Vietnam’s dissidents –are they absent from the American mind?

In my small voice as a blogger, I’ve been guilty of the same failing as the louder media -- I’ve been ignoring how Vietnam’s Communist Party/state apparatus has cracked down on the small but persistent pro-democracy movement in the country.

In its summer issue, Dissent magazine, published in New Yoirk, breaks the silence with an article titled “Vietnamese Dissidents: Absent from the Western Mind.” Dustin Roasa, a free lance writer based in Cambodia, describes the most recent chapter in the history of Vietnamese dissidents, which began on April 8, 2006, when a group of activists posted on-line a “Manifesto 2006 on Freedom and Democracy.”

More than 2,000 Vietnamese – lawyers, Buddhist monks, Catholic priests, ex-Party members, writers, and intellectuals from all parts of the country – signed the document. They became known as Bloc 8406, after the date it was posted.

In a visit to Vietnam in the winter of 2007, Roasa talked with several Bloc 8406 members and found their mood pessimistic. The movement was under siege and losing members to prison. It was not gaining the attention of the foreign media.

“The dissidents I know hope for foreign involvement in their cause,” Doasa writes . The hope was that media interest would pressure the Party to listen to dissidents like Nguyen Dan Que, who after 20 years in prison is under house arrest in Saigon and has refused offers of exile to the United States.

In the summer of 2008, the government quietly gave a multibillion-dollar land concession in the Central Highlands to a bauxite mining company in China, which brought in thousands of “guest workers” from China. General Vo Nguyen Gap, 98, criticized the concession. So did some bloggers. “Few issues unite Vietnamese than suspicion of their large neighbor to the North,” Doasa points out.

A new wave of repression followed. At least 60 pro-democracy activists have been arrested since last October. One was a 41-year-old lawyer and graduate of Tulane, Le Cong Dinh, who gained fame for representing the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in a trade dispute with the United State (over catfish dumping) and winning it. He also took on the job of defending dissidents in court, and began blogging about the bauxite mine and other government concessions to the People’s Republic of China.

On January 30, 2010, Le Cong Dinh was sentenced to five years in prison on a charge of conducting propaganda against the state.

Roasa writes: “As more Vietnamese become aware of the pro-democracy movement through the China issue, and as the crackdown against the dissidents continue to internsify, international support for the pro-democracy cause in Vietnam is crucial now more than ever.” He concludes:

“Imagine...if Solzhenitsyn’s accounts of the gulag had fallen on deaf ears. Or if Charter 77 had never been read beyond the borders of Czechoslovia. There are Solzhenitsyns and Havels in Vietnam right now. Will anyone listen?”

On July 22 U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stopped in Hanoi to celebrate the 15th anniversary of U.S.-Vietnam relations. In a relatively brief talk, she said: “And the United States will continue to urge Vietnam to strengthen its commitment to human rights, and give its people say over the direction of their own lives. But this is not a relationship fixed upon our differences.”

Print Page Read more!

The Durability of Nike’s Sweatshops

Nike is turning a blind eye to labor abuses in Vietnam factories that mass produce Nike’s athletic shoes and other sports equipment for export. That’s a finding of on-site research in Vietnam conducted after a strike last year by 20,000 workers in Nike’s supplier factories there.

A three-person team from Denmark that did the investigation spoke directly, and secretly, with the workers, including a low-level supervisor, “Mr. T,” who had presented the worker demand for a pay increase to management.

The Danish Consumer Council, which sponsored the investigation jointly with 10 other organisations, published a feature article on the research in its magazine. One specific finding is really nothing new: that the government/Communist Party apparatus of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has its own “union,” and is hostile to any organization and worker activity independent of the government/party-run union.

What is new in the report is evidence that the Nike’s business operation within the Communist system conflicts with Nike’s own code of conduct and tarnishes its own self-image as a decent company.

A company like Nike ought to “make sure that no workers are inappropriately punished for their participation in a strike,” says Tim Connor, labor rights coordinator for Oxfam/Australia.

In Vietnam, uniformed police, called in by management, successfully broke the strike through ruthless tactics that included firing 100 leaders of an underground movement that promoted it. (Nike says there were no firings.} According to an internal Nike document and the testimony of Mr. T and others, Nike stayed on the sidelines while the police quashed the strike and the movement.

On the surface, the strike was triggered only by the demand for a living wage. Yet, as usual in such circumstances, other grievances fueled the walkout. When a worker fails to meet her production quota, for example, she is hit with a 15% deduction of her monthly pay. Workers assemble shoes with toxic glue, with a bonus for tolerating headaches and other possible effects.

For more information on the conduct of Nike and other brand-name companies, see http://www.consumersinternational.org/.

I learned of the Danish report through one of the regular contributions that Jeff Ballinger makes to lists maintained by Oxfam Australia.

Print Page Read more!

Stop squelching real unions, Vietnam

As part of a campaign to suppress any labor union independent of the Communist Party, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has imprisoned at least eight trade unionists, two of them women, on “national security” charges in the past three years.

In a report released May 4, Human Rights Watch publicized the wide scope of the government crackdown, denounced it, and urged the United States to pressure Vietnam to end suppression immediately.

The government campaign of harassing, detaining, and imprisoning union activists is aimed particularly at two worker organizations: the United Worker-Farmers Organization of Vietnam and the Independent Workers Union of Vietnam, whose launching was announced in late 2006 during a brief period when authorities seemed to tolerate a budding civil society.

It was a temporary public posture prior to Vietnam’s joining the World Trade Organization and getting U.S. approval for that accession.

Of the eight trade unionists imprisoned since then, five have been released. One who is still behind bars, Le Thi Cong Nhan, in her early 30s, wrote a comprehensive essay in 2006 titled “Legislative Aspects of Industrial Actions and the Need for Independent Unions in Vietman.” For this and other human rights activities, the Hanoi People’s Court in May 2007 imposed a four-year prison sentence, later reduced to three years (plus three years of house arrest), on charges of “disseminating propaganda against the government.”

The Human Rights Watch report, “Not Yet a Workers’ Paradise: Vietnam’s Suppression of the Independent Workers’ Movement,” 32 pages long, is available on the HRW Website at
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/05/03/not-yet-workers-paradise.

Print Page Read more!

U.S. Investment in Vietnam and Human Rights

The governments of the United States and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam will soon launch negotiations for a treaty to protect American investment and investors in Vietnam. The proposed treaty, called a BIT for Bilateral Investment Treaty, offers a natural opportunity to include human rights provisions, but so far there is no sign that the present U.S. administration plans to do so.

The 40 BITs that the United States already has with other countries do not have any human rights provisions. A new BIT with Vietnam could change that pattern, however, if Congressional advocates of international human rights get mobilized.

According to a report adopted unanimously by the UN Human Rights Council in June, the present BIT pattern creates an “imbalance” that weakens the host government’s obligations on human rights. The report, authored by Professor John Ruggie of Harvard, states:

“Investor protections [under BITs] have expanded with little regard to States’ duties to protect [human rights], skewing the balance between the two. Consequently, host States can find it difficult to strengthen domestic social and environmental standards, including those related to human rights, without fear of foreign investor challenge, which can take place under binding international arbitration.”

A joint U.S.-SRV statement on June 25 announced the decision to initiate the BIT negotiations. Separately, it also “noted the benefit of an open and candid dialogue on issues relating to human rights.” But it said nothing about the impact that U.S. investment in Vietnam – topping $12,000,000,000 in 2007 – has on the rights of Vietnamese workers and others.

The U.S. will use its standard “model agreement” as the starting point for negotiations with Vietnam. It defines “investment” so broadly that it includes patents, copyrights, trademarks, and other forms of intellectual property rights, and lays down strong enforcement mechanisms, including access to international arbitration for the investor.

Another “model BIT” has been developed by a Canada-based NGO, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). After extensive research, IIISD found that existing BITs are “one-sided instruments” that guarantee extensive protection of of the rights of foreign investors but without any corresponding investor responsibilies. The IISD model corrects that imbalance. (See “Linking Global Rights with Responsibilities": scroll down to the next-to-last item.)

Congressional concerns about this issue is reflected in the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development, and Employment Act, introduced on June 4. Among its provisions is that BIT protections of investor rights could no longer override a country’s efforts to protect the rights of its own workers.

It is probably too late to enact that bill into law, but it’s not too late to hold hearings on the proposed U.S. Bilateral Investment Treaty with Vietnam. Up till now, Congress has rubber-stamped BIT after BIT without drawing any public attention. It’s time to let the sunshine in.

Both Senators Obama and Clinton have pledged to review the labor provisions of trade agreements under a Democratic administration. They don't have to wait that long. They can insist that the Senate review the proposed BIT with Vietnam for its impact on the human rights of Vietnam's workers.

So one big question is: Will Congress rubberstamp the U.S.-Vietnam BIT without studying how it impacts the rights of Vietnam's working men and women? Another is: Will it rubberstamp that BIT without studying how facilitating more investments to Vietnam will facilitate the transfer of American jobs to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam?

Print Page Read more!