US embassy cable - 03HANOI3277

UNCLAS HANOI 003277 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
 
STATE FOR EAP/BCLTV and DRL/IRF 
 
REF: A. HANOI 2860, B. HANOI 2897, C. HANOI 2093 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM, KIRF, PREL, PGOV, VM, ETMIN, HUMANR, RELFREE 
SUBJECT: GVN'S RECENT ENGAGEMENT ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RELIGION 
ISSUES 
 
 
1.   (SBU) Summary: The Government of Vietnam is making some 
effort to engage the USG and other foreign governments more 
actively on human rights and religious freedom issues. 
European Union member diplomats spoke positively of the 
GVN's interaction in their human rights dialogue, and said 
it had produced a GVN commitment to hold two such dialogues 
per year in the future.  The GVN has also tried to come up 
with a response to the questions and concerns Ambassador 
Hanford raised in his November visit, including religious 
prisoner lists.  Two long-imprisoned Redemptrix priests may 
receive amnesties at the Vietnamese New Year in January 
2004. End summary. 
 
2.   (SBU) Representatives of the Italian Embassy and 
European Commission in Hanoi told poloff that they were 
"pleased" with the GVN's interaction in the November 26 
bilateral human rights dialogue.  They said that a broad 
range of ministries attended the dialogue, all seemed well 
prepared, and that the tone of the meeting was "open and not 
defensive."  The GVN gave the EU information on a list of 
prisoners of concern previously presented.  (Note: The 
information was similar to that the GVN already provided to 
the USG. End note.)  Though the EU could not point to 
concrete results attributable to the dialog, EU 
interlocutors were positive and said they saw it as a good 
base for successful interaction in the future.  One tangible 
outcome is that the GVN agreed to hold dialogues twice per 
year with the EU - one involving the MFA alone, and one 
multi-ministry "plenary session." (Reftel A) 
 
3.   (SBU) The GVN also responded to Ambassador Hanford's 
suggestion that the GVN clearly reiterate to all levels of 
government its declared policy of respecting religious 
freedom.  Le Hoai Trung, Deputy Director General of the 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs International Relations 
Department informed visiting DRL officer Jean Geran on 
December 4 that the GVN "is seeking a way to do this, but it 
may not be in a specific, written memo due to political 
considerations."  Trung also stated "we have taken measures 
to remind government officials of these laws," but provided 
no specifics. 
 
4.  (SBU) During a meeting with Ambassadors Hanford and 
Burghardt in Washington on December 5, Deputy Foreign 
Minister Le Van Bang provided a response to the list of 
religious prisoners and detainees Ambassador Hanford 
presented in November (Reftel B).  In the response, the GVN 
states 20 of the 37 ethnic Ede detainees have been released, 
6 are in prison, and 11 cannot be accounted for.  (Note: 
Five of the 20 that have been released do not appear to be 
on the list Ambassador Hanford provided, though this may be 
due to confusion between birth names and patronymics. End 
note.)  Of the 23 Hmong detainees on the original list, 8 
have been released, and 2 are still being detained.  The GVN 
provided no information on the other 13.  Regarding the 
UBCV, the GVN claims Thich Huyen Quang, Thich Quang Do, and 
Thich Vien Dinh are "normally practicing religion in their 
pagodas," without reference to their house arrest-like 
conditions.  Regarding the Catholic detainees from 
Ambassador Hanford's list, the GVN suggests that Pham Minh 
Tri and Nguyen Thien Phung (two Redemptrix priests serving 
20 sentences since 1987) may receive amnesties at the Tet 
New Year holiday in January. 
 
5. (SBU) Comment: It is likely that the ethnic minority 
prisoners were released (or perhaps never even formally 
charged) for reasons unrelated to our inquiries.  The 
information on other detainees is similarly mixed: the 
statements about UBCV leaders are disingenuous, and the 
amnesties for the two Catholic priests - while welcome - 
would only shave the end off long prison terms.  In this 
respect the GVN response is similar to the response it gave 
in August 2003 to the concerns we raised in connection with 
the U.S. Human Rights Dialogue (reftel C).  There, too, the 
GVN took swift superficial action (including minor reduction 
in sentences for some prisoners) in response to our 
inquiries.  Nonetheless, the quick and thorough response to 
Ambassador Hanford's inquiry can be taken as a further sign 
that the GVN is wants to be perceived as addressing 
criticism on religious freedom issues and engaging the USG 
on the subject. 
BURGHARDT