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 001185 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EAP/BCLTV, DRL, DRL/PHD, and DRL/IRF 
 
E.O. 12958:  NA 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL VM HUMANR
SUBJECT:  Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue 
 
Ref:  STATE 123409 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary:  Ambassador delivered reftel demarche to 
Deputy Foreign Minister Le Van Bang on May 13 and left a 
non-paper based on reftel para 12.  Ambassador stressed that 
progress on issues raised at the November 2002 Human Rights 
Dialogue was insufficient to schedule another dialogue, nor 
did Vietnam appear to be doing enough to avoid designation 
as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC).  Without progress 
through the dialogue, Ambassador warned, Vietnam risked 
stronger action and greater support for measures such as the 
Vietnam Human Rights bill.  Although DFM Bang reaffirmed the 
usefulness of the dialogue, he noted that it is a U.S. 
initiative and that many in the GVN would be happy if it 
ceased.  The Ambassador pointedly replied that, while the 
dialogue may originally have been a U.S. initiative, it 
would not be good for Vietnam or US-Vietnam relations if the 
dialogue were dropped since it would only lead to greater 
support for stronger action against the GVN like the VN 
Human Rights bill.  Bang took the point.  He also hinted 
that Father Nguyen Van Ly's sentence could be reduced or 
lifted, and voiced interest in continuing discussions of the 
other points.  End Summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
Ambassador:  If it's just talk, you won't like the 
alternative. 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  Ambassador informed DFM Bang that there must be 
significant progress on the issues discussed during the 
Human Rights Dialogue in order to justify its continuation 
and to avoid CPC designation for Vietnam.  Since Vietnam 
appears to be moving so slowly on human rights issues, both 
are real dangers. 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  Ambassador praised some positive steps that the 
GVN has taken.  Thich Huyen Quang's meeting with the Prime 
Minister was important and his current relative freedom of 
movement is welcome.  His recent activities during his trip 
to Ho Chi Minh City, meetings with city authorities and with 
his colleague Thich Quang Do are also good signs and should 
be allowed to continue.  Other events Ambassador mentioned 
include the opening of the Protestant theological school in 
Ho Chi Minh City, the appointment of new Catholic Bishops, 
and the emigration of actor Don Duong. 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  Ambassador pointed out that there seems to have 
been no action on other issues raised at the Human Rights 
Dialogue.  He highlighted several individuals imprisoned for 
what appears to be nothing more than the expression of their 
own opinions, including Father Nguyen Van Ly, Le Chi Quang 
and a number of journalists.  He noted that Thich Quang Do 
is still under detention and asked for clarification of 
Thich Huyen Quang's status. 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  Ambassador reminded DFM Bang that the problems of 
Vietnamese religious groups are closely monitored in the 
U.S.  He urged that Central Highlands churches closed from 
2001-2002 be allowed to reopen and that Central Highlands 
churches be allowed to join the Evangelical Church of 
Vietnam - South, if they wished.  Likewise, he called upon 
the GVN to allow Protestant churches in the Northwest 
Highlands to join the Evangelical Church of Vietnam - North. 
While acknowledging a significant upsurge in legal religious 
practice, Ambassador stated that the Highlands seem to be an 
exception.  There appears to be a common, but false, 
suspicion that Protestantism is a cover for separatism. 
Ambassador recounted that a Highlands province leader had 
told him that minorities who converted to Protestantism were 
"betraying their traditions."  Such unjustified attitudes 
seem to contribute to great problems for Protestants. 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  Ambassador emphasized the benefits to Vietnam for 
approaching human rights through a dialogue between 
governments.  As in China, the dialogue is a way to 
demonstrate to Congress and outside observers how the USG, 
as well as the GVN, are working on human rights.  If 
progress can be achieved through dialogue, there is little 
reason to resort to stronger measures.  However, Ambassador 
reminded DFM Bang, observers, including those with the 
Department, question the point of a dialogue without results 
and support for tougher and more public methods is building. 
Ambassador also noted that Vietnam suffers in comparison to 
China because the Chinese have become adept at taking 
advantage of the dialogues to produce sufficient results to 
dissipate pressure for more serious actions. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
DFM Bang:  It was your idea, but it's not a bad one. 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  DFM Bang remarked that the U.S.-Vietnam Human 
Rights Dialogue was a U.S. initiative, that it had always 
been difficult for the MFA to get permission to participate, 
and that the MFA had worked hard to get other ministries to 
participate in the last dialogue.  He said that Vietnam had 
several other human rights dialogues and that such dialogues 
should benefit relationships.  He remarked that he 
understood that the U.S. dialogue was to satisfy the 
concerns of "certain constituencies" in the U.S.  If the 
U.S. decided not to continue the dialogue, there would be 
those in the GVN who would be "more than happy."  While the 
dialogue was mutually beneficial, it was "more necessary" 
for the U.S., DFM Bang claimed. 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  Responding to the persons of concern Ambassador 
raised, DFM Bang said that such issues had to be decided on 
an individual basis -- some would be successful -- others 
would have to wait.  DFM Bang voiced surprise with Thich 
Huyen Quang's recent treatment and commented that the 
Buddhist leader is "almost a hero."  He claimed that there 
had not been any restrictions on Thich Huyen Quang.  DFM 
Bang suggested that a factor in the Buddhist leader's 
changed situation was that his first-ever trip to Hanoi had 
been an eye-opener and given him a better appreciation of 
the situation for Buddhist followers and monks in the North. 
 
¶9.  (SBU)  DFM Bang pointed out that in December 2002, 
Senator McCain had spoken both to Deputy Prime Minister 
Nguyen Tan Dung and to Bang on behalf of Don Duong. 
 
¶10.  (SBU)  Father Nguyen Van Ly's "thinking is 
progressing," according to what DFM Bang said he had heard. 
(Note:  "Reform" on the part of the prisoner is required for 
sentence reduction or amnesty.  End note.)  He added that he 
"hoped for a breakthrough," in response to USG and 
Congressional calls for Father Ly's freedom or a shortened 
sentence. 
 
¶11.  (SBU)  There is "no problem with religion," according 
to DFM Bang, because one may worship and practice religion 
as one chooses in Vietnam.  Only when religion is used for 
other purposes, such as by the "Dega Protestants" do 
problems arise.  He claimed that there would be no problem 
for those who wanted to join either the southern or northern 
Evangelical Churches, although it was necessary to 
distinguish "observing" religion from "abusing" it.  Life in 
the Central Highlands was improving and there was room for 
religion, but not if it was connected to Kok Ksor.  He added 
that it was remarkable that there was harmony between 
Vietnam's six major religions because this is not always the 
case between overseas Vietnamese Buddhists and Catholics, 
for instance.  Finally, he expressed hope that Vietnam would 
establish relations with the Vatican soon. 
 
¶12.  (SBU)  DFM Bang repeated that if the U.S. did not want 
to pursue the dialogue, that was acceptable to Vietnam. 
The Ambassador pointedly noted that to stop the dialogue 
would only lead to greater pressure within the U.S. to take 
stronger measures against the SRV and that it was thus to 
Vietnam's interest to find ways to maintain the dialogue. 
Bang took the point and agreed that the dialogue was useful. 
He noted that the GVN learns from and improves its 
understanding of the U.S. through the dialogue; also, the 
GVN does make improvements based on the dialogue.  He added 
that the dialogue allows detailed discussion -- that cannot 
be accomplished through demarches -- of a whole range of 
human rights issues. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
DFM Bang:  The alternative is not good. 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶13.  (SBU)  The GVN had noticed the Department's opposition 
to the Vietnam Human Rights bill, DFM Bang said.  If the 
bill passed, he predicted, it would anger "veterans and 
hardliners" damaging relations and impacting on MIA, trade, 
and humanitarian issues.  The bill would serve only the 
interests of a small group of Vietnamese Americans, he 
remarked. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
¶14.  (SBU)  DFM Bang appeared to take to heart that a 
productive human rights dialogue is better than an unending 
series of public confrontations.  He is probably the best 
person in the GVN to articulate this message to his 
colleagues both because he understands it and because he 
appears to be committed to improving the overall 
relationship.  He recalled that he was involved in the first 
U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue in 1993.  Major 
challenges lie in whether he can focus enough attention 
outside the MFA to achieve some progress, whether the GVN's 
tortuous consensus-based decision-making process can achieve 
prompt results, and whether there is sufficient political 
will to overcome the opposition of those who are wedded to 
Vietnam's closed systems and are suspicious of US motives. 
Embassy and ConGen will continue to push for improvements, 
particularly in areas laid out in reftel, but we are not 
confident that we will see progress on more than a few of 
the points in the next six months. 
BURGHARDT