US embassy cable - 03HANOI2310

UNCLAS HANOI 002310 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR DRL/IRF AND EAP/BCLTV 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: PHUM, KIRF, PGOV, VM, RELFREE, HUMANR, ETMIN 
SUBJECT:  IMPRISONMENT OF A HMONG PROTESTANT 
 
REF:  HANOI 1687 
 
1.  (U)  A reliable Vietnamese Protestant source has 
provided what appear to be genuine court documents related 
to the prosecution and conviction of a Hmong Protestant 
named Ma A Chau (also known as Mua A Chau), who had earlier 
(reftel) been reported to have been detained in Lai Chau 
province on March 5, 2003.  A panel of one judge and two lay 
assessors on June 18 found Chau guilty of the crime of 
"resisting a person carrying out official duties" (Article 
257 of the Penal Code) and sentenced him to 36 months 
imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 dong (USD 3). 
 
2.  (U)  The same source also provided a September 2 letter 
to the Supreme Procuracy and Supreme People's Court 
protesting the injustice of the arrest and conviction; the 
writer identifies himself as Ma A Seng, the son of Chau. 
(Note:  It is not clear if the letter was actually sent, 
since this is a handwritten, apparently original version. 
End note)  He admits an altercation between his father and 
police officials, but claims to have witnesses who can 
verify that Chau never struck any of the police officials. 
He also claims forcefully that the true reason for the 
arrest and punishment is the Protestant faith of both father 
and son, despite what he insists (accurately, according to 
the Vietnamese Constitution) is the right of all citizens to 
believe in religion.  He claims police had been "following" 
his father for three years, trying to find an excuse to 
arrest him.  He also protests that no family member has been 
allowed to visit Chau since his March detention. 
 
3.  (U)  Comment:  This is one of those cases frequently 
cited as a clear case of religious persecution, in which the 
actual facts are impossible to verify or dispute completely. 
That the son and others believe Chau is a victim due to his 
faith alone is evident, as well as that he had some sort of 
unfortunate encounter with local officials (who claimed in 
the court documents to be explaining some new provincial 
agricultural policies to villagers).  But were the officials 
indeed harassing him, and, if so, only because he was a 
Protestant?  Did he truly resist arrest (whether the arrest 
was justified or not) or otherwise impede officials in their 
"official business?"  What, exactly, was their actual 
"official business?"  The answers are likely not as simple 
as either side would profess.  A full explanation would 
probably have to include a complex mix of ethnic tensions, 
personal animosities, overzealous and/or overbearing 
officials, and sense of insecurity by minority Protestants. 
BURGHARDT