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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 HANOI 000135 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
 
DEPT FOR DRL/IRF and EAP/BCLTV 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PREL KIRF VM ETMIN HUMANR RELFREE
SUBJECT:  Vietnam on Religious Freedom 
 
REF:  A.  Hanoi 072      B.  02 STATE 235694 
 
-     C.  02 Hanoi 2862  D.  02 Hanoi 2969 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary:  In two recent meetings with the 
Ambassador, GVN officials discussed religious freedom issues 
originally raised by Ambassador Hanford at the November 2002 
Human Rights Dialogue in a frank manner, but had little 
specific information.  The most welcome news was that the 
Southern Evangelical Church of Vietnam should be able to 
open its long-anticipated theological school to 50 students 
in January.  Reductions in restrictions on Thich Huyen Quang 
and Thich Quang Do remain possible and Father Nguyen Van 
Ly's sentence might be reduced as well, based on "good 
attitude."  Officials promised to continue to investigate 
various problems cited by Ambassador Hanford and Ambassador 
Burghardt, including an apparently official document 
describing efforts on renunciations of faith.  Officials 
also indicated the possibility that independent foreign 
observers might be allowed to investigate problems.  While 
these good discussions were welcome and offer the 
possibility of Vietnam moving more in the right direction on 
these issues, concrete GVN actions since Ambassador 
Hanford's November demarche have been few.  End summary. 
 
Expressing USG Concerns 
----------------------- 
 
¶2.  (U)  Ambassador met separately with Government Committee 
on Religious Affairs (CRA) Chairman Le Quang Vinh and Deputy 
Foreign Minister Le Van Bang on January 14 to discuss 
religious freedom issues initially raised by Ambassador 
Hanford during the November 8, 2002 US-Vietnam Human Rights 
Dialogue (ref b).  He noted that he had also discussed these 
issues in late November with Foreign Minister Nguyen Dy Nien 
(ref c). 
 
¶3.  (U)  Ambassador noted that concerns about new reported 
religious freedom problems circulated in the international 
press had drawn considerable attention, including from 
members of Congress.  Moreover, the International Religious 
Freedom Act (IRFA) requires Ambassador Hanford to make 
recommendations on Country of Particular Concern designation 
based on the best available information.  Even if 
information was difficult to obtain and verify, the IRFA 
still required an annual recommendation.  Ambassador 
emphasized that the main purpose of meeting with both 
Chairman Vinh and DFM Bang was to clarify specific 
allegations, to determine if the GVN was investigating them, 
and learn what was being done if the allegations were true. 
 
¶4.  (U)  Observing that the GVN was often defensive about 
religious freedom issues, Ambassador suggested the GVN 
undertake a more pro-active stance, such as inviting 
journalists, human rights NGO's, and diplomats freely to 
investigate reported problems, rather than the GVN issuing 
blanket denials.  The most noteworthy problems recently 
included reports of house church closings, forced 
renunciations of faith, disappearances of about 40 
Protestant leaders in the Central Highlands as well as 
others in the Northwest Highlands.   Ambassador also asked 
for any information relevant to allegations that police had 
beaten Hmong Christian leader Mua Bua Senh a number of 
times, leading to Senh's eventual death in August 2002. 
 
¶5.  (U)  Following up on the Embassy's provision to the CRA 
in December 2002 of a copy of what was purported to be a 
Khanh Hoa provincial police document that described efforts 
to convince citizens to renounce their faith (ref a), 
Ambassador asked if the CRA had yet investigated the 
document and, if genuine, if anything had been done to the 
involved authorities.  If the document was false, Ambassador 
urged the GVN to make this clear as well as to reaffirm that 
forced renunciations of faith were counter to GVN policy on 
religious freedom. 
 
¶6.  (U)  Ambassador also asked if reports that hundreds of 
house church closings in the Central Highlands and Northwest 
Highlands were true.  He expressed concern that formal 
registration remained so difficult that many house churches 
do not try to register, and urged instead that local 
authorities provide assistance and encourage registration. 
 
¶7.  (U)   Noting that the last congress of the Evangelical 
Church of Vietnam-North (ECVN) was in 1988, Ambassador noted 
that this delay had fueled suspicions that the GVN was 
afraid that the ECVN would select leaders that the GVN did 
not like.  He urged that the GVN work with the ECVN to 
encourage it to hold its congress, rather than continue to 
claim that this delay was due to ECVN internal reasons only. 
¶8.  (U)  Ambassador noted that one of the most frequent 
complaints from both Catholics and Protestants was that they 
do not have enough clergy.  He regretted the delays in 
opening a new Catholic seminary (or seminary branch) in Dong 
Nai province as well as the theological school of the 
Southern Evangelical Church of Vietnam (SECV) in Ho Chi Minh 
City; he urged the GVN to provide adequate permission and 
assistance in the establishment of these overdue and much- 
needed facilities. 
 
¶9.  (U)  Ambassador rejected GVN claims that Vietnam had no 
religious prisoners, noting that there are clearly prisoners 
whom people overseas see as religious leaders.  He expressed 
concern that it was almost impossible for foreigners to get 
information about these prisoners or to meet with them.  He 
offered his personal view that the single best and easiest 
thing Vietnam could do to gain international respect would 
be to drop restrictions on highly respected Buddhist leaders 
Thich Huyen Quang and Thich Quang Do so that they might live 
where they wish, see whom they wish, and do what they want. 
Regarding prisoner Father Nguyen Van Ly, Ambassador 
emphasized that GVN stories about Father Ly's personal life 
were beside the point; regardless, 15 years imprisonment was 
too long a sentence for doing nothing more than saying 
something that the GVN did not like.  Ambassador asked for 
assistance in delivering the many Christmas cards he has 
received for Father Ly. 
 
------------- 
GVN Responses 
------------- 
 
¶10.  (U)  SECV Theological school:  CRA Chairman Vinh 
assured Ambassador that the SECV would be able to open its 
theological school in January.  He said that he had 
personally informed the SECV of this after Christmas, 
following the Prime Minister's approval.  The school was 
currently recruiting students and facility as well as 
establishing its curriculum, and would be able to admit 50 
students.  For the time being, however, its student body 
would be limited due to its temporary location at the SECV 
headquarters.  He claimed that delay in opening had stemmed 
from Ho Chi Minh City authorities.  Separately, DFM Bang 
appeared to be aware of the decision regarding the SECV 
theological school, but offered no further comment. 
 
¶11.  (U)  New Catholic Seminary:  CRA Chairman Vinh 
explained that the new Catholic seminary in Dong Nai had 
similarly been held up by the adamant refusal of provincial 
authorities; the CRA was now encouraging the search for a 
different site.  (Note:  Dong Nai authorities have 
attributed their reluctance to approve the seminary to the 
lack of provincial educational authorities able to supervise 
a tertiary-level institution.  End note) 
 
¶12.  (U)  Persons of concern:  Chairman Vinh promised that 
the CRA would work with the Ministry of Public Security and 
"higher authorities" to facilitate actions regarding persons 
of concern such as Thich Huyen Quang, Thich Quang Do, and 
Father Nguyen Van Ly.  He claimed that it should be possible 
to forward mail to prisoners, including Father Ly. 
Separately, DFM Bang said that he had heard that Father Ly's 
attitude in prison had improved, a precondition to reduction 
in sentence.  MFA officials also indicated that they would 
ask MPS to identify the prison location of Father Ly, and 
share that information with Embassy.  DFM Bang added that 
MFA was continuing to research the list of persons of 
concern the Ambassador Hanford provided in August 2002, and 
agreed to determine whether any of them had been amnestied 
in 2002. 
 
¶13.  (U)  Independent investigations:  Chairman Vinh 
responded positively to the suggestion of inviting 
journalists, NGO's, and diplomats to investigate reported 
problems.  While he clarified that he could not make 
decisions about such matters, he promised to recommend the 
idea to his superiors. 
 
¶14.  (U)  Renunciations:  Chairman Vinh confirmed that the 
GVN strictly prohibited discriminatory treatment on 
religious grounds.  He emphasized that a citizen is free to 
persuade a fellow citizen to adopt or drop a religious 
belief, but that the State definitely would not do so.  He 
pledged that the GVN would openly address any violations of 
that policy and would criticize -- or discipline -- any 
officials guilty of such violations.  In answer to 
Ambassador's question, Vinh claimed that the GVN had 
actually done so in some cases already, while admitting that 
central authorities could not easily inspect and control 
activities in many remote places.  Ambassador urged the GVN 
to publicize when it punished officials for interfering with 
citizens' freedom of belief. 
 
¶15.  (U)  Khanh Hoa:  Chairman Vinh promised to report the 
information on forced renunciations, including the Khanh Hoa 
document, to higher authorities.  However, he did not 
respond specifically to the validity of the Khanh Hoa 
document.  DFM Bang did not address the Khanh Hoa document 
either, but the MFA Americas Department staff requested a 
copy, which Embassy provided on January 15. 
 
¶16.  (U)  Highlands:  Both Chairman Vinh and MFA officials 
described the situation in the Central Highlands and the 
Northwest Highlands as "special."  Chairman Vinh provided a 
lengthy account of separate efforts to establish a "Dega" 
state in the Central Highlands and a Hmong kingdom 
encompassing parts on Vietnam, Laos, China, Thailand, and 
Burma.  Tracing these efforts to FULRO on the one hand and 
Vang Pao on the other, Vinh claimed that the violent history 
of these efforts and their current use of "Dega" 
Protestantism and "Vang Chu" (a Hmong term for 
Protestantism) "worries" provincial authorities.   MFA 
officials echoed these points in less detail.  Ambassador 
noted that, although only a few people seemed to be involved 
in these movements, local authorities appeared to treat all 
Protestants in these areas the same regardless of whether 
they had anything to do with the separatist groups.  This 
probably had the negative effect of driving more people into 
these movements.  Chairman Vinh replied that central 
authorities had spoken "many times" with local officials 
about the need to respect religion.  While the State was 
working hard to ensure respect for "those who practice 
religion with pure intent," it could not ignore those who 
"use religion as a cover for political conspiracies." 
 
¶17.  (U)  Mua Bua Senh:  Chairman Vinh claimed that he was 
not aware of the case of Mua Bua Senh, but promised that he 
would contact local authorities.  He expressed disbelief 
that Senh had been beaten just because of his religion. 
 
¶18.  (U)  ECVN:  Chairman Vinh explained that, although the 
ECVN is small, it had two factions that sued each other 
after the last ECVN congress over a financial issue.  Until 
that dispute was resolved, Vinh claimed, it would not be 
possible to hold another congress.  He rejected Ambassador's 
suggestion that the ECVN settle the dispute at a congress, 
because the settlement and congress must happen "according 
to law."  He added that the situation was further muddied by 
"unqualified" persons who claim to be "authorized voices" as 
well as evangelists within the ECVN.  He noted that CRA 
officials recently traveled to help provincial authorities 
sort out who was and who was not an ECVN official.  Vinh 
emphasized that the CRA indeed wanted the ECVN to hold a 
congress and was trying to be supportive. 
 
¶19.  (SBU)  Hanford demarche:  DFM Bang said that the MFA 
was investigating the four points Ambassador Hanford 
highlighted during the November 2002 Human Rights Dialogue. 
He invited Ambassador Hanford to visit Vietnam again.  He 
noted that it was also important to keep in sight how the 
overall religious situation in Vietnam had improved over the 
last ten years.  He revealed that the CPV Central Committee 
had discussed how to work out religious issues over the long- 
term during the second session of its seventh plenum, which 
began on January 13.  This was unprecedented, he claimed, 
and showed how seriously CPV and GVN authorities were about 
further improving the situation of religious freedom.   He 
noted that CPV General Secretary Nong Duc Manh had 
acknowledged that one-fourth of the Vietnamese population 
followed religion, and that religion had strong beneficial 
effect on the youth.  He pointed out Vietnam's relations 
with the Vatican were much better than China's, and that 
Vietnam had a great deal more religious freedom than 
countries like Saudi Arabia. 
 
¶20.  (SBU)  Comment:  These two meetings were the broadest 
and most candid on the subject of religion that Ambassador 
has conducted with GVN officials since his arrival over one 
year ago.  The increasing willingness of the GVN to engage 
in a discussion as detailed as this would have been 
unthinkable not too many years ago.  They had some solid 
good news on the SECV theological school and indicated new 
signs of flexibility about investigating other areas of 
concern.  This offers the possibility of Vietnam moving in 
the right direction on these issues.  That said, Ambassador 
Hanford's own demarche to the GVN delegation in November 
should have set the ball in motion about addressing our main 
concerns, but there does not appear to have been much 
significant movement in the intervening months in response. 
PORTER