s problem where they 

were attempting to hold onto their colonies. 

What ensued, of course, was a terrible number of years where 

many, many American lives were lost and the country was really 

destroyed. The fact is that if we could have seen the difference between the National Liberation Front—the people who were fighting 

for their independence—from the colonial people, and the difference 

between the North Vietnamese—as a matter of fact, the National 

Liberation Front was very uncomfortable with the North Vietnamese because they felt they were dominated by China. And the 

VC fought against domination of the French and were also disturbed that the North Vietnamese were dominated by the People’s 

Republic of China, and they did not want Vietnam to be controlled. 

We know about the boat people that ended up in Thailand, where 

many Vietnamese boat people wandered around that region. In 

Thailand, you had Hmong tribes, people from Laos, and the boat 

people from Vietnam and the displaced Thais, and the Ching Mai 

region of Thailand was a very difficult place. 

I recall this because at that time I was Chairman of a world refugee committee headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, which had 

the responsibility of working with refugees. And as you know, people are not refugees in their own country. Therefore NGOs had to 

deal with the problem of Vietnam because you cannot be a refugee 

in your own country, and therefore, it restricts the United Nations 

from being involved with refugee work there. 

And I happened to be in Vietnam after the withdrawal of the 

American troops, and I went up to Quang Tri Province, to Da Nang 

to the north, where we were trying to work with displaced people 

in getting agriculture working, and the myth was that the South 

Vietnamese military would withstand the VC and the North Vietnamese. And as we all know, at that time it was the lull before the 

storm. I was the only American in Vietnam at that time as the 

Chair of the Refugee Committee. I was not there for war-related 

issues. I was there for human rights, trying to help the displaced 

Vietnamese. But I left 1 week before the fall of Saigon. 

I have watched Vietnam very closely for many years. I was very 

pleased when, under President Clinton, the relationship between 

Vietnam and the United States changed in the mid-1990s. Major 

strides, such as bilateral trade agreements of 2001 signed by President Bush, gave Vietnam conditional normal trade relations and 

have carried the normalization project further. The United States 

has become Vietnam’s largest trading partner with $6.4 billion 

9

worth of trade last year alone. Coffee has become a major commodity and the exports in Vietnam. However, protests have been 

held around the country against the U.S. visit of Prime Minister 

Khai and his meeting with President Bush, which is to take place 

tomorrow. 

Because of the human rights abuses which continue in Vietnam 

30 years after the war, human rights should be heavily weighed in 

the decision to extend permanent normal trade relations to the 

country. I was one who opposed normal trade relations with the 

People’s Republic of China. How can we have normal trade relations with a country under dictatorial regime, human rights, religious rights, racial rights, ethnic rights? However, there was a 

push for normal trade relations which we have with the People’s 

Republic of China; which we should not have because we should 

have made it conditional on human rights advances. We continue 

to have policies against Cuba where they, too, have human rights 

problems, but we have normal relations with Pakistan, with China, 

with Vietnam. 

And so one thing that is very consistent about U.S. policy is that 

it is inconsistent. It does not deal with each country as it should. 

If it is a policy of not recognizing a country that has human rights 

violations, just like we flew the Sudan’s secret police to Washington, DC, while genocide is going on in Darfur, it is wrong. So 

we have to be consistent if we want to be respected. 

And so as Vietnam seeks closer ties with the United States and 

membership in the World Trade Organization, it should be made 

clear that Vietnam must respect and uphold human rights. The 

crackdown on the protests by ethnic minorities, the Montagnards 

of the Highlands, the Hmong Hill people, Christian people of the 

Northwest Highlands, is unacceptable. All citizens of Vietnam 

should be able to express their opinions even if they are antigovernment. The government must also allow freedom of worship 

and reopen churches that were closed out of religious discrimination. 

For fiscal year 2005, United States assistance to Vietnam is expected to be around $55 million, double the $27 million that the 

United States provided in 2002. We have a responsibility to hold 

the Government of Vietnam accountable to human rights, particularly as aid and trade has been increased and normalization has 

been continually pushed. 

Despite the results of an opinion poll in 1975—which reported 

that 50 percent of Americans were against the resettlement of Vietnam refugees, many of whom are here, or families of them—tens 

of thousands of Vietnamese have sought refuge in the United 

States since then. Those who have resettled here have enriched 

this great Nation with increased diversity of origin, ethnicity and 

perception. The Vietnamese immigrants that came to this country 

have worked hard and have built up the community and have 

stressed education, so many of the second generation and third 

generation are now outstanding professionals in our land. So the 

policy, even though the U.S. was primarily opposed to the citizens, 

it was a decision that was made in spite of that, where decisions 

should be made in spite of public opinion polls. In some instances, 

it takes courage. 

10

Today, June 20, is recognized as World Refugee Day, designated 

by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This year’s 

theme is courage. Courage is what we saw with the Vietnamese 

people who left there and even were brutalized by the Thai pirates 

as they were seeking freedom. This year’s theme of courage, the 

focus, therefore, is on the great risk that people take when they 

leave their country of origin and the bravery it takes to seek refuge 

in another country. It is not easy to give up and leave one’s home, 

one’s country, one’s way of life, one’s language, one’s relatives, even 

if that life was difficult and treacherous. So today on World Refugee Day, let us recognize the courage that refugees around the 

world show, and the way that the refugees from Vietnam in the 

1970s and early 1980s showed, and have compassion for their situations as we strive to work with the international community to resolve the situations in their home countries which caused them to 

flee. 

I also would like to comment briefly on the fact that I believe 

that our refugee courts are unfair. Many times refugees are sent 

back to the country of asylum, not treated fairly in these closed 

courts. And I am going to ask for a review of the manner in which 

the Department of Justice or Homeland Security or whoever’s jurisdiction it is. 

I had to wait almost an hour to get into a hearing of a person 

from Sudan who was going to be sent back—his parents had been 

killed—until I had to act very, very ugly to get into a court and 

a detention center in my district in Elizabeth, which is funded by 

this body. And so I am very upset but will take that up at another 

time. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you again, Chairman Smith, for calling this 

very timely and very important hearing on the situation of human 

rights in Vietnam. Tomorrow marks a very important day in 

United States-Vietnamese relations. 

This January, President Bush laid out a bold vision for support 

of those seeking freedom and democracy around the world. Tomorrow’s meeting is an important test for that vision. It has been a 

decade since President Clinton established formal diplomatic relations with Vietnam. Many proclaim progress in economic relations, 

yet Vietnam’s economy is continually ranked mostly ‘‘unfree’’ by 

The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom. As a matter of fact, if we look at the situation in Vietnam, we see that the 

Republic of Congo scores better than Vietnam in that Index. 

It is interesting to note that Vietnamese, where they found freedom around the world, have done very well, whether that is in Europe or Australia or the United States—in southern California particularly. They have done well. Unfortunately, communism was not 

kind to the economy of Vietnam. As a matter of fact, after the fall 

of Saigon, many people perished. Many in the reeducation camps, 

many of the bourgeois, as they were called, and many of the business people were liquidated, and the economic reforms, which we 

have waited and hoped for, have yet to really take effect. 

Significantly, progress on human rights in Vietnam has been 

stagnant. In some cases, frankly, it has taken a step backward. 

11

Since the inception of its country rankings in 1999, Vietnam is continuously ranked ‘‘not free’’ by Freedom House. 

The Chairman has laid out in great detail the lack of religious 

freedom in Vietnam. In addition, of particular concern to me is the 

control over the media that the Vietnamese Government has put 

in place. Newspapers, television and radio stations remain under 

strict government control, and as you know, this has expanded into 

control of the Internet. Young Vietnamese all over the world can 

go to chat rooms and discuss ideas, but not in Vietnam. In Vietnam 

they will be turned over to the government, the government monitors this, and they will serve long, long, long sentences in prison. 

As long-time dissident Dr. Nguyen Dan Que has correctly stated: 

‘‘The state hopes to clean the power by brainwashing the Vietnamese people through stringent censorship and through its absolutist control over what information the public can receive.’’ This 

is why I have authored legislation in the past that has become law 

to expand the broadcasting of Radio Free Asia into Vietnam, so 

people can actually learn what is going on in their country. 

Radio Free Asia launched its Vietnamese service in January 

1997. Vietnam has a history of heavily jamming RFA. They 

jammed it the first day of its broadcast. RFA employs almost triple 

the frequencies than it would to a nonjamming country in order to 

try to overcome the effects of that. I would like President Bush to 

ask Mr. Khai what news he is afraid of. What news he is afraid 

of having the Vietnamese people hear about what is going on in 

Vietnam? To my knowledge, no official complaint has been logged 

with the Vietnamese Government over the jamming of RFA. 

Well, I feel for the consequences of people under communism 

around the world, and when governments fall, when people find 

they face the brunt of Marxism, the result is often the same: Hundreds of thousands of people perish. In this case some were able 

to escape, some of those designated as enemies of the people, and 

as I say, they have done quite successfully around the world. 

Where they have had access to freedom, they have done remarkably well, but they still worry about the conditions of their countrymen that they left behind. They worry about the conditions of their 

family members and whether anyone pays attention to how their 

liberties and rights are ground down and how they live in such abject poverty because of such wrongly headed government policies 

based on reactionary economic theory. 

I just wanted to thank Chairman Smith for holding this hearing 

so we could perhaps examine a little bit the conditions of the lack 

of liberty. From my experience, the Vietnamese Government understands criticism. When I met with Thich Quang Do, who was under 

house arrest, and with Le Quang Nguyen in Saigon several years 

ago, I was immediately denounced by Hanoi just for listening to 

those religious leaders who were incarcerated. Well, the good Vietnamese Government should be able to take as good as it gives. The 

human rights situation in Vietnam is abysmal, as we will hear 

today, and I am glad we have this forum. 

Chairman Smith, thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for your comments and your leadership. 

It is deeply appreciated and respected. 

Mr. Fortenberry. 

12

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too, wish to 

show my appreciation for your willingness to hold this important 

hearing today. 

I think we have here some good news and some bad news. The 

good news, of course, is that the United States and Vietnam are 

actively healing past wounds. Trade is somewhat opening, and active visitation to Vietnam is also allowed. However, Mr. Chairman, 

as you have rightly pointed out, the Government of Vietnam continues to fear freedom of religion, freedom of worship, and continues in repressive action against those who seek to exercise these 

and other fundamental human rights. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe the United States seeks only one thing, 

and that is ongoing peace and friendship with the Government of 

Vietnam, but we ask the government to become a respected member of the world community and to promote and not deny fundamental rights of its own citizens. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also be remiss if I did not point out that 

I have the great privilege and honor of being a representative of 

a great number of Vietnamese Americans, people who fled Vietnam 

by boats, who were imprisoned, tortured, made their way here to 

refugee camps and settled in the heart of America to start new 

lives, built wonderful families, and have made magnificent contributions to the well-being of our community and communities 

throughout America. I think this hearing actually honors them, but 

it also reminds us that there are many people back in Vietnam 

that we should not forget about. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

I would just note, as other Members of the Committee know, Mr. 

Fortenberry is one of the rising stars on the International Relations 

Committee and has a deep commitment to human rights and in 

particular to Vietnam. So thank you for your comments. 

Let me introduce Nina Shea, the Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, no stranger to this Committee nor to the Congress. Since 1999, Ms. Shea has served as a 

Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious 

Freedom. In 2003 and 2004, she was elected as Vice Chair of the 

Commission. She has been an international human rights lawyer 

for 25 years, and for 19 years has focused specifically on the issue 

of religious freedom and American foreign policy as the Director of 

the Center for Religious Freedom, a division of Freedom House. 

She is a co-author of a newly released book on governance by extreme sharia, Radical Islam’s Rules, that is published by Rowman 

and Littlefield, and is the author of a widely acclaimed book on 

anti-Christian persecution around the world entitled In the Lion’s 

Den, published by Broadman and Holman. 

It was a conference that brought Ms. Shea—organized under 

Freedom House auspices in January 1996 that brought 100 top 

Christian leaders together for the first time to address the issue of 

worldwide anti-Christian persecution. In 2001, she was appointed 

by President Bush to serve on the U.S. delegation to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. During the Clinton Administration, she also served on the Advisory Committee on Religious 

Freedom Abroad to the U.S. Secretary of State, and for a year as 

13

the delegate to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. And I 

would say when we were writing—and it was Congressman Frank 

Wolf’s bill—the International Religious Freedom Act went through 

our Committee, my Subcommittee initially, Nina Shea was a major 

player in helping us devise the text and the language that went 

into that bill so it would be workable and responsible and responsive, and I want to thank her for that. 

She has been a leader in the area of Sudan. When many people 

were turning a blind eye to the ongoing killing of some 2 million 

people, displacement of 4 million, Nina was out there pushing the 

previous and the current Administration to initiate a robust response. I want to thank her for her leadership there. 

STATEMENT OF MS. NINA SHEA, VICE CHAIR, U.S. 

COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 

Ms. SHEA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Let me begin by thanking you for holding this very important, timely hearing. It is an honor for me to be here. And, Mr. 

Chairman, it is a great joy to have someone as dedicated as you 

have been in the issue of human rights. 

Prime Minister Phan Van Khai arrives in Washington today to 

hold an historic meeting with President Bush. It has been nearly 

30 years since the end of the Vietnam War and 10 years since our 

two countries have normalized relations. Relations between our two 

countries have strengthened and improved in many important 

areas. Trade is up to almost $7 billion a year, and Vietnam seems 

poised to enter the World Trade Organization. Military ties are 

growing as our naval ships now regularly visit Vietnamese ports. 

The United States is also popular with Vietnamese youth. 

These are encouraging signs and ones that should be capitalized 

on. A secure and prosperous Southeast Asia is in the interest of 

both of our countries, but significant issues remain, particularly in 

the area of human rights, including religious freedom. More than 

any other issue, differences in human rights and religious freedom 

have the potential to inhibit the forward momentum in our bilateral relationship. Relations can never fully develop until the Government of Vietnam protects and promotes the fundamental right 

of all its citizens. 

These concerns should not be swept aside during the Prime Minister’s visit. It is crucial that the U.S. Government speaks with one 

strong voice that economic and security interests should not precede human rights. In his meeting with the Prime Minister, President Bush has the chance to explain why human rights are an important U.S. foreign policy concern and how progress on human 

rights is needed before there is full cooperation on other bilateral 

interests. 

Mr. Chairman, the Government of Vietnam’s human rights 

record remains poor, and freedoms of speech, assembly, association 

and religion continue to be significantly restricted. Though Vietnam is in some respects a less repressive society now than it was 

10 or 15 years ago, we should not conclude that Vietnam’s economic openness has led directly to political openness or greater respect for human rights. Our deepening economic and commercial 

relationship with Vietnam may encourage economic reform and 

14

transparency, and it may draw Vietnam further into rules-based 

international trading systems, but the evidence suggests that it has 

not encouraged greater political freedom for Vietnam’s citizens. 

The human rights situation in Vietnam has not improved since 

passage of the Bilateral Trade Act of 2001. One has seen the brutal 

and ongoing suppression of Hmong in the northwest provinces for 

their Christian faith and the suppression of Montagnards who 

marched for land rights and religious freedom in April 2004; the 

jailing of Pham Song Hong and others for posting articles critical 

of the government on the Internet; the silencing and jailing of journalists for exposing corruption; and the mass arrest of Buddhist 

monks from the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, despite 

promises by Prime Minister Khai that pressure on the group would 

cease. 

Monk Thich Thien Minh, released in February after 26 years in 

prison, did not see many improvements in human rights and religious freedom. He said: ‘‘I have exchanged my small prison for a 

bigger one.’’

The lessons of recent history are quite clear. Economic freedom 

and political freedom cannot be separated. People want to experience the benefits of liberty undiluted, and governments who try to 

check this desire will find they are trying to hold back the rolling 

tide of the human spirit. 

I am sure the other witnesses will discuss in more detail other 

human rights concerns, so with the remainder of my remarks, I 

would like to focus on religious freedom in Vietnam, and particularly on United States-Vietnam relations since Vietnam was designated by the Secretary of State as a Country of Particular Concern under the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act. 

The Commission has followed events in Vietnam closely. Commissioners and staff have traveled to Vietnam, and we have established contact with religious leaders, scholars and human rights activists inside and outside of Vietnam. 

Over the past 15 years, the Government of Vietnam has slowly 

carved a noticeable zone of toleration for government-approved religious practice; however, at the same time, it has actively repressed 

and targeted subversive religious activity it cannot control or that 

which refuses government oversight. Targeted in particular are 

leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam; ethnic minority 

Christians in the Central Highlands and northwest provinces; 

house church Protestants; and followers of religious minority 

groups such as the Hoa Hao and Cao Dai. This repression has not 

abated in the last year. 

Since 2001, the Commission has recommended that Vietnam be 

designated as a Country of Particular Concern for ongoing, egregious and systematic abuses of religious freedom under the International Religious Freedom Act. The State Department followed 

our recommendation and designated Vietnam as a CPC in September of last year. 

Since the CPC designation, the State Department and the Vietnamese Government have engaged on the issue of religious freedom. The Government of Vietnam has made gestures, including the 

release of several prominent dissidents, a directive to stop forcing 

Protestants to recant their faith, and another to streamline the apVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
15

plication process for religious groups registering with the government. 

The State Department cited these actions as progress when it announced last month that it had reached an agreement with Vietnam to avoid more stringent actions, including economic sanctions 

for countries designated as a CPC. Though the agreement is secret, 

from public statements we know that, basically, Vietnam promised 

to implement its new laws, and the United States promised to consider removing the CPC designation. 

We should not downplay the significance of this action, and Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom John Hanford should be commended for the time and effort he has invested 

in Vietnam. The agreement reached was the first such diplomatic 

agreement signed with a CPC country since the passage of the act 

in 1998. We should see this as evidence that both vigorous diplomatic action and the use of the CPC designation produced results 

that might lead to future improvements in religious freedom for 

Vietnam. 

But, Mr. Chairman, the keywords are ‘‘might’’ and ‘‘future.’’ The 

actions taken only signal promises of improvements and not actual 

measurable progress. Promises do not mean progress, and these actions do not address the human rights violations that landed Vietnam on the CPC list in the first place. Religious prisoners remain 

behind bars, churches remain closed, and restrictions and harassment on all of Vietnam’s diverse religious communities continue. 

There are a number of important religious freedom concerns that 

are not addressed by Vietnam’s recent action, and I would like to 

name a few. Leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam 

continue to be harassed and detained, and there is no legal framework for that church, the Hoa Hao, the Cao Dai, and others to register with the government and operate independently with leaders 

of their own choosing. There are an estimated 100 religious prisoners in jail or under some form of house arrest for religious activity, according to human rights groups. Actual numbers are difficult 

to obtain because of the lack of judicial transparency. And hundreds of churches, home worship centers and meeting places remain closed, and forced or coerced renunciations of faith continue 

in some parts of the country. The government continues to impose 

limits on the number of candidates allowed to study for Roman 

Catholic priesthood, controls the appointment and the promotion of 

Catholic clergy, and has seized church properties. 

Troubling reports continue to arrive with new arrests and pressure on religious and ethnic minorities in Vietnam. Despite promises to ban forced renunciations of faith, evidence from the northwest provinces and Central Highlands suggesting that the Prime 

Minister’s ‘‘Instructions on Protestantism’’ are being used by security forces to compel ethnic minority Protestants to join the government-approved Protestant organization, give up their distinctive 

faith tradition or face criminal penalties. 

On February 25th at 7 a.m., two police officers in Gai Lai Province summoned two men and a woman for interrogation. They were 

asked whether they followed Dega Christianity or the Christianity 

of Phan Van Khai. They were asked who in their village followed 

the religion that is political and where they worshiped and ordered 

16

to cease following Dega Christianity. They did not agree to stop. 

The police hit one of the men with their fists and beat the second 

man until he lost consciousness. The three were released from detention the same day. They were warned they would be arrested 

if they were caught practicing their religion again. 

From March 15 to 18, police surrounded many villages and communes also in Gai Lai Province. Officials called Montagnard representatives from villages in these communes for full-day meetings 

at the district headquarters where they were lectured by district 

authorities as well as police from Hanoi, most likely officials from 

the Ministry of Public Security, and warned not to follow Dega 

Christianity. In some cases they were forced to sign pledges agreeing to abandon Christianity and politics. Officials also conducted 

meetings in the villages during this time in which they instructed 

villagers not to hold religious gatherings. 

The events also happened in the Central Highlands, but forced 

renunciations also continue among the Hmong in Vietnam’s northwest. Police and security forces continue to summon Hmong Christian villagers to reeducation where they are told to give up their 

faith traditions and are harassed and beaten. And, Mr. Chairman, 

we have copies we would like to make available of police summonses to those Hmong Christians that were dated last month, 

May 8 and 9, after the agreement with the United States. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, I would like to make those a part 

of the record. 

[The information referred to was not received prior to printing.] 

Ms. SHEA. The Commission has 21 of these police summonses. 

Also security forces have arrested church leaders, destroyed 

church property and continue to harass followers of the Mennonite 

Church of Vietnam. I have a letter here from Truong Tri Hien, the 

acting secretary of the Mennonite Church, and Mr. Chairman, I 

would like to see if this could be entered in the record. 

Mr. SMITH. No objection. 

[The information referred to follows:]

17


21973a.eps
18


21973b.eps
19


21973c.eps
20


21973d.eps
21


21973e.eps
22


21973f.eps
23


21973g.eps
24


21973h.eps
25


21973i.eps
26


21973j.eps
27


21973k.eps
28


21973l.eps
29


21973m.eps
30

Ms. SHEA. The letter documents in great detail the arrests and 

harassment faced by his religious community over the past 18 

months. It is a sad and telling testimonial to the continued pressure that religious groups face in Vietnam. He wants the Commission to give the letter to the Committee and distribute it to those 

concerned about religious freedom in Vietnam. Pastor Hien is taking a great risk compiling and sending this letter, and he knows 

it. We are told that he is in hiding in a third country. He is awaiting an interview with the Department of Homeland Security so he 

can come to the United States and meet with you, Mr. Chairman, 

in person, an issue that was addressed by Mr. Payne. 

It is obvious to me that the situation in Vietnam can be summed 

up as repression as usual. Though promises of future improvement 

are encouraging, we should not reward Vietnam too quickly by lifting the CPC designation. We know that human rights remain a 

problem for United States-Vietnam relations, but the question that 

always rises is: What can we do about it? 

The Commission’s 2005 annual report includes policy recommendations that we believe can improve United States human 

rights diplomacy for Vietnam. In general, the Commission recommends that United States diplomatic and assistance programs 

be expanded and reprioritized to directly promote freedom of religion and related human rights in Vietnam. Non-humanitarian assistance programs have been declining in Vietnam except for new 

HIV/AIDS funding and assistance programs to help Vietnam enter 

the WTO. We believe that new public diplomacy, economic development and technical assistance programs should be targeted to address ongoing human rights problems. 

We have made specific recommendations for congressional and 

administrative action in the areas of public diplomacy, economic 

development, education, good governance and rule-of-law programs 

for Vietnam. I will append them to my remarks for the record. If 

the Government of Vietnam were to take further steps to honor its 

international commitments and improve its respect for human 

rights, United States-Vietnam relations will improve for the long 

term and serve as a basis for a strong and healthy relationship 

built on mutual interests, the rule of law and the non-negotiable 

demand of human dignity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shea follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. NINA SHEA, VICE CHAIR, U.S. COMMISSION ON

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

A STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY: HUMAN RIGHTS & THE PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee let me begin by thanking you for 

holding this important and timely hearing. It is an honor for me to be here. 

Prime Minister Phan Van Khai arrives in Washington today to hold a historic 

meeting with President Bush. It has been thirty years since the end of the Vietnam 

War and ten years since our two countries have normalized relations. 

Relations between our two countries have strengthened and improved in many 

important areas. Trade is up to almost $7 billion a year and Vietnam seems poised 

to enter the World Trade Organization (WTO). Military ties are growing as our 

naval ships now regularly visit Vietnamese ports The U.S. is also popular with Vietnamese youth. 

These are encouraging signs and ones that should be capitalized on. A secure and 

prosperous Southeast Asia is in the interest of both our countries. 

31

But significant issues remain, particularly in the area of human rights, including 

religious freedom. More than any other issue, differences over human rights and religious freedom have the potential to inhibit the forward momentum in our bilateral 

relationship. Relations can never fully develop until the Government of Vietnam 

protects and promotes the fundamental human rights of all its citizens. 

These concerns should not be swept aside during the Prime Minister’s visit. It is 

crucial that the U.S. Government speaks with one strong voice that economic and 

security interests should not precede human rights. 

In his meeting with the Prime Minister, President Bush has the chance to explain 

why human rights are an important U.S. foreign policy concern and how progress 

on human rights is needed before there is full cooperation on other bilateral interests. 

HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM IN VIETNAM: THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman, the Government of Vietnam’s human rights record remains poor 

and freedoms of speech, assembly, association and religion continue to be significantly restricted. Though Vietnam is in some respects a less repressive society now 

than it was ten or fifteen years ago, we should not conclude that Vietnam’s economic 

openness has lead directly to political openness or greater respect for human rights. 

Our deepening economic and commercial relationship with Vietnam may encourage economic reform and transparency and it may draw Vietnam further into a 

rules-based international trading system, but the evidence suggests that it has not 

encouraged greater political freedom for Vietnamese citizens. 

The human rights situation in Vietnam has not improved since passage of the Bilateral Trade Act of 2001. One has seen the brutal and ongoing suppression of ethnic Montagnards who marched for land rights and religious freedom in April of 

2004, the jailing of Pham Song Hong and others for posting articles critical of the 

government on the Internet, the silencing and jailing of journalists for exposing corruption, and the mass arrests of Buddhist monks from the Unified Buddhist Church 

of Vietnam (UBCV), despite promises by Prime Minister Khai that pressure on the 

group would cease. UBCV monk Thich Thien Minh, released in February after sixteen years in prison, did not see many improvements in human rights and religious 

freedom. He said, ‘‘I have exchanged my small prison for a bigger one.’’

The lessons of recent history are quite clear-economic freedom and political freedom cannot be separated. People want to experience the benefits of liberty undiluted 

and governments who try to check this desire will find they are trying to hold back 

the rolling tide of the human spirit. 

I am sure that the other panelists today will discuss in more detail other human 

rights concerns. So, with the remainder of my remarks, I would like to focus on religious freedom in Vietnam and particularly on U.S.-Vietnam relations since Vietnam 

was designated, by the Secretary of State, as a country of particular concern. 

VIETNAM AS COUNTRY OF PARTICULAR CONCERN (CPC): EVIDENCE THAT INTERNATIONAL

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT (IRFA) WORKS

The Commission has followed events in Vietnam closely. Commissioners and staff 

have traveled to Vietnam and we have established contact with religious leaders, 

scholars, and human rights activists inside and outside of Vietnam. 

Over the past fifteen years, the government of Vietnam has slowly carved out a 

noticeable ‘‘zone of toleration’’ for government approved religious practice. However, 

at the same time, it has actively repressed, and targeted as subversive, religious activity it cannot control or that which refuses government oversight. Targeted in particular are leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV), ethnic minority Christians in the Central Highlands and northwest provinces, ‘‘house-church’’ 

Protestants, and followers of religious minority groups such as the Hoa Hao and Cao 

Dai. This repression has not abated in the last year. 

Since 2001, the Commission recommended that Vietnam be designated as a country of particular concern (CPC) for ongoing, egregious, and systematic abuses of religious freedom under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. The State Department followed our recommendation and designated Vietnam as a CPC in September of last year. 

Since the CPC designation, the State Department and the Vietnamese government have engaged on the issue of religious freedom. The government of Vietnam 

has made some gestures, including the release of several prominent dissidents, a directive to stop forcing Protestants to recant their faith, and another to streamline 

the application process for religious groups registering with the government. 

The State Department cited these actions as progress when it announced last 

month that it had reached an ‘‘agreement’’ with Vietnam to avoid more stringent 

32

actions, including economic sanctions, for countries designated as a CPC. Though 

the agreement is secret, from public statements we know that basically Vietnam 

promised to implement its new laws and the U.S. promised to consider removing 

the CPC designation. 

We should not downplay the significance of this action and Ambassador-At-Large 

for International Religious Freedom John Hanford should be commended for the 

time and effort he has invested in Vietnam. The agreement reached was the first 

such diplomatic agreement signed with a CPC country since the passage of IRFA 

in 1998. We should see this as evidence that both vigorous diplomatic action and 

the use of the CPC designation produced results that might lead to future improvements in religious freedom in Vietnam. 

But, Mr. Chairman, the key words here are ‘‘might’’ and ‘‘future.’’ The actions 

taken only signal promises of improvement and not actual measurable progress. 

Promises do not mean progress. And, these actions do not address the human rights 

violations that landed Vietnam on the CPC list in the first place. 

Religious prisoners remain behind bars, churches remain closed, and restrictions 

and harassment on all of Vietnam’s diverse religious communities continue. 

DON’T LIFT THE CPC DESIGNATION WITHOUT CONCRETE RESULTS

There are a number of important religious freedom concerns that are not addressed by Vietnam’s recent action, including:

• Leaders of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) continue to be 

harassed and detained, and there is no legal framework for the UBCV, the 

Hoa Hao, Cao Dai, and others to register with the government and operate 

independently with leaders of their own choosing;

• There are an estimated 100 religious prisoners in jail or under some form of 

house arrest for religious activity, according to human rights groups, although 

actual numbers are difficult to obtain because of the lack of judicial transparency;

• And hundreds of churches, home worship centers, and meeting places remain 

closed, and forced or coerced renunciations of faith continue in some parts of 

the country.

• The government continues to impose limits on the number of candidates allowed to study for Roman Catholic priesthood, controls the appointment and 

promotion of Catholic clergy, and has seized church properties.

Troubling reports continue to arrive of new arrests and pressure on religious and 

ethnic minorities in Vietnam.

• Despite promises to ban forced renunciations of faith, evidence from the Central Highlands suggesting that the Prime Minister’s ‘‘Instructions on Protestantism’’ is being used by security forces to compel ethnic minority Protestants to join the government-approved Protestant organization, give up their 

distinctive faith tradition, or face criminal penalties.

— On February 25 at 7 a.m., two police officers from Ia To commune, Ia 

Grai District, Gai Lai Province summoned two men and a woman for interrogation. They were asked whether they followed Dega Christianity 

or the ‘‘Christianity of [Prime Minister] Phan Van Khai’’. They were 

asked who in their village followed ‘‘the religion that is political’’ and 

where they worshiped, and ordered to cease following Dega Christianity. 

They did not agree to stop. The police hit one of the men with their fists 

and beat the second man until he lost consciousness. The three were released from detention the same day. They were warned that they would 

be arrested if they were caught practicing their religion again.

— From March 15–18, police surrounded many villages in Ia Hru, Ia Ko, 

and Ia Pet communes in Gai Lai provinces. Officials called Montagnard 

representatives from villages in these communes for full day meetings 

at the district headquarters in Cu Se, where they were lectured by district authorities as well as ‘‘police from Hanoi’’ (most likely officials from 

the Ministry of Public Security) and warned not to follow ‘‘Dega Christianity’’. In some cases they were forced to sign pledges agreeing to abandon Christianity and politics. Officials also conducted meetings in the 

villages during this time in which they instructed villagers not to hold 

religious gatherings.

— The events above happened in the Central Highlands, but forced renunciations also continue among the Hmong in Vietnam’s northwest provVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
33

inces. Police and security forces continue to summon Hmong Christian 

villagers to ‘‘re-education’’ where they are told to give up their faith traditions, are harassed, beaten and sometimes forced to drink wine.

— Mr. Chairman, the Commission has 21 of these police summons, most 

dated less than one month ago, in Pu Nhi Commune, Dien Bein Dong 

District, Dien Bien Province. I have a copy of the summons for the Committee.

• Also, Mr. Chairman, security forces have arrested church leaders, destroyed 

church property, and continue to harass followers of the Mennonite Church 

of Vietnam.

Mr. Chairman, I have a letter here from Truong Tri Hien, the Acting Secretary 

of the Mennonite Church of Vietnam. The letter documents, in great detail the arrests and harassment faced by his religious community over the past eighteen 

months. It is a sad and telling testimonial to the continued pressure that religious 

groups face in Vietnam. He wants the Commission to give the letter to the Committee and distribute it to those concerned about religious freedom in Vietnam. 

Pastor Hien is taking a great risk compiling and sending this letter and he knows 

it. We are told that he is in hiding in a third country. He is awaiting an interview 

with the Department of Homeland Security so he can come to the United States and 

meet with you, Mr. Chairman, in person. 

It is obvious to me that the situation in Vietnam can be summed up as ‘‘repression as usual.’’ Though promises of future improvement are encouraging, we should 

not reward Vietnam too quickly by lifting the CPC designation. 

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS: 

We know that human rights remain a problem for U.S.-Vietnam relations. But the 

question that always arises is what can we do about it? 

The Commission’s 2005 Annual Report includes policy recommendations that we 

believe can improve U.S. human rights diplomacy for Vietnam. In general, the Commission recommends that U.S. diplomatic and assistance programs be expanded and 

re-prioritized to directly promote freedom of religion and related human rights in 

Vietnam. Non-humanitarian assistance programs have been declining in Vietnam, 

except for new HIV/AID funding and assistance programs to help Vietnam enter the 

WTO. We believe that new public diplomacy, economic development, and technical 

assistance programs should be targeted to address ongoing human rights problems. 

We have made specific recommendations for Congressional and Administration action in the areas of public diplomacy, economic development, education, good governance, and rule of law programs for Vietnam. 

I will append them to my remarks for the record. 

CONCLUSION: 

If the Government of Vietnam were to take further steps to honor its international commitments and improve its respect for human rights, U.S.-Vietnam relations will improve for the long term and serve as the basis for a strong and healthy 

relationship built on mutual interests, the rule of law, and the ‘‘non-negotiable demand of human dignity.’’

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I welcome your questions. 

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was created by the 

International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to monitor the status of freedom of 

thought, conscience, and religion or belief abroad, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related international instruments, and to give independent policy recommendations to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for your testimony and for the 

extraordinary work you have done over these many years. 

We have a very, very distinguished group of panelists in panel 

two, and just to pull some of their statements and get your reaction 

to them. Helen Ngo, who is the Chairperson of the Committee for 

Religious Freedom in Vietnam, makes the point that the ordinance 

on belief and religion and the instructions on the implementation 

of that ordinance, which the Department of State has praised as 

an improvement, is actually a step backwards, and she quotes two 

priests who have been put under detention who have said, and I 

quote them:

34

‘‘These two documents practically give the local authorities 

full control of all religious activities. Local government officials 

can do whatever they want, causing unaccountable obstacles to 

the appointment of clergy members, to the registration of seminarians, to the organization of religious activities and to the 

demand for return of confiscated church properties.’’

She also points out in her testimony, and this is a very disturbing trend, that one pastor, Pastor Truong of the Baptist General Conference, has actually been sent to a psychiatric facility. 

And if you believe in God and not in communism, you must be—

as she points out—insane. That is reminiscent of the Soviet Union 

and the use of their psychiatric hospitals as a means of dissentbusting and to hurt the religious believers in the Soviet Union. And 

we are seeing that same disgusting human rights abuse acted out 

in Vietnam today. 

While you are responding, Dr. Thang of S.O.S. Boat People, 

makes a point that there is less freedom, more persecution in today’s Vietnam than 10 years ago. And he, too, points out that there 

has been increased use of torture, including physical and psychiatric torture. More dissidents and religious leaders have been 

arrested and detained. And he points out that since April 1997, 

with the issuance of decree number 31/CP, authorizing administrative detention without charge or trial, that there are now hundreds 

of Vietnamese citizens subjected to this form of persecution; again, 

this psychiatric use of torture. 

Let me finally just point out as well that Minky Worden of 

Human Rights Watch makes a point, and I think it needs to be 

stressed here, despite the CPC agreement with the United States 

and Vietnam, she points out that there has been no let up in the 

practice of authorities forcing minority Christians to recant their 

faith. She makes a strong plea to the President, as Mr. Royce did 

earlier, as we are all doing from this platform today, to raise these 

issues and to do so robustly. The President has a golden opportunity to say we are serious about religious freedom. It is not an 

asterisk somewhere on a sheet of talking points. It is a main central tenet between United States and Vietnamese relations. 

And finally, again talking about that ordinance, Ms. Worden 

points out on page 4 of her testimony that local officials are using 

the new religious regulations issued earlier this year as grounds to 

arrest minority Christians suspected of belonging to Christian 

groups that operated independently of the government. 

So all of this fanfare that somehow religious freedom is advancing, the evidence on the ground, according to very reputable human 

rights organizations and individuals, is that it is going in the opposite direction. How do you respond? 

Ms. SHEA. Mr. Chairman, the Vietnamese Government has been 

absolutely ruthless in trying to control religion or stamp it out, either one. And we have also received letters showing that this is 

going on, and it is going on basically up into the present, even past 

the agreement of May 5th that the Government of Vietnam signed 

with the United States on religious freedom issues. 

We also have observed that the Instructions on Protestantism 

have resulted in people being forced to join the government-controlled church to recant their faith and membership in independent 

35

associations. I would like to point out also that the majority of 

Protestants are in these tribal areas, either in the northwest provinces or the Central Highlands; that one of our—also the Government of Vietnam will sometimes respond by saying, ‘‘Oh, this is 

happening at the local level, and it is not us and not government 

policy.’’ But on May 16th, Pastor Wen, the President of the legally 

recognized Evangelical Church of Vietnam in the north, wrote to 

the Vietnamese Bureau of Religious Affairs noting that none of the 

petitions of these grievances ‘‘have been investigated or answered,’’ 

and they still haven’t. 

So at the national level, they know about it and know that the 

torture is going on. Just in April, land was seized from 12 families 

in the tribal areas. And because they—and the officials told them 

this—because they believe in the Christian God. And the police demanded that they sign an agreement recanting their faith, and officials beat one of them and beat the second and bound him with 

wire, beat him a second time and bound him with wire and left him 

in the sun. And then they harassed his 70-year-old mother. 

So it is continuing right up to the current time, and certainly our 

interest, our mutual interest, in liberalizing religious freedom and 

human rights have lagged far behind—progress has lagged far behind our other interests in trade and security. 

Mr. SMITH. Vo Van Ai, who is the overseas spokesman of the 

Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and Director of the International Buddhist Information Bureau and will be testifying shortly, points out, as do the other bits of testimony from many of our 

witnesses, that in Vietnam no opposition views are tolerated, but 

then he points out that the State Department believes in Vietnam’s 

goodwill. But Vietnam is a past master in the art of false pleasures. Prime Minister Khai himself is a symbol of the broken promises of Hanoi’s regime. He is a man who received a dissident Buddhist patriarch for talks in Hanoi in April 2003, raising great hopes 

of a dialogue on tolerance. He is also the man who just months 

later launched the most brutal clapdown on the UBCV, arresting 

both of those individuals and nine Buddhist leaders in October 

2003. 

And I am fearful that this visit here—and I would call on our 

friends in the press to be much more vigilant to what is really 

going on on the ground with regards to believers of various faiths 

and denominations, and not buy into all the gestures of kindness 

and the smiles and opening of the stock market, and look at what 

is going on with real people in terms of torture, persecution and 

the like. 

And finally, if you could comment on that, this idea that a grand 

deception is about to be perpetrated on the American people, and 

everyone will say, ‘‘Aren’t things so nice now with Vietnam,’’ when 

for Vietnamese who are believers in the Unified Baptist Church or 

some Christian churches like the Protestants find themselves persecuted. 

We will have a witness, a Montagnard refugee in North Carolina, 

talk about all of the hurdles with regard to families being reunified, that the government is not allowing daughters and the sons 

and the wives or husbands to be repatriated with their family 

36

members living here in the U.S., and that is a serious, egregious 

breach of international human rights law and refugee law. 

Ms. SHEA. I noticed today that the Deputy Prime Minister has 

called for cooperative ventures with the United States to promote 

the exchange of visits by Administration representatives, the National Assembly and congressional delegations; upgrade dialogues 

on issues of mutual interest; and effectively implement agreements 

signed by the two countries. That is what he said. And I think we 

should take him up on this and establish a regular system for monitoring these agreements. We need to have access on a continual 

basis to these areas and to these people, to the brave monks of the 

Independent Buddhist Church—the one monk has just been released after 26 years in prison, and even now he is getting threats. 

His cell phone is shut off or jammed, and he can’t freely exercise 

his human rights. 

So we need to insist that there be transparency, that there be access, that there be freedom to meet with these heroic religious leaders of all faiths. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony, 

Ms. Shea. It is good to see you again. 

You were talking about behavior. And as you know, in September 

the Government of Vietnam was declared a CPC for its ongoing 

violations of human rights and religious freedom. But recently, as 

we note, an agreement was reached between the Vietnam Government and the United States regarding what Vietnam needs to do 

to get off the CPC list and avoid sanctions. 

In your opinion, what should be done to ensure that Vietnam 

makes tangible progress toward religious freedom? In the aftermath of this agreement, how do you see us being able to monitor 

it? How do you see us being able to see whether there has been 

any real steps made on the agreement recently accorded by the 

United States and Vietnam? 

Ms. SHEA. Well, I think that we need to really have access to 

areas in Vietnam that have been cut off, either periodically or continuously, and access to people. And if we can’t have access, then 

I think that we should assume that the reports we are hearing are 

true about their persecution, that we can assume the worst. 

And the Commission has in that case recommended some sanctions. One is to apply a section of the Religious Freedom Act to 

deny visas to those officials, including party heads at the Presidential levels, who are responsible for these religious persecutions. 

So that is one of our recommendations. And another is that a portion of funds be used to support those who are trying to improve 

human rights, such as nongovernmental actors. 

So we need to be prepared to implement some—not just incentives, but some sanctions if the government doesn’t give us access 

to implement—to monitor to see if they are implementing the 

agreement that they arrived at in May. We cannot take them at 

their word, we know that. We are getting too many reports with 

evidence that their agreement has already been broken in the last 

month. 

37

Mr. PAYNE. Well, sort of in the same vein, we know that it is 

more difficult to get information from the Central Highlands and 

the northwestern part of Vietnam, and that is where the 

Montagnards and the Hmong people are being mistreated. Do you 

think that we should accept this business of it is difficult to get accurate information, or do you recommend any steps, I guess similar 

to what you said previously about trying to have greater access, 

but do you think that that should also—some concrete steps should 

be made since it is more difficult in those more remote parts of the 

country? 

Ms. SHEA. I am very troubled by that. We must insist on getting 

access to those areas, not just in the periodic sense, making one 

trip every 6 months. We should have continual access for journalists, for human rights activists, for tourists, co-religionist, for anybody who wants to hold meetings. And again, if we don’t get access, 

then it is extremely—they have something to hide. 

And I am also troubled by the fact that the May 5th agreement 

itself is secret, so we really don’t know what the terms of that 

agreement are with any certainty. And we have gotten hints of 

what is in that, and it seems that those terms have been broken 

and there is just no real good faith on the part of the government 

in abiding by them. 

Mr. SMITH. Would my friend yield? I would just make the point 

to my colleagues, and you might want to respond to this as well. 

Several months ago I met with a Time Magazine correspondent 

who got into the Central Highlands and made a rather lengthy, 

hands on, eyeball view of what was going on there. But he made 

the point that the people in the Central Highlands, the 

Montagnards, were extremely reluctant to talk to him and that 

when he would enter a village some of the women would indicate 

that they felt they could not speak without fear of retaliation. Even 

with that, though, he was able to put together a story, some of 

which never made it into the pages of Time because it was cut. 

That just painted a terrible, despicable picture of repression. 

I thank my friend for yielding. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. And I think we really need 

to follow up on that.

Just a last question, since we have some others. With regard to 

the Catholic Church, do you know what the status of the church’s 

attempt is to regain confiscated church property? And also, how 

does the government seek to control the church on selection and 

training of seminarians? 

Ms. SHEA. The Commission has called for an independent review 

panel to be set up to review claims of properties confiscated after 

1975. And there is a precedent for that kind of panel in Eastern 

Europe. So there is expertise that can be drawn on. 

There are quiet negotiations going on between the government 

and the Catholic Church, I understand, but to what—I don’t think 

there has been a lot coming out of it. And ordinations—restrictions 

on ordinations is one of the ways that the government has consistently tried to control and limit the practice of Catholicism. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Royce. 

38

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, let me just 

begin by commending your efforts. 

One of the things I wanted to ask you about was how much support you are able to get on the part of human rights groups worldwide for your efforts? I know that Lynn Stewart—who is a spokesperson for the Center for Constitutional Rights and an attorney 

there and for the National Lawyers Guild, along with some other 

prominent organizations that work in this area—has a different 

viewpoint. I think one of the issues is: How do you build support 

for understanding of what people inside Vietnam face? Because 

there are attitudes that sort of run counter to your perceptions 

about the situation in Vietnam. 

As a matter of fact, Lynn Stewart, who has spoken at law schools 

from Seattle to St. Paul and was the final keynote speaker at the 

National Lawyers Guild’s 2003 conference, was asked in Monthly 

Review to imagine that she was part of a revolutionary government 

that had liberated its people from the horrors of capitalism, and if 

she herself were to become part of such a government, the interviewer wanted to know, was there a point at which she would 

think that monitoring and controlling the counter-revolutionary adversaries of that government was acceptable? Her answer was: ‘‘I 

don’t have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders, or certainly Fidel, locking up people they see as dangerous because so often dissidence has been used by the greater powers to 

undermine a people’s revolution.’’

You know, we have the Center for Constitutional Rights and the 

National Lawyers Guilds and other groups that are interested and 

focused on human rights, but when it comes to the specifics of 

human rights in a country where people are under Marxism, there 

is this tendency on their part to stand by and say, ‘‘Well, wait a 

minute, I now see this from the opposite perspective, I am not 

going to be part of an effort to try to elevate or get information out 

about these conditions,’’ is the way I perceive it. And I wanted to 

ask you about efforts to energize organizations across the spectrum 

about the situation in Vietnam, because my concern is with attitudes like Lynn Stewart’s speaking on the campuses and across the 

country to organizations. It tends to put us in a defensive position 

when we are trying to advance the cause for human rights in Vietnam. 

Ms. SHEA. Well, first of all, I just want to say I do have a problem with putting people in prison for their religious beliefs, and I 

am a firm—and the Commission works on the basis of its firm support for article 18 and the Universal Declaration for Human 

Rights. We believe it is a fundamental universal right for all people, including the Vietnamese people, including the tribal people in 

the Highlands and the Buddhist monks. So people’s revolutions 

have trampled on individual rights, and Vietnam is no exception in 

that regard. 

We have plenty of, as many of you have pointed out, many people 

from Vietnam have come to this country seeking freedom and they 

enrich our country and we are lucky to have them, but they were 

forced out because of persecution and other human rights problems, violations. 

39

How do we get our message out? Well, we have a Web site. We 

issue press releases periodically on Vietnam. We have quite a few 

from just this year. We travel to Vietnam, and we hold hearings 

on Vietnam. So we try through a variety of means to get our perspective out on this, and again, using international human rights 

agreements, agreements that Vietnam plays lip service to. 

Mr. ROYCE. The Prime Minister may want to talk about catfish 

this week, we want to talk about religious oppression. Let me ask 

you: How do you get the word out to people inside Vietnam? When 

I was there talking with dissidents and talking with those who had 

been arrested, I took note of the fact that the government is so oppressive that they shut down any voices that make suggestions for 

any kind of reforms, including people within their Politburo. How 

do you think most Vietnamese get their information, and what can 

we do to make certain that there is a free flow of information to 

people inside Vietnam? 

Ms. SHEA. Well, you know, some of it is word-of-mouth, some is 

through the Internet or through radio. It is tough when the government jams Radio Free Asia. And that has got to be one of our top 

priorities, getting cooperation on that. If we have agreements on a 

range of issues and security and economics, it seems like we have 

close enough and warm enough relations that we should be able to 

get that in return. 

You know, I think that the chance of getting the word out is better than it has ever been, given the range of options, the new options. Even some of our religious leaders have cell phones. So it is 

possible. The government makes it difficult, but it is possible and 

we should demand greater accuracy. 

Mr. ROYCE. How would you judge the progress on human rights 

in Vietnam over the last decade, given the moves that it has made 

now on Internet freedom and——

Ms. SHEA. Well, we are looking at, pretty exclusively, religious 

freedom and we have not seen tremendous progress in the last 10 

years. Maybe 15 years ago we saw progress, but since then it has 

been a fairly steady——

Mr. ROYCE. Things have stagnated. 

Ms. SHEA. Stagnated, yes. 

Mr. ROYCE. All right. Well, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Yes. Thank you very much for testifying before us today. 

One of the delicate balances here, and elsewhere obviously, is to 

out of necessity point out the difficulties that oppressed peoples are 

having, particularly within, underneath the auspices of a Government like Vietnam’s, without making their situation potentially 

worse. 

Do you believe that outside pressure has been effective or is an 

effective mechanism to help potentially move forward on the issue 

of religious and human rights freedoms in the country? In other 

words, that delicate balance there, I think, is important for us to 

always be sensitive to, because you obviously don’t want to make 

the situation worse for those who may be experiencing this oppresVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
40

sion while we go about the fundamental business of trying to 

change the conditions so that, ultimately, these people can exercise 

their religious freedoms and other human rights effectively. Can 

you respond to that? 

Ms. SHEA. Well, yes. I think there is a balance to be made. And 

I think that those already in prison can only be helped by mentioning their names and trying to bring pressure for their release. 

And maybe Father Ly is a case in point there, he was sentenced, 

as the Chairman said, to 15 years, and he is now out of prison because of what Congress has done and what the Commission has 

done and other human rights groups have done to keep his name 

out there. 

We routinely protect our sources when they are inside Vietnam 

and they are not in prison and they are trying to get out the word 

that someone is being tortured or imprisoned or had their properties confiscated or a situation is going on. So we try to protect 

those people. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I guess more precisely the question is: Are we 

at a tipping point where more hearings such as this, more outside 

pressure, more information about these types of abuses can actually bring about true reforms and protect the best interests of those 

who are in these difficult circumstances? 

Ms. SHEA. I think that the Vietnam Government needs to know 

that the American people care deeply about human rights and individual freedom and religious freedom for the Vietnamese people. 

And congressional hearings help tremendously in that regard, and 

you should continue them. And I congratulate you, again, for holding this hearing today. It is so important, especially at the time of 

the Prime Minister’s visit. 

And there are Vietnamese private radio stations also broadcasting into Vietnam. There are Christian stations broadcasting 

into Vietnam. It gives tremendous hope to these people, moral support that they are not forgotten, or that the only thing that is important is the deal with Microsoft or another company. So I think 

this is a very important hearing today. 

And the Vietnamese people—I have met with the Foreign Minister in the past, in my capacity in the Commission, and they acknowledge that religious freedom—‘‘We know it is important to the 

American public, we know it is important because of your unique 

history.’’ They have told me that. So I think it would be disastrous 

if we let down our guard or if we stopped talking about it. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, thank you so much for your good work 

in this area, and particularly for pointing out earlier that the economic progress alone is only a portion of the package, and coupling 

progress in the area of human rights and protecting the basic 

human dignity and freedom of peoples not only in Vietnam, but everywhere, is essential to be linked. I think it is a very important 

message that you made earlier, and I appreciate your good work. 

Ms. SHEA. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Fortenberry. 

Let me just ask one final small series of questions. Ms. Shea, do 

you see any parallels between the Government of Vietnam’s repression, the way it handles religious freedom and China’s repressive 

41

approach? And what are the implications of our policy toward both 

of these countries? 

Secondly, you mentioned sanctions. Like you, I and others in 

Congress have been calling for the designation of CPC for Vietnam 

for years, and finally, as we all know, it has finally gotten that designation because of its ongoing egregious abuses. What sanctions 

do you believe ought to be imposed if this so-called agreement deteriorates or is less than implemented? And do you support the approach that we have put into our Vietnam Human Rights Act, 

which we will shortly be reintroducing? As you know, one of its key 

features is to limit non-humanitarian foreign aid to a certain 

year—2004 was one of them, this year might be 2005. But the idea 

is that we say this but no more as a clear shot that we mean business? 

Ms. SHEA. We do—I see a parallel between Vietnamese repression and Chinese. And, in fact, they are moving even closer in that 

direction with the trying to corral all people of faith into government-controlled institutions. It is very similar. There may be a little bit more latitude for the Catholic Church than there is in 

China, but certainly for some of the other faiths, that is what is 

going on, the government-controlled churches and Buddhists and 

other churches. 

The CPC policy, you know, the CPC status is a very short list, 

and these are the world’s worst persecutors of religious freedom. It 

is egregious, ongoing, systematic persecution, and that is very significant to land on that list. And the State Department has made 

some agreement that they thought they made progress last month. 

It doesn’t appear to be that way. And then the Government of Vietnam plays this cat and mouse game where it won’t even give us 

access to find out independently whether, in fact, it has abided by 

the terms of this agreement. 

So as I said, I think that there should be—we are recommending, 

the Commission is recommending that if—unless this access is 

given and we are able to verify for ourselves, independently, that 

there has been reforms in religious freedom, then there should be 

visas denied, for example, to the government officials who are—

some of whom are probably being feted at this very moment in 

Washington, who are responsible for religious persecution. And 

then the Commission has also called for that some of this non-humanitarian aid be redirected to help nongovernmental human 

rights monitors. And we have supported the Vietnam Human 

Rights Act, which you play such a prominent role in trying to get 

through Congress. And I think that is what we have to look for 

again. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Shea, thank you so much for your testimony and 

again for the great work of the Commission. 

I would like to now welcome our second panel, but before doing 

so, as they are making their way to the witness table, I would point 

out to my friends and colleagues on the Committee that we have 

received several testimonies from courageous advocates from inside 

of Vietnam who have sent for inclusion in the record, and without 

objection each of their statements will be included in the record. I 

would just note that if there is any retaliation against these individuals, I can assure you this Committee will make a major FedVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
42

eral case out of it. These individuals have gone on record, we did 

not solicit these; they want their views, their opinions, their hopes 

and their aspirations known to the world. And the government, if 

it has any civilized backbone within it, hopefully will not retaliate 

against them. And if they do, I can assure you it will figure prominently in our realizations with Vietnam because this is our hearing 

and they have every right to submit this testimony. 

We all remember what happened to Father Ly when he submitted testimony to the International Commission on Religious 

Freedom, the U.S. Commission, he got 15 years for that. So with 

some trepidation, though at their insistence, we will include these 

testimonies from Mr. Vo Van Thanh Liem, who was a Hoa Hao 

Buddhist; Mr. Tran Huu Duyen, also a Hoa Hao Buddhist and 

former prisoner of conscience. We have a statement from Father 

Peter Nguyen and Father Peter Phan, Catholic priests in the archdiocese of Hue. We have a statement from Reverend Tran Mai, 

General Director of the Inter-Evangelistic Movement of Vietnam; 

we have a statement from the Reverend Pham Dinh Nhan of the 

Vietnamese Evangelical Fellowship. We have a statement from Mr. 

Bui Thien Hue from the Hoa Hao Buddhists, a former religious 

prisoner. We have a statement from Father Chan Tin, a Catholic 

priest from Ho Chi Minh City; and also a statement from the Reverend Tring Tri Huen, Acting General Secretary of the Vietnam 

Mennonite Church. And without objection, their statements will be 

made a part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:]

TESTIMONY BY MR. VO VAN THANH LIEM, QUANG MINH TU HOA HAO BUDDHIST

TEMPLE, HOA HAO BUDDHIST, FORMER PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE

Distinguished Members of Congress, 

The Honorable Dr. Condoleeza Rice—Secretary of the United States of America 

How long must the people of Vietnam and Hoa Hao Buddhists wait for ‘‘FREEDOM’’? 

Even after being designated by the U.S. as a ‘‘Country of Particular Concern,’’ the 

government of Vietnam has continued its religious oppression, specifically against 

Hoa Hao Buddhism.

• On 25 February 2005, the police incarcerated and fined Tran Van Hoang and 

Tran Van Thang because they were making tapes preaching Hoa Hao Buddhism.

• On 1 May 2005, during a home gathering celebration to commemorate the 

founding of Hoa Hao Buddhism, the local police invaded Phan Van Cu’s 

home, destroyed the altar, beat Tran Thanh Giang (an attendee) and robbed 

from Phan Van Cu 8 millions dong (Vietnamese currency unit.)

• On the same day, the police cut down a banner from the gate of our Quang 

Minh Tu temple. The banner was created to celebrate the founding of Hoa 

Hao Buddhism.

• On 14 May 2005, the police forbid Muoi O (in the town of Sadec) from conducting his father’s death anniversary because he intended to discuss Hoa 

Hao Buddhism teaching at the event.

• Most recently, on 3 June 2005, during the first anniversary ceremony of the 

passing of Mr. Ha Hai—a former religious prisoner—the local and regional 

police surrounded and harassed the event attendees. This oppression led 

many Hoa Hao Buddhists to protest via hunger-strike and threat of self-immolation.

It is apparent that ‘‘Freedom of Religion’’ in Vietnam has not improved. All recently released Hoa Hao Buddhist prisoners and highly-regarded people in our religious community are being followed and harassed. 

Although the government of Vietnam has established a Central Hoa Hao Buddhist 

Church, most of the leaders of this Church are communist party members. They are 

43

not true Hoa Hao Buddhists; they only become Hoa Hao Buddhists to control the 

operation of the Church. 

The government of Vietnam frequently signs declarations stating that there is 

‘‘Freedom of Religion’’ in Vietnam. They do so to satisfy the inquiries and to speed 

up the signing of bilateral and multilateral economic agreements. However, their 

modus operandi is to disregard the signed documents and continue with the oppression. The rule-of-law does not exist in Vietnam. 

For instance, as reported on Radio Free Asia, the wife of pastor Nguyen Hong 

Quang was confronted by the police on the rights to worshiping at home. She stated: 

‘‘Prime Minister Phan Van Khai just signed a decree giving us freedom of religion; 

the ink has not yet dried; why are you harassing me?’’—the local police answered: 

‘‘In Vietnam, the constitution—created by the communist part—is the highest law 

of the land ; the prime minister has no say in such matter.’’

Hence, I would not be surprised if the government of Vietnam will also disregard 

any signed agreements resulting from Prime Minister Phan Van Khai’s upcoming 

meeting with President George W. Bush—especially if these agreements interfere 

with their authoritarian policy. 

According to the constitution of the Social Republic of Vietnam:

• Article 2: ‘‘. . . (people are to) live and work according to Constitution and 

the Law . . .’’

• Article 70: ‘‘. . . places of worship, religious beliefs are protected by the 

law . . .’’

Hoa Hao Buddhism was founded by prophet Huynh in 1939. Ho Chi Minh brought 

communism from the Soviet Union into Vietnam and declared Independence on February 9, 1945. Not until April 30, 1975 did communism spread to South Vietnam. 

Hence, Hoa Hao Buddhism existed in Vietnam 35 years before communism. 

Yet, once the communists took over South Vietnam, they dissolved the Hoa Hao 

Buddhist Church and confiscated all church properties. 

With the ongoing violations of religious rights in Vietnam, we have no where to 

turn to. Knowing that Prime Minister Phan Van Khai is visiting the U.S., I respectfully request:

1. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to urge 

President Bush to include ‘‘Freedom of Religion’’ as a topic of discussion with 

the prime minister.

2. A U.S. representative to read to the prime minister the definition of ‘‘Freedom of Religion’’ and to explore ways to prevent the Vietnamese government 

from further breaking their promises on freedom of religion in Vietnam. If 

possible, please consider all measures needed to gauge the commitment from 

the Vietnamese government.

3. To point out to Prime Minister Khai that he is responsible for the poor religious environment in Vietnam.

4. The overseas Vietnamese community to greet Prime Minister Khai with 

questions on human rights and democracy in Vietnam.

I also ask the overseas Hoa Hao Buddhists to campaign with the U.S. government 

and the European Union to point out the illegitimacy of the Central Hoa Hao Buddhist Church in Vietnam. 

Please accept my appreciation for your advocacy for democracy, human rights and 

freedom of religion in Vietnam.

An Giang—June 9th, 2005

TESTIMONY BY MR. TRAN HUU DUYEN, HOA HAO BUDDHIST, FORMER PRISONER OF

CONSCIENCE

Distinguished Members of Congress, 

I am 86 years old (I was born in 1920), and given that I do not have much time 

left on this earth, I have no use for fame nor wealth. My life, from the zealous youth 

to the days serving the Prophet Huynh Phu So, has been up and down like the fate 

of my country and my religion. After spending a total of close to 30 years in prison, 

being incarcerated by multiple regimes, I am no different from the patriots of my 

generation in feeling the sorrow and the shame of not realizing our dream—the 

dream of living in a prosperous country, where the people not only live comfortably, 

but can also freely practice their religions. 

I am aware that the prime minister of Vietnam, Mr. Phan Van Khai, will visit 

the U.S. at the end of June this year. During this visit, the prime minister will have 

44

a chance to meet President George W. Bush and I hope that the discussion will also 

include such topics as human rights, freedom of religion, and democracy in Vietnam. 

As a Hoa Hao Buddhist, a former prisoner of conscience, and an activist for freedom of religion and democracy in Vietnam, I am pleased that such event will take 

place. I hope that at the conclusion of these meetings the U.S. and Vietnam will 

open a new page of history. I hope the Vietnamese government will take steps to 

dismantle its constitution and the authoritarian policy so that Vietnam can quickly 

join the democracies around the World. 

The Vietnamese history has spanned more than four thousands years of building 

and defending the country against the invasion of the Chinese, the colonization of 

the French and the meaningless civil war of ideology. The war has ended, but it 

left its marks in each one of us. There are still preconceptions, prejudices, and even 

hatred among a few people and organizations 

However, I think that it’s time to put aside our differences and prejudices so that 

we can discuss and find an effective and optimal way to bring Vietnam forward. We 

need to come together with Love because only love can help people find true happiness. Only Love can enable understanding and harmonization. And only Love can 

bring Vietnam and its people to everlasting peace and prosperity. 

To that end, Vietnam needs true freedom of religion, human rights, and democracy. 

I completely agree with the former prime minister Vo Van Kiet (in his interview 

with the Weekly International paper) that it is time to reconcile and consider new 

opportunities. And I fully support the ‘‘9-Point Roadmap to Democratize Vietnam’’ 

from Dr. Nguyen Dan Que. I believe that this roadmap will clear many issues between Vietnam and the World, particularly between Vietnam, the U.S. and the E.U. 

I believe that this roadmap will bring Vietnam true democracy. 

I am hopeful, very hopeful for a brighter Vietnam.

Saigon—June 5th, 2005

NINE-POINT ROADMAP TO DEMOCRATIZE VIETNAM—DR. NGUYEN DAN QUE

1. The government of Vietnam needs to stop the interference and jamming of 

the Radio Free Asia’s frequencies. RFA should be allowed to freely transmit 

in Vietnam.

2. The government of Vietnam needs to respect freedom of the press (newspaper, radio, television.) People should be free to use any kind of media to 

express their opinions.

3. The government of Vietnam needs to release all religious and political prisoners. The International Red Cross should be allowed to visit and inspect all 

prisons in Vietnam.

4. The government of Vietnam needs to completely comply with the United Nation’s principle on freedom of religion. All religions in Vietnam will need to 

be treated equally.

5. The government of Vietnam needs to abolish article 9 of the Constitution, 

which gives the communist party the sole right to govern the country. The 

government of Vietnam also needs to abolish decree 31/CP which allows to 

government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to detain dissidents from 6 

months to 2 years without trial.

6. The government of Vietnam and the Communist Party need to respect 

human rights, civic rights, and property rights of all Vietnamese.

7. There need to be a separation of the communist party and governmental 

agencies at all level.

8. The Vietnamese Congress should have the authority to arrange for free, fair, 

and multi-party elections.

9. The new administration, created from the free and fair election and completely separated from the communist party, under the oversee of the international community will vote to form the legislative branch of the new Congress. 

WEEKLY INTERNATIONAL INTERVIEW WITH VIETNAMESE FORMER PRIME MINISTER VO

VAN KIET (EXCERPT)

Q: It has been close to 30 years since the fall of Saigon. You are one of the very few 

people left who participated in that resistance, what are your thoughts on this event?

VVK: My thoughts are quite simple. The goal here is not to have leaders grow up 

during war time like us. The war has past for 30 years. We’ve handed over the leadVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
45

ership to the next generation. In other words, I wish the war to belong to the past. 

A past that needs to be ‘‘closed.’’

Q: Is it true that to ‘‘close’’ the past is easier said than done?

VVK: It’s not impossible. ‘‘Peace loving’’ and ‘‘Forgiveness’’ are intrinsic Vietnamese 

values. Usually, Vietnamese only resist against invaders. After 30 years, I think the 

people from both sides can recognize that we are no longer influenced by outsiders. 

Hence, we can come together to rebuild. Vietnam will further develop when all Vietnamese, regardless of where they are, belong to a harmonize society.

Q: As you look back, are you pleased with our accomplishment during the last 30 

years?

VVK: We can all be pleased with the unification, our resolution to overcome poverty 

and join the rest of the World. In retrospect, I think we’ve missed many good opportunities. If we were to change earlier, then we would not have to pay dearly for the 

period from 1975 to 1985. 

TESTIMONY BY REV. NGUYEN HUU GIAI AND REV. PHAN VAN LOI

Honorable Congressmen, 

We, Rev. Peter Nguyen Huu Giai and Rev. Peter Phan Van Loi, who are fighting 

for the freedom of religion at the Archdiocese of Hue, Vietnam, would like first to 

express our deepest regards toward all of you, especially since you have graciously 

given us the opportunity to present the general situation of Catholicism in Vietnam, 

with special emphasis on Hue. 

The news has recently caught up with us that the US government had reached 

an agreement on Freedom of Religion with the Communist Vietnam. We have 

learned that forty-five US Senators and Congressmen had written to President 

George W. Bush to present the current state of human rights and freedom of religion in Vietnam, and to petition President Bush to press Vietnam’s Prime Minister 

for genuine solutions. That was an excellent and timely initiative to help our people. 

We could never express enough gratitude for your initiative. 

Nonetheless, we would like to express the following opinions.

(1) At the very moment the Agreement was being signed, and right up to the 

present time, the Hanoi regime has continued to suppress religion and limit 

human rights, exactly as asserted in your joint letter to the President. We 

are suffering from the consequences of the Ordinance on Belief and Religion 

and the Instructions on the implementation of this ordinance. These two 

documents practically give the local authorities full control of all religious 

activities. Local government officials now can do whatever they want, causing uncountable obstacles to the appointment of clergy members, to the registration of seminarians, to the organization of religious activities, and to 

the demand for the return of confiscated church properties. The communist 

government continues to misappropriate 102 of the 107 hectares from the 

ascetic convent of Thien-An, 17 of 23 hectares from the Holy Land of La 

Vang, 1700 square meters from the Order of Our Redeemer, 200 square meters from the Order of Our Lady of the Visitations, and it still pursues its 

policies of robbing land from the diocese of Ke-Sung. J ust a few salient 

facts about our Archdiocese: at the beginning of May 2005, during a public 

meeting with the residents of Khe-Sanh, Cam-Lo, a Party secretary delegated to province Quang-Tri, who is also a member of the National Assembly, did not hesitate to threaten the faithful in these words: ‘‘To belong to 

a religion is to follow the enemy, to belong to a religion is to be against the 

Communist Party, and to belong to a religion means turning his back to the 

nation!’’

This incident shows once more that the Vietnamese government signs 

international agreements that they do not intend to honor: from the Geneva 

Accord of 1954 to the Paris Peace Treaty of 1973, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 to the International Covenant on Civil 

and Political Rights of 1976. Therefore, in our opinion, the recent agreement 

with the United States on Freedom of Religion is yet another premeditated 

move, a tactic of Communist Vietnam to escape from the CPC designation 

and to create an advantageous platform for Vietnam’s Prime Minister during his trip to the United States. As soon as these two objectives are 

achieved, Communist Vietnam will suppress human rights and religious 

freedom even more forcefully rather than address these two prerequisites 

46

for democracy because absolutism, one-party rule, and dictatorship form the 

core of Communism.

(2) In our opinion, to address the problem at its root cause, the Vietnamese government must immediately repeal the Ordinance on Belief and Religion and 

the accompanying Instructions. President Thomas Jefferson of your country 

championed the separation of Church and State. Accordingly, (a) the State 

shall not found a government-controlled Church in order to take away the 

legal status of pre-existing non-governmental religious institutions, violating 

the right to establish religions and churches that belong solely to the citizens (Establishment Clause); (b) the State shall not interfere, control or 

oversee any Church in her regular religious activities; Churches should have 

full autonomy to function and to proselytize (Free Exercise Clause). Both 

clauses in your own Constitution should make it obvious to you how arbitrary, unlawful and harmful the Ordinance on Belief and Religion that the 

Hanoi regime has imposed upon us is.

In the long term, we, and all people who fight for political and religious freedoms 

in Vietnam, insist that the 4th clause in the Constitution of the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam be repealed once and for all. It allows the Communist Party to be the 

only party ruling Vietnam, socialism to be the only ideology guiding the nation, and 

Marxism-Leninism to control the thoughts and feelings of all Vietnamese citizens. 

Such totalitarianism precludes all genuine solutions to human rights, religious, social, political, cultural and ethical problems facing Vietnam. It also precludes any 

US foreign policy (military cooperation, aid, commerce, expansion of democracy, etc.) 

towards Vietnam from being effective and from benefiting the Vietnamese people. 

On the contrary, US foreign policy will only be taken advantage of by Communist 

Party to consolidate its own power and interests at the expense of the Vietnamese 

people. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. May God bless America and you all.

Hue, June 13, 2005

TESTIMONY BY THE REV. TRAN MAI, GENERAL DIRECTOR OF THE INTER-EVANGELISTIC

MOVEMENT OF VIETNAM—IEMVN 

REPRESSION OF THE PROTESTANT CHURCH IN VIETNAM

FOLLOWING THE PROMULGATION OF THE ORDINANCE ON RELIGION (NOVEMBER 15, 

2004), AND THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE USA AND VIETNAM REGARDING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (MAY 5, 2005) 

I. SOME EXAMLES OF REPRESSION: 

A. In the North 

1. Dien Bien Province 

This is a report of Pastor Thao Chu Gai (born 1964) of the Vietnam Bible Church 

in Pu Nhi Commune, Dien Bien Dong District (DBDD) with 140 Hmong families.

‘‘In 12/2004 a police officer of DBDD in Dien Dien Province named Sinh A Sinh, 

and the chief of police in Ph Nhi Commune, a Mr. Vu Nhat Chau, and the chairman 

of Pu Nhi Commune, Mr. Sung Chu Mua and the chairman of DBDD along with 

14 police officers arrested us and tried to make us deny our faith and build a spirit 

altar, worship the spirits and drink liquor. We refused. 

‘‘After that the police summoned one family at a time and tried to make us deny 

our faith, and because we would not comply they swore at us and beat us many 

times. Because of the severe beatings five families agreed to deny Christianity, build 

a spirit altar and worship spirits. 

Also in 12/2004, a Fatherland Front cadre of DBDD named Thoa Mua Xa with 

two police officers named Cu Li Va and Mua A Kha came to my house (Thao Chu 

Gia) and ordered me to go and get all the believers to come to my house. And then 

they used pepper spray to spray us all in the face, adults and children, and ran off. 

A month later in 1/2005 police and officials again came to our houses and tried 

to force us to abandon our faith. When we did not agree they fined each of us 500,000 

VN dong. They took our money but refused to give us any kind of papers to acknowledge it. When we ask for a receipt the police just shouted at us. Those who did not 

pay a fines were threatened with expulsion from their village. The chairman and secretary of Pu Nhi Commune, Messrs. Sung Cha Mua, Cu Tru Tu and Sinh A Sinh 

and many other cadres came to my house to invite my family to the District office 

47

on 29/4/2005 and tried to force us to give up our faith. We refused to deny the Lord 

Jesus. That afternoon they captured my wife and took her to the maternity clinic even 

though she was not sick. Someone inserted their hand into my wife’s vagina in order 

‘to see if she was pregnant’. From that time until now my wife suffers from severe 

pain in her vagina region. 

On 7/5/2005 DBDD police arrested me and my younger brother, Thao A Di, tied 

us up and locked us up at the commune office. We were able to escape and fled to 

Hanoi to escape danger. At the present time authorities are searching diligently for 

us to imprison us because we refuse to deny our faith as ordered by the security police.’’

Pastor Vua Sau Dia, is of Luong Tha Village, Pan-Ham Commune, Muong Lay 

District, Dien Bien Province. Mr. Dia went to Hanoi to study the Word of God. On 

his return district police arrested him and locked him up for three days. They interrogated him from 30/6/2005 through 1/6/2005. 

Police officers, and district and provincial government officials are spreading the 

word that Dien Province will completely eradicate Christianity from Vietnam. 

2. Lai Chau Province: 

From March 2005 until June 2005, police continually went to a church in Muong 

Te District, Lai Chau Province. They ordered all Christians who were meeting to 

return to their homes and then set fire to the building that served as the Christians’ 

meeting place. 

3. Son La Province: 

On March 3, 2005 police and government officials cooperated with the army to arrest two evangelists, Tran Gia Trung and Dao Van Thanh. They confiscated 400,000 

VN dong without giving a receipt and also 14 Hmong-language Bibles. The two 

evangelists were locked up overnight at Moc Chau in Son La Province. 

4. Quang Ninh Province 

In 2003 police incited a crowd to attack a pastor named Tu Nhat of Duong Hoa 

District. They stabbed him through the lung. He went for examination to the Hoa 

Lau Hospital in Hanoi and it appears he will suffer permanent effects form his 

wound until he is old. Police of Duong Hoa District have announced that in no way 

will any Christian organization ever carry on activities there. From then until now 

officials have fiercely opposed any Christian activity in this area. Congregations in 

this area have had to flee to meet elsewhere. Some groups of IEMVN went to Hanoi 

and sought shelter under the umbrella of the Evangelical Church of Vietnam 

(North) and found it. ECVN (N) Pastor Au Quang Vinh promised to protect them, 

but during May and June of this year, authorities broke up meetings both of the 

groups that identified with the ECVN (N) or various house churches. And so the 

congregations here are discouraged and have to flee in confusion, meeting in the 

bush or in someone’s kitchen shelter. 

From 8/2003 until 4/2004 Pastor Dao Van Thanh went to Saigon to study the 

Bible, and after that returned. Police confiscated his personal papers and removed 

his name from his family’s official residence paper. This means that Pastor Thanh 

cannot leave his house and cannot apply for any kind of a job. To put it another 

way he has lost the rights of a citizen to live where he likes, to travel around freely, 

and he is unable to apply for any official government documents, such as a driver’s 

license. 

Pastors and evangelists (in this province) who move out to do their ministry are 

followed, harassed, hindered and threatened. Bad elements in society are given license to beat them to the point of serious injury. 

5. Hai Phong City 

From the time the IEMVN church was established in Kien Thuy District of Hai 

Phong in 1992 until today, police have visited the homes of individual Christian 

families to urge and threaten and terrorize families to give up their religion, and 

have prevented people from meeting freely. At present Christians still have to move 

from one house to the next to try to find a place to worship. Some groups even have 

to meet in a public park pretending they are homeless people so they can meet each 

other. 

Note:

• Police are authorized to take up residence in the very homes of Christians 

in minority villages in order to prevent them from meeting for worship and 

also to arrest any ethnic Vietnamese church workers who might come for religious purposes.

48

• Government authorities play a trick saying people must abandon ‘‘Vang Chu’’ 

and say they are not saying people must give up Christianity. This is just 

cleverly playing with words—a deception of atheistic communist authorities. 

‘‘Vang Chu’’ is the Hmong name for God and for Jesus Christ, and does not 

refer to any other spirit. 

B. Central Vietnam 

1. The Kor Ethnic MinoritY 

Here is a report of Pastor Ho Van Loc (Born 1946) concerning Christian believers 

in Tra Bong District of Quang Ngai Province.

‘‘Police plunder, oppress, trample on the rights of those of the Christian religion. 

They force Christians to do labour without remuneration for various cadres. 

Police have called us to their post many times to interrogate us to try to find out 

who is bringing the Christian Gospel to us and threatened us saying—if we won’t 

give up our faith they will imprison and fine us heavily. Because we will not give 

up our religion, the police force us to go up into the forest everyday and each cut 

two cubic metres of wood for them. In eight days one person has to cut 16 cubic 

metres of wood. And after that they forced us to cut grass for the commune. 

The chairman of the commune, Mr. Ut Tan, and a commune police officer, Mr. 

Huynh, and the commune secretary, Mr. Cuong, and the head of the Fatherland 

Front, Mr. Dai, came to my house (pastor Ho Van Loc’s) and made me contribute 

40 large cans of rice and 4 chickens. After that they took me to a public denunciation 

meeting with about 100 people accusing me of preaching religion illegally. They have 

also confiscated my fields and have not returned anything—simply because I believe 

in Jesus Christ. Government officials say that to follow Jesus Christ is to follow the 

American religion and so they won’t give me my land back. They mock us saying, 

‘Since you follow an American religion, let the Americans look after you, and if you 

follow the Lord, let the Lord look after you’. They also stole one of our cows that was 

two months pregnant and took it to the house of a policeman, butchered and ate it. 

Government officials say, ‘‘the (new) Ordinance on Religion is only for the Evangelical Church of Vietnam, and not for those who don’t follow that group. They say, 

‘‘In this place I am the Law, the law is me’.’’

2. The Hre Ethnic Minority 

Following is a report made by the victims Dinh Van Bon, Dinh Mong, Dinh Thi 

Tham, Dinh Troan, Dinh Yen Thi, Dinh Van Nghi, Dinh Rap, Dinh Thi Viet, Dinh 

Nga, Dinh Hong Phe, Dinh Xuan Toa, Dinh Van Tau, Dinh Thi Hang, and Dinh 

Thi Trai, of Son Linh Commune, Son Ha District Quang Ngai Province.

‘‘At Christmas of 2004, a large force of Son Ha District officials burst into a house 

and arrested all who were meeting for a Christmas service and dragged us to the 

district offices where they beat us savagely and then fined each of us between 500,000 

and 1,000,000 VN dong. The also confiscated some motorbikes even though they were 

properly registered. They said because we were meeting illegally, the commune had 

the right to take and keep our motorbikes. 

‘‘Government authorities explained that the police did not act according to the Ordinance on Religion but only according to the Prime Minister’s instructions. They 

spoke with us very rudely and contrary to the law. This is a province well-known 

for its attempts to get rid of Christianity during the last 30 years. But because these 

authorities are far from a big city, they believe no one really knows what is going 

on, and no one would dare to intervene, and no one would dare report anything because if they did the local authorities would be quite free to come down on them very 

hard. The level of oppression at the present time must be considered to be very serious.’’

C. In the South 

On 30/4/2005 many member of the Stieng ethnic minority in Binh Phuoc Province 

sent a petition to Prime Minister Phan Van Khai concerning the confiscation of 

their land by government authorities and the destruction of their cashew plantations. They were driven out of their homes and small plantations so that government officials could take their land. Currently they have no house to live in. The 

church began writing up petitions to the Prime Minister about this matter in January 2005 but until now, June 2005, nothing has been done about it. Government 

officials give as their reason that the are protecting the forest, but the land is not 

forest, but rather fields that belong to the minority villagers. Officials of Binh Phuoc 

Province along with the police, people’s committee, and state farms, the army, and 

the forestry department openly cut the forest and together have also taken large 

areas of land during the last seven years—land that was being cultivated by local 

49

villagers. It is only because they are Christian believers that their lands and houses 

are being seized. 

The names of some of the Stieng believers who are victims are: Dieu Hiep, Dieu 

Nhon, Dieu Loi, Dieu Han, Dieu Deo, Dieu Dong, Dieu Ngoc, Dieu Rung, Dieu Ngoi, 

Dieu Giai, Dieu Phuoc, and Dieu Thang. Government officials who are involved in 

the illegal confiscation of land of the Stieng peoples are: Bui Thanh Ky, Dang Dinh 

Loc, Nguyen Van Dinh (a policeman of Phuoc Long District) Nguyen Nghi, Ke 

Hoang Dong, Nguyen Hong Bac, Nguyen Thanks Giang, Phan Trung Nguyen, Pham 

Minh Tai (vice-director of the district radio station), Le Quang Minh, Huynh Van 

Buu, Vo Tri An, Hoang Xuan Luong (vice-chairman of Phuoc Long District) and 

Truon Duy Dieu (Chairman of Phuoc Long District). 

II. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Vietnamese government officials continue to operate by two conflicting polices. 

Internationally they cleverly report on what is called freedom, democracy and equality, but with their own citizens they continue to rule with the gun, the dagger, the 

pen, and the law of the Mafia, and by the new prisons just recently built. In Vietnam the legal system only serves those who hold power, and does not protect victims. If anyone raises their voice to support democracy and human rights in Vietnam they will immediately be slandered, arrested and incarcerated. 

Human rights are trampled under many guises in Vietnam. But still, many free 

countries refuse to connect their aid to progress in the area of human rights. 

In Vietnam there are two kinds of prisons. There are the small prisons for special 

prisoners, especially those who have dared to speak up against the evils of the Vietnamese communists, and there is the much larger prison to for all who are citizens 

of Vietnam. In this prison, people are deprived of the right’s of citizenship, the right 

to pursue happiness, the right to exist, the right to speak what is on one’s conscience, and of justice and ideas. 

In looking at Vietnam today one will see not a few Protestant and Catholic 

churches, and temples and pagodas restored and nicely painted. And also, today, 

many thousands of believers in remote areas—areas where foreign reporters are unable to go, areas of heavy repression, areas where people can be expelled from their 

own villages, areas where one’s land and house can be confiscated, and areas where 

people are forced to work like draft animals, areas where people are fined, their personal papers and possessions seized without any evidence (given by the State) to 

prove such evil acts. 

I recommend those who travel to Vietnam and those who serve as diplomats 

should go to remote villages to see the sport of ‘‘eradicating religion’’ being played 

by the Communist Party of Vietnam. They could then see the security police and 

soldiers playing their special role of ‘‘living among the citizens who believe in God, 

sleeping in the house of Christians citizens, spying on citizens who believe in God—

how completely strange! In a country that is at peace already the army is still scattered through hamlets and villages. Why? Because of the Protestant faith, because 

of Jesus Christ, that’s why—Because the government wants to obstruct and eliminate the Protestant faith. I respectfully recommend that those foreign officials who 

have responsibility for human rights not only with meet those who advocate persecution and slander religion, but they should meet directly those who have been and 

are still being oppressed because of religion in order to try to understand and listen 

intently to their testimony. Specifically we recommend the following:

1. Go to the area of Dak Nong, Dak Kia, Buon Ma Thuot, to meet the Hmong 

Christians who fled there in order to escape vicious campaigns against religion in the Northwest Provinces implemented by government authorities. Go 

to the remote villages in Dien Bien, Lao Cai, Quang Ninh, along the LaosVietnam border, to witness for yourselves the schemes to get rid of the 

Protestant religion that the authorities are attempting to implement, and see 

how they use the idea of restoring traditional culture as a method, a slogan 

under which to impede citizens who follow the Protestant faith. Go to Bu 

Dang and Bu Dop in Phuoc Long District, to interact with Protestant believers who have had government authorities use bulldozers, tractors with 

ploughs, saws and hammers to destroy the fruit tree plantation of those who 

believe in Jesus Christ. Go and meet war veterans who served in Uncle Ho’s 

army, but when they became Christians believers, had their medals confiscated and their veteran’s benefits terminated. None of the international 

foreign aid given for poverty alleviation and for disaster relief, for droughts 

and floods in Vietnam, will find its way into the hands of a Protestant believer. It has been this way for many years and continues—anyone who follows the Protestant faith will lose their rights. Go to meet those students 

50

who have been expelled from school because they believe in Jesus Christ. 

Anyone who buys land, or a house, or tries to cultivate a field will have a 

very hard time getting local officials to sign papers if they are a Christian 

believer.

2. Go to a bookstore and see how few Christian books are published compared 

to other kinds of books. Examine the 600 or so newspapers that are published in Vietnam and see how many you can find any that will write a word 

in support of people being oppressed because of religion.

3. Go to the hotels in Saigon and Hanoi and see how may will sign a contract 

with a Christian group to hold a major meeting. No hotel will dare because 

the government has issued instruction saying that any hotel which signs a 

contract with a Protestant Christian group will lose its business license. So 

where is freedom of religion?

4. Go to met the leaders of the various house church organizations in Vietnam 

to listen intently to hear of the hardships and obstructions they have regularly encountered and still experience. Not a small number have had their 

passports seized, or are denied personal ID’s and the family residence paper, 

and so on. Security police are still staked out in front of the homes of the 

house church leaders who are on some list of people the government considers dangerous. Those who visit the house church leaders regularly have 

their license plate number recorded. Those who come for a meeting at the 

home of house church leader often can’t park their motorbikes in the public 

parking lots because police forbid the attendants from issuing a receipt to 

Christians. And there are many more manifestations whereby Christians are 

frightened and which demonstrate clearly that Christians are seriously and 

cunningly discriminated against by descendants of Uncle Ho and the relatives of Marx and Lenin. We pastors of the house church movement continually live in tension and fear not knowing when we might be put in prison. 

Government officials are always telling one house church leader or another 

that they are going to arrest some leader in order to sow division and suspicion among us. A main objective of the government now is the various leaders of the house churches. This is what religious freedom in Vietnam means. 

III. CONCLUSION

I conclude that the Ordinance on Religion and the Instructions signed by the 

Prime Minister are ‘‘old wine in new skins’’. The new legislation still retains the essence of oppressing religion. The government has officially announced that: The government will only recognize a few religious denominations. So what does this means 

for those who will not be recognized? It means plainly that these organizations will 

be outside the law. Today they may meet for worship, tomorrow not. Today they are 

released, tomorrow they may not be. How is it different for these organizations than 

being a fish on a chopping block? How is this different than being a fish in a pond 

that can be killed at any time. And so countries around the world should be very 

careful before going along with such illogical and immoral policies. You simply cannot require that every religious organization has to wait 20—30 years before allowed it to operate normally. 

I believe that the people of Vietnam must have the right to choose a faith according to the longing of their heart. However, today over 80 million people in Vietnam 

are still being guided to believe the things that the Communist Party believes, to 

do the things the Communist Party orders, and to say the things the Communist 

Party teaches. The Communist party still considers itself to be the parents of the 

Vietnamese people. 

I call on people of morality and conscience to stand up and speak out. I call for 

help to all people who love and want to help the people of Vietnam to recover their 

freedoms, to live and to enjoy the happiness that God grants his creation, but which 

the communists steal. 

TESTIMONY BY REV. PHAM DINH NHAN, CHAIRMAN, VIETNAMESE EVANGELICAL

FELLOWSHIP, HO CHI MINH CITY, VIETNAM

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

Thank you for accepting my testimony. 

I am Pastor Pham Dinh Nhan, President of the Vietnam Evangelical Fellowship. 

In 1975, I was fifteen years old. At that time, my father was the administrator of 

Ban Me Thuoc Evangelical church. Communist government officials planted flyers 

with dissenting views towards the government into the church yard, using them as 

51

a pretext to arrest my father. The church was closed. My pregnant mother and five 

siblings had no shelter, no food and my family became homeless. 

Due to having no shelter, all of my family had no household registration. After 

20 years of pleading, the Saigon city police gave my parents household registration. 

Because I had been a leader of the House Church network not recognized by the 

government and I had been the president of the Vietnam Evangelical Fellowship 

which contains 30 different denominations, the police did not give me household registration. 

To this day I do not have household registration or citizenship identification card 

and this has hampered me in my traveling even inside Vietnam. I may not own a 

car or a house. 

My wife and my two children have 2nd class household registration but my children still face restrictions on where they can go to school. 

Below is my summary description of the situation of Protestant Churches in Viet- nam. Immediately after April 30, 1975, most of the churches, bible schools, and other 

facilities of Protestant Christian communities were closed one after another. Before 

1975 there were 21 Protestant denominations in South Vietnam; after 1975 there 

are only 4 left. The largest of them, the Evangelical Church of Vietnam (ECVN), 

has nearly 300 churches which were closed. As for the Christian Mission (Giao phai 

Co Doc Truyen Giao), which had 72 churches and 18 charitable facilities, there are 

only 3 churches left. The Christian Resurrection (Giao phai Co Doc Phuc Lam) 

which had a few dozen churches before has 2 left. The Baptist Church has only one 

left out of the dozens it had before. About 20 other Protestant denominations including the Assembly of God/Pentecostal (Ngu Tuan), the Presbyterian (Truong Lao), the 

Christian Church of Vietnam, and the Church of Christ were nearly wiped out completely. Hundreds of pastors and missionaries were sent to concentration and ‘‘rehabilitation’’ camps. 

The government tries to supervise all the activities and the development of the 

Protestant churches. For example, in some places, pastors must submit the contents 

of their sermons for screening before preaching to their congregations. Churches 

with a growing number of members are subject to attention and would inevitably 

be closed in one way or another. For example, the An Dong church in Saigon was 

closed in 1983. The Tran Cao Van church at District 1, Ho Chi Minh City was also 

closed in 1983. The Tuy Ly Vuong Church at District 8, Ho Chi Minh City, in 1988, 

etc. 

The plan to control the Protestant churches and other churches is made clear 

through legal documents such as Regulations N°69/HDBT promulgated by the Council of Ministries on March 21, 1991, Regulations 26/1999/ND–CP by the Government 

on April 19, 1999, and most recently the Ordinance on Belief and Religion N°21/

2004–UBTVQH11 by the Standing Committee of the National Assembly on June 18, 

2004. 

The contents of these documents center around the following points which are directed towards the control the development of religion adherents and to supervise 

their activities:

1. ‘‘All religious activities must be performed at places of worship,’’ whereas for 

Protestant churches, most places of worship have been closed; few are left.

2. ‘‘Only religious officials are permitted to hold religious activities such as carrying out religious ceremonies and gathering for prayer,’’ whereas most of 

Protestant ministers are not recognized by the authorities and constantly 

harassed.

Recently, under the pressures from the international community, especially from 

the US Government, Prime Minister Phan-Van-Khai has issued Directives 01/2005, 

which create the conditions for Protestant churches to register their religious activities. However, there have been many signs showing that this document is aimed at 

dealing with the international community rather than reflecting a real change in 

policy, for the central government has played the role of being ignorant, letting local 

authorities continue to Oppress Protestant groups. For example:

• Two missionaries, Nguyen-Van-Cam and Bui-Van-Dien, who are members of 

the Vietnam Church of the Entire Gospel (Hoi Thanh Phuc Am Toan Ven Viet 

Nam), were physically assaulted on May 14, 2005 by hoodlums hired by the 

authorities at the commune of Tay An, District of Tien Hai, Province of Thai 

Binh,

• A group of Protestants who belonged to the Methodist Evangelical Church of 

Vietnam (Hoi Thanh Tin Lanh Giam Ly Viet Nam) the village of Da Du, commune of Xuan Lanh, District of Dong Xuan, Province of Phu Yen, registered 

52

with the commune authorities according to Regulations (Directing the Execution of the Ordinance on Beliefs and Religions) 22/2005/ND–CP signed by 

Prime Minister Phan-Van-Khai on March 1, 2005. The authorities of the commune of Xuan Lanh flatly refused their registration and prohibited their religious activities by means of Decree 06/TB–UB (enclosed).

• Policemen have taken the minutes of the ‘‘violations’’ of a group of Protestants 

who belong to the Church of the Nazarenes at the commune of Phu Ly, District of Vinh Cuu, Province of Dong Nai, and almost every week. For 8 

months, from October 1, 2004 to June 5, 2005, they have taken the minutes 

of the prayer meetings of these Christians, dismissed them, and fined them 

19 times.

In addition, several Protestant ministers are still detained, such as Pastor 

Nguyen-Hong-Quang and Missionary Pham-Ngoc-Thach. As for Pastor Than-VanTruong, he is not only detained but his also been admitted to a mental hospital at 

Bien Hoa without proof of my mental disorder. 

The government continues to interfere with the activities of the Protestant 

churches. For example, three times it disapproved the pastoral appointment of Pastor Vo-Dong-Thu, who is the administrator of the evangelical church of Thach My, 

District of Don Duong, Province of Lam Dong, by the southern Evangelical Church 

of Vietnam. The last time Pastor Thu’s appointment was denied without any explanation was June 17, 2005. 

Many leaders of house churches are denied passports, such as General Administrator of the Assembly of God Church Pastor Duong-Thanh-Lam, Pastor Bui-ThanhSe, etc. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

Although we have voiced our concerns in different ways to the government of 

Vietnam at multiple levels for many times, the petitions of millions of Protestant 

Christians in Vietnam for freedom of religion and freedom to practice religious belief 

have not been met yet. 

Once again, we ask the Government of Vietnam:

• To return freedom to all pastors, missionaries, and lay leaders who are still 

detained.

• To return to religious organizations those places of worship which have been 

forced to be deserted or seized for other uses.

• To recognize those religious organizations which have operated legitimately 

at private houses and to permit house churches to build or rent facilities for 

their religious activities.

Your concern and your efforts are appreciated 

TESTIMONY BY MR. BUI THIEN HUE, HOA HAO BUDDHIST, FORMER RELIGIOUS

PRISONER

Distinguished Members of Congress, 

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a written statement on the current situation of Hoa Hao Buddhists in Vietnam. 

It is close to ten years since U.S. and Vietnam normalize the relationship between 

the two countries. I vividly remember watching President Clinton on television as 

he stated that normalization with Vietnam will help bringing democracy to the 

country. President Clinton also stated that the free exercise of religion is a primary 

right for citizens of all nations. This right has been called the first freedom, where 

people are free to practice their beliefs without fear of oppression. 

In 1997, during her visit to Vietnam former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright 

confirmed that religious freedom is one of the primary conditions in the U.S. foreign 

policy. 

On October 1998, both the House and the Senate passed H.R.2431—The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998—and established the U.S. Commission on 

International Religious Freedom to monitor the status of freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief in the world as defined in the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights. 

Since the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, Vietnam 

has no choice but to accept the normalization roadmap with the U.S. The end of 

the U.S. embargo also marked the closing of a chapter in history—a task long overdue. To further speed up the normalization, former ambassador ‘‘Pete’’ Peterson 

hastily reported to the U.S. State Department that the human and religious rights 

conditions in Vietnam were improving. It is no doubt that this unfounded optimism 

53

had greatly contributed to the degradation of human, religious and democratic conditions in Vietnam. 

The State Departments has finally recognized the reality and hence on September 

15, 2004 designated Vietnam as one of the ‘‘Countries of Particular Concern.’’

Hoa Hao Buddhism has been oppressed for the past 30 years. The Church is being 

controlled by senior communist party members who assume its leadership without 

the consent of the disciples. Church properties were confiscated and members harassed. 

Most recently, on 25 February 2005, Tran Van Hoang—a Hoa Hao Buddhist—received a 9-month prison sentence and fined 20 million dong (Vietnamese currency) 

for making copies of preaching tapes. His brother, Tran Van Thang, received a 6-

month prison sentence and was fined 10 million dong. 

I, myself, was first put under house arrest for 24 months. My mother soon fell 

critically ill and I had to leave the house to take care of her. For this violation of 

the 31/CP Decree on administrative detention, I was given another 36-month sentence. My brother has been harassed by the local police. 

For all former religious prisoners, life has been an uphill struggle due to constant 

harassment and intimidation by the authority. 

Most recently, on 3 June 2005, during the first anniversary ceremony of the passing of Mr. Ha Hai—a former religious prisoner—more than 200 local and regional 

police surrounded and harassed the event attendees. They seriously injured Ton 

Giao Vo Van Buu. This oppression led many Hoa Hao Buddhists to protest via hunger-strike and threat of self-immolation. 

Distinguished Members of Congress, 

The above events clearly show that religious freedom has not improved in Vietnam. I respectfully request the U.S. Congress, the State Department, and the U.S. 

Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to:

1. Keep Vietnam as one of the Countries of Particular Concern and use all 

means to pressure the Vietnamese government for true religious freedom.

2. Closely monitor and report all religious violations and harassment on Hoa 

Hao Buddhists to the world community.

3. Urge the government of Vietnam to allow Hoa Hao Buddhists to choose their 

own leaders, and to return all confiscated Church properties. All proceedings 

should be observed by USCIRF or international representatives.

Please accept my appreciation for your contribution to bringing democracy, human 

rights and freedom of religion to Vietnam.

An Giang—June 4th, 2005

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FATHER CHAN TIN IN VIETNAM

Dear Chairman Smith and distinguished members of Congress: 

My name is Chan Tin, a Catholic priest in Vietnam. I would like to present to 

you several suggestions on the occasion of the visit of Prime Minister Phan Van 

Khai to your country. I hope that this visit provides a chance for you to demand 

that the Vietnamese government truly respect basic human rights, especially the 

right of religious worship, as a non-negotiable (sine qua non) condition for the 

United States and Vietnam to have normal diplomatic relations. Currently, Communist Vietnam still oppresses organized religion and limits the religious freedom 

of the people in many ways. 

On behalf of the Vietnamese people, especially followers of religions in Vietnam, 

I sincerely appreciate your efforts to pressure the Vietnamese government to respect 

the basic rights that Vietnamese people rightfully deserve. In the past decade, and 

especially since the United States placed Vietnam on the list of Countries of Particular Concern, the Vietnamese government has rolled back step by step its oppression when encountered by your humane advocacy. Truly, Communist Vietnam has 

had to loosen control of religious worship day by day. 

But these acts of loosening control are merely a method to deal with international 

pressure, especially from the United States Congress and European Parliament. But 

in reality, the Vietnamese government does not truly want religions in Vietnam to 

be freed. Therefore, the Vietnamese government tries to lie to the international community by allowing religious freedom on the superficial level that the international 

community can observe. In depth, the government still tries to limit religious freedom and is ready to oppress, arrest, create difficulties to religions not willing to accept its control. The cases of the Mennonite Church, Christian House Churches, especially in the Central Highlands, are the specific examples of oppression. 

54

Currently, the status of religious freedom in Vietnam is only at the superficial 

level, there is no real religious freedom at all. We can use this example to illustrate 

this current status: there are two eggs, one is real, and the other was emptied of 

its internal content. Examined only by the eye, everyone would see the two eggs are 

the same. But one would find the egg that was emptied of its content when held 

in the hand because it is lighter than the other egg many times. 

Surely, when foreigners come to Vietnam, they see many churches and temples 

built nicely, followers packing Sunday service, Buddhists crowding temples on holidays, seminaries welcoming new students, lectures at temples filled with attendees, 

many apostolical communities functioning actively and so you would think that 

Vietnam has religious freedom. You may not know that in isolated locations such 

as the Central Highlands, Son La, Lai Chau in the northwest, and even in large 

cities such as Saigon and Hue, the public security often come to dismiss religious 

ceremonies organized by followers of religions not sanctioned by the government. 

Not only stopping these religious activities, the public police also report on, harass, 

interrogate, and sometimes event arrest, imprison, and torture the followers. If 

these followers do not have means to alert the world, then these injustices are met 

with silence and become forgotten. Time and government cover-up of oppression are 

similar to ocean waves that clear away the marks on the sand, making the sand 

look as if nothing had happened prior to the waves. 

Relying on superficial signs to conclude that Vietnam has religious freedom means 

that one is fooled by the Vietnamese government because such freedom only exists 

on the superficial level without any substance. Religion is the substance, not the superficial activities on the outside. Therefore, religious freedom means not only permission to organize religious activities on the surface, but at its essence the freedom 

to operate autonomously, select and train clergy accordingly. Such requirements are 

basic elements of religious freedom that the religions in Vietnam do not have. 

The development of a community depends greatly on its leaders. An incompetent 

and immoral leader not only will not help the community to advance, but also can 

lead that community to decline and corruption. Therefore, countries, organizations 

(religious, political, cultural, economic) all view that selecting the leaders is vital. 

This story illustrates such philosophy:

A Thai citizen and a Vietnamese citizen talk to each other:

Thai citizen: I admire your country because its has many heroes. 

Vietnamese citizen: Does your country have many heroes? 

Thai citizen: Unfortunately, my country has few heroes. 

Vietnamese citizen: How strange! My country has many heroes but it is so poor and 

backward. Your country does not have heroes but is developed and wealthy? 

Thai citizen: Oh on the other hand, my country has great leaders.

Surely, having one great leader is better and more beneficial to the country than 

having many heroes or excellent individuals put together. Its goes the same for the 

religions in Vietnam and organizations within those religions. The religions and religious organizations need leaders with high moral standing, willing to sacrifice self 

for others, courage to defend the sacred rights of religions, sound leadership that 

leads to growth and development of the religion. 

But the Vietnamese government always interferes with the internal affairs of religions. The skilled and high moral leaders that we select are never approved by the 

government. They would only approve those whom they can control, manipulate, 

who willingly abide by their demands, or who lacking virtue seek personal advancement and favors at the cost of sacrificing the religion’s rights for favors from the 

ruling party. Therefore, the religions of my country are delayed, the spiritual life 

of the followers are not going into depth but stay put at the superficial level. 

If any religion insists that it must have its worthy leaders chosen by the followers, 

instead of being approved by the government, then that leader will be isolated, detained, harassed, not allowed to travel or conduct any activities. Venerable Thich 

Huyen Quang, Venerable Thich Quang Do of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, and Mr. Le Quang Liem of the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church are classic examples 

of this reality. In the past, Archbishop Nguyen Kim Dien refused to be subject to 

government control and was thus harassed and poisoned to death when he was admitted to a government hospital. 

In order to prepare future leaders according to the government’s direction—which 

is often contrary to the direction of the religions—the government only allows 

churches to admit young men into seminary after carefully reviewing their personal 

histories. Therefore, the government has the ability to install its agents to cause disruption from the inside. These people can be spies for the government for they hold 

positions of power within the churches while being under-cover government cadres. 

If a country were to be filled with spies from a foreign nation, what would happen 

55

to such a country? It is the same for religions, especially when the Vietnamese government’s policy is to destroy religions like other communist regimes around the 

world attempted before. Everyone knows this as a fact. 

I am extremely concerned that the government knows that it cannot destroy religion, so it is trying to turn religion into a tool for the government. Any religion that 

refuses to change to fit the government’s view is immediately oppressed and harassed. When government cadres under the cover of religion reach a critical mass 

within the internal structure of the religions, and these double agents are presented 

with favorable conditions by the government to hold important positions in the 

churches, then their plan is successful. If there is nothing to stop them, then they 

will be successful in short time. By then the religions—that are already corrupted 

from the core—will be freed completely. At that time, the communist government 

of Vietnam will be known as having respect for religious freedom. But by then there 

will be no authentic religions anymore. The religions in existence will be in name 

only as they will be front organizations for the Communist Party. 

Currently, the voices of advocates for religious freedom such as myself have no 

effect with the communist government because we are simply voices of conscience 

without ability to pressure the government. A dictatorial government that tries to 

hang on to power such as the communist Vietnamese government would only step 

back when encountering significant and concrete pressure. Therefore, only a great 

power like the United States Congress can force them to change. Faced with the 

possibility of religions in Vietnam being gradually corrupted so that in the near future there would be no authentic religions, I sincerely send to you an S.O.S message. 

Please take an active role in helping us. I believe that this is a most beautiful 

act that you can do for our country. Our religions, while presenting a festive look 

from the outside, are being changed at the foundation into tools for an authoritarian 

ruling party. Please rescue us! We are helpless! 

Following are suggestions I would like to propose to you on the occasion of Prime 

Minister Phan Van Khai’s visit to your country:

1) The most important suggestion is to demand the Vietnamese government to 

allow religions to operate independently, free to organize internally, free to 

train and appoint clergy. This means:

a. Eliminating laws that mandate young men who want to apply for admission to seminary to be screened and approved by the government. The 

government cannot interfere with training, and the government cannot 

force clergymen to study communist ideology in seminary curriculums.

b. Allowing the religious institutions to freely appoint clergy based on their 

own standards and needs of the higher leaders and the clergymen educators.

c. For the Roman Catholic Church, allowing the Vatican to appoint cardinals and bishops according to the Church’s needs.

2) Let all religions function freely without having to apply for permits for assembly for worship at church, temple, or private residence.

a. Completely cease all acts by the public security of stopping religious activities, and reporting on the activities as if law violations had occurred.

b. Cease all harassment, mandatory interrogations at police stations, arrest, imprisonment of religious leaders for practicing their faith.

3) Release all religious leaders currently imprisoned or under house arrest so 

that they can freely practice their faith according to their religious functions. 

Specifically, Venerable Thich Huyen Quang, Venerable Thich Quang Do, and 

Father Phan Van Loi.

4) Let all religions freely print, publish, and distribute books, magazines, religious journals according to their needs.

5) Let all religions freely open schools from the first grade to university level 

to educate the youths as other countries around the world have been doing.

6) Cease all acts of encroaching and stealing property and land owned by religions. Return all property, land, other possessions belonging to the religions 

that the government has confiscated.

On behalf of members of different faiths in Vietnam, I sincerely thank you for 

what you have done and will be doing to help religions in our countries to truly 

enjoy freedom so that religions can contribute in the process of rebuilding Vietnam, 

especially in the area of morality and spirituality which are declining rapidly in our 

homeland. 

56

May God bless you for all your beautiful work.

Mr. SMITH. I would like to now ask if panel two would make its 

way to the witness table, beginning first with Minky Worden, the 

Media Director of Human Rights Watch. Ms. Worden is responsible 

for overseeing communications, including television, radio and Web 

for the largest U.S.-based human rights organization. 

From 1992 to 1998, Ms. Worden worked in Asia as the chief of 

staff and spokesman for Hong Kong Democratic Party Chairman 

Martin Lee, and that is where I first met her, at dinner with Martin Lee and her in Hong Kong. In that post, she was responsible 

for Op-Ed writing, press and government relations, including coordinating the party’s handling of the 1997 handover from Britain 

to China, and liaison with 5,000 visiting journalists. 

From 1989 to 1992, she worked at the Department of Justice in 

Washington, DC, as a speechwriter for the Attorney General, and 

in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. 

Ms. Worden edited a new book on global torture practices entitled Torture, to be published by New Press and released in October 

2005. 

We will then hear from Dr. Nguyen Thang. Dr. Thang is the Executive Director of Boat People S.O.S. He arrived in the United 

States in 1979 as a refugee from Vietnam. In 1980 Dr. Thang 

founded the Vietnamese Student Association at Northern Virginia 

College. In 1989, he joined Boat People S.O.S. and served as the 

director for its private refugee sponsorship program. In 1991, he 

became Executive Director of Boat People S.O.S. Also in 1991, he 

co-founded and served as the first Chairman of the Legal Assistance for Vietnamese Asylum Seekers, or LAVAS. In 1996, he was 

elected to the Board of Representatives of the Vietnamese Community of Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia, and selected to be 

its President. 

Dr. Thang has attended many international meetings and conferences on refugees, and has testified numerous times before Congress. Since 1995, he has assisted in the lawsuit filed by LAVAS 

against the Department of State on the latter’s discriminatory 

practices in immigrant visa processing. This lawsuit helped hundreds of Vietnamese reunite with their loved ones in the United 

States. 

In late 1997, Dr. Thang was invited to participate in a congressional staff delegation to Vietnam. This delegation monitored the 

conditions of repatriated boat people. His recent trip and follow-up 

reports were submitted to Members of Congress and the Department of State. 

Dr. Thang is the author of several articles, such as for the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News and Wall Street Journal, articles that have featured his writings. He has also been featured on 

U.S. and international programs, such as Night Line and Voice of 

America. He was named the Washingtonian Magazine’s Washingtonian of the Year. 

He also, I would just finally say, helped us on this Committee 

when there was a serious problem when the Comprehensive Plan 

of Action was closing and there was an attempt to send back to 

Vietnam some 40,000 people who were languishing in the camps all 

over southeastern Asia, including the Philippines and Thailand. 

57

At his request, I made a trip to High Island and then held four 

hearings looking at the issue of the boat people and whether or not 

they would get a welcome that would be something less than that, 

they might be sent to new economic zones or would be retaliated 

against. As a result of those four hearings, I offered an amendment 

on the Floor that stopped U.S. funding from being used for forced 

repatriation, and that led directly to the issuance or the establishment of the Rover program, which has brought something on the 

order of 18,000 to 19,000 people. 

Dr. Thang is the one who provided our Committee with the insight and the expertise to know what was going on on the ground, 

and for that I am very, very grateful. 

We will then hear from Helen Ngo, who is the Chair for the Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam. In 1998, Ms. Ngo cofounded the Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam, and has 

served as its Chairperson. She produces a weekly radio program to 

promote human rights and religious freedom. It is broadcast 

throughout the United States, and to Australia, Europe and Vietnam. She maintains contact with and supports many of the persecuted religious leaders in Vietnam and in the past has donated 

tens of thousands of dollars to the boat people in refugee camps 

and has raised money to help flood victims in Vietnam. 

We will then hear from Vo Van Ai, who is President of the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights. Born in central Vietnam in 

1938, Vo Van Ai was first arrested at the age of 11 for his activities 

in the Vietnamese Resistance Movement for Independence. He is 

currently Founder and President of Que Me: the Action for Democracy in Vietnam, and Editor of Que Me, a Vietnamese-language 

magazine on democracy, religious freedom, human rights and culture published in Paris since 1976. 

He is also Founder and President of the Vietnam Committee on 

Human Rights, a Paris-based monitor organization, also established in 1976, and Vice President for Asia of the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights. 

Vo Van Ai is also Director of the International Buddhist Information Bureau and oversees spokesmen of the Unified Buddhist 

Church of Vietnam. At the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, he 

continued to monitor human rights abuses and violations of religious freedom in Vietnam, and he played a key role in calling world 

attention to the plague of prisoners of conscience and drew up the 

first maps of reeducation camps in the North and the South. 

In 1978, he helped launch the first rescue ship to save boat people in the South China Sea. Mr. Vo Van Ai makes regular reports 

to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on the status 

of religious freedom there and has contributed to several key international studies on religion, such as, and I quote it, Freedom of Religion and Belief: A World Report which was published in 1997; and 

Religious Freedom in the World: A Global Report on Freedom and 

Persecution. 

We will then hear from Y-Khim Nie, Executive Director of the 

Montagnard Human Rights Organization. He is the Executive Director, as I said, based in Raleigh, North Carolina. He is a 

Montagnard of the Ede tribal group, and was born on June 16, 

58

1978 in Vietnam. He participated in the February 2001 protest, 

and was subsequently forced to escape into the jungle of Cambodia. 

After hiding in the jungle for several weeks, he and others managed to get to Cambodia to meet with UNHCR officials. He arrived 

in the United States on April 21, 2001, and was resettled by the 

voluntary agency, Catholic Social Services, in Charlotte. His wife 

and children have been approved by the USCIS for legal immigration from Vietnam, but the Vietnamese Government refuses to 

issue passports for his family. He has already received his green 

card and is eager to become an American citizen. 

Mr. Nie has previously testified at the White House and the U.S. 

Department of State in April 2005. 

If we could begin first with Ms. Worden, and then each of our 

distinguished witnesses, please take your time and present your 

testimonies. 

STATEMENT OF MS. MINKY WORDEN, MEDIA DIRECTOR, 

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 

Ms. WORDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Human Rights Watch 

appreciates the opportunity to testify today on the human rights 

situation in Vietnam, and we would especially like to thank you, 

Chairman Smith, for your long efforts to promote human rights 

and freedom around the world. 

With this week’s historic United States visit of Vietnamese Prime 

Minister Phan Van Khai, the Administration has the unique opportunity to press Vietnam to improve its dismal human rights record. 

Human Rights Watch welcomes today’s hearings and the strong 

bipartisan congressional consensus to improve basic rights and 

freedoms in Vietnam. During, and most importantly after, the visit 

of Vietnam’s Prime Minister, United States Government and business leaders should use their leverage to encourage Hanoi to repeal 

the country’s most repressive policies. 

Human Rights Watch believes that the following human rights 

concerns should top the bilateral agenda for President Bush and 

Prime Minister Phan Van Khai, but also for anyone meeting the 

Prime Minister and his delegation, which is reported to be about 

200 people strong. 

The top human rights concerns are press freedom and controls 

over the Internet, religious freedom, the repression of dissidents, 

arbitrary arrests, mistreatment and torture, and the need to release political and religious prisoners. 

On March 27, 2002, police arrested a 34-year-old doctor and businessman named Pham Hong Son. His crime, he had translated an 

article from the Web site of the U.S. Embassy in Vietnam. The article was titled, ‘‘What is Democracy?’’ He sent that article to 

friends and senior Vietnamese Government officials. Moreover, he 

had sent an open letter to the Secretary General of the Vietnamese 

Communist Party arguing that Vietnam was ripe for democracy. 

Pham Hong Son was charged with espionage by the Vietnamese 

Government, which accused him of ‘‘collecting and dispatching 

news and documents for a foreign country to be used against the 

socialist state of Vietnam.’’ After a half day closed trial in Hanoi 

in June 2003, Pham Hong Son was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. International reporters and diplomatic observers were barred 

59

from attending his trial and appeal, where his sentence was ultimately reduced from 13 to 5 years, plus an additional 3 years of 

house arrest. 

Pham Hong Son’s case is a good illustration of the current 

human rights situation in Vietnam and of the urgent need for 

United States officials meeting Prime Minister Phan Van Khai to 

press for human rights improvements. 

Yes, Vietnam has taken positive steps in recent years to liberalize the economy, including the signing of a landmark trade agreement with the United States, and for many ordinary citizens from 

Vietnam, there have clearly been areas of gradual improvement. 

Restrictions on everyday life for most citizens have eased noticeably as the market economy has taken hold. Travel within Vietnam 

is easier, surveillance through the country’s extensive network of 

monitors has become less intrusive. 

But the progress on the economic front has largely not been accompanied by human rights improvements. Instead, hundreds of 

dissidents have been jailed on criminal charges simply for advocating democratic reforms, practicing their religion, or using the 

Internet to disseminate proposals for human rights and religious 

freedom. 

As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights, Vietnam is obligated to uphold fundamental rights, including freedom of religion and freedom of expression. These rights are 

especially important as the country struggles with corruption, the 

implementation of economic reforms, and problems concerning ethnic minorities. 

Today, there is no freedom of the press in Vietnam; there are no 

independent, privately-run media. Domestic papers, television and 

radio stations remain under strict government control. Foreign 

journalists are required to obtain authorization from the Foreign 

Ministry for all travel outside Hanoi. Although journalists are occasionally able to report on corruption by government officials, direct 

criticism of the Communist Party is forbidden. 

Government critics, including prominent writers, and former 

Communist Party veterans, are effectively silenced and isolated 

from the outside world by having their telephone lines cut or 

tapped, police stationed in front of their homes, or by being placed 

under surveillance and house arrest. 

As an avenue of expression, the government also strictly bans 

the use of the Internet to oppose the government or ‘‘disturb national security and social order.’’

Hanoi blocks Web sites considered objectionable or politically 

sensitive. In 2004, the Ministry of Public Security created a new 

office to monitor the Internet for criminal content, a measure that 

appears to be aimed in part at intimidating people from circulating 

any information that authorities could deem to be a state secret or 

otherwise unauthorized. 

As far as religious freedom goes, followers of religions not recognized by the government are routinely persecuted. Security officials 

disperse their religious gatherings, confiscate religious literature, 

summon religious leaders for interrogation, and force believers to 

recant. Targeted in particular are members of the Unified Buddhist 

Church of Vietnam, Mennonites, Cao Dai followers, Hoa Hao BudVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
60

dhists, ethnic minority Christians, including Hmong Christians and 

Montagnards from the Central Highlands. 

For example, in the Central Highlands the government has increased its persecution of Montagnards, particularly those thought 

to be following Dega Protestantism. This is a form of evangelical 

Christianity banned by the Vietnamese Government, which links it 

to the Montagnard movement for the return of ancestral lands, religious freedom and self-rule. 

For any interested members or the public, Human Rights Watch 

has done an entire book-length study on the situation for 

Montagnards and the religious repression. 

Since 2001, some 200 Montagnard Christians, not only Dega 

church activists, but pastors, house church leaders, and Bible 

teachers as well, have been arrested and sentenced to prison terms 

of up to 13 years. Many were imprisoned on charges that they are 

violent separatists using their religions to ‘‘sow divisions among the 

people and undermine state and party unity.’’ Others have been arrested for trying to flee to Cambodia to seek asylum there, and this 

is something that we have thoroughly documented in recent briefing papers that I have also made available. 

Human Rights Watch would like to say that there is no evidence 

that the Dega church movement has ever advocated violence. By 

arresting and imprisoning people for their religious beliefs and 

peaceful expression of their views, Vietnam is in violation of its obligations under International Human Rights Law. 

As Ms. Shea has pointed out, in 2004 the United States designated Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern for its violations of religious freedom. U.S. and international pressure has resulted in a number of prisoner releases this year and the passage 

of legislation ostensibly aimed at loosening requirements for Christian churches to register, and banning forced recantations of faith. 

However, much more remains to be done to address Vietnam’s repressive policies. 

According to recent eyewitness accounts obtained by Human 

Rights Watch, local authorities in the Central Highlands have used 

the new regulations as grounds to arrest Montagnards accused of 

belonging to independent Christian groups. 

I must point out that we are receiving a steady stream of reports 

of forced renunciation ceremonies, which ironically appear to be occurring with greater frequency since the passage of the Prime Minister’s directive banning such practices. 

Today, hundreds of religious and political prisoners remain behind bars. Vietnam continues to violate the basic rights of individuals and groups that the government considers to be subversive. 

Police officers routinely arrest and detain suspects without written 

warrants, and authorities regularly hold suspects in detention for 

more than a year before they are formally charged or tried. 

Prison conditions in Vietnam are extremely harsh and fall far 

short of international standards. Human Rights Watch received reports of solitary confinements of detainees in cramped, dark, unsanitary cells, lack of access to medical care, and of police beating 

and kicking and using electric shock batons on detainees. 

Political trials are closed to the public and the international 

press corps and often the families of the detainees themselves. DeVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
61

fendants do not have access to independent legal counsel. More 

than 100 death sentences were issued in 2004. 

What can the U.S. do? President Bush has raised expectations 

with his global call for democracy and more open societies. The 

visit of Prime Minister Phan Van Khai this week represents an important test of the President’s willingness to press countries such 

as Vietnam to uphold basic rights and freedoms. We hope that 

President Bush will ask the Prime Minister to release or exonerate 

all people imprisoned, detained, or placed under house arrest because of their nonviolent political or religious beliefs. 

We are also disappointed that the State Department could not 

send a representative to your hearing today. It is vital that the future bilateral relationship is built on a willingness to point out perfectly obvious violations of basic rights and freedoms of Vietnam. 

We encourage you, Members of Congress, to continue your interest in rights conditions in Vietnam. We urge you to visit Vietnam 

and to urge human rights concerns with leading government officials. Please continue speaking out on behalf of human rights 

through resolutions and letters to Hanoi, and urge the Administration to strongly defend the rights of those who are detained, harassed or put under house arrest for peacefully expressing their 

views. 

Members should press for Vietnam to invite the U.N. Special 

Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, the U.N. Working Group on 

Arbitrary Detention, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture 

to visit Vietnam to investigate human rights violations. 

Finally, it has been reported that the Prime Minister is meeting 

with a number of leading businesses while in the U.S., including 

CEOs of Microsoft, Boeing, Gap and Nike. Human Rights Watch 

hopes that United States companies doing business in Vietnam will 

recognize their own manifest self-interest in helping to develop the 

rule of law and protections for basic rights and freedoms. 

In particular, we hope the companies helping to develop the 

Internet in Vietnam will protest to Vietnamese authorities the detention of individuals using the Web in ways the government finds 

politically sensitive or embarrassing to the state and party. 

It is true the Internet is emerging as an increasingly useful vehicle for self-expression, free expression in Vietnam, but as Dr. Pham 

Hong Son and too many others have learned, those who try to exercise their basic rights and freedoms in Vietnam today risk repression. 

We hope President Bush and other leaders who meet with the 

Vietnamese delegation will press for fundamental reforms as well 

as the release of Dr. Pham Hong Son and the other very brave Vietnamese who are today putting everything on the line to fight for 

their basic rights. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Worden follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. MINKY WORDEN, MEDIA DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS

WATCH

Human Rights Watch appreciates the opportunity to testify today on the human 

rights situation in Vietnam. With this week’s historic visit to the U.S. of Vietnamese 

Prime Minister Phan Van Khai—the first such visit since the end of the war thirty 

years ago—the Administration has a unique opportunity to vigorously press VietVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
62

nam to improve its dismal human rights record. Religious freedom, repression of 

dissidents, and the release of political and religious prisoners should top the agenda. 

As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 

Vietnam is obligated to respect and uphold fundamental human rights. These rights 

are especially important now as the country struggles with issues of corruption, the 

future development and implementation of economic and political policies, and problems concerning ethnic minorities, good governance, and the rule of law. 

Highly publicized steps taken by Vietnam during recent years to liberalize the 

economy, including the signing of a landmark trade agreement with the United 

States, have not been accompanied by rights improvements. Hundreds of dissidents 

have been jailed on criminal charges simply for advocating democratic reforms or 

using the Internet to disseminate proposals for human rights and religious freedom. 

Other government critics—including prominent writers and former communist 

party veterans—are effectively silenced and isolated from the outside world by having their telephone lines cut or tapped, police stationed in front of their homes, or 

being placed under surveillance and house arrest. 

Followers of religions not officially recognized by the government are routinely 

persecuted. Security officials disperse their religious gatherings, confiscate religious 

literature, and summon religious leaders to police stations for interrogation. Targeted in particular are members of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, Mennonites, Cao Dai followers, Hoa Hao Buddhists, and ethnic minority Christians in 

the northern and central highlands. 

In 2004, the U.S. designated Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern for its 

violations of religious freedom. International pressure has resulted in a number of 

prisoner releases this year and the passage of legislation ostensibly aimed at loosening requirements for Christian churches to register with the government. 

Much more remains to be done, however, to address Vietnam’s repressive policies. 

Hundreds of religious and political prisoners remain behind bars—the vast majority 

of whom are Montagnard Christians imprisoned since unrest broke out in the Central Highlands in 2001. There has been no let-up in the practice of authorities forcing minority Christians to recant their faith. 

At the same time, for many ordinary citizens of Vietnam there have clearly been 

areas of gradual improvement in recent years, particularly in the economic sector. 

Restrictions on everyday life for most citizens have eased noticeably as the market 

economy has taken hold. Travel within Vietnam is easier. Surveillance of ordinary 

citizens through the country’s extensive network of monitors has become less intrusive. But despite these advances, Vietnam continues to violate the basic rights of 

individuals and groups that the government considers to be ‘‘subversive.’’

Human Rights Watch welcomes today’s hearings and the strong bipartisan Congressional interest in promoting basic rights and freedoms in Vietnam. During—and 

after—the visit of Vietnam’s prime minister, U.S. government and business leaders 

should use their leverage to encourage Hanoi to repeal repressive policies. 

President Bush has raised expectations with his call for democracy and more open 

societies around the world. The visit of Prime Minister Phan Van Khai is an important test of the Administration’s willingness to press countries such as Vietnam to 

uphold basic rights and freedoms. We hope that President Bush will ask the prime 

minister to release and exonerate all people imprisoned, detained or placed under 

house arrest because of their non-violent political or religious beliefs and practices. 

We also hope that members of Congress will continue their interest in rights conditions in Vietnam. We urge you to visit Vietnam and raise human rights concerns 

with leading government officials, to continue to speak out on behalf of human 

rights through resolutions and letters to Hanoi, and to urge the Administration to 

strongly defend the rights of those who are detained, harassed, or put under house 

arrest for peacefully expressing their views. We support assistance for basic rule of 

law reform in Vietnam, including reform of criminal and national security laws. 

Human Rights Watch also hopes that U.S. companies helping to develop the 

Internet in Vietnam will protest to Vietnamese authorities the detention of individuals using the web in ways the government finds politically sensitive or embarrassing to the state and party. The Internet is emerging as an increasingly useful 

vehicle for free expression in Vietnam. American companies should make it clear 

that protecting the right to free expression online is as important as protecting intellectual property rights. 

KEY HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES IN VIETNAM

In our testimony today, Human Rights Watch would like to describe the key 

human rights problems in Vietnam and present our recommendations to Congress. 

63

Controls over Freedom of Expression and the Internet 

There is no independent, privately-run media in Vietnam. Domestic newspapers, 

television and radio stations remain under strict government control. Foreign media 

representatives are required to obtain authorization from the Foreign Ministry for 

all travel outside Hanoi. 

Although journalists are occasionally able to report on corruption by government 

officials, direct criticism of the Party is forbidden. 

In an example of criminal prosecutions of journalists, in January 2005 Nguyen 

Thi Lan Anh, a reporter for the Tuoi Tre (Youth) newspaper was indicted in January 2005 on charges of ‘‘appropriating state secrets’’ after publishing investigatory 

articles about a drug company’s monopoly of the market. 

The government maintains strict control over access to the Internet. It blocks 

websites considered objectionable or politically sensitive and strictly bans the use 

of the Internet to oppose the government, ‘‘disturb’’ national security and social 

order, or offend the ‘‘traditional national way of life.’’

Decision 71, issued by the Ministry of Public Security in January 2004, requires 

Internet users at public cafe ́s to provide personal information before logging on and 

has increased the pressure on Internet cafe ́ owners to monitor customers’ email 

messages and block access to banned websites. 

In 2004 the Ministry of Public Security created a new office to monitor the Internet for ‘‘criminal’’ content, a measure that appears to be aimed in part at intimidating people from circulating any information that authorities could deem to be a 

‘‘state secret’’ or otherwise unauthorized. 

In an example of official control of cyberspace, in April 2004 the government 

closed down Vietnam International News 24-Hour, an unlicensed website that had 

reprinted a BBC article about Easter demonstrations by Montagnards in the Central Highlands. 

Arrests of Democracy Activists and ‘‘Cyber-Dissidents’’

Several dissidents and democracy activists have been arrested and tried during 

the last several years on criminal charges—including espionage and other vaguely 

worded crimes against ‘‘national security’’—for disseminating peaceful criticism of 

the government or calling for multi-party reforms in written statements or through 

the Internet. 

In a recent case, authorities harassed, detained, and interrogated dissident Do 

Nam Hai, who has called for multi-party reform and criticized the government in 

articles posted on the Internet and in open letters to the Central Committee of the 

Communist Party of Vietnam. After being interviewed by Radio Free Asia in October 2004, police searched his home, confiscated his computer, and then reportedly 

erased the contents of the hard drive. 

Legislation remains in force authorizing the government to detain without trial 

for up to two years anyone suspected of ‘‘threatening national security’’ without 

meaningful judicial review. 

Cyber-dissidents who have been sentenced to prison on criminal charges include 

Pham Hong Son, currently serving five years’ imprisonment on espionage charges 

after he wrote and disseminated articles about democracy and communicated by email with ‘‘political opportunists’’ in Vietnam and abroad; Nguyen Khac Toan, arrested in an Internet cafe ́ and sentenced in 2002 to twelve years’ imprisonment for 

having ‘‘vilified and denigrated Party and state officials, sending emails providing 

information to certain exiled Vietnamese reactionaries in France’’; and Nguyen Vu 

Binh, a journalist who was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment after he criticized the government in an article distributed over the Internet. 

Violations of the Right to Freedom of Religion 

The government seeks to exercise control over virtually every aspect of religion, 

from ordination of Catholic clergy to prohibition of flood relief efforts by the nonsanctioned Buddhist organization, the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam. 

Despite the recent high-profile prisoner releases and new directives on religion, 

the government continues to arrest and imprison ethnic minority Christians in the 

northwestern provinces and Central Highlands and pressure them to recant their 

faith and cease all political or religious activities in public self-criticism sessions or 

by signing written pledges. 

In an ironic twist, local officials are using the new religious regulations issued 

earlier this year as grounds to arrest minority Christians suspected of belonging to 

Christian groups that operate independently of the government. 

Ethnic Hmong Christians in the northwest provinces have been beaten, detained, 

and pressured by local authorities to renounce their religion and cease religious 

gatherings. Human Rights Watch has received credible reports of the beating deaths 

64

in 2002 and 2003 of two Hmong Christians by authorities who were pressuring 

them to abandon their faith. Recently the military presence in several villages in 

Lai Chau has increased, causing more than 100 Hmong Christian families to flee 

from their homes. 

In the Central Highlands, the government has increased its persecution of members of ethnic minorities (collectively known as Montagnards), particularly those 

thought to be following ‘‘Dega Protestantism.’’ This is a form of evangelical Christianity, banned by the Vietnamese government, which links it to the Montagnard 

movement for return of ancestral lands, religious freedom, and self-rule. Since 2001, 

when thousands of Montagnards first joined widespread protests for land rights and 

religious freedom, the government has launched an official campaign to eradicate 

‘‘Dega Protestantism.’’

Since 2001 close to 200 Montagnard Christians—not only Dega church activists, 

but pastors, house church leaders, and Bible teachers as well—have been arrested 

and sentenced to prison terms of up to thirteen years. Many have been imprisoned 

on charges that they are violent separatists using their religion to ‘‘sow divisions 

among the people’’ and ‘‘undermine state and party unity.’’ There is no evidence that 

the Dega church movement has ever advocated violence. By arresting and imprisoning people for their religious beliefs and peaceful expression of their views, Vietnam is in violation of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, to 

which it is a party. 

According to recent eyewitness accounts obtained by Human Rights Watch, local 

authorities in the Central Highlands have used the new regulation as grounds to 

arrest Montagnards suspected of belonging to Christian groups that operate independently. In addition, we are receiving a steady stream of reports of forced renunciation ceremonies, which actually seem to be occurring with greater frequency since 

the passage of directives banning such practices. 

For example, in mid-June police and soldiers went to many villages in Bo Ngong 

commune, Cu Se district of Gia Lai province, where they forced Montagnard villagers to join the government-sanctioned Evangelical Church of Vietnam. During 

the same time period, authorities in Ia Piar commune, Ayun Pah district, Gia Lai 

forced Montagnard Christians to sign pledges renouncing their faith. Those who 

didn’t know how to sign were forced to fingerprint the pledges. We have received 

dozens of reports like these since March of this year. 

Members of the Mennonite Church have also come under fire recently, in part because of the outspoken and at times confrontational style of Rev. Nguyen Hong 

Quang, the activist leader of the Mennonite Church in Vietnam. In 2004 Rev. 

Quang and five other Mennonites were arrested on charges of resisting police officers after a scuffle broke out in March 2004 with undercover policemen who had 

been monitoring their Ho Chi Minh City church. Quang and Evangelist Pham Ngoc 

Thach are currently serving three and two year sentences respectively. Ms. Le Thi 

Hong Lien was amnestied because of international pressure at the end of April, 

2005 two months before the end of her one-year sentence. She had been sent to the 

Bien Hoa Mental Hospital at the end of February, having suffered a mental breakdown due to physical and mental abuse in prison. The remaining three—all of whom 

were beaten in custody—were released after serving their sentences. 

Mennonites in other parts of the country have also encountered difficulties. On 

two separate occasions during 2004, officials in Kontum province bulldozed a Mennonite chapel that doubled as the home and office of Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh, 

superintendent of the Mennonite churches in the Central Highlands. In September 

and October 2004, police pressured Mennonites in Kontum and Gia Lai provinces 

to sign forms renouncing their religion. 

While one monk from the banned Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV), 

Thich Thien Mien, was included in the Lunar New Year prisoner amnesty, the government continues to persecute UBCV members and withhold any recognition of 

this group, once the largest organization of the majority religion in the country. In 

2003, four UBCV monks were formally sentenced without trial to two years’ administrative detention. Many other UBCV members remain confined without charges to 

their pagodas, which are under strict police surveillance. Their phone lines are cut 

or monitored and movement in and out of the pagodas is restricted. The UBCV’s 

Supreme Patriarch, Thich Huyen Quang and its second-ranking leader, Thich 

Quang Do have been confined to their monasteries for years, effectively living under 

‘‘pagoda arrest’’. 

Members of the Hoa Hao sect of Buddhism have also been subject to police surveillance and several Hoa Hao members remain in prison. The sect was granted official status in May 1999, although government appointees dominate an eleven-member Hoa Hao Buddhism Representative Committee established at that time. 

65

Although relations between Vietnam and the Vatican have improved in recent 

years, the government continues to restrict the number of Catholic parishes, require 

prospective seminarians to obtain government permission before entering the seminary, and maintain defacto veto power over Roman Catholic ordinations and appointments. 

At least three Catholics—members of the Congregation of the Mother CoRedemptrix—continue to serve twenty year prison sentences imposed in 1987 for 

conducting training courses and distributing religious books without government 

permission. They were convicted of security offenses, including ‘‘conducting propaganda to oppose the socialist regime,’’ ‘‘undermining the policy of unity,’’ and ‘‘disruption of public security.’’

Arbitrary Arrest, Mistreatment and Torture, and Unfair Trials 

Police officers routinely arrest and detain suspects without written warrants, and 

authorities regularly hold suspects in detention for more than a year before they are 

formally charged or tried. 

Prison conditions in Vietnam are extremely harsh and fall far short of international standards. Human Rights Watch has received reports of solitary confinement of detainees in cramped, dark, unsanitary cells; lack of access to medical care; 

and of police beating, kicking, and using electric shock batons on detainees. 

Political trials are closed to the international press corps, the public, and often 

the families of the detainees themselves. Defendants do not have access to independent legal counsel. More than one hundred death sentences were issued in 2004, 

with twenty-nine crimes considered capital offenses under the penal code, including 

murder, armed robbery, drug trafficking, many economic crimes, and some sex offenses. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

During his meeting with Prime Minister Phan Van Khai, U.S. President George 

W. Bush should press Vietnam to take the following steps:

1. Immediately release or exonerate all people imprisoned, detained, or placed 

under house arrest (so-called ‘‘administrative detention’’) because of their 

non-violent political or religious beliefs and practices. Cease surveillance 

and harassment of dissidents including those released from prison or detention.

2. Take urgent measures to end torture and other mistreatment of detainees. 

Investigate reports of torture and prosecute those responsible.

3. End the practice of detaining and prosecuting Vietnamese in secret, and in 

particular make public the names of all persons held for political and related activities.

4. Allow independent religious organizations to freely conduct religious activities and govern themselves. Recognize the legitimate status of churches and 

denominations that do not choose to join one of the officially-authorized religious organizations whose governing boards are under the control of the 

government. Allow these religious organizations to independently register 

with the government.

5. Urge the Vietnamese government to end its censorship and control over the 

domestic media, including the Internet and electronic communications. Authorize the publication of independent, privately-run newspapers and magazines.

6. Investigate reports of torture and beatings, including beating deaths, of ethnic minority Christians in both the northwestern provinces and the Central 

Highlands, and bring those responsible to justice. Cease the repression of 

ethnic minority Protestants, including bans on religious gatherings and 

other meetings, pressure to renounce one’s faith, and abusive police surveillance of religious leaders.

7. Address the grievances of the indigenous minorities (Montagnards) of the 

Central Highlands, including land confiscation, repression of religious freedom, lack of educational opportunities, pressure to join family planning programs, and restriction of freedom of assembly, association, and of movement.

8. Ensure that all domestic legislation is brought in conformity Vietnam’s obligations under international human rights law, such as the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Amend provisions in domestic law 

that criminalizes dissent and certain religious activities on the basis of imVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
66

precisely defined ‘‘national security’’ crimes. Specifically, amend or repeal 

Vietnam’s Criminal Code to bring it into conformity with international 

standards. Eliminate ambiguities in the Criminal Code’s section on crimes 

against national security, to ensure that these laws cannot be applied 

against those who have exercised their basic right to freedom of expression.

9. Achieve greater transparency and accountability in the criminal justice system and work towards the establishment of an independent and impartial 

judiciary. Give advance notification of trial dates and allow international 

observers and independent monitors access to trials and to persons in pretrial or administrative detention and in prison.

10. Repeal the 1997 Administrative Detention Directive 31/CP, which authorizes detention without trial for up to two years for individuals deemed to 

have violated national security laws. The government should ensure that all 

detainees receive a fair trial within a reasonable time as required under 

international law.

11. Permit outside experts, including those from the United Nations and independent international human rights organizations, to have access to dissidents and religious followers in Vietnam, including members of denominations not officially recognized by the government.

12. Invite the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, the U.N. 

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on 

Torture to visit Vietnam to investigate human rights violations. UN officials 

should be allowed unrestricted access to the central and northern highlands 

and allowed to visit police stations, district and provincial jails, military-operated detention centers in border areas, as well as prisons such as Ba Sao 

prison, where many political prisoners are currently held.

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Worden, thank you very much for your very comprehensive testimony and for your tremendous work on behalf of 

suffering people. 

I would like to now ask Ms. Helen Ngo if she would proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MS. HELEN NGO, CHAIRWOMAN, COMMITTEE 

FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN VIETNAM 

Ms. NGO. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. My 

name is Helen Ngo, and I am the Chairwoman of the Committee 

for Religious Freedom based in Bethesda, Maryland. Thank you 

very much for the opportunity to be here. 

I will not mention the problems concerning religious freedom in 

Vietnam on a large scale. The fact that Vietnam is a Country of 

Particular Concern can speak for itself. I will only discuss two lives 

affected by these problems, but the conditions of these lives symbolizes the suffering of all religious Vietnamese citizens. The following 

is part of the Catholic priest, Phan Van Loi testimony:

‘‘I am Catholic priest, Peter Phan Van Loi. I reside at 1646 

Tran Phu Street, Hue, Vietnam. I would like to tell you about 

my miserable life after 1975. In early 1978, applying the 297 

CP law, the Vietnamese Government forced me and 17 out of 

48 members out of our seminary who the government thought 

would not obey what they wanted them to do. I have to stay 

with my parents but I still kept my goal to become a Catholic 

priest. 

‘‘In May 1981, I went to Giang Xa parish, North Vietnam, 

where the Archbishop Nguyen Kim Dien was under house arrest. The Archbishop later on became the Cardinal and now he 

is deceased. He ordained me quickly 4 months later. I participated in a satirical play which attacks the government’s suppression of religious believers. The government arrested me 

and four other seminarians who were involved. I was in jail for 

67

4 years. When the sentence was nearly satisfied, the Communists discovered that I had been ordained and they put me 

in jail for 3 more years. 

‘‘When I was released from prison, they forced me to stay 

home with my parents and banned me from leading in church. 

Therefore, I practiced my teaching for the seminary or conducting mass services secretly. 

‘‘In 1998, the government searched my house. They could not 

find any secret documents, but they still took away my computer, my books, and all my writings for church. In early 2001, 

the special police order me to be at their offices to be questioned for 1 month. After I refused to come, they put me under 

house arrest, they cut my phone line, and they destroyed my 

cell phone SIM card. I am still under house arrest. 

‘‘In January 2004, they threatened me with death by gunfire 

to stay inside. I am now living with my 80-year-old parents 

and a 40-year-old sister who nobody dared to give a job to.’’

Happily, he also believe that the religious freedom situation is 

split. He had this to say about it:

‘‘For the last few months the government promised the U.S. 

Government they would improve religious freedom. In reality, 

the situation has become worse. For example, ordinations in 

the 30 oppressed groups were rampant for Federal Government, we thought the knee on religious applied at the worst. 

These conditions activity was controlled by the local government whose members were greedy and corrupt. Therefore, people needed—had to find the authorities if they wanted these 

rights to be granted.’’

And here, the following is a part of Pastor Nguyen Huu Giai’s 

testimony:

‘‘I am Pastor Nguyen of the Vietnam Fellowship. In 1975 I 

was 15 years old at that time. My father was the administrator 

of Binh Mai Tur Evangelical Church. Communist Government 

officers planted fliers which contained the dissenting views toward the government into the church yard, using them as a 

pretext to arrest my father. The church was closed. My mother 

and five siblings had no shelter and no food. My family was 

forced to wander. All my family had no household registration. 

‘‘After 20 years of waiting for it, the secret police gave my 

parents the registration. Because I had been a leader of the 

house church network not recognized by the government and 

I had been the President of Vietnam Evangelical Fellowship, 

the police did not grant me household registration. I still do 

not have household registration or citizenship identification 

card. This has hampered me from traveling, even in Vietnam. 

I am also unable to own a car or a house. My wife and my two 

children have a second-class household registration, but that 

still means my children have restrictions on where they can go 

to school and on their education in general.’’

Dear Sirs and Madams, I have just shared the lives of two 

Catholic religious followers. This is not unique to these two men. 

Many people in Vietnam live in misery every day. Reverend 

68

Nguyen has said the pain of my life reflects the pain of the millions 

of people in Vietnam who have suffered. 

With my testimony, I am including Father Nguyen Giai’s and Father Phan Van Loi testimonies, Pastor Pham Dinh Nhan’s testimony and the Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam. 

It is 2 o’clock a.m. in Vietnam right now, but many of the religious leaders and believers are praying for the success of this hearing. 

Once again thank you very much for the opportunity to be a 

voice for those who cannot be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ngo follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. HELEN NGO, CHAIRWOMAN, COMMITTEE FOR

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN VIETNAM

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. 

My name is Helen Ngo, and I am Chairwoman of the Committee for Religious 

Freedom in Vietnam, based in Bethesda, Maryland. 

I will not discuss the overall condition of religious freedom in Vietnam. The fact 

that Vietnam is a country of particular concern speaks for itself. I will bring to your 

attention a number of typical cases which show that the situation has not improved 

despite Prime Minister Khai’s promises to the US government. 

Last month our committee brought to the attention of the Department of State 

the case of Pastor Than Van Truong of the Baptist General Conference house 

church organization. In 2003 when he attempted to visit his sick mother in the 

North, he was arrested for breaking the administrative detention order. He was subsequently sent to a mental hospital and was administered psychotic medications; 

the hospital’s psychiatrist deemed that Pastor Truong’s faith in God instead of Communism must be a symptom of insanity. I had hoped that Prime Minister Khai 

would set him free as a gesture of good will to President Bush. This did not happen. 

The recently issued Ordinance on Belief and Religion and the Instructions on the 

implementation of this ordinance, which our Department of State praised as a major 

improvement, is actually a step backward. According to Fathers Nguyen Huu Giai 

and Phan Van Loi, whose written statements have been submitted to you, ‘‘These 

two documents practically give the local authorities full control of all religious activities. Local government officials now can do whatever they want, causing uncountable 

obstacles to the appointment of clergy members, to the registration of seminarians, 

to the organization of religious activities, and to the demand for the return of confiscated church properties.’’ Both Catholic priests are under house arrest. 

Bui Thien Hue, a Hoa Hao Buddhist deported from Cambodia with the acquiescence of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refuges, reported that ‘‘I, myself, was first put under house arrest for 24 months. My mother soon fell critically 

ill and I had to leave the house to take care of her. For this violation of 31/CP decree 

on administrative detention, I was given another 36-month sentence. My brother 

has been harassed by the local police.’’ He too is still under house arrest. 

Pastor Pham Dinh Nhan, President of the Vietnam Evangelical Fellowship, himself denied household registration or citizenship identification for the past 30 years, 

has this to say about the situation in Vietnam after the US reached an agreement 

with Vietnam last month on religious freedom. 

‘‘Recently, under the pressure from the international community, especially from 

the US Government, Prime Minister Phan Van Khai has issued Directives 01/2005, 

which create the conditions for Protestant churches to register their religious activities. However, there have been many signs showing that this document is aimed at 

dealing with the international community rather than reflecting a real change in policy, for the central government has played the role of being ignorant, letting local authorities continue to oppress Protestant groups . . . For the last few months, the government promised to the US that they would improve religious freedom. In reality, 

the situation is becoming worse . . . As a matter of fact, just this Sunday night, June 

19th, 2005, there were 16 believers who were at Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang’s house. 

The police came and ordered them to disperse; the police also filed a report on them.’’

There are more testimonies submitted to you from people in Vietnam. They are 

themselves victims of religious persecution and are in a better position than anyone 

of us, including our Department of State, to judge whether there the decrees, direcVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
69

tives, instructions and promises issued by Prime Minister Khai are of any significance. 

Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, 

Collectively religious leaders and practitioners in Vietnam believe that the US 

should keep Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern, closely monitor and report 

all incidents of religious violations and harassment, and use all means to pressure 

the Vietnamese government to:

• stop the use of torture in both its physical and psychiatric forms;

• repeal Decree 31/CP on administrative detention;

• return all confiscated church properties;

• release all pastors, missionaries, and lay leaders who are still detained;

• allow the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church to choose their own leaders;

• allow Hoa Hao Buddhists and House Church Christians to conduct religious 

activities at home;

• recognize those religious organizations which have operated legitimately at 

private houses and permit house churches to build or rent facilities for their 

religious activities;

• return to religious organizations places of worship that have been forced to 

be deserted or seized for other uses;

• prosecute all government officials who violate religious freedom; and

• create a special task force in the office of the Prime Minister to respond to 

complaints against local government officials who commit acts of religious 

persecution.

It is 2AM in Vietnam now, but many religious leaders and believers are praying 

for the success of this hearing. 

Once again thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to be a voice for 

those who cannot be here today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN VIETNAM, 

BETHESDA, MD 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I will not discuss the overall condition of religious freedom in Vietnam. The fact 

that Vietnam is a country of particular concern speaks for itself. I will bring to your 

attention a number of typical cases which show that the situation has not improved 

despite Prime Minister Khai’s promises to the US government. 

Last month our committee brought to the attention of the Department of State 

the case of Pastor Than Van Truong of the Baptist General Conference house 

church organization. In 2003 when he attempted to visit his sick mother in the 

North, he was arrested for breaking the administrative detention order. He was subsequently sent to a mental hospital and was administered psychotic medications; 

the hospital’s psychiatrist deemed that Pastor Truong’s faith in God instead of Communism must be a symptom of insanity. I had hoped that Prime Minister Khai 

would set him free as a gesture of good will to President Bush. This did not happen. 

The recently issued Ordinance on Belief and Religion and the Instructions on the 

implementation of this ordinance, which our Department of State praised as a major 

improvement, is actually a step backward. According to Fathers Nguyen Huu Giai 

and Phan Van Loi, whose written statements have been submitted to you, ‘‘These 

two documents practically give the local authorities full control of all religious activities. Local government officials now can do whatever they want, causing uncountable 

obstacles to the appointment of clergy members, to the registration of seminarians, 

to the organization of religious activities, and to the demand for the return of confiscated church properties.’’ Both Catholic priests are under house arrest. 

Bui Thien Hue, a Hoa Hao Buddhist deported from Cambodia with the acquiescence of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refuges, reported that ‘‘I, myself, was first put under house arrest for 24 months. My mother soon fell critically 

ill and I had to leave the house to take care of her. For this violation of 31/CP decree 

on administrative detention, I was given another 36-month sentence. My brother 

has been harassed by the local police.’’ He too is still under house arrest. 

Pastor Pham Dinh Nhan, President of the Vietnam Evangelical Fellowship, himself denied household registration or citizenship identification for the past 30 years, 

has this to say about the situation in Vietnam after the US reached an agreement 

with Vietnam last month on religious freedom: 

70

‘‘Recently, under the pressure from the international community, especially from 

the US Government, Prime Minister Phan Van Khai has issued Directives 01/2005, 

which create the conditions for Protestant churches to register their religious activities. However, there have been many signs showing that this document is aimed at 

dealing with the international community rather than reflecting a real change in policy, for the central government has played the role of being ignorant, letting local authorities continue to oppress Protestant groups . . . For the last few months, the government promised to the US that they would improve religious freedom. In reality, 

the situation is becoming worse . . . As a matter of fact, just this Sunday night, June 

19th, 2005, there were 16 believers who were at Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang’s house. 

The police came and ordered them to disperse; the police also filed a report on them.’’

There are more testimonies submitted to you from people in Vietnam. They are 

themselves victims of religious persecution and are in a better position than anyone 

of us, including our Department of State, to judge whether the decrees, directives, 

instructions and promises issued by Prime Minister Khai are of any significance. 

Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, 

Collectively religious leaders and practitioners in Vietnam believe that the US 

should keep Vietnam as a Country of Particular Concern, closely monitor and report 

all incidents of religious violations and harassment, and use all means to pressure 

the Vietnamese government to:

• stop the use of torture in both its physical and psychiatric forms;

• repeal Decree 31/CP on administrative detention;

• return all confiscated church properties;

• release all pastors, missionaries, and lay leaders who are still detained;

• allow the Hoa Hao Buddhist Church to choose their own leaders;

• allow Hoa Hao Buddhists and House Church Christians to conduct religious 

activities at home;

• recognize those religious organizations which have operated legitimately at 

private houses and permit house churches to build or rent facilities for their 

religious activities;

• return to religious organizations places of worship that have been forced to 

be deserted or seized for other uses;

• prosecute all government officials who violate religious freedom; and

• create a special task force in the office of the Prime Minister to respond to 

complaints against local government officials who commit acts of religious 

persecution.

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Ngo, thank you for being the voice for those who 

cannot be here today. You have been outspoken for years, and this 

Committee has benefited greatly, as well as those who are suffering, so thank you. 

Dr. Thang. 

STATEMENT OF NGUYEN THANG, PH.D., EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, BOAT PEOPLE S.O.S. 

Mr. THANG. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee. Prime Minister Phan Van Khai is in town. He will 

meet with President Bush tomorrow to seek accession into the 

World Trade Organization. He will attempt to convince the President that Vietnam is now a market economy and therefore should 

be exempted from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. He aims for permanent normal trade relation status. 

Today is also World Refugee Day, as the Congressman from New 

Jersey just mentioned, and thereby at this hearing I would like to 

remind Members of the Committee of the thousands of persecuted 

victims left without protection in Vietnam and in neighboring countries. 

After 30 years and much talk about reconciliation and openness, 

the Vietnamese Government continues to deny basic freedoms, continues to persecute those who exercise their rights, and continues 

71

to severely restrict the roles and activities of the independent 

churches. 

I would like to talk about the other aspects of human rights 

issues, and that is the protection of refugees, the protection of specific victims. 

The year 1997 witnessed the return of the hard-line Communists. There is less freedom now and more persecution today 

than 10 years ago. I was in Vietnam at the time when there was 

change of the guard. I was, at that time, staff delegation with chief 

counsel, now Ambassador. At the time there was a statement by 

a political member which concisely describes the policy of the government. In his words: ‘‘We have opened our doors and windows 

because we need to breathe. However, we have to stop the flies 

from coming in.’’

That summarized the policy of the Vietnamese Government since 

then. So on the one hand it opened up the economy, but on the 

other hand the government and the party are consciously oppressive and persecute dissidents even further, and therefore even in 

today’s Vietnam there are more dissident and religious leaders who 

are in detention. 

In April 1997, as part of that coming back of the hard-line Communists, the government issued decree number 31/CP, authorizing 

administrative detention without charges or trial. I estimate there 

must be around a few hundred Vietnamese citizens under administrative detention at this moment. And I have been working on several of those cases. I have been working with the Department of 

State and your office, Mr. Chairman, to track some of those people 

out of Vietnam, without much success so far. 

With all of that, it is very troubling that the Comprehensive Plan 

of Action practically closed down any route of escape for victims inside Vietnam to the free world, the United States. With very few 

exceptions, the only way out for Vietnamese living inside of Vietnam now is through the Orderly Departure Program, or ODP, 

which requires government approval, and that is an irony. Many 

victims of persecution have been blocked access to ODP in many 

different ways. 

The Vietnamese Government has denied passports even to those 

who have been found to be refugees by the United States. Let’s 

take the case of Pastor Nyugen Lap Ma of the Christian Missionary 

Alliance, who has spent the past 23 years under house arrest. He 

has not been issued a passport for refugee resettlement under the 

U.S. Priority One In-Country Refugee Program even though the 

U.S. has already accepted him as a refugee. He is one of the similar cases I continue to work on. 

Rampant corruption is another barrier to U.S. refugee programs. 

An ordinary citizen would have to pay up to thousands of dollars 

to corrupt officials, and they don’t have that money. Therefore, 

Amerasians—these are children of United States servicemen—

thousands of them are still left in Vietnam to suffer just because 

they are children of American citizens. 

For the past 4 years, Vietnam has not acted on its promise to collaborate with the United States in reopening the Humanitarian 

Operation program for reeducation camp survivors. In 1994, the 

Clinton Administration decided single handedly to close down regVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
72

istration for this program, leaving behind thousands of former allies to suffer in Vietnam. In 2001, the Bush Administration decided 

to reopen the HO program. However, since then, Vietnam has 

reneged repeatedly on its promise to cooperate. I had hoped that 

the prime minister would announce the reopening of this program 

before his arrival in the U.S., but this did not happen. 

I am concerned for the safety of persecuted victims who successfully escaped to neighboring countries; and this involves hundreds 

of Montagnard in Cambodia, for instance. Some of them have refused resettlement, even though they have been recognized as refugees; and they also refused repatriation. There is a need to protect 

them. 

There is a case of Mr. Bui Thien Hue—actually, his testimony 

has been submitted. Mr. Bui Thien Hue is a Hoa Hao Buddhist. 

He escaped to Cambodia and was placed under administrative detention. He escaped to Cambodia successfully, but the office of the 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees pushed him to 

camp, and then the forces sent him back to Vietnam where he had 

to serve 36 months of sentence in prison because of his escape from 

administrative detention and then from Vietnam. 

Clearly, Vietnam is far from being in compliance with the free 

and open emigration requirement of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. I would like to stress the point, with increased persecution 

in Vietnam, with the closing down of the escape routes for victims, 

now the ODP and through the ODP, the refugee programs from the 

U.S. Government is the only way for them to get out of Vietnam 

and therefore is a need to secure their escape, their legal way to 

depart from Vietnam. 

Human trafficking is another case of concern. A major source of 

trafficking in persons, Vietnam each year exports tens of thousands 

men, women and children to sweatshops and to the sex industry 

in Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, Malaysia, the 

Czech Republic and Japan. Yet Vietnam continues to refuse to pay 

$3.5 million in damages to 321 victims of the Daewoosa American 

Samoa case as ruled by the High Court of American Samoa. 

In 1999, I worked on this case under the Victims of Trafficking 

Protection Act. Between 1999 and 2001, Vietnam exported over 300 

Vietnamese and Chinese workers to American Samoa where they 

suffered tremendous torture in the hands of an owner of a government factory; and that is Daewoosa American Samoa factory. Vietnam has failed to prosecute the highest-ranking government official 

who was behind the trafficking incident. He is the deputy director 

of Labor Export Management at the Department of Labor. Yet the 

Department of State took Vietnam off the watchlist in this year’s 

Trafficking in Persons Report. 

Prime Minister Khai is going to visit with President Bush; and 

as his visit offers unique opportunities for cooperation between the 

two countries, I would like to offer the following recommendations: 

At meetings with the Prime Minister over the next few days, the 

President and Members of Congress should call on him to announce the reopening of the HO program and also the issuance of 

passports to individuals of interest to the United States. He should 

also be reminded to pay restitution to the Daewoosa American 

73

Samoa victims. It is a mere $3.5 million, considering the billions 

of dollars in trade surplus between Vietnam and the United States. 

The Department of State should report to Congress the number 

of ODP cases without passports, the number of refugees demanded 

bribes by government officials, and the amount they have to pay 

to those corrupt officials. 

The United States should expeditiously process all Priority One 

cases, including those under administrative detention. 

Congress should extend the Davis Amendment, formerly known 

as the McCain Amendment, to admit children of former political 

prisoners in anticipation of the reopening of the HO program. 

The Department of State should initiate a special effort to seek 

out Amerasians who have been excluded from U.S. resettlements 

because of corruption. 

I would like to also draw your attention to three groups outside 

of Vietnam, but the situations are related to the refugee issues—

relating to Vietnam refugee issues. 

First of all, the Montagnard I just mentioned. They need protection. 

Two, there are about 17,000 Amerasians resettled under the 

Amerasians Homecoming Act of 1998 who continue to suffer the 

consequences of past persecution. These are children of American 

citizens. They were denied education, and therefore they are illiterate in their own native language. Many of them have tried repeatedly but have failed the U.S. citizenship exam. 

Last month, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California introduced the Amerasians Naturalization Act that call on all Members 

of Congress to support this legislation as it will bring justice to 

these victims of war, persecution and neglect. 

Finally, I call on the Administration to process the 2,000 Vietnamese former boat people still left in the Philippines for refugee 

admission expeditiously and generously. This will bring the 30-year 

Vietnamese boat people saga to a truly humane and fair closure. 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this very 

important and timely hearing as our Government maintains dialogue with Mr. Khai and his team from Vietnam. It is critical of 

Congress to hear the voice of the persecuted victims who are in 

Vietnam. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thang follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NGUYEN THANG, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOAT

PEOPLE S.O.S. 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, 

Today marks the first US visit by a Vietnamese prime minister since the war 

ended 30 years ago. Prime Minister Phan Van Khai will meet with President Bush 

tomorrow to seek US support for Vietnam’s accession to the World Trade Organization. He will attempt to convince the President that Vietnam is a market economy 

and therefore should be exempted from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. He aims for 

permanent normal trade relation status. 

At this hearing I would like to remind the Subcommittee of the thousands of persecuted victims left without protection in Vietnam and in neighboring countries. 

After 30 years and much talk about reconciliation and openness, the Vietnamese 

government continues to deny basic freedoms, persecute those who exercise their 

rights, and severely restrict the roles and activities of the independent Churches. 

The year 1997 witnessed the return of the hard-line communists. There is less 

freedom and more persecution in today’s Vietnam than ten years ago. There has 

been increased use of torture, including physical and psychiatric torture. More disVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
74

sidents and religious leaders have been arrested and detained. April 1997 the government issued Decree No. 31/CP authorizing administrative detention without 

charges or trial. I estimate that hundreds of Vietnamese citizens are currently subjected to this form of persecution. 

With the closure of the Comprehensive Plan of Action in 1996, escape from Vietnam was also closed. With few exceptions, the only way out of Vietnam is through 

the Orderly Departure Program (ODP) which requires government approval. Many 

victims of persecution have been blocked access to ODP, in many different ways. 

The Vietnamese government has denied passport even to those who have been 

found to be refugees by the United States. Pastor Nguyen Lap Ma of the Christian 

Missionary Alliance, who has spent the past 23 years under house arrest, has not 

been issued a passport for refugee resettlement under the US Priority One In-Country Refugee Program. He is among the many similar cases I have been working on. 

Rampant corruption is another barrier to US refugee programs. Thousands of 

former US allies and Amerasians—children fathered by US servicemen during the 

war—are still in Vietnam because they cannot afford the thousands of dollars demanded by corrupt officials. 

For the past four years Vietnam has not acted on its promise to collaborate with 

the United States in re-opening the Humanitarian Operation program for re-education camp survivors. Many survivors did not survive the long wait. 

I am concerned for the safety of persecuted victims who successfully escaped to 

neighboring countries. Many Montagnard refugees have been deported to Vietnam, 

which paid thousands of dollars per deportee. In the case of Bui Van Hue, a Hoa 

Hao Buddhist, the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees facilitated his forced repatriation without considering his refugee claims. He was sentenced to 36 months in prison for having fled to Cambodia. 

Vietnam is far from being in compliance with the free and open emigration requirement of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. 

Human trafficking is another area of concern. A major source of trafficking in persons, Vietnam each year exports tens of thousand men, women and children to 

sweatshops and the sex industry in Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Ma Cau, Taiwan, 

Malaysia, and the Czech Republic. Vietnam refuses to pay $3.5 million in damages 

to 321 victims in the Daewoosa American Samoa case as ruled by the High Court 

of American Samoa. Vietnam has failed to prosecute the Deputy Director of Labour 

Export Management at the Department of the Labour, War Invalids and Social Affairs Ministry, who was behind this trafficking incident. Yet, the Department of 

State took Vietnam off the Watch List in this year’s Trafficking in Persons report. 

As the Prime Minister Khai’s visit offers new opportunities for cooperation between the two countries, I would like to offer the following recommendations.

(1) At meetings with Prime Minister Khai over the next few days, the President 

and members of Congress should call on him to announce the re-opening of 

the Humanitarian Operation program and the issuance of passports to all 

individuals of interest to the United States. He should also be reminded to 

pay restitution to the Daewoosa American Samoa victims.

(2) The Department of State should report to Congress the number of ODP 

cases without passport, the number of refugees demanded bribes by government officials, and the amount they had to pay.

(3) The United States should expeditiously process all Priority One cases, including those under administrative detention.

(4) Congress should extend the Davis Amendment, formerly known as the 

McCain Amendment, to admit children of former political prisoners, in anticipation of the re-opening of the Humanitarian Operation program.

(5) The Department of State should initiate a special effort to seek out 

Amerasians being excluded from US resettlement program because of corruption.

While not exactly related to Vietnam’s current policy, the following two issues are 

of humanitarian concern and warrant the attention of the US Congress. 

Some 17,000 Amerasians, resettled under the Amerasians Homecoming Act, continue to suffer the consequences of past persecution. Denied education in Communist Vietnam for being children of American citizens, they are illiterate in their 

native language. Many of them have repeatedly failed the US citizenship exam. Last 

month Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren introduced the Amerasians Naturalization Act. 

I call on all members of Congress to support this legislation as it will bring justice 

to these victims of war, persecution, and neglect. 

Finally, I call on the Administration to process the 2,000 Vietnamese former boat 

people in the Philippines for refugee admission, expeditiously and generously. This 

75

will bring the 30-year Vietnamese boat people saga to a truly humane and fair closure.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for your service and your testimony and for your message. 

Mr. Vo Van Ai, if you could proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. VO VAN AI, PRESIDENT, VIETNAM COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND QUE ME: ACTION FOR DEMOCRACY IN VIETNAM, FRANCE 

Mr. AI. Thank you, Honorable Chairman and distinguished Members of Congress. Thank you for giving me here this opportunity to 

testify on behalf of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam. 

The very fact that this hearing takes place today, just as Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai visits the United States, is 

a great tribute to American democracy. This could not happen in 

most countries around the globe and most certainly not in Vietnam. 

Criticism is forbidden in Vietnam, as I have learned by experience. When I was just 13, I was arrested and tortured for engaging 

in the movement for independence against French colonialists, then 

driven into exile. I, like many others, have paid a heavy price for 

my democratic ideal. 

Today, Premier Phan Van Khai comes to seek improved trade 

and security relations with the United States. Vietnam badly 

wants to be removed from the blacklist of CPC. Last month, the 

State Department signed an agreement with Vietnam to refrain 

from punitive action if Vietnam fulfilled its commitment to improve 

religious rights. 

The State Department believed in Vietnam goodwill, but Vietnam is a past master in the art of deception, and Phan Van Khai 

is a symbol of Hanoi’s broken promises. He is the man who received dissident Buddhist Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang in Hanoi 

in April, 2003, raising great hope of dialogue. He is also the man 

who, just months later, launched a most brutal clamp-down on the 

UBCV. 

As the committee’s party said in its report, Vietnam’s aim is not 

to promote religious freedom but to increase the state management 

of religious affairs. Just as Vietnam is opening its economy to a 

free market with socialist orientation, it is aiming to create religion 

with socialist orientation under strictest state control. 

As this hearing takes place, Vietnam is stepping up religious repression. In May, security police raided monks from Nguyen Thieu 

Monastery where the Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang is currently 

under detention. They also made a death threat against the leaders 

Thich Huyen Quang and Thich Quang Doe warning to execute 

them if they continued to criticize the Communist Party. During 

the celebration of Vesak, the birth of Buddha in May this year, security police harassed and terrorized Buddhists all over the country 

and forbade them to circulate messages by UBCV leaders. 

After more than 25 years in detention, Vietnam’s two most 

prominent Buddhist dissidents, Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang and 

Thich Quang Do, are still imprisoned in their monastery and are 

in very poor health. In February, the government intensified control on Thich Quang Do after he launched a landmark appeal for 

pluralism and democracy which received unprecedented support 

76

from dissidents from all over on diverse political opinions inside 

and outside of Vietnam. 

Mr. Chairman, I submit the full text of this letter for entry in 

the hearing record. 

[The information referred to was not received prior to printing.] 

Mr. AI. Police refuse to let foreign journalists interview Thich 

Quang Do during the 30 anniversary of the end of the Vietnam 

War in April. Thich Quang Do is held in complete isolation, and 

police have set up a jamming device outside his monastery which 

blocks all cell phones. 

Hanoi is using new strategy to suppress UBCV. Over the past 

month, Communist Party officials have visited senior UBCV 

monks, promising that Vietnam will re-establish UBCV legal status 

on condition that Thich Quang Do and Patriarch Quang are excluded. By eliminating these two prominent dissidents from its 

leadership, Hanoi plans to transform the UBCV into a second 

state-sponsored Buddhist church, empty of its independent spirit 

and its commitment to democracy and human rights. 

Vietnam claims credit for releasing religious prisoners, but many 

continue to suffer severe restrictions on their freedom. Thich Thien 

Minh, released in February after 26 years in prison, has received 

a death threat and been harassed. Just a few days ago, on June 

17, a senior security official warned him that he must leave the 

Buddhist order. 

Religious repression is inscribed in Vietnamese law. Vietnam has 

adopted new ordinance on belief and religions, which they claim is 

a sign of progress. In fact, the ordinance placed tighter controls on 

religious freedom, and it is totally incompatible with international 

human rights norm. 

Particularly disturbing is the ordinance’s definition on religion, 

an organization of people who follow rites and tenets that do not 

go against the nation’s fine customs and traditions and national interests. Under the provision, religion can only exist if it complies 

with state interests. So it is a Communist state who decides which 

religions are legitimate and which should be banned. 

I have obtained a secret Communist Party document which gives 

clear evidence of Hanoi’s repressive policies. Published by the Institute of Public Security Science in Hanoi, with a print of 1 million 

copies, it gave a Communist Government plan to eliminate independent religions. An instruction manual on religious persecution, 

the document instructs security police how to promote Buddhism 

with socialist orientation. 

There can be no religious freedom until the Communist party 

radically changes its policy and it is a true process of democratization. I call on President Bush and Congress to urge Vietnam to 

hold a national referendum on democracy in Vietnam. 

In a recent interview in the Washington Post, Prime Minister 

Khai said: ‘‘People in Vietnam have the highest power to determine 

the destiny of their country.’’ A national referendum organized 

under U.N. supervision would be the best way to ensure that all 

Vietnamese have the right to participate in determining their own 

destiny and shaping the political development of Vietnam. I urge 

the Administration to have Vietnam remain on a list of CPCs until 

tangible progress has been made, and set up a monitoring mechaVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
77

nism to ensure its agreement with the State Department is respected. 

As a first step, Vietnam should release Patriarch Thich Huyen 

Quang and Thich Quang Do and legalize the UBCV. Normal trade 

relations status with Vietnam should be renewed annually and not 

granted on a permanent basis. This gives the Congress an opportunity to seriously review Vietnam human rights and keep Vietnam under pressure to respect human rights. 

Promoting human rights and democracy in Vietnam should be an 

integral part of United States-Vietnam relations. I warmly welcome 

legislation introduced by Congressman Chris Smith to support democracy promotion in Vietnam. 

I urge President Bush to propose benchmarks for improvement 

in his talks with Prime Minister Khai. They should include releasing all religious and political prisoners, UBCV leaders, cyber-dissidents and all Montagnard Christians detained for their peaceful 

activities; authorizing the publication of an independent newspaper 

as a forum for democratic debate and the creation of a free trade 

union and independent NGOs. 

Thank you for your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ai follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. VO VAN AI, PRESIDENT, VIETNAM COMMITTEE ON

HUMAN RIGHTS AND QUE ME: ACTION FOR DEMOCRACY IN VIETNAM, FRANCE

Honorable Chairman, 

Distinguished Members of Congress, 

I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify on behalf of 

the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam at this important Hearing in Congress. 

The very fact that this Hearing takes place today, just as Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai makes his first visit to the United States, is a great tribute 

to American democracy. At the same time, the voice of the rulers and those of the 

victims can be heard by your government and people. This could not happen in most 

countries around the globe—and most certainly not in Vietnam. 

In Vietnam, no opposition views are tolerated, as I have learned through my own 

harsh experience. Arrested and tortured at the age of 13 for engaging in the resistance movement for independence from colonialism, I was driven into exile by successive political regimes. Like so many Vietnamese, I have paid a heavy price for my 

democratic ideals. It is therefore a great privilege to speak before Congress for all 

those whose voice is stifled in Vietnam. 

Today, relations between the United States and Vietnam are at a crucial point. 

Premier Phan Van Khai comes to seek improved trade and security relations, and 

to achieve this, he must remove all obstacles obstructing this path. One paramount 

obstacle is religious freedom, notably Vietnam’s designation by the State Department in September 2004 as a ‘‘country of particular concern’’. Vietnam is desperate 

to be removed from the black-list of the world’s worst religious freedom violators, 

and has made several gestures and promises of reform. On the basis of these promises, on May 5th 2005, the State Department signed an agreement with Vietnam—

the first agreement ever signed with a CPC country since the adoption of the 1998 

International Religious Freedom Act—pledging to refrain from punitive actions if 

Vietnam fulfils its commitment to improve religious rights. 

The State Department believed in Vietnam’s good will. But Vietnam is a past 

master in the art of false pledges—indeed, Phan Van Khai himself is a symbol of 

the broken promises of Hanoi’s regime. He is the man who received dissident Buddhist Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang for talks in Hanoi in April 2003, raising great 

hopes of dialogue and tolerance. He is also the man who, just months later, 

launched a most brutal clamp-down on the UBCV, arresting Thich Huyen Quang, 

Thich Quang Do and nine other Buddhist leaders in October 2003. 

It was in that cynical spirit that, at the same time Hanoi’s leaders signed this 

agreement with the United States, they cynically stepped up repression against 

independent religions, notably against Vietnam’s largest religious community, the 

Buddhists, and their traditional, independent organization, the Unified Buddhist 

Church of Vietnam (UBCV). 

78

These acts of religious repression—perpetrated on a daily basis by political and 

religious cadres of the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP)—demonstrate that, just 

as Vietnam is opening its economy to a ‘‘free market with socialist orientations’’, it 

is similarly aiming to create ‘‘religions with socialist orientations’’ under strict VCP 

control. Indeed, as the Political Report of the VPC’s Seventh Plenum in January 

2003 clearly stated, the communist party’s objective is not to improve religious freedom but to ‘‘increase state management of religious affairs’’ in Vietnam. 

A brief review of recent events reveals the ongoing persecution against the Unified Buddhist Church and other non-recognised in Vietnam today:

• In late May 2005, Security Police entered Nguyen Thieu Monastery in 

Binh Dinh, where UBCV Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang is currently under 

detention, and summoned several young monks for interrogation. The monks 

were separated and taken to different Police stations, where they were treated aggressively and subjected to intense psychological pressure. Security Police accused the monks of circulating Messages issued by the UBCV Patriarch 

Thich Huyen Quang and his Deputy Venerable Thich Quang Do on the 

Vesak, anniversary of Buddha’s Birth, and greeting cards with the name of 

the banned UBCV. They threatened to have the monks expelled from Nguyen 

Thieu Monastery if they did not immediately cease all contacts with the 

UBCV and join the State-sponsored Vietnam Buddhist Church. 

These threats follow the expulsion last year of several monks from Nguyen 

Thieu Monastery because of their support for UBCV Patriarch Thich Huyen 

Quang during the government crackdown in October 2003. The monks were 

placed on a ‘‘black-list’’ of citizens forbidden to leave the country, and were 

unable to attend studies overseas, even thought they had valid visas.

• During these interrogations, Security Police made death threats against the 

UBCV leadership. The monks of Nguyen Thieu monastery were warned that 

if Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang and Thich Quang Do continued to oppose the government and Communist Party, they would be executed.

• During the traditional celebrations of the Vesak (Buddha’s Birthday) in April 

and May 2005, UBCV Buddhists all over the country were harassed and prevented from holding celebrations. Venerable Thich Duc Chon, from Gia Lam 

Pagoda in Saigon was summoned by Security Police and given strict warnings 

not to circulate or read out to Buddhist followers the Vesak Messages by 

UBCV Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang and Venerable Thich Quang Do. In 

Danang, Venerable Thich Thanh Quang, Superior monk of the Giac Minh 

Pagoda and other members of the UBCV’s Quang Nam-Danang Provincial 

Board were interrogated and harassed by Security Police, who forced them to 

sign papers renouncing their adherence to the UBCV and ordered Thich 

Thanh Quang not to read out the Vesak Messages by the UBCV leaders. 

Thich Thanh Quang refused to comply with these orders, and Giac Minh Pagoda has been under close Police surveillance since then. UBCV Pagodas in 

Hue, Quang Tri, Khanh Hoa and many other provinces were subjected to a 

similar ban. This unlawful prohibition of circulation of the Vesak Message not 

only violates religious freedom, but also contravenes a centuries-old tradition 

in Vietnam.

• Throughout the year, Security Police and local party officials systematically 

disrupted UBCV gatherings and intimidated Buddhist followers. On May 

23rd 2005 in Tinh Dong village, Quang Nam Province, Nguyen Su Nen, a 

leader of the UBCV Buddhist Youth Movement, was beaten and his wife harassed because he refused to let the funeral of his father, a respected Buddhist 

elder, be presided by monks from the State-sponsored Vietnam Buddhist 

Church (VBC). When he invited a UBCV senior monk to lead the prayers, 

local officials seized the microphone and shouted: ‘‘The UBCV does not exist. 

There is only the Vietnam Buddhist Church !’’. Local Party officials completely 

disrupted the funeral, harassed participants and eventually forced them to 

disperse, warning that any ‘‘outsiders’’ who spent the night in the village 

risked immediate arrest. The following day, the local authorities came to interrogate Nguyen Su Nen, warning him that the UBCV is an ‘‘illegal 

organisation’’.

• After more than 25 years under detention, UBCV Patriarch Thich Huyen 

Quang and his Deputy Thich Quang Do are still prisoners in the Nguyen 

Thieu Monastery (Binh Dinh) and the Thanh Minh Zen Monastery (Saigon) 

without any justification or charge. Both monks are in very poor health as 

a result of prolonged isolation and harsh detention conditions. In October 

2003, they were arrested in a brutal government clamp-down on the UBCV 

79

and placed under ‘‘administrative detention’’. Although no formal charges 

were laid, Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Dung declared that they were 

under ‘‘investigation for possessing State secrets’’. Thich Huyen Quang and 

Thich Quang Do both wrote to the government protesting their arbitrary detention and calling for the right to a fair trial, but they have received no 

reply.

• In February this year, Thich Quang Do launched a ‘‘New Year’s Letter’’ 

with a vibrant appeal to Vietnamese intellectuals from all religious and political currents to rally together in a common effort for pluralism and democracy 

in Vietnam. He stressed that only a peaceful process of democratisation and 

a multi-party system could help bring Vietnam out of poverty and repression. 

Thich Quang Do’s appeal received overwhelming support from prominent dissidents inside Vietnam such as Communist Party veteran Hoang Minh Chinh, 

writer Hoang Tien, Roman Catholic priests Father Pham Van Loi, Chan Tin, 

and Nguyen Huu Giai, Hoa Hao Buddhists, and writers, artists and intellectuals from all over Vietnam and the Vietnamese Diaspora (I submit the full 

text of this letter for entry in the Hearing record). Whilst many dissidents have 

launched democracy appeals in the past, this was the first time in Vietnam 

that such a proposal has won such a wide and enthusiastic consensus of support. 

Hanoi responded by stepping up controls on Thich Quang Do. Security Police 

banned all visits to the UBCV Deputy, and set up jamming device outside the 

Thanh Minh Zen Monastery, which blocks the use of cell phones. Requests by 

international media correspondents (such as the German press agency DPA) to 

interview Thich Quang Do during the 30th Anniversary of the end of the Vietnam 

War in April 2005 were refused by the authorities on the grounds that Thich Quang 

Do was ‘‘under investigation for possessing state secrets’’. This charge contradicts repeated statements by Vietnam that ‘‘Thich Quang Do and Thich Huyen Quang are 

completely free’’.

• On 30th March 2005, Thich Quang Do recorded a video message for the 

United Nations Human Rights Commission calling for international support 

for a peaceful process of democratisation in Vietnam. Security Police seized 

the tape and arrested UBCV monk Thich Vien Phuong who filmed the Message. Thanks to courageous Buddhist activists, an audio tape was finally 

smuggled out and made public at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

• To avoid US sanctions under CPC, Vietnam is enacting subtle, underhand 

strategies to ‘‘settle the UBCV problem’’. Having failed to eliminate it by 

force, Hanoi is attempting to ‘‘neutralize’’ the UBCV by creating divisions 

within its leadership, and undermining the movement from within. Over the 

past months, Communist Party officials have discretely visited senior UBCV 

monks, promising that Vietnam will re-establish the UBCV’s legal status on condition that Thich Quang Do and Patriarch Thich Huyen 

Quang are excluded from the process. By eliminating these two prominent dissidents from its leadership, Hanoi plans to transform the UBCV into 

a ‘‘State-sponsored Buddhist Church No 2’’, emptied of its independent spirit 

and of its commitment to democracy and human rights. The UBCV would 

thus retrieve its legitimate status, but be reduced to a kind of ‘‘Buddhism 

with socialist orientations’’, a political tool of the Communist Party of Vietnam.

• Vietnam claims credit for releasing religious prisoners, but many suffer severe restrictions on their freedom after their release. UBCV monk Thich 

Thien Minh, released in a government amnesty on 2nd February 2005 after 

26 years in re-education camp, has been subjected to constant harassments 

and police surveillance. ‘‘I have exchanged my small prison for a bigger one,’’

he said. In March, Thich Thien Minh received death threats from Security Police demanding he end all contact with human rights organizations, stop 

sending petitions overseas (including to the US Commission on International 

Religious Freedom). They also threatened to murder members of his family. 

Security agents have jammed his mobile phone and confiscated all his correspondence. Thich Thien Minh told my committee that many religious prisoners are still detained in Z30 A Camp in Xuan Loc, Dong Nai Province, 

where he spent many years of his life. Many of these prisoners are old and 

sick—one has gone mad from ill-treatment, others are over 80 years old, yet 

they are still forced to perform hard labour and deprived of medical care. 

The case of Thich Thien Minh reveals a new aspect of Vietnam’s sophisticated methods of religious repression. Just a few days ago, on June 17th, 

80

he received a visit from a senior Security agent, Lieutenant-colonel Dai, who 

told him he must either leave the Buddhist orders at once, or beginning his 

training all over again (needless to say, in the State-sponsored VBC, not the 

UBCV). Lieutenant-colonel Dai, who had been sent by the Communist Party 

to study at an Advanced School of Buddhism for three years—this is unheard 

of for a Communist cadre in Vietnam—said that Thich Thien Minh was no 

longer qualified to be a monk, because he had spent 26 years in a labour 

camp, and had not followed the summer retreats and meditation periods 

obligatory to a monk’s vocation. Thich Thien Minh rejected these arguments, 

saying he had remained celibate in prison for 26 years and meditated whilst 

performing hard labour. Thien Thien Minh is currently obliged to live at his 

brother’s home in Bac Lieu Province (southern Vietnam), since the authorities confiscated his Pagoda on his arrest in 1979. He has written two letters 

of complaint to the Vietnamese authorities asking them to return his pagoda, 

but he has never received any reply. He has not been issued with a residence 

permit since his release, and has to apply for a temporary permit every 

month. In Vietnam, the residence permit is an obligatory aspect of citizenship 

rights. It must be produced on every occasion (travel, studies, work, etc) and 

those without a permit are considered as ‘‘illegal citizens’’ and liable to arrest 

at any moment.

• Religious repression in Vietnam extends not only to Buddhists, but also to 

Protestants, Mennonites, Catholics, Hoa Hao Buddhists, Cao Dai and Khmer 

Krom Buddhists etc. Hmong Christians have been murdered. Christian 

Montagnards returning to Vietnam after escaping persecution in Cambodia 

face ill-treatment and arrest, despite Hanoi’s pledge to protect their security 

and prohibit all retribution. In violation of the ‘‘Memorandum of Understanding’’ signed with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Vietnam refuses internal observers access to the Central Highlands to monitor the situation of Montagnard returnees.

• Not only religious freedom, but also basic human rights such as freedom of 

speech, opinion and the press are also suppressed, despite Vietnam’s obligations as a state party to the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights. Vietnam’s 600+ newspapers are all state-controlled, and all independent expression is denied. Vietnam claims to uphold press freedom, but 

when it hosted the Asia-Europe (ASEM) Summit Meeting in Hanoi in October 

2004, it banned the domestic and foreign press from attending the ASEM People’s Forum, including a workshop on ‘‘Democracy and the Media’’. In Vietnam today, there are no free trade unions, no independent NGOs, no civil society movements, no independent judiciary. Citizens who suffer abuses have 

no way to seek remedy, and live in a climate of fear.

• Violations of human rights and religious freedom are not isolated phenomena, 

nor the result of zeal by local officials. They stem from a deliberate policy of 

repression orchestrated at the highest echelons of the Vietnamese Communist 

Party (VCP) and the state. Increasingly, on the pretext of building the rule 

of law, the Vietnamese government is adopting extensive legislation that codifies these repressive and arbitrary practices in order to protect the ruling 

VCP minority and exclude all divergent political or religious views. 

Indeed, alongside its use of repression, Vietnam is using the law to stifle 

criticism and dissent. With funding from international donors, including the 

United States, Vietnam has embarked on a 10-year Legal System Development Strategy, which it is using to impose the rule by law—not the rule 

of law—and reinforce political control. Under Vietnam’s ‘‘national security’’ 

laws, citizens may be detained under ‘‘administrative detention’’ without trial 

(Decree 31/CP); cyber-dissidents face the death penalty for ‘‘espionage’’ simply 

for circulating peaceful opposition views (Article 80 of the Vietnamese Criminal Code); peaceful protests outside public buildings may be punished by arrest (Decree 38/ND–CP, March 2005).

• Religious freedom is restricted by a whole arsenal of legislation. Most recent 

is the ‘‘Ordinance on Beliefs and Religions’’ (21/2004/PL–UBTVQH11), which 

came into effect on 15th November 2004. Vietnam claims that the Ordinance 

guarantees religious freedom, and is using it as a pretext to demand Vietnam’s removal from the list of CPCs. In fact, this Ordinance is totally incompatible with international human rights standards, and it places tighter controls on religious freedom in Vietnam. Under the Ordinance, religious education must be subordinated to the ‘‘patriotic’’ dictates of the Communist 

Party; worship may only be carried out in approved religious establishments; 

it is forbidden to ‘‘abuse’’ religious freedom to contravene prevailing ComVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
81

munist Party policies (article 8§2). Religious activities deemed to ‘‘violate national security . . . negatively affect the unity of the people or the nation’s fine 

cultural traditions’’ are banned (article 15).

• The ‘‘Instructions for Implementing the New Ordinance on Belief and Religions’’ (22/2005/ND–CP, 1st March 2005) reinforce these restrictions, strictly 

forbidding ‘‘abuse of the right to freedom of religious belief and religion to undermine peace, independence and national unity . . . to disseminate information against the State’s prevailing laws and policies; to sow division among 

the people, ethnic groups, and religions; to cause public disorder; to do harm 

to other people’s lives, health, dignity, honor’’ (Article 2).

• Particularly disturbing is the Ordinance’s definition of ‘‘religion’’ (‘‘an organization of people who follow rites and tenets that do not go against the nation’s 

fine customs and traditions . . . and national interests’’). Under these provisions, religions can only exist if they comply with state interests, so it is the 

communist State who decides which religions are ‘‘legitimate’’ and which 

should be banned. This is clearly the Communist Party’s interpretation, as we 

can see from an editorial on the official radio ‘‘Voice of Vietnam’’ regarding 

Protestantism: ‘‘Religions with legitimacy will be accepted by society and protected by law. Whereas organizations that claim to be religions but in fact lead 

people into darkness . . . should be called heresies . . . According to the provisions of the Ordinance on Beliefs and Religions, religions such as Degar Protestantism should not be considered as legitimate and should be outlawed’’. The 

‘‘Vang Chu’’ religion followed by ethnic communities in the North and Degar 

Protestantism in the Central Highlands are nothing but heretical beliefs’’

which ‘‘should be considered evil and unlawful, and be eliminated’’ (Voice of 

Vietnam, 10 August 2004).

• Vietnam new religious legislation aims to give a ‘‘veneer of respectability’’ to 

its religious policies. But behind this facade is a decades-old policy of repression, systematically planned and methodically implemented at all levels in 

Vietnam, which aims to crush all independent movements and place religions 

under the Communist Party’s control.

• The most conclusive evidence of Vietnam’s repressive religious policies is 602-

page Secret Communist Party document, of which my Committee has obtained a copy that reveals a concerted and on-going campaign to eliminate all 

independent religious movements, in particular the Unified Buddhist Church 

of Vietnam. 

This secret document, entitled ‘‘On Religions and the Struggle against Activities Exploiting Religion—Internal Document for Study and Circulation in 

the People’s Security Services’’ is published by the Institute of Public Security 

Science in Hanoi with a print-run of 1 million copies (all numbered to trace 

back eventual ‘‘leaks’’). A veritable instruction manual on religious persecution, it is distributed to ‘‘all top-level Security cadres, ranking officers, police, 

research cadres and instructors directly or indirectly participating in the 

struggle against religions’’. 

The document gives detailed directives on the policies and plans of the 

Communist Party and the Ministry of Public Security to eradicate ‘‘hostile 

forces and reactionaries who exploit religion’’—i.e. all ‘‘non-recognized religions’’ that refuse Communist Party control. It orders Security Police and 

Party agents to ruthlessly combat all those who ‘‘seek to exploit religion as 

a tool of their policies of ‘‘peaceful evolution’’ in order to oppose our socialist 

regime’’. 

The Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV) is identified as a crucial 

actor in this plot and is accused of ‘‘advocating human rights, political pluralism and the multi-party system in order to create social instability and rebellion’’. The document gives clear instructions to Party cadres and Security 

agents at every level to ‘‘oppose, repress, isolate and divide’’ UBCV leaders 

and members, to promote only State-sponsored ‘‘Buddhism with socialist orientations’’, and to make concerted efforts to ‘‘wipe out the [UBCV] once and 

for all.’’

The document also gives instructions to train ‘‘special agents’’ for infiltration into the UBCV, not only to report on UBCV activities, but also to create 

schisms and dissent within its ranks. The ‘‘special agents’’ would not only 

carry out intelligence activities within the UBCV in Vietnam, but would extend these activities to the Buddhist community overseas. ‘‘We urge the Politburo to coordinate activities between the VCP’s Departments of propaganda 

and mobilization, interior affairs, foreign affairs, religious affairs and overseas Vietnamese to work together on this policy’’. By infiltrating and creating 

82

divisions within the Buddhist community overseas, the ‘‘special agents’’ would 

seek to weaken the international pro-UBCV lobby, thus enabling the Communist Party to ‘‘take pre-emptive action to prevent Western countries from 

‘‘making human rights investigations’’ or seeking to ‘‘visit dissident religious 

personalities’’ in Vietnam.

• Vietnam is actively putting these directives into practice: several thousand 

‘‘special agents’’ disguised as monks have been infiltrated into UBCV pagodas 

in Vietnam where they keep permanent surveillance on all the activities of 

the monks and followers, and several ‘‘so-called Buddhist’’ web-sites operated 

by Hanoi’s special agents publish slanderous articles against prominent 

UBCV leaders and supporters in the aim of stirring up public opinion against 

the UBCV and creating divisions between Buddhists at home and abroad.

There can be no religious freedom until these policies have been repealed, and 

until the VCP ceases to impose a political and ideological monopoly on the people 

of Vietnam. Indeed, as Venerable Thich Quang Do said in his ‘‘New Year’s Letter’’, 

the basic prerequisites for religious freedom are pluralism and democracy, for ‘‘the 

UBCV and other non-recognized religions will never be free from religious repression 

until a democratic process is under way’’. 

Religious freedom is the key to peace and stability, especially in Asia, with its diversity of great religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, 

Islam . . . It is especially important in Vietnam, where religious forces, especially 

Buddhism, have always played an active in defending the people’s freedoms and 

rights. Buddhism is a religion of peace, tolerance and compassion, but it has vast 

human resources and is strongly committed to its people’s welfare. By repressing 

Buddhism and all other ‘‘non-recognized’’ religions, Hanoi’s leaders are crushing 

Vietnam’s sole civil society movements and stifling the people’s development for generations to come. 

Hanoi’s promises of religious freedom are meaningless if Vietnam is not prepared 

to take one basic step—the re-establishment of the UBCV’s legitimate status. 

This is a fundamental pre-requisite, and it is a test of Vietnam’s good will.

The UBCV must have full religious freedom, independent of the Communist Party 

and its ‘‘mass organizations’’ body, the Vietnam Fatherland Front. And needless to 

say, it must have the right to choose its own leaders, including Thich Huyen Quang 

and Thich Quang Do without any interference by the state. 

CONCLUSION : 

Vietnam has opened its markets with the policy of ‘‘doi moi’’—economic liberalization under authoritarian control—but it remains one of the most politically closed 

societies in the world. It is anxious to integrate the international community, but 

it is trying to do this whilst maintaining its people under totalitarian control. 

Prime Minister Phan Van Khai’s visit provides a crucial opportunity to insist that 

improved relations with the United States depend on concrete improvements in religious freedom and human rights. I urge Members of Congress to make public statements during the Prime Ministers’ visit, in order to impress upon Vietnam at every 

possible opportunity that the respect of human rights and religious freedoms is the 

foundation of US-Vietnam bilateral relations.

— I call specifically on the administration to maintain Vietnam on the list of 

‘‘countries of particular concern’’ until tangible, measurable progress has 

been made, specifically the release of UBCV Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang 

and his Deputy Thich Quang Do, and the re-establishment of the UBCV’s 

legal status;

— monitoring mechanisms should be set up to assess implementation of the 

May 5th Agreement with the State Department to ensure that Vietnam fulfills its promises and resolves other serious concerns. The agreement be rescinded if these pledges are not effectively fulfilled;

— Normal Trade Relations’ status with Vietnam should be renewed annually

under the terms of the Jackson-Vanick Amendment and not granted on a 

permanent basis. This gives an opportunity for Members of Congress to seriously review Vietnam’s human rights record keep Vietnam constantly under 

pressure to respect human rights.

— promoting human rights and democracy in Vietnam should be inscribed in 

legislation regarding the US-Vietnam trade relationship. In the absence of 

a ‘‘human rights clause’’ in the Bilateral Trade Agreement, legislation should 

be passed that links human rights and democracy provisions to bilateral relations. I strongly support the provisions in the State Department’s budget 

83

authored by Congressman Chris Smith to support democracy promotion in 

Vietnam;

— the United States should take a stronger public stand on human rights and 

religious freedom in Vietnam in public forums such as the United Nations. 

Despite the flagrant violations of key UN human rights treaties such as the 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which it is a state 

party, Vietnam routinely escapes public condemnation.

I also call on President Bush to propose specific benchmarks for improvement 

in human rights and religious freedom in his talks with Prime Minister Phan Van 

Khai tomorrow and call for a true process of democratization in Vietnam. Specifically, he should urge Vietnam to :

— release all those in prison or under house arrest for their nonviolent religious and political convictions, including UBCV Patriarch Thich Huyen 

Quang, the Very Venerable Thich Quang Do and the nine UBCV leaders, 

cyber-dissidents Pham Hong Son, Nguyen Khac Toan, Nguyen Vu Binh, Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang and all Montagnard Christians detained their 

peaceful activities;

— re-establish the legitimate status of the banned Unified Buddhist Church of 

Vietnam—as a first and foremost step towards religious freedom—as well as 

that of other non-recognized religions. Full freedom of religious activity must 

be guaranteed so they can contribute to the social and spiritual welfare of 

the Vietnamese people;

— authorize the publication of private newspapers and media as a podium for 

democratic debate ; authorize the creation of independent associations such 

as free trade unions and non-governmental organizations to foster the emergence of a vibrant and dynamic civil society in Vietnam;

— foster development of the rule law by rescinding all legislation that restricts 

the exercise of human rights and religious freedom, including Decree 31/CP 

on ‘‘administrative detention’’, Decree 38/2005/ND–CP on banning demonstrations; bring ‘‘national security’’ legislation into line with the Johannesburg principles and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights as recommended by the UN Human Rights Committee in July 2002; 

ensure that all laws adopted under the Legal System Development Strategy comply with international human rights standards ;

— abrogate Article 4 of the Vietnamese Constitution on the mastery of the 

Communist Party so that all religious and political families may equally participate in reconstructing a democratic and prosperous Vietnam;

— allow a visit by the UN Representative on Human Rights Defenders and the 

UN Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, as well as follow-up visits by the 

UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom and the UN Working Group 

on Arbitrary Detention to monitor the situation of human rights defenders 

and prisoners of conscience in Vietnam.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much for the detail of your testimony. It is very, very helpful. 

I think one of the points you made, which I think could easily 

vex policymakers here in Washington, is when you pointed out—

and we will get into this a little bit further—how sophisticated 

methods of religious repression are replacing some of the more 

blunt instruments that have been used in the past. And the point 

of settling the UBCV problem, and how they are going about it in 

order to garner elimination of CPC status while simultaneously 

using newer and more sophisticated methods of repression needs to 

be heard by the White House, by the State Department and by 

Congress. Thank you so much for that. 

Mr. Nie. 

84

STATEMENT OF MR. Y-KHIM NIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MONTAGNARD HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION 

Mr. NIE. [The following testimony was delivered through an interpreter.] Thank you. My name is Alex. I will read Mr. Y-Khim 

Nie’s statement. 

Testimony of Y-Khim Nie, Montagnard Refugee in North Carolina. Committee on International Relations. Hearing on Religious 

Persecution, Human Rights Violation, Family Reunification, June 

20, 2005. 

The honorable Chris Smith, Chairman of Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations. 

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Y-Khim Nie. I am a 

Montagnard refugee. I fled into Cambodia in 2001 for safety and 

escaped because of the crackdown against our Montagnard people. 

I came to North Carolina on April 21, 2001. I represent all the 

Montagnards living in North Carolina who are trying to get their 

families out of Vietnam. 

I would like to thank you, Congressman Smith, very much for 

the opportunity to share the situation of our Montagnard families 

in Vietnam. I want to thank the Members of the Human Rights 

Subcommittee for their interest and full consideration of the 

human rights violations and religious persecution in Vietnam and 

especially to the Montagnard people in the Central Highlands of 

Vietnam. 

We need help from the United States Government immediately. 

The Vietnamese authorities have refused to issue passports for 

many of our Montagnard families. 

On February 2003, I filled out form I–730 to sponsor my family 

in Vietnam. 

In August 2003, I received the approval notice from INS in the 

United States and the U.S. Consulate in Vietnam. The local Vietnamese officials in Buon Ma Thuot called my wife to get their passports. She and her children went to the local office asking for their 

passport but the Vietnamese officers refused. She kept asking and 

the police officer did not give any reason. 

On October 13, 2003, the local police arrested my wife and put 

her in jail because they suspected her hiding her uncle, who the police were looking for. The other reason is that the police were angry 

because I participated in a demonstration in 2001. After they arrested my wife, the police also arrested her uncle. The police shot 

him, broke his leg and put him in a big bag, beat him like animal 

and then sentenced him to 10 years in prison in Hanoi. 

The police released my wife on October 23, 2003, after 10 days 

in jail. Even though they released her, my family is followed by the 

police every day. My wife cannot freely go to the farm, to market, 

even go to visit our neighborhood without permission by the police. 

On March 24, 2004, my wife received a letter from David Rockey 

at the U.S. Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City to introduce my wife 

to go to the Exit Permit office in Daklak city to get her passport 

again. On April 8, 2004, my wife went to the local Exit Permit office to ask for the passport. However, the police said, ‘‘We cannot 

issue the passport to you because your husband is against our government and illegally crossed the Cambodia border to become a refugee in the United States.’’ Another reason is because the situation 

85

in Daklak area was not stable. The police also promised many 

times, tomorrow, next month. My wife went back and forth many 

times. Finally, she got nothing. 

On December 19, 2004, the police arrested my wife again and 

jailed her 5 days in Buon Don District because I had called her 

from the U.S. and asked her about her passport. The police warned 

my wife not to call me and to not say anything about the passport. 

On March 3, 2005, my wife, my father and my brother went to 

the Exit Permit office of Daklak province to ask for her passport, 

but the police officer said, ‘‘We are busy now, please come back on 

March 9, 2005. We will help you.’’

On March 9, 2005, my wife, father and brother went back to the 

office as they promised. Again, they said, ‘‘We are waiting order 

from our government, and you have to wait for a while and then 

come back.’’

On March 14, 2005, because my wife felt so tired, she cannot go 

back again. My father and my brother went back to the office. The 

police officer said, ‘‘Why did you come to our office every day? We 

have told you that we are not ready yet. You have to wait and keep 

waiting.’’ Their faces were very angry. 

On June 5, 2005, the police told my wife and all the families who 

have husbands in the U.S. that ‘‘First, if your husband sponsored 

your family, you have to show us all your husband’s documents; 

second, you cannot meet and say anything to any foreigners who 

come to your village unless we first allow you to talk.’’

Mr. Chairman, we came here today to tell you the truth about 

the Montagnard family situation and how the Vietnamese Government treated the Montagnard people. We are treated like enemies 

in our homeland. We pay a high price for a life of survival, a life 

with no freedom. We pray that the Hanoi Government will someday have compassion and hear our voice of suffering. 

Why can’t we have rights to live as human beings? Why we cannot worship our Christian faith freely? Why cannot we receive humanitarian aid? Why can’t we have the same opportunities in education and development as Vietnamese people can? Why cannot we 

get our family out of Vietnam? 

The Montagnards are severely punished not for violating the law 

but for being indigenous people persecuted for their Christian faith 

and political views. 

I ask the U.S. Government to bring my Montagnard family to the 

United States. I know that the Hanoi Government is intentionally 

blocking all the Montagnard wives and children from leaving Vietnam. I am sure that they have planned how to create a difficult 

situation for the Montagnard family, especially in Daklak province. 

The Hanoi regime and the local government hate Montagnards. 

Human rights abuses are never-ending. It has been this way 

throughout the Montagnard history. We are asking the United 

States Government to put pressure on the Vietnamese Government. We want them to stop threatening and harming our families. 

We know for sure that the Hanoi Government will never allow our 

family to leave unless there is pressure from the United States 

Government. 

We sincerely hope that you will hear our true voice. The United 

States is our hope for our families and our people in the Central 

86

Highlands. I am here today to ask the United States Government 

to help our family leave Vietnam as soon as possible. The longer 

they stay in Vietnam, the greater the danger they will face. 

Thank you for the privilege of my presentation today. God bless 

you, and God bless America. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nie follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. Y-KHIM NIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MONTAGNARD

HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION

The Honorable Chris Smith, 

Chairman 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My name is Y-Khim Nie. I am a Montagnard refugee. I fled into Cambodia in 

2001 for safety because of the crackdown against our Montagnard people. I came 

to North Carolina on April 21, 2001 and speak for all the Montagnards living in 

North Carolina who are trying to get their families out of Vietnam. 

First of all I would like to thank Congressman Smith very much for the opportunity to share the situation of our Montagnard families in Vietnam. I want to 

thank the members of the Human Rights Subcommittee for their interest and consideration of the human rights violation and religious persecution in Vietnam and 

especially of the Montagnard people in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. 

We need help from the United States government immediately. The Vietnamese 

authorities have refused to issue passports for many of our Montagnard families. 

On Feb. 2003, I filled out Form I–730 to sponsor my family in Vietnam. 

On August 2003, I received the approval notice from INS in the US and the US 

Consulate in Vietnam. The local Vietnamese officials in Buon Ma Thuot called my 

wife, H’Mri Buon Krong, and our children to get their passports. She and our children went to the local office asking for their passports but the Vietnamese officers 

refused to hand them out. She kept asking and the police officers did not give any 

reasons for their refusal. 

On October 13, 2003, the local police arrested my wife, H’Mri Buon Krong, and 

put her in jail because they suspected her for hiding her uncle, who the police were 

looking for. The other reason was that the police were angry because I participated 

in the 2001 demonstration. After they arrested my wife, the police also arrested her 

uncle, Y-Hoang Buon Krong. The police shot him, broke his leg, and put him in 

a big bag, beat him like an animal and then sentenced him to 10 years in prison 

in Hanoi. 

The police released my wife, H’Mri, on October 23, 2003 after 10 days in jail. 

Even though they released her, my family was shadowed by the police every day. 

My wife cannot freely go to the farm, to market, or even visit our neighborhoods 

without permission by police. 

On March 24, 2004, my wife received a letter from David Rockey at the US 

Consulate in Ho Chi Minh City instructing my wife to go to the Exit Permit office 

in Daklak city to get her passport again. 

On April 8, 2004, my wife went to the local Exit Permit office to ask for the passport; however, the police said, ‘‘We cannot issue the passport to you because 

your husband is against our government and illegally crossed the Cambodia border to become a refugee in the United States.’’ Another reason was 

because the situation in Daklak area was not stable. The police also promised many 

times, tomorrow, next month . . . My wife went back and forth many times; she 

got nothing. 

On December 19, 2004, the police arrested my wife again and jailed her for 5 

days in Buon Don District because I had called and asked her about the passport. 

The police warned my wife not to call me and not to say anything about the passport. 

On March 3, 2005, my wife, my father and my brother went to the Exit Permit 

office of Daklak province to ask for passport; the police officer said ‘‘we are now 

busy; please come back on March 9, 2005; we will help you’’

On March 9, 2005, my wife, my father and brother went back to the office as 

they promised. Again they said; ‘‘we are waiting order from our government

and you have to wait for a while and then come back.’’

On March 14, 2005, because my wife felt so tired, she cannot go back again. My 

father and my brother went back to the office; the police officer said ‘‘why did you 

come to our office every day? We have told you that we are not ready yet. 

You have to wait and keep waiting.’’ The police was angry. 

87

On June 5, 2005, the police told my wife and all women that have husband in 

US that ‘‘First, if your husband sponsored your family, you have to show us all your 

husband documents. Second, you cannot meet and say anything to any foreigners 

who come to your village unless we first allow you to talk.’’

Mr. Chairman, we come here today to tell you the truth about the Montagnard 

family situation and how the Vietnamese government has treated the Montagnard 

people. We are treated like enemies in our homeland. We pay high price for a life 

of survival and a life with no freedom. We pray that the Hanoi government will 

someday have compassion and hear our true voice of suffering: 

Why can’t we have rights to live as human being? Why we cannot worship 

our Christian faith freely? Why can we not receive humanitarian aid? Why 

can we not have the same opportunities in education and development as 

Vietnamese people can? Why can we not get our family out of Vietnam? 

The Montagnard are severely punished not for violating the law, but for being indigenous people, persecuted for their Christian faith and political views. 

I ask the U.S. government to bring our Montagnard families to U.S. I know that 

the Hanoi government is intentionally blocking our wives and children from leaving 

Vietnam. I am sure that they have planned how to create a difficult situation for 

the Montagnard families, especially in DakLak Province. 

The Hanoi regime and their local governments hate the Montagnards. Human 

Rights abuses are never-ending. It has been this way since 1975. 

We are asking the United States government to put pressure on the Vietnamese 

government. We want them to stop threatening and harming our families. 

We know for sure that the Hanoi government will never allow our families to 

leave, unless there is pressure from the United States government. 

We sincerely hope that you will hear our true voice. The United States is our hope 

for our families and our people in the Central Highlands. I am here today to ask 

the United States government to help our families leave Vietnam as soon as possible. The longer they stay in Vietnam, the greater the danger they will face. 

Thank you for the privilege of presenting today. May God bless you and bless 

America.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for your testimony. 

I think all of us who have families—and that probably is most 

of us if not all of us in this room—cannot begin to fathom how difficult it must be to be without your family. And I hope that President Bush, as Ms. Worden said in her statement, will use this opportunity in meeting with Prime Minister Khai, while he has to engage in a certain number of diplomatic pleasantries, will get down 

to business. This is a test of his call for freedom and his call for 

human rights all over the world. 

Just because we have this robust trading relationship with Vietnam, that cannot be done absent human rights reform which have 

not been—they have not occurred in the way that some who 

pushed the bilateral trade agreement thought they would. Many of 

us said you can make the trains run on time, as other dictatorships 

have done so well in many years previous, while simultaneously repressing your people. 

Our best to your family, and we hope that you will be reunited 

sooner rather than later. 

Dr. Thang, does your view of what is happening in Vietnam comport with what Mr. Nie said? He made the point he is asking the 

U.S. Government to bring his Montagnard family and others as 

well to the United States and that the Hanoi Government is intentionally blocking all Montagnard wives and children from leaving 

Vietnam. 

The question also arises, Jackson-Vanik speaks specifically to the 

right to immigrate; and to think that we would move in the opposite direction, to rendering it null and void vis-a-vis Vietnam is absurd in light of the fact that families are being precluded the opportunity to leave. Again, looking back at the Soviet Union, it was 

88

Jackson-Vanik and the denial of the right of individuals, especially 

Soviet Jews, to leave that maintained our very position that Jackson-Vanik will remain in force. Because you are denying that right, 

the right of an exit visa to those individuals. Dr. Thang. 

Mr. THANG. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have the privilege to go down 

to North Carolina several times. We have a branch office in Raleigh to work with the Montagnard human rights organization 

down there to help with the submission of I–730, and that is the 

application with the CIS to bring over here family members as refugees. I can assert to the fact that Vietnam has not issued visas 

and passports, especially to the wives of Montagnard refugees who 

have settled in North Carolina. 

I have had many meetings with the Department of State and to 

no avail. The Department of State has worked very forcefully on 

this issue, but there has not been any breakthrough. 

I would like to point out that this is not just a limited problem, 

limited to the Montagnard. As mentioned to you before, we have 

been working with the Department of State on a number of Priority One cases. Seven cases have been accepted for refugee resettlement, and none of them have received a passport to leave Vietnam, including the pastor. He needs medical attention and care. So 

that is the case in Vietnam. 

As a matter of fact, all of the witnesses from Vietnam who have 

been invited who received a letter of invitation to come here, none 

of them has a passport to leave Vietnam. 

Ms. WORDEN. I would like to actually add, as part of this process, 

the United States should really turn up the heat on Cambodia. Because part of the problem has been a lot of the Montagnards are 

leaving and seeking refugee status in Cambodia, and Cambodia 

has not been honoring its obligation under the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, not to return refugees to 

a place where their lives are under threat. We have an entire briefing paper on this. 

One of the trends we have documented is that the Cambodian 

Government is returning people to Vietnam. Once they get there, 

they are hauled in by authorities. We have a number of cases of 

Vietnamese authorities intimidating them and their families and 

trying to pump them for information about the entire Montagnard 

community, trying to get them to turn evidence against their fellow 

Montagnards. 

This is one case that jumped out at me. A man said, ‘‘They 

threatened my wife. They said, ‘Your husband is a traitor because 

he crossed the border to Cambodia. You still work on the church 

committee and practice your religion. That is why we are detaining 

you.’ ’’

We have seen a consistent pattern of once those who have sought 

refugee status are forcibly returned by Cambodia to Vietnam, they 

are then put under house arrest. They are detained and interrogated and lives made a living hell. 

Mr. SMITH. Your point about turning people one against the 

other and using that tactic of intimidation was spoken about by 

Mr. Vo Van Ai with regards to the Buddhist church and the attempt to isolate and neutralize the UBCV by creating divisions 

89

within its leadership, and that is seen as a more sophisticated way 

of trying to crush the Buddhist church. 

Let me ask you, you make a point in your testimony about a document called ‘‘On Religions and the Struggle Against Activities Exploiting Religion—Internal Document for Study and Circulation in 

the People’s Security Services.’’ You point out 1 million copies all 

numbered to trace back eventual leaks. When was that document 

promulgated? Is it recent? Is it still being used? And could you expand upon its contents? 

Mr. AI. It seems to be a directive as to how to repress. This document is really secret. It is an instruction manual for the police, for 

the Communist cadre who work beside the Buddhists, just to instruct them how to diminish all religion. 

As you know, in Vietnam there is no opposition. All nationalist 

parties were destroyed by the control of the police in Vietnam. So 

there is no opposition. And there—only the mass of the big religion 

in Vietnam like Catholic, Buddhist, Protestant and so on. That is 

the reason why the Communist Party and the state fear the mass 

of the population in Vietnam. The Communist Party, they have 21⁄2

million members; and the whole population in Vietnam is 81 million people. They are Buddhists, Catholic and so on. So this is the 

reason why the Communists fear so much the mass population who 

did not accept the regime, and they ask for the change of the democracy in Vietnam. That is the reason why I ask for a referendum, the way in order to express the aspiration of the Vietnamese population. 

You know that Vietnam is using the law in order to suppress all 

opposition. It tries to stifle criticism and dissidents with funding 

from international donors. Vietnam has embarked on a 10-year 

legal system diplomatic strategy which it is using to impose the 

rule by law and not the rule of law and reinforce political control. 

Peaceful protests outside public buildings may be punished by CP 

on March this year. 

So that is kind of using the law to oppress people of Vietnam in 

order to divide the religions in Vietnam. It is not only in Vietnam 

but also outside of Vietnam. 

Mr. SMITH. You call this an instruction manual on religious persecution. Is this still in force today? Is this a recently published 

document? You say it is distributed to all top-level security cadres, 

ranking officers, police research cadres and instructors directly or 

indirectly participating, which is what you were saying a moment 

ago, but is it still in force today? Still being used today? 

Mr. AI. Of course, the document continues to instruct the police 

in Vietnam in order to push down all the religions in Vietnam. 

That is why we try to reveal here about such a document; and that 

contradicts what the Prime Minister Khai declared, there is no conflict about religion in Vietnam. There is no religious prisoners in 

Vietnam. 

Mr. SMITH. Do the other panelists concur with that, with the secret document? 

Mr. THANG. I have heard of the secret document. But what I 

would like to point out here is that, with the official document, and 

that is the ordinance on religious belief and to ensuring instruction 

on how to implement that document, it is a move by the VietVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
90

namese Government to eradicate responsibility and control and accountability at the local level. It is much harder for the international community to monitor. It is very, very difficult for us out 

here to truly know what is happening at the ground level. 

Just yesterday evening, on Sunday evening, a group of 16 Mennonites gathered at the house of an imprisoned pastor for a prayer 

service. The police broke in, and they took note of the names, and 

we don’t know what happened to them afterwards. 

Just this morning, I received news from Vietnam that in a province the security police moved in and surrounded the houses of all 

key Buddhist leaders to prevent them from joining an anniversary 

celebration of the founder of that church; and there was an incident 

of beating by the police of one of the Buddhist monks. 

So things are going on at an unrelenting pace. 

Mr. SMITH. If you could provide us a copy of that, and we will 

have it translated if it is in Vietnamese. Can we get that? 

This is the first of a series of hearings on Vietnam. Our next 

hearing will invite the State Department, and we will ask them 

very specific questions in this department and the whole host of 

issues that you have raised. So I would appreciate it if we could 

get that. 

Mr. AI. I did not understand about the date, but they print this 

document at the end of 1990. But they reprint every year, and 

right now I will get a copy for you. 

Ms. WORDEN. The other area to press the State Department on 

is directives that the State Department has taken to indicate 

progress, that evidence from the ground suggests in fact are the opposite and particularly government directives that have, in fact, 

made life more difficult for Dega Protestants. The Prime Minister’s 

own directive about forced renunciation ceremonies, which it seems 

now is causing more forced renunciation ceremonies, rather than 

fewer. 

Mr. SMITH. Could you expand a little bit for the Committee what 

those forced renunciation ceremonies look like? And you mentioned 

there has been no letup in the practice in your testimony. 

Ms. WORDEN. It is all part of the government’s effort to turn the 

heat on any people who are trying to practice their religion. It is 

a regular feature, including it is part of a whole process that includes police interrogation, detention. It is really intended to create 

a climate of intimidation. And, of course, for everyone who is forced 

to recant, it also creates a climate of intimidation for everyone else 

who may fear a similar circumstance. 

Mr. THANG. I would like to point out the fine print of that document. The ordinance on religious belief make it very clear that only 

registered religious institutions, that is, those who are registered 

with the government, may have the freedom to conduct a certain 

level of religious activities; and that would preclude and exclude, 

for instance, the Buddhists. They practice their religion at home, 

and that would exclude the house church movements like the Mennonites. So it is making life a lot more difficult for those churches. 

Mr. SMITH. That clearly is a message that needs to get out. 

I looked at the ordinance. We began looking at it last year, knowing it was going into effect in November, and saying this is anything but religious freedom. This is a manual for proscribing reliVerDate Mar 21 2002 15:06 Nov 14, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\AGI\062005\21973.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
91

gious freedom and will lead to more intolerance, and that indeed 

seems to be what is happening on the ground. 

Let me ask you a couple of final questions. 

Again, I am glad you have raised the issue that this is a test for 

the President, as you pointed out in your testimony on page two, 

Ms. Worden. That visiting Prime Minister Khai is an important 

test of the Administration’s willingness to press countries such as 

Vietnam to uphold basic rights and freedoms. The words are nice, 

but we need deeds, real deeds, tangible deeds. And all of you, as 

witnesses to the ongoing crackdown on religious liberty and human 

rights in Vietnam, are saying, we have not seen the deeds; and I 

hope that that message is broadcast by the President. 

Also, Dr. Thang, you measured the HO program. We will raise 

that with the State Department when they make their way up 

here. 

But also the issue of Radio Free Asia. Gwen Ha, who is the 

broadcaster who I hope will be broadcasting the proceedings of today’s hearing, is likely to have her broadcasts jammed. What she 

says will get to other places that aren’t jammed that Radio Free 

Asia is able to broadcast to, but the part of it that goes to Vietnam 

will be aggressively jammed. 

The President should raise that as well. If it is such a friendly 

atmosphere now, why are these important pieces of information 

being denied to the people of Vietnam? 

One last point I would ask our friend from Human Rights Watch. 

You make, as one of your calls, that the Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the U.N. Rapporteur on Torture be invited. I would echo 

that and say you might want to elaborate on it. 

I met with Manfred Nowak in Geneva, a very competent 

Rapporteur on Torture. He doesn’t get to where he wants to go; and 

while we are pressing for U.N. reform, is that the rapporteur system, while you have good people ready to go at a moment’s notice 

to do their work, don’t get the terms of reference that they need. 

So when they go to places, are very often—there is a sense that 

there will be retaliation against those who speak out. 

I think that you make a very good call that there be an engagement. 

Ms. WORDEN. Just the history of the various special rapporteur’s 

work in countries like Vietnam and countries like China and regimes that have actually had something of a political transition 

like Turkey. It was really the scrutiny of the practices of torture 

or the abuses of religious freedom that in some ways the 

rapporteur can open doors that are harder to shut afterwards. 

Even when government officials don’t let them see everything that 

they want to see, it is often a very good first step. 

The important thing, of course, is also that the rapporteur speak 

candidly and very frankly about what they have seen. That creates 

a process that usually takes time, but that, over time, when there 

is a frank dialogue on the abuses that are happening on the 

ground, there is the likelihood of progress for the future. 

I would like to say, finally, that the Prime Minister’s visit is a 

good thing. Because it has in a way helped focus America and 

92

helped focus Washington and helped focus the business community 

on the human rights abuses and the conditions inside Vietnam. 

The critical thing is, after the Prime Minister and his massive 

delegation go home, the spotlight has to be kept on Vietnam. Too 

many of these abuses have been happening behind the curtain a 

very long time. I am delighted to hear there will be future hearings. We owe it to the people of Vietnam that we keep the spotlight 

on the human rights situation there. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, all of the witnesses, for your 

testimony. 

I wonder, Mr. Ai, in your opinion, why is it that the Unified Buddhist Church and its members are being harassed as opposed to 

some of the other Buddhists that are not harassed as much? Is it 

that you think the government wants to have a state-run Buddhist 

church or why? 

Mr. AI. The tradition of Buddhism in Vietnam, we are engaged 

in the social activity for the people for 2,000 years. That is when 

Buddhists have been introduced into Vietnam. So since 2,000 years 

they struggled always for the population, for the social justice. That 

is the reason why they cannot keep silent before, you know, the 

Communist regime, which suppresses the whole population in Vietnam; and they must raise their voice for the aspiration of the population of Vietnam for human rights, for freedom, religious freedom 

and for democracy. So that is the reason why they are suppressed 

by the Communist Government. 

Mr. PAYNE. I wonder if—Mrs. Ngo, you talked about in the past, 

I wonder what impact has consideration of the Vietnam Human 

Rights Act and Congress had on the Government of Vietnam? And 

in your opinion, what impact has it had on democracy advocates 

and dissidents? Do you think that the Vietnam Human Rights Act 

has put pressure on the government? I understand that the CPC 

agreement was announced on May 5 but is not being released yet, 

and I wonder if you might comment on that. 

Ms. NGO. I am Vietnamese, so I know what route they take. The 

Vietnamese Government never voluntarily improves human rights 

and religious freedom in Vietnam. Because if they have human 

rights, maybe the higher official cannot have—get everything they 

want. 

With the CPC, we know right now we don’t get a lot of things 

from it. But I believe if we keep pressure—and to me, usually, the 

American Government, you are so nice and have never patience 

enough. For negotiation, we know sometimes, most of the time, the 

Vietnamese only want to push. When you want to work, you want 

to be fair, and maybe you will think you have five, they have five. 

But the Vietnamese is very level to negotiate. They only want—

whenever you talk five, they want six. Sometimes you are inpatient 

about it. Even you say, okay, they will give like seven. 

So I can like—right now, even the Vietnam Human Rights Act 

passed the House twice, have not been passed in the Senate, but 

we really have to work hard on it. I do believe the Vietnam Human 

Rights Act will improve and will have religious freedom and human 

rights be better in Vietnam. 

93

Mr. PAYNE. Ms. Worden, regarding the freedom of information, 

numerous arrests have taken place at Internet cafes of persons who 

have sought to talk about democracy or criticize regime. How long 

will the regime be able to control access to the Internet and what 

role can the Internet play in promoting democracy in your opinion? 

Ms. WORDEN. Maybe a better question—I think there was a lot 

of talk several years ago about how countries like China and Vietnam could not long keep up their repressive policies when the 

Internet was in use. But I think such countries have actually proven rather impervious to the Internet, and one of the challenges is 

that repressive governments are also using new technologies for 

surveillance. They are using new technologies. 

That is why I think we see so many Internet—we call them cyber 

dissidents. Human Rights Watch campaigned on our Web site 

about cyber dissidents. One of the reason we see so many of these, 

not just in Vietnam but around the world, is because the governments are using these new technologies for their old, repressive 

ways. 

I think in particular the business community has a real interest 

in the free flow of information. Businesses should find it very difficult to operate in a place where they can’t do due diligence. They 

need the free flow of financial information and political information 

as well. 

So, as I said before, it is in the interest of the business community to push for this, but I think relying on the Internet itself to 

overturn a repressive government is not realistic. It is going to require a lot of external pressure, including from those companies. 

And let us say that Microsoft and Intel are both doing deals with 

the delegation while they are here. So they should—as United 

States companies value the free flow of information and take advantage of the free flow of information everywhere around the 

world, they should do everything they can to push their interlocutors in the Vietnamese Government to create more space for the 

public in Vietnam and for those who wish to express their views 

on the Web. 

Mr. PAYNE. I think we can do more. I think that Vietnam is a 

country worth working with. 

As I indicated, I had a strong interest long before getting into 

government as a refugee worker and Chair of a refugee committee 

in Europe in the sixties and seventies. The people are gentle, hard 

working, family centered, artistic. So rather than have sanctions to 

slow down or prevent development which then helps to eliminate 

poverty and move forward, I would hope that there is some way 

that we can have the business giants, as you have mentioned, in 

their dealings—for example, in South Africa, we had the Sullivan 

principles back in the eighties. That was the beginning of trying to 

impact on the apartheid government that companies doing business 

in South Africa had to have policies that were separate and different from the government. And in the north of Ireland, northern 

Ireland, we had the McBride principles that said Protestants that 

were discriminating against Catholics in northern Ireland had to 

abide by—it was the business sector who put it in. And the Sullivan principles dealt with business. The McBride principles dealt 

with business. 

94

Even in Singapore, in Malaysia, it was a business decision that 

in the expansion of the economy in Malaysia in the late sixties, 

early seventies, the Chinese and most of the top jobs that the business community had to then make a way for ethnic Malaysians to 

be included in the hierarchy of the government which they had 

been excluded from in their own country. 

So there are ways—and it has been done in the past. There are 

a lot of—even in the United States. It was President Kennedy in 

1963 who had something called Plans for Progress where he called 

all of the top corporations in the United States together in 1963 

and said that none of you have African Americans working with 

you. Why don’t you open up your door and see if you can bring in 

people? 

So I think that businesses—and businesses did in 1963, 1964—

even before legislation started, companies, big insurance companies, banks that had totally excluded minorities opened up the door 

and found there were many, many qualified people because they 

were social workers or teachers or anything other than in the business community. 

So I do believe that the power of the dollar and the purse strings 

can be very, very—it could have a very strong impact, and that is 

something we should follow. 

Ms. WORDEN. I wanted to add, I was in Vietnam in 1992 before 

the lifting of the United States embargo. I visited the people in Vietnamese boat camps in Hong Kong in the 1990s, and unquestionably the general situation for ordinary Vietnamese has improved. 

However, human rights and a robust business relationship are not 

mutually exclusive. In fact, the rule of law in human rights is the 

ultimate foundation for the best business relationships you are 

going to have. So we are really encouraging people to constructively 

engage with the Vietnamese Government to point out that these 

things are in the interest of the Vietnamese Government and people and in the interest of United States companies doing business 

there. 

Mr. PAYNE. As I indicated earlier, the Vietnamese people fought 

against colonial domination from the Chinese and from the French 

years ago. So that same spirit—when you didn’t want to have imposing upon you restrictions and views from those who hampered 

your development should be the same spirit that they should have 

so their own people can be free from this government which becomes repressive at times. 

Mr. SMITH. Just to clarify for the record, the Vietnam Human 

Rights Act would only limit foreign aid for non-humanitarian efforts. So humanitarian—whether it be HIV/AIDS recently announced, or it was recently announced by Ambassador Tobias that 

we would open up an HIV/AIDS program. That is totally untouched. Any kind of humanitarian assistance is totally unfettered 

and can continue to flow. 

What we are trying to get at is, by freezing other foreign aid, 

which is what I would think is our prerogative, and demanding 

that there be demonstrable progress in human rights—and would 

point out as well that Vietnam continues to be a tier 2 country. In 

other words, it has a significant problem in human trafficking and 

not just in sex trafficking but also in economic trafficking. They 

95

were the first country to be sanctioned with regards to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, which I was the prime sponsor of; and they have refused to pay the $3.5 million to the 321 victims of the American Samoa case, as Dr. Thang pointed out in his 

testimony. 

We were faced with this rule of law, even when it comes to business issues, they are looking askance when it comes to that. We 

have focused in this Committee in the past on how miserable those 

slave-like conditions were for those Vietnamese nationals who were 

being exploited in American Samoa. To make matters even worse, 

the Deputy Director of Labor didn’t get demoted or prosecuted; she 

got a raise. And that is unconscionable in my view. 

When it comes to everyday trade, sweatshops are a form of 

human rights abuse; and, regrettably, Vietnam is engaged in that 

as well. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. A couple of questions I wanted to ask, and one has 

to do with Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam. 

When I was in Vietnam, the Venerable Thich Quang Do and Le 

Quang Liem were telling me that what the Communist Party had 

done was to take the books of the Buddhist text and then rewrote 

them, and they were left with maybe 30 percent, 40 percent of the 

original text, but there were all types of things that had been taken 

out because the attempt was to convert the religion into a state religion by changing the meaning of religion, by changing what it 

was about, and, at the same time, by arresting those priests and 

monks and holding them in the jail. I was going to ask you the 

question, with regard to the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, 

how many members of the leadership are under detention or house 

arrest? I don’t know. Mr. Ai, if you would know. 

Mr. AI. You know that since 5 or 6 years the Communist Government changed their tactic. Before they arrest many monk and 

Hmong and Buddhist followers, but it seems as they see the international opinion observe both human rights and religious freedom 

in Vietnam, then they stop to arrest or to send them before the 

trial, because they think that by that way they move so much the 

international opinion. So that is the reason why since 1997, the 

31/CP was signed, that means administration detention without 

trial from 6 months to 2 years. 

So the case of Thich Huyen Quang and Thich Quang Do, they are 

now detention in their pagoda, and they are not in prison. So we 

must see the——

Mr. ROYCE. They are in detention so that they can’t speak to any 

of the followers or——

Mr. AI. Yes, that is right. They cannot travel. They cannot go, 

you know, to see people or to receive people who come——

Mr. ROYCE. Well, in the one case I saw where one had violated 

his detention, he did travel, and he was beaten very severely. 

Mr. AI. Yes. It seems that 2 years is more difficult years. 

Mr. ROYCE. Right. Right. 

To what extent does the panel here agree or disagree with the 

thought that outside pressure has been necessary in order to secure 

progress and religious freedom in Vietnam? I take it there is a concurrence on that point. 

96

Mr. THANG. Yes. Congressman Royce, we have seen evidence of 

pressure work, as in the case of Father Ly, for instance. He was 

released. He was initially sentenced to 15 years, and then it was 

reduced, and then he was released recently. And then another person was recently released, and thanks in no small part to your persistence. Pressure does work to some extent. 

I would like to address along that line a question that the Chairman asked Commissioner Shea——

Mr. ROYCE. Before you do that, let me ask a question of Ms. 

Worden. That is whether or not the Bush Administration plans to 

restart bilateral human rights dialogue between the United States 

and Vietnam. That was suspended in 2002. Let me get your 

thoughts on that, if I could. 

Ms. WORDEN. Well, I will actually try to answer both of your 

questions, and the short answer to your first question is yes, pressure works. It has resulted in releases of individual dissidents. But 

the overall trend is not good, so obviously a lot more needs to be 

done. But obviously keep up the pressure, and, in fact, intensify it. 

To the second question, human rights—yes, restarting a human 

rights dialogue would be a positive step forward, but again, it has 

to be meaningful. This is not just meeting for the sake of meeting. 

There really need to be—in the long testimony that is available 

here, I have a very specific set of a dozen benchmarks, and these 

would be the top priorities for Human Rights Watch. 

So really, there need to be very concrete goals set, and furthermore a timetable, because the Vietnamese Government is very good 

at dragging things out. So the dialogue could be going on for a very 

long time without actually achieving anything. So that would be—

our recommendation would be you need very concrete benchmarks, 

and a timetable for achieving them. 

Mr. ROYCE. I want to commend the Human Rights Watch organization throughout the years for your good efforts. 

I wanted to ask Ms. Helen Ngo a question. That goes to the 

Country of Particular Concern Agreement that was struck with 

Vietnam and why that has not been released. That was announced 

back in May, I think May 5th, and we haven’t seen that agreement. 

Do you happen to know offhand why we don’t know the details on 

that yet? 

Ms. NGO. Congressman Royce, yesterday a religious leader called 

me on his phone and talking to me about he feel the progress after 

the CPC, but he think the progress is too little, and we need more 

pressure in order to have the CPCs stay on for a while before everything falls. 

Mr. ROYCE. Yes. And I take it if you were advising President 

Bush as far as issues raised with Mr. Khai, would you agree with 

Ms. Worden’s list of—is that 13 or 15 items that I saw there, as 

far as the top priority to be raised with the Prime Minister? 

Ms. NGO. Yes. Actually, I agree with her because I think, like, 

there is some benchmarks should be done before we have the relationship; to me, economic is not good enough. If there is no human 

rights, the money we have for Vietnam goes to the highest rank officer of the Communist, not for the people. So to me, human rights 

is a must. 

97

In that country, in order to make it improve for the people, even 

they have a good life, I mean, food or something like that, but I 

think the most I talk to the people, I work there, they think freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of some basic rights 

is the most they want. If they do have it, it can make their life better, and they will work well in order to make the country stronger 

and richer. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mrs. Ngo. 

Maybe we could just end my questioning by asking Ms. Worden 

to summarize her 13 or 15 points—it is in your written testimony. 

Ms. WORDEN. It is in the written testimony. 

Mr. ROYCE. Go ahead and summarize those, and then we will go 

to Dr. Thang, because he wanted to make a point. 

Ms. WORDEN. Well, they are actually quite—it is a dozen points, 

but they go to change in government policy to allow press freedom, 

and to dispense with the controls that they have over the Internet——

Mr. ROYCE. That is point number one. 

Ms. WORDEN. To allow religious freedom; to cease the repression 

of dissidents; to stop arbitrary arrests, mistreatment and torture; 

to end the unfair trials; the need to release immediately all of the 

political and religious prisoners, hundreds of them, who are currently under arrest for peacefully expressing their religious or political views. 

And I would say if you were to ask what is the most important, 

that is a very good place to start. Start by releasing those people 

who are in prison now, many of them for more than a dozen years. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. 

Mr. PAYNE. If the gentleman would yield on that. 

Mr. ROYCE. I will. 

Mr. PAYNE. Ms. Worden, I assume you have the names of people, 

where they are. You know, one thing that worked very effectively 

when this government was negotiating with the PRC, that lists 

were given to the Government of the People’s Republic of China. 

And to be very truthful, there was a lot of attention given to those 

lists, individual responses about individuals. And, in fact, many of 

the dissidents were released. I know Members of Congress who 

gave names to the government in those specific—in many cases. 

And so I agree with you. 

And Mr. Royce’s question about the dozen or so, that if we start 

with a series of names of specific people, hand it over to them, and 

then ask for a response in 30 days or something, when will they 

be released, that would be a very specific action. 

The other thing would be, you know, better press, open up the 

Internet. But the specificity of those names and of people directly, 

I think, might be the next thing. 

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. I thank Mr. Payne for his point. I think it is correct, 

and it is a good initiative. It is one that we did deploy. I gave a 

list of names in China of media personalities that have been held 

incommunicado, and other human rights protesters who have been 

arrested, and brought it up with Ly Pang as well. Over time we 

were able to get some of those individuals released. I think it is important that we move and lay down, as you say—use the leverage 

98

we to have to lay down a list of items that we feel this Administration should be working on as it dialogues with the Government of 

Vietnam. 

I am going to let Dr. Thang finish the point he was making. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. THANG. Outside pressure, especially from the U.S., can make 

a difference, can be effective if it is strategic and sustained. 

I would like to propose a three-step strategy right here. First of 

all, we need to monitor and enforce the agreement that Vietnam 

just concluded with the U.S. Government; for instance, submitting 

a list of very specific names and see whether they have released 

any. So those are very specific benchmarks. 

Enforcement, for instance, section 604 of the International Religious Freedom Act, put ban and through the U.S. for those who 

commit egregious acts of religious persecution. And we should have 

a mechanism to monitor that and document that. 

I have worked on this and slowly have collected a list of names 

with incidents, with evidence, pointing to their persecution of religions, and that could be traced all the way up to Mr. Phan Van 

Khai. And if we follow the spirit of the law, then ironically Mr. 

Khai should not have been issued visa to enter the U.S. today. 

Mr. ROYCE. On what specifics? 

Mr. THANG. For instance, there have been many petitions from 

persecuted victims sent to Mr. Khai directly, repeatedly. So we are 

pretty sure that we was aware of all those acts of his local government officials. However, he tolerated those acts of persecution. And 

we have petitions, and we have copies of those petitions. So that 

is the first part, largely enforcement. 

Two is access. I totally endorse Commissioner Shea’s proposal 

here, but it should be two ways. Not only we should send people 

to Vietnam and demand access to other regions like Central Highlands where people who are being detained under house arrest or 

temple arrest, but we should also invite those dissidents and religious leaders and human rights and democracy activists to come to 

the United States under U.S. exchange programs. 

And third, put democracy aid instead of just non-humanitarian 

aid or the government aid. We should give more money to people 

on the ground so that they can build civil society. And the focus 

should be of all the freedoms we want to fight for. The freedom of 

association is the key because that is the foundation of civil society. 

Vietnam will allow people to assemble, like a crowd at a Sunday 

mass, for instance, as reported by several casual tourists, or even 

by our diplomats, as sign of open mass, but that is not true. They 

don’t allow two persons to get together to plan and to come to action. 

They didn’t arrest Father Ly when he criticized the government, 

but they arrested him when he started to meet with other religious 

leaders. They didn’t arrest Venerable Thich Quang Do and Thich 

Huyen Quang until they met and worked together on a joint plan 

of action. So really, the focus on freedom of association in Vietnam. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. I just have two final questions, and any of my colleagues, if they have any further questions. 

99

Dr. Thang, how many people are being kept from coming to the 

United States by the Government of Vietnam? And do we know 

how many families are separated, like Mr. Nie, who spoke earlier; 

is there any reporting on that? 

And secondly, I would ask Vo Van Ai a question. You made a 

very, very incisive observation that the State Department believed 

in Vietnam’s goodwill, and I think there is a tendency among the 

democracies of the world to be overly believing, and maybe another 

way of saying it is gullible. I have seen this, whether it be countries of repression in Africa, the Warsaw Pact nations for many 

years, there was this willingness to believe Nicolae Ceausescu of 

Romania, for example, where he had one of the worst secret police 

on the face of the Earth, and yet there were people in this Congress and in our State Department and in other governments and 

democracies around the world who swallowed his line hook, line 

and sinker. 

We did the same with the People’s Republic of China. I remember when Chi Haotian, the Defense Minister of China, came and 

got a 19-gun salute from the Clinton Administration. This was the 

man who was the operational commander at Tiananmen Square. 

He made the outrageous statement that nobody died in Tiananmen 

Square. And I quickly convened a hearing and heard from eyewitnesses, including a person from The People’s Daily, who did 

some honest reporting and quickly got his own jail sentence for 

doing so, because obviously many people were bayoneted, students 

and democracy activists, in China. And yet he came here and 

thought he could get away with saying that, that nobody died in 

Tiananmen Square, when the obvious—CNN and others were right 

there on the ground covering it, as well as many eyewitnesses. 

And I am very fearful, as you point out, that this week we may 

see a great meeting of false pledges, as you point out, that Prime 

Minister Khai is a symbol of broken promises; that we will have 

he and his entourage coming into Washington, and people will be 

fawning all over each other to say somehow things have changed, 

when back in Vietnam on the ground people are being tortured, 

people are being repressed, families are being separated, unwilling 

to be brought together, the visas, the passports not issued. So a 

gross caricature of the real situation on the ground will be promoted this week, with visits to the White House, visits to Congress 

by Prime Minister Khai. 

All I want is the truth, and I know that is all you want as the 

loyal soldiers of human rights for many, many years, and even decades. 

So my question, I guess, to all of you, how do we prevent that 

false image of what is going on in Vietnam from being promulgated 

on the American people and, by extension, upon the world? We 

want just the reality, the truth. That is why I scheduled this hearing for today, believing that we need to speak truth to power. 

Prime Minister Khai needs to know that we know what is going 

on, based on the best available information. And how do we prevent others from being gullible when this entourage makes its case 

and Prime Minister Khai makes his case, and so that the President 

himself doesn’t buy into the sense of the moment, rather than 

100

speaking truth to that power that is opposite him when he meets 

with him? 

Mr. THANG. Yes. Because of corruption and policy, the number of 

people who have been excluded from U.S. refugee and immigration 

programs can easily exceed 10,000. For instance, in my own estimate, probably around 3,000 immigrations that have left Vietnam, 

they cannot afford their wives to be brought over. These are cases 

for which family members, up to 9,000 easily, but also about 3,000 

reeducation camp survivors who could not sign up with the HO 

program before its closure by the Clinton Administration in 1994. 

Also, I am aware of several hundred cases of refugees with the 

Montagnard operation in North Carolina. And again, there is a 

smaller group of severely persecuted religious leaders and believers 

that I am trying to work with the State Department to bring them 

out under the Priority One in-country program, refugee program. 

So easily we are talking about 10- to maybe 15,000 people hoping 

for immigration from Vietnam. 

Ms. WORDEN. I should say, also, that in the United States, the 

American people do not actually face the same press restrictions 

that the people of Vietnam do, and that the Prime Minister’s visit 

may end up being an unintended education about the current 

human rights environment in Vietnam. Again, we are indebted to 

this Committee for turning the spotlight on the human rights conditions in Vietnam. 

And I should say finally that I would like to make clear that releasing all of the political and religious prisoners is really just a 

good start. I am a big fan of John Kham, and I certainly believe 

that it is important to get prisoner releases, but it is also important 

to get the general climate for human rights in Vietnam changed as 

well. And that is long term, it is structural, it has to do with the 

rule of law, it has to do with the legal environment, it has to do 

with government policy. 

So the opportunity to speak on a face-to-face basis with all of 

these leaders—and it is not just the Prime Minister, it is the entire 

food chain of the Vietnamese Government that is here this week—

is really a great opportunity to make it clear that the American 

people don’t just care about doing business with Vietnam, that they 

really care about fundamental values, the rule of law, human 

rights and personal liberty. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Ai. 

Mr. AI. I agree totally the approach of Congressman Payne about 

to have a release of political and religious prisoner. But on the 

other hand, I do not have illusion that the Vietnamese Government 

will release all of these men. On occasion of Vietnamese agreement 

on February, they released six political prisoners. But I know exactly there were only four political prisoners, but there are two—

it is not political prisoner, these are two are the Communist Asian 

who work for the regime. And when Thich Thien Minh, released in 

February after 26 years in prison, he give me 60 political and religious prisoner who are still in his camp. And in the whole Vietnam, 

there are hundred of hundred camp. So there are so many political 

prisoner. 

101

So I would like to propose to you, Mr. Chairman, to have a test 

during the visit of Mr. Phan Van Khai, to give a list of—in my 

intervention, I gather six names—maybe we could have 10 or 12 

or 20 maximum. We have a test to ask Prime Minister Phan Van 

Khai to release these people, from 10 to 20 name. In my intervention I gave already six name. So if we have a successful release, 

6 people of 10 people, that would be a great victory during the visit 

of Prime Minister Phan Van Khai in Washington, DC. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I would 

recommend that the names of 15 or 20 people be given to you, and 

that a letter be written over your and Chairman Royce and my signature that can be delivered to the Embassy. And it may be difficult to get to the Prime Minister himself, but that it can be given 

to him; but secondly, released to the press so that people know. 

You know, if a tree falls in the middle of the woods, if there is 

no one there to hear it, we don’t know if it made any noise. So we 

need to let the press know that a letter has been submitted, and 

have a time certain that we would like to have a response, you 

know, 2 weeks after he returns or 30 days after, some kind of 

measurable attainable goal, that it can be measured whether the 

goal has been reached and what the excuses are for it not being 

reached. And so I would—with the Chairman’s concurrence, we 

could deliver that to the entourage. 

Mr. SMITH. It is a great idea, and we will do it. Thank you, Mr. 

Payne. 

Anybody else have anything they would like to—again, I want to 

thank you again for your extraordinary testimony, for your work, 

which is admirable, and there are so many people who benefit from 

it. And this Subcommittee benefits from your expertise so we can 

do a better job. Thank you. 

The hearing is adjourned without objection. 

[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(103)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

ARTICLE 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 HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPER- ATIONS

Sunday, Jul. 18, 2004

Vietnam’s Tribal Injustice 

The Montagnards stand up to Hanoi—and, in the aftermath, many are forced to flee 

their homes 

BY PHIL ZABRISKIE / GIA LAI PROVINCE

Vietnam doesn’t normally allow foreign journalists to visit its troubled Central 

Highlands: it doesn’t want them to get too close to the disgruntled ethnic minorities 

known as the Montagnards. When journalists are allowed, as TIME was this month, 

they are so strictly monitored that it’s hard to make contact with the local people. 

The Montagnards understand this all too well. In the Cu Mgar district of Dak Lak 

province, a middle-aged woman waves as a reporter walks past, forms an X with 

her two index fingers in front of her mouth, then clenches her fists and holds her 

wrists together, as if handcuffed. Other Montagnards grant furtive interviews but 

are too scared to be identified by name. ‘‘Please don’t say we spoke to you, or we 

will be arrested,’’ implores one. Another says tearfully: ‘‘The police told us you were 

coming and that we should not speak to you. They’ll come to me again, but I don’t 

care. We need help.’’

The Highlands have abundant coffee fields, pepper farms and rubber trees, but 

much of that recent prosperity has bypassed the Montagnards—French for ‘‘mountain dwellers’’—who live in grievous poverty in tin-walled homes or rickety wooden 

stilt houses. They say their land has been encroached upon by Vietnamese migrants 

from the lowlands and that they have been subjected to religious persecution because many follow a form of Protestantism that isn’t officially sanctioned. 

These grievances have occasionally boiled over into antigovernment protests. Last 

Easter weekend, several thousand Montagnards gathered in Dak Lak, Gia Lai and 

Kon Tum provinces and clashed with waiting security forces. It was the largest 

show of protest in Vietnam since 2001, when similar demonstrations occurred in the 

same region. On this, both sides agree. On every other point, bitter disputes rage. 

The Communist Party of Vietnam insists that only two people died during the April 

clashes; Human Rights Watch, the New York City-based NGO, has recorded 10 

deaths, while Amnesty International counts eight and says it ‘‘fears the final death 

toll is considerably higher.’’

In recent years, thousands of Montagnards have fled the country for Cambodia, 

and many were subsequently resettled in the U.S. (Some 1,000 made the journey 

Stateside following the 2001 protests.) Another exodus to Cambodia has now begun. 

TIME has met more than 160 would-be refugees trapped in wet, mosquito-infested 

jungles, afraid of being rounded up by Cambodian police and repatriated. They are 

battling hunger and illness. ‘‘We came so that the international community would 

help us,’’ says a Gia Lai man in Cambodia’s Ratanakiri province. But so far, no help 

has come. Still, says another, ‘‘It is better to die here than in Vietnam.’’

The Vietnamese government dismisses reports of Montagnards’ fleeing as ‘‘fabrications.’’ According to Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Dung, ‘‘There is no reason 

for ethnic minority people in the Central Highlands to leave their homelands.’’ One 

of those ‘‘fabrications’’ is a 40-year-old man from Gia Lai who took part in the 

Easter demonstrations. Asked why he left the Highlands, he recalls: ‘‘Police, soldiers 

and Vietnamese people came to our village and kicked in our doors and attacked 

us.’’ Now, having trekked for days, he is hiding in Ratanakiri—some 600 km from 

104

Phnom Penh and the nearest office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. 

He lives beneath a small sheet of plastic with five other men in dense jungle, where 

torrential rainstorms are daily occurrences. In another group elsewhere in the province, an eight-year-old girl has built a miniature house out of twigs in a clearing 

of jungle beside the plastic sheet where she is camped with her family. She says 

it reminds her of home. ‘‘I am happier here,’’ she says, ‘‘because there are no soldiers.’’ But her father confesses, ‘‘I don’t know how long we can live like this.’’

The presence of the Montagnards is causing controversy in Cambodia. Prime Minister Hun Sen has said they are not refugees but ‘‘illegal immigrants,’’ and might 

be a rebel movement set on establishing an independent state in the Central Highlands. Cambodia’s King Sihanouk, in contrast, has strongly supported the asylum 

seekers. ‘‘The Montagnards are deprived of their ancestral lands, their forests, their 

houses, their cattle,’’ he wrote in a letter of support last week. 

What exactly happened on Easter weekend in the Highlands? Hanoi says bands 

of organized ‘‘terrorists’’ armed with sticks, stones, knives and slingshots tried to 

converge on the provincial capitals from several different directions and attacked security forces. Dozens of protesters were injured and the government claims two were 

killed by rocks thrown by their own gangs. The authorities claim the clashes were 

organized from afar by Kok Ksor, a 60-year-old exile from the Jarai tribe who lives 

in South Carolina and runs the Montagnard Foundation, which tries to publicize the 

plight of the Montagnards. His goal, according to Hanoi, is an independent state. 

It says Ksor and confederates are also reconstituting F.U.L.R.O., a separatist guerrilla force disbanded in 1992. Ksor allegedly persuaded poor farmers to take part. 

Says Vu Quang Khuyen, police chief of Ayun Pa district in Gia Lai: ‘‘They are 

uneducated, lazy and easily deceived.’’

As evidence, the government cites confessions, separatist banners allegedly carried in the marches, and the fact that Ksor announced prior to Easter that the protests would take place. Several Montagnards, including Ksor’s uncle and mother, 

have denounced him in the state-controlled media. Dak Lak officials screened for 

TIME four minutes of edited video footage in which some protesters indeed advance 

on riot police and militiamen, but it’s impossible to tell from the fragment who started the clashes, and the rest of the tape wasn’t made available. Gia Lai Governor 

Pham The Dung even goes so far as to compare the protesters to Iraqi insurgents. 

‘‘Terrorism does not mean they have to use explosives,’’ he says. ‘‘They could even 

use martial arts.’’ Scores of people have been arrested in the Highlands, the government says. Those who then performed public self-criticisms were released, while an 

unknown number await trial. 

In interviews arranged by local officials, government representatives and some 

Montagnards echoed the official accounts. But these were not supported by anyone 

interviewed away from oversight. Photographs obtained from a Jarai demonstrator 

now in Cambodia show marchers in Gia Lai carrying banners calling for land and 

religious rights and the removal of soldiers from villages—not for an independent 

state. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International assert that the security 

forces initiated the fighting and incited civilians to attack the marchers, injuring 

hundreds. A doctor who was on duty that weekend in Dak Lak’s main hospital told 

TIME that ‘‘many’’ people came in with head wounds, while other people with injuries avoided hospitals for fear of arrest. A group of 17 farmers encountered in Gia 

Lai and two others interviewed separately claim that a protester from their village 

died after being shot in the head, not by getting hit ‘‘with a very big rock,’’ as governor Dung says. A man from the Jarai tribe says he saw the corpse of the other 

fatality acknowledged by the government. He says the victim appeared to have been 

beaten to death. The man, whose work takes him to several districts, claims knowledge of 10 deaths in Gia Lai alone. 

Since Easter, security has been ratcheted up in the Highlands. Relatives of people 

who have fled their towns, either for the border with Cambodia or for closer hideouts, are regularly questioned by police and local officials. Some are made to take 

loyalty oaths, which one district leader in Dak Nong province refers to as ‘‘brotherhood ceremonies.’’ Farmers are followed to their fields, their shopping is monitored 

lest they buy food for those in hiding, and security personnel are billeted in people’s 

homes, particularly those with relatives who earlier fled to the U.S. (Highlands officials say government representatives live and labor with poor families to help them 

with their work.) A Jarai woman says more than 20 people from her village have 

been arrested since Easter for joining the demonstrations. 

H’ble Ksor, Kok Ksor’s mother, lives in a ramshackle stilt house in Ayun Pa district. Sounding exhausted and heartbroken, she wants to speak not of the son who 

went to America in 1974 and whom the government blames for all the trouble—‘‘I 

barely know his face,’’ she says—but of two other sons who have been missing since 

Easter. ‘‘I am very worried,’’ she says softly. ‘‘Do you know where they are?’’

105

As for Kok Ksor, the alleged terrorist mastermind, he is easy to find. Sitting in 

a Red Lobster seafood restaurant in Spartanburg, South Carolina, in early June, he 

hardly appears fearsome. (American authorities aren’t worried about him: ‘‘Neither 

the Montagnard Foundation nor Mr. Ksor are included on any official U.S. government list of terrorists,’’ says a U.S. embassy spokesman in Hanoi.) Ksor, who fought 

with the Americans during the Vietnam War, knows of the allegations back home 

and realizes that relatives in the Highlands have denounced him (under duress, he 

says). He admits to having been in contact with highlanders but says the organizers 

informed him that they planned to demonstrate nonviolently and rejected his counsel to wait till the fall. Ksor says he also suggested they call it a prayer vigil, not 

a protest. International attention, not an independent state, Ksor adds, was the 

goal. However, he didn’t help his cause by claiming later that 400 people were ‘‘massacred’’ over the Easter weekend. This wild estimate was a gambit, he says, to force 

Hanoi to open the region to external observers. 

Following the 2001 demonstrations, about 1,000 Montagnards were resettled in 

North Carolina, many of them in the city of Greensboro. (The U.S. special forces, 

whom the Montagnards fought alongside in Vietnam, are based there.) In some 

ways, these exiles could be viewed as the lucky ones. But of the eight men sitting 

in a modest Greensboro apartment one morning, seven still have wives in the Highlands and five have relatives in hiding there or in jail. All carry folders of papers 

listing the names, ages and villages of people they’ve been told are injured or missing. H., a 37-year-old refugee, has just got off the phone with a Highlands contact, 

and his eyes are red and puffy. He knows he’s fortunate with his new life in North 

Carolina: the factory job and the cramped, two-bedroom apartment. But that doesn’t 

help him forget the relatives he left behind. ‘‘Sometimes during breaks at work,’’ he 

says, ‘‘the manager asks me what I’m doing. I tell him that I’m thinking about 

home. My family and my neighbors in Vietnam are afraid or in prison. How can 

I be happy?’’

With reporting by Kevin Doyle/Ratanakiri province 

From TIME Asia Magazine, issue dated July 26–August 2, 2004 /

Vol. 164, No. 4/5

Æ