This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 HANOI 002546 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR EAP/BCLTV AND DRL/IRF 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV SOCI VM HUMANR RELFREE
SUBJECT:  Regulating religion 
 
Ref:  A.  Hanoi 1698   B.  Hanoi 0175 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary.  Vietnamese continue privately to debate 
the contents -- but not the merits -- of a new formal 
ordinance on religion that would supersede existing 
Government-issued regulations with a more definitive and, it 
is hoped, clearer version, to be passed by the National 
Assembly Standing Committee.  Officials claim that the 
proposed legislation would mostly ratify existing policy, 
rather than institute any sweeping changes.  Potentially, 
the new ordinance could provide additional protections for 
religious groups and workers, but it might also be used to 
prosecute those outside the recognized religious bodies or 
those who are deemed to use religion for "subversive" 
purposes.  The GVN's insistence on oversight and vigilance 
against perceived anti-State and anti-CPV activities under 
the guise of religion is not exclusively focused on 
religious groups, however.  Instead, this reflects a broader 
CPV tradition of on attempting to regulate all aspects of 
society "in the interest of the nation," even as actual day- 
to-day control and supervision over Vietnamese citizens have 
diminished over the past decade.  End summary. 
 
Legal precedents 
---------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  According to GVN and CPV participants, there have 
now been 21 "discussion seminars" organized by the Vietnam 
Fatherland Front including officials from the VFF, the CPV's 
Mass Mobilization Commission, and the GVN, as well as by 
religious leaders, to debate the proposed contents of a 
formal "Ordinance on Religion."  The issue is not whether to 
have the National Assembly's Standing Committee pass the 
legislation; apparently, all agree on the need for 
legislation to supplant -- and in a more genuinely 
democratic form -- existing government decrees and 
Constitutional protections on religion.  After passage of an 
ordinance, the next goal would be to draft a formal "Law on 
Religion" to be considered and approved by the full National 
Assembly, but observers predict that this will be many years 
in the future.  Participants in the discussion seminars 
declined to predict with any certainty when there will be 
consensus on the language of the new ordinance, but have 
expressed mild hope for a revised draft to consider again by 
the end of 2003, with a slight chance of presentation to the 
NASC in 2004. 
 
¶3.  (U)  As detailed in a September 25 article in the CPV's 
flagstaff "People" daily (Nhan Dan), the CPV's and GVN's 
favorable policy on religion has legal precedents dating 
back to September 3, 1945, when Ho Chi Minh presented a 
report including a reference to freedom of religion at the 
first GVN Cabinet meeting, following his declaration of 
independence.  One of the first orders of the Cabinet was to 
"respect and protect worship centers, temples, churches and 
all places of all religions."  Ho Chi Minh also signed 
Decree 65 on November 23, 1945 giving tax-free status to 
religious properties. 
 
¶4.  (U)  The same article further detailed how the 1946 
Constitution's Article 10 reiterated the principle of 
freedom of religion.  In the 1959 Constitution's Article 26, 
this was modified somewhat to note freedom of religion "to 
follow or not follow whatever religion."  The 1980 
Constitution's Article 68 supplemented this right with a 
warning that "no one can use religion to go against the law 
and policy of the State."   The 1992 Constitution specified 
additionally that all religions were "equal before the law" 
and that places of religious worship were "protected by 
law."  It also continued the injunction against using 
religion against the law or State policy.  These policies 
were further promulgated by the GVN in Decree 234 of 1955, 
Decree 69 of 1991, and Decree 26 of 1999.  The author's main 
contention, which he described at length in person to Pol/C 
and poloff on October 2, is that CPV and GVN policies on 
religion have been consistent and favorable, not that the 
current search for new ordinance language or the 7th plenum 
resolution on religion (ref b) marked any divergence or new 
approach per se. 
 
What's in the new text 
---------------------- 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  A reliable Protestant source provided Pol/C with 
what appears to be a recent draft of the proposed ordinance, 
although definitely not the very latest version in the wake 
of the 21st discussion seminar.  Among its salient 
provisions: 
-- The State "respects and protects" freedom of religion, to 
follow or not follow whatever religion; 
--  all religious believers, non-believers, and religions 
are "equal before the law"; 
-- all religions must operate "in the framework of the 
Constitution and laws of the SRV"; 
-- all places of religious worship are protected by law; 
-- the State "encourages religious activities in the 
interest of the nation and the people" and recognizes the 
"beautiful cultural and humanitarian values" of religion; 
-- the VFF has an important role in promoting "solidarity" 
among religions in the process of building and protecting 
the nation; 
--  the State "strictly bans" any actions to violate the 
freedom of belief or religion of citizens as well as 
activities to "use" religion or belief in illegal manners; 
--  religious believers have the rights to express their 
faith, pray at home and in religious centers as well as to 
participate in "normal" religious activities and services; 
--  religious believers also have the "obligations" to carry 
out State regulations about public order and ensure that 
religious faith "does not affect carrying out their duties 
as citizens"; and, 
--  those who wish to become religious workers must do so 
voluntarily; those under 16 must have the permission of 
their parents or guardian. 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  According to the draft, the role of the State 
remains pervasive: 
--  all religious groups must have a legally acceptable 
Charter or set of regulations; the Committee on Religious 
Affairs must have accepted their leadership rosters; 
--  religious activities and organization fall under the 
supervision of the relevant People's Committees; all 
exceptional activities (especially outside of normal worship 
centers) must have prior permission; 
--  the Prime Minister must approve the appointments of 
Catholic Cardinals, Bishops, and Apostolic Administrators as 
well as equivalent senior officials of other religions; 
--  Provincial People's Committee chairmen must approve the 
appointments and transfers of other religious workers; 
--  the State nonetheless "encourages and creates 
conditions" for religious groups or religious believers to 
offer humanitarian, health, sports and other cultural 
activities, including schools for children. 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  Some potential flashpoints in the draft 
apparently include: 
--  a prohibition on any religious activities that "oppose 
the SRV," "divide the people," "hurt ethnic cultural 
traditions," have an "influence on public order or 
security," "affect public health," "violate the basic 
freedoms of others," or undertake "superstitious 
activities"; 
--  a "strict ban" on "illegal proselytizing"; 
--  raising funds or receiving personnel assistance from 
overseas groups or individuals must be according to 
"government regulations" or with the permission of the head 
of the Government Committee on Religious Affairs; 
--  definitions of "belief" as attitudes that "still cannot 
be proved or go beyond the natural world" and "religion" as 
a "social organization" built according to a "stable" 
religious system or group. 
 
Some critiques 
-------------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  Embassy also obtained from a reliable source what 
appears to be a genuine written summary of an April 4, 2003 
meeting by Catholics (including priests, a nun, lawyers, and 
other believers) in Ho Chi Minh City to discuss the draft 
ordinance.  Among the concerns raised by participants were: 
--  failure to provide for explicit recognition of the legal 
status of all major religious groups (one commentator noted 
that only the Protestants and Cao Dai have such formal legal 
status so far, but the more numerous Buddhists and Catholics 
do not); 
--  vagueness in the ordinance about the legal status of 
real property belonging to religious groups; 
--  while not especially new, provisions for an "irrational" 
amount of interference into religious life of citizens by 
requiring oversight, the need for "permission," etc.; 
--  the draft authorizes religious groups to open schools 
for "children," but does not give the option for education 
beyond this level, apparently out of GVN "fears" that 
religious groups would use these schools to inculcate 
religious belief.  One participant called for the ordinance 
to permit religious individuals and groups to establish even 
high schools and universities, just as non-religious 
individuals and groups may now do; 
--  the reference to "normal" religious activities is 
troubling; who defines what is "normal?" 
--  a lack of clarity about what would constitute acceptable 
religious activities by foreigners in Vietnam. 
 
¶9.  (SBU)  Another issue raised by these Catholics as well 
as by GVN and CPV participants in various discussion 
seminars is how to define legal vs. illegal evangelism and 
proselytizing.  Participants have noted that this issue 
remains difficult to define clearly and that opinions vary 
widely on what should and should not be acceptable 
practices.  They predicted that this will remain a bone of 
contention for the foreseeable future. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶10.  (SBU)  Having a NASC-approved Ordinance in place will 
likely not change much in the lives and practices of 
religious believers and organizations in Vietnam.  The GVN 
and CPV will continue to insist on at least administrative 
oversight of religious groups, and will remain vigilant 
against any sign of anti-State or anti-CPV behavior or 
comments by religious individuals and groups.  These 
tendencies, however, are not exclusively directed against 
religion, but are also reflected in how the CPV and GVN deal 
with all social and other entities in Vietnam.  This long- 
standing Leninist impulse to regulate society flies in the 
face of the trend over the past decade of diminished day-to- 
day control and interference in the lives of Vietnamese 
citizens by the GVN and CPV, however.  In any event, few if 
any observers expect any imminent action on the draft 
Ordinance on Religion. 
PORTER