Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 251287 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
AEMR ASEC AMGT AE AS AMED AVIAN AU AF AORC AGENDA AO AR AM APER AFIN ATRN AJ ABUD ARABL AL AG AODE ALOW ADANA AADP AND APECO ACABQ ASEAN AA AFFAIRS AID AGR AY AGS AFSI AGOA AMB ARF ANET ASCH ACOA AFLU AFSN AMEX AFDB ABLD AESC AFGHANISTAN AINF AVIATION ARR ARSO ANDREW ASSEMBLY AIDS APRC ASSK ADCO ASIG AC AZ APEC AFINM ADB AP ACOTA ASEX ACKM ASUP ANTITERRORISM ADPM AINR ARABLEAGUE AGAO AORG AMTC AIN ACCOUNT ASECAFINGMGRIZOREPTU AIDAC AINT ARCH AMGTKSUP ALAMI AMCHAMS ALJAZEERA AVIANFLU AORD AOREC ALIREZA AOMS AMGMT ABDALLAH AORCAE AHMED ACCELERATED AUC ALZUGUREN ANGEL AORL ASECIR AMG AMBASSADOR AEMRASECCASCKFLOMARRPRELPINRAMGTJMXL ADM ASES ABMC AER AMER ASE AMGTHA ARNOLDFREDERICK AOPC ACS AFL AEGR ASED AFPREL AGRI AMCHAM ARNOLD AN ANATO AME APERTH ASECSI AT ACDA ASEDC AIT AMERICA AMLB AMGE ACTION AGMT AFINIZ ASECVE ADRC ABER AGIT APCS AEMED ARABBL ARC ASO AIAG ACEC ASR ASECM ARG AEC ABT ADIP ADCP ANARCHISTS AORCUN AOWC ASJA AALC AX AROC ARM AGENCIES ALBE AK AZE AOPR AREP AMIA ASCE ALANAZI ABDULRAHMEN ABDULHADI AINFCY ARMS ASECEFINKCRMKPAOPTERKHLSAEMRNS AGRICULTURE AFPK AOCR ALEXANDER ATRD ATFN ABLG AORCD AFGHAN ARAS AORCYM AVERY ALVAREZ ACBAQ ALOWAR ANTOINE ABLDG ALAB AMERICAS AFAF ASECAFIN ASEK ASCC AMCT AMGTATK AMT APDC AEMRS ASECE AFSA ATRA ARTICLE ARENA AISG AEMRBC AFR AEIR ASECAF AFARI AMPR ASPA ASOC ANTONIO AORCL ASECARP APRM AUSTRALIAGROUP ASEG AFOR AEAID AMEDI ASECTH ASIC AFDIN AGUIRRE AUNR ASFC AOIC ANTXON ASA ASECCASC ALI AORCEUNPREFPRELSMIGBN ASECKHLS ASSSEMBLY ASECVZ AI ASECPGOV ASIR ASCEC ASAC ARAB AIEA ADMIRAL AUSGR AQ AMTG ARRMZY ANC APR AMAT AIHRC AFU ADEL AECL ACAO AMEMR ADEP AV AW AOR ALL ALOUNI AORCUNGA ALNEA ASC AORCO ARMITAGE AGENGA AGRIC AEM ACOAAMGT AGUILAR AFPHUM AMEDCASCKFLO AFZAL AAA ATPDEA ASECPHUM ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
ETRD ETTC EU ECON EFIN EAGR EAID ELAB EINV ENIV ENRG EPET EZ ELTN ELECTIONS ECPS ET ER EG EUN EIND ECONOMICS EMIN ECIN EINT EWWT EAIR EN ENGR ES EI ETMIN EL EPA EARG EFIS ECONOMY EC EK ELAM ECONOMIC EAR ESDP ECCP ELN EUM EUMEM ECA EAP ELEC ECOWAS EFTA EXIM ETTD EDRC ECOSOC ECPSN ENVIRONMENT ECO EMAIL ECTRD EREL EDU ENERG ENERGY ENVR ETRAD EAC EXTERNAL EFIC ECIP ERTD EUC ENRGMO EINZ ESTH ECCT EAGER ECPN ELNT ERD EGEN ETRN EIVN ETDR EXEC EIAD EIAR EVN EPRT ETTF ENGY EAIDCIN EXPORT ETRC ESA EIB EAPC EPIT ESOCI ETRB EINDQTRD ENRC EGOV ECLAC EUR ELF ETEL ENRGUA EVIN EARI ESCAP EID ERIN ELAN ENVT EDEV EWWY EXBS ECOM EV ELNTECON ECE ETRDGK EPETEIND ESCI ETRDAORC EAIDETRD ETTR EMS EAGRECONEINVPGOVBN EBRD EUREM ERGR EAGRBN EAUD EFI ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ETRO ENRGY EGAR ESSO EGAD ENV ENER EAIDXMXAXBXFFR ELA EET EINVETRD EETC EIDN ERGY ETRDPGOV EING EMINCG EINVECON EURM EEC EICN EINO EPSC ELAP ELABPGOVBN EE ESPS ETRA ECONETRDBESPAR ERICKSON EEOC EVENTS EPIN EB ECUN EPWR ENG EX EH EAIDAR EAIS ELBA EPETUN ETRDEIQ EENV ECPC ETRP ECONENRG EUEAID EWT EEB EAIDNI ESENV EADM ECN ENRGKNNP ETAD ETR ECONETRDEAGRJA ETRG ETER EDUC EITC EBUD EAIF EBEXP EAIDS EITI EGOVSY EFQ ECOQKPKO ETRGY ESF EUE EAIC EPGOV ENFR EAGRE ENRD EINTECPS EAVI ETC ETCC EIAID EAIDAF EAGREAIDPGOVPRELBN EAOD ETRDA EURN EASS EINVA EAIDRW EON ECOR EPREL EGPHUM ELTM ECOS EINN ENNP EUPGOV EAGRTR ECONCS ETIO ETRDGR EAIDB EISNAR EIFN ESPINOSA EAIDASEC ELIN EWTR EMED ETFN ETT EADI EPTER ELDIN EINVEFIN ESS ENRGIZ EQRD ESOC ETRDECD ECINECONCS EAIT ECONEAIR ECONEFIN EUNJ ENRGKNNPMNUCPARMPRELNPTIAEAJMXL ELAD EFIM ETIC EFND EFN ETLN ENGRD EWRG ETA EIN EAIRECONRP EXIMOPIC ERA ENRGJM ECONEGE ENVI ECHEVARRIA EMINETRD EAD ECONIZ EENG ELBR EWWC ELTD EAIDMG ETRK EIPR EISNLN ETEX EPTED EFINECONCS EPCS EAG ETRDKIPR ED EAIO ETRDEC ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ERNG EFINU EURFOR EWWI ELTNSNAR ETD EAIRASECCASCID EOXC ESTN EAIDAORC EAGRRP ETRDEMIN ELABPHUMSMIGKCRMBN ETRDEINVTINTCS EGHG EAIDPHUMPRELUG EAGRBTIOBEXPETRDBN EDA EPETPGOV ELAINE EUCOM EMW EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM ELB EINDETRD EMI ETRDECONWTOCS EINR ESTRADA EHUM EFNI ELABV ENR EMN EXO EWWTPRELPGOVMASSMARRBN EATO END EP EINVETC ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID ELTRN EIQ ETTW EAI ENGRG ETRED ENDURING ETTRD EAIDEGZ EOCN EINF EUPREL ENRL ECPO ENLT EEFIN EPPD ECOIN EUEAGR EISL EIDE ENRGSD EINVECONSENVCSJA EAIG ENTG EEPET EUNCH EPECO ETZ EPAT EPTE EAIRGM ETRDPREL EUNGRSISAFPKSYLESO ETTN EINVKSCA ESLCO EBMGT ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EFLU ELND EFINOECD EAIDHO EDUARDO ENEG ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EFINTS ECONQH ENRGPREL EUNPHUM EINDIR EPE EMINECINECONSENVTBIONS EFINM ECRM EQ EWWTSP ECONPGOVBN
KFLO KPKO KDEM KFLU KTEX KMDR KPAO KCRM KIDE KN KNNP KG KMCA KZ KJUS KWBG KU KDMR KAWC KCOR KPAL KOMC KTDB KTIA KISL KHIV KHUM KTER KCFE KTFN KS KIRF KTIP KIRC KSCA KICA KIPR KPWR KWMN KE KGIC KGIT KSTC KACT KSEP KFRD KUNR KHLS KCRS KRVC KUWAIT KVPR KSRE KMPI KMRS KNRV KNEI KCIP KSEO KITA KDRG KV KSUM KCUL KPET KBCT KO KSEC KOLY KNAR KGHG KSAF KWNM KNUC KMNP KVIR KPOL KOCI KPIR KLIG KSAC KSTH KNPT KINL KPRP KRIM KICC KIFR KPRV KAWK KFIN KT KVRC KR KHDP KGOV KPOW KTBT KPMI KPOA KRIF KEDEM KFSC KY KGCC KATRINA KWAC KSPR KTBD KBIO KSCI KRCM KNNB KBNC KIMT KCSY KINR KRAD KMFO KCORR KW KDEMSOCI KNEP KFPC KEMPI KBTR KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNPP KTTB KTFIN KBTS KCOM KFTN KMOC KOR KDP KPOP KGHA KSLG KMCR KJUST KUM KMSG KHPD KREC KIPRTRD KPREL KEN KCSA KCRIM KGLB KAKA KWWT KUNP KCRN KISLPINR KLFU KUNC KEDU KCMA KREF KPAS KRKO KNNC KLHS KWAK KOC KAPO KTDD KOGL KLAP KECF KCRCM KNDP KSEAO KCIS KISM KREL KISR KISC KKPO KWCR KPFO KUS KX KWCI KRFD KWPG KTRD KH KLSO KEVIN KEANE KACW KWRF KNAO KETTC KTAO KWIR KVCORR KDEMGT KPLS KICT KWGB KIDS KSCS KIRP KSTCPL KDEN KLAB KFLOA KIND KMIG KPPAO KPRO KLEG KGKG KCUM KTTP KWPA KIIP KPEO KICR KNNA KMGT KCROM KMCC KLPM KNNPGM KSIA KSI KWWW KOMS KESS KMCAJO KWN KTDM KDCM KCM KVPRKHLS KENV KCCP KGCN KCEM KEMR KWMNKDEM KNNPPARM KDRM KWIM KJRE KAID KWMM KPAONZ KUAE KTFR KIF KNAP KPSC KSOCI KCWI KAUST KPIN KCHG KLBO KIRCOEXC KI KIRCHOFF KSTT KNPR KDRL KCFC KLTN KPAOKMDRKE KPALAOIS KESO KKOR KSMT KFTFN KTFM KDEMK KPKP KOCM KNN KISLSCUL KFRDSOCIRO KINT KRG KWMNSMIG KSTCC KPAOY KFOR KWPR KSEPCVIS KGIV KSEI KIL KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KQ KEMS KHSL KTNF KPDD KANSOU KKIV KFCE KTTC KGH KNNNP KK KSCT KWNN KAWX KOMCSG KEIM KTSD KFIU KDTB KFGM KACP KWWMN KWAWC KSPA KGICKS KNUP KNNO KISLAO KTPN KSTS KPRM KPALPREL KPO KTLA KCRP KNMP KAWCK KCERS KDUM KEDM KTIALG KWUN KPTS KPEM KMEPI KAWL KHMN KCRO KCMR KPTD KCROR KMPT KTRF KSKN KMAC KUK KIRL KEM KSOC KBTC KOM KINP KDEMAF KTNBT KISK KRM KWBW KBWG KNNPMNUC KNOP KSUP KCOG KNET KWBC KESP KMRD KEBG KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KPWG KOMCCO KRGY KNNF KPROG KJAN KFRED KPOKO KM KWMNCS KMPF KJWC KJU KSMIG KALR KRAL KDGOV KPA KCRMJA KCRI KAYLA KPGOV KRD KNNPCH KFEM KPRD KFAM KALM KIPRETRDKCRM KMPP KADM KRFR KMWN KWRG KTIAPARM KTIAEUN KRDP KLIP KDDEM KTIAIC KWKN KPAD KDM KRCS KWBGSY KEAI KIVP KPAOPREL KUNH KTSC KIPT KNP KJUSTH KGOR KEPREL KHSA KGHGHIV KNNR KOMH KRCIM KWPB KWIC KINF KPER KILS KA KNRG KCSI KFRP KLFLO KFE KNPPIS KQM KQRDQ KERG KPAOPHUM KSUMPHUM KVBL KARIM KOSOVO KNSD KUIR KWHG KWBGXF KWMNU KPBT KKNP KERF KCRT KVIS KWRC KVIP KTFS KMARR KDGR KPAI KDE KTCRE KMPIO KUNRAORC KHOURY KAWS KPAK KOEM KCGC KID KVRP KCPS KIVR KBDS KWOMN KIIC KTFNJA KARZAI KMVP KHJUS KPKOUNSC KMAR KIBL KUNA KSA KIS KJUSAF KDEV KPMO KHIB KIRD KOUYATE KIPRZ KBEM KPAM KDET KPPD KOSCE KJUSKUNR KICCPUR KRMS KWMNPREL KWMJN KREISLER KWM KDHS KRV KPOV KWMNCI KMPL KFLD KWWN KCVM KIMMITT KCASC KOMO KNATO KDDG KHGH KRF KSCAECON KWMEN KRIC
PREL PINR PGOV PHUM PTER PE PREF PARM PBTS PINS PHSA PK PL PM PNAT PHAS PO PROP PGOVE PA PU POLITICAL PPTER POL PALESTINIAN PHUN PIN PAMQ PPA PSEC POLM PBIO PSOE PDEM PAK PF PKAO PGOVPRELMARRMOPS PMIL PV POLITICS PRELS POLICY PRELHA PIRN PINT PGOG PERSONS PRC PEACE PROCESS PRELPGOV PROV PFOV PKK PRE PT PIRF PSI PRL PRELAF PROG PARMP PERL PUNE PREFA PP PGOB PUM PROTECTION PARTIES PRIL PEL PAGE PS PGO PCUL PLUM PIF PGOVENRGCVISMASSEAIDOPRCEWWTBN PMUC PCOR PAS PB PKO PY PKST PTR PRM POUS PRELIZ PGIC PHUMS PAL PNUC PLO PMOPS PHM PGOVBL PBK PELOSI PTE PGOVAU PNR PINSO PRO PLAB PREM PNIR PSOCI PBS PD PHUML PERURENA PKPA PVOV PMAR PHUMCF PUHM PHUH PRELPGOVETTCIRAE PRT PROPERTY PEPFAR PREI POLUN PAR PINSF PREFL PH PREC PPD PING PQL PINSCE PGV PREO PRELUN POV PGOVPHUM PINRES PRES PGOC PINO POTUS PTERE PRELKPAO PRGOV PETR PGOVEAGRKMCAKNARBN PPKO PARLIAMENT PEPR PMIG PTBS PACE PETER PMDL PVIP PKPO POLMIL PTEL PJUS PHUMNI PRELKPAOIZ PGOVPREL POGV PEREZ POWELL PMASS PDOV PARN PG PPOL PGIV PAIGH PBOV PETROL PGPV PGOVL POSTS PSO PRELEU PRELECON PHUMPINS PGOVKCMABN PQM PRELSP PRGO PATTY PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PGVO PROTESTS PRELPLS PKFK PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PARAGRAPH PRELGOV POG PTRD PTERM PBTSAG PHUMKPAL PRELPK PTERPGOV PAO PRIVATIZATION PSCE PPAO PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PARALYMPIC PRUM PKPRP PETERS PAHO PARMS PGREL PINV POINS PHUMPREL POREL PRELNL PHUMPGOV PGOVQL PLAN PRELL PARP PROVE PSOC PDD PRELNP PRELBR PKMN PGKV PUAS PRELTBIOBA PBTSEWWT PTERIS PGOVU PRELGG PHUMPRELPGOV PFOR PEPGOV PRELUNSC PRAM PICES PTERIZ PREK PRELEAGR PRELEUN PHUME PHU PHUMKCRS PRESL PRTER PGOF PARK PGOVSOCI PTERPREL PGOVEAID PGOVPHUMKPAO PINSKISL PREZ PGOVAF PARMEUN PECON PINL POGOV PGOVLO PIERRE PRELPHUM PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PBST PKPAO PHUMHUPPS PGOVPOL PASS PPGOV PROGV PAGR PHALANAGE PARTY PRELID PGOVID PHUMR PHSAQ PINRAMGT PSA PRELM PRELMU PIA PINRPE PBTSRU PARMIR PEDRO PNUK PVPR PINOCHET PAARM PRFE PRELEIN PINF PCI PSEPC PGOVSU PRLE PDIP PHEM PRELB PORG PGGOC POLG POPDC PGOVPM PWMN PDRG PHUMK PINB PRELAL PRER PFIN PNRG PRED POLI PHUMBO PHYTRP PROLIFERATION PHARM PUOS PRHUM PUNR PENA PGOVREL PETRAEUS PGOVKDEM PGOVENRG PHUS PRESIDENT PTERKU PRELKSUMXABN PGOVSI PHUMQHA PKISL PIR PGOVZI PHUMIZNL PKNP PRELEVU PMIN PHIM PHUMBA PUBLIC PHAM PRELKPKO PMR PARTM PPREL PN PROL PDA PGOVECON PKBL PKEAID PERM PRELEZ PRELC PER PHJM PGOVPRELPINRBN PRFL PLN PWBG PNG PHUMA PGOR PHUMPTER POLINT PPEF PKPAL PNNL PMARR PAC PTIA PKDEM PAUL PREG PTERR PTERPRELPARMPGOVPBTSETTCEAIRELTNTC PRELJA POLS PI PNS PAREL PENV PTEROREP PGOVM PINER PBGT PHSAUNSC PTERDJ PRELEAID PARMIN PKIR PLEC PCRM PNET PARR PRELETRD PRELBN PINRTH PREJ PEACEKEEPINGFORCES PEMEX PRELZ PFLP PBPTS PTGOV PREVAL PRELSW PAUM PRF PHUMKDEM PATRICK PGOVKMCAPHUMBN PRELA PNUM PGGV PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PBT PIND PTEP PTERKS PGOVJM PGOT PRELMARR PGOVCU PREV PREFF PRWL PET PROB PRELPHUMP PHUMAF PVTS PRELAFDB PSNR PGOVECONPRELBU PGOVZL PREP PHUMPRELBN PHSAPREL PARCA PGREV PGOVDO PGON PCON PODC PRELOV PHSAK PSHA PGOVGM PRELP POSCE PGOVPTER PHUMRU PINRHU PARMR PGOVTI PPEL PMAT PAN PANAM PGOVBO PRELHRC

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 04HANOI1023, Vietnam: Negotiations with the GVN on an Adoptions

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #04HANOI1023.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
04HANOI1023 2004-04-14 01:21 2011-08-30 01:44 UNCLASSIFIED Embassy Hanoi
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 HANOI 001023 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR CA/OCS, CA/OCS/CI, CA/OCS/ACS/EAP, 
CA/OCS/PRI, DEPARTMENT ALSO FOR CA/VO/F/P, EAP/BCLTV, AND 
L/EAP 
BANGKOK FOR DHS/DD 
HO CHI MINH CITY FOR CONS AND DHS OIC 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KOCI CVIS CASC PREL VM
SUBJECT:  Vietnam: Negotiations with the GVN on an Adoptions 
Protocol in Hanoi 
1.  (SBU) Summary.  Negotiations on an adoptions Protocol on 
March 11 and 12 made progress, but final agreement was not 
reached.  Despite repeated USG assertions prior to the talks 
 
that the USG would not negotiate a new treaty, the largest 
sticking point for the GVN was their insistence on a treaty 
that creates new legal rights and obligations for the USG 
and American citizens.  The GVN believes that they have 
"treaties" with the five countries that have signed 
agreements already, but L/CA's initial analysis of some of 
those agreements indicates they fall short of treaty status 
as that term is now interpreted by GVN.  During 
negotiations, the U.S. delegation repeatedly explained that 
there is no need to create new legal obligations because the 
necessary obligations are already in place under existing 
Vietnamese and U.S. law.  When asked what new obligations 
the GVN would like to create in this Protocol, the GVN 
delegation could not articulate anything specific, but 
pointed instead to the requirement in the GVN's Decree 
68/2002 that both countries sign an "international treaty" 
before adoptions can take place.  The GVN ended the talks on 
March 12.  Both sides agreed on "minutes," which included a 
clear statement that the next step would be GVN submission 
of written revisions to the amended draft submitted by the 
U.S. team on the morning of March 12.  Neither side 
mentioned a date certain to continue discussions.  See paras 
11 and 12 for summary of agreed points and unresolved 
issues.  End Summary. 
2.  (SBU) Negotiations opened in a cooperative atmosphere on 
March 11, but were immediately stymied by questions 
regarding the title and the corresponding legal impact of 
the document. Dr. Vu Duc Long, Acting Director of the 
Department of International Adoptions and the head of the 
GVN negotiating team, made repeated reference to the lengths 
he had gone to within the GVN to gain acceptance for the 
term "Protocol", and was staunch in his position that the 
title must be either "Protocol" or "Agreement". The U.S. 
side indicated flexibility, offering "Executive Agreement" 
or inclusion of the term "Protocol" in the title, but this 
only raised questions about the legal impact of the use of 
such terms, and the GVN became entrenched in their position 
that this document must create new legal rights and 
obligations. 
3.  (SBU) Both sides agreed to set aside these questions for 
later and to work from the draft text submitted under cover 
of A/S Harty's November 20, 2003 letter, and turn to the 
list of concerns provided by the GVN in response to that 
draft in its diplomatic note dated January 15, 2004. Both 
sides immediately agreed to the inclusion of additional 
references to relevant Vietnamese law, and easily agreed to 
incorporate those references (Article 3), along with Article 
2, into the preamble. 
4.  (SBU) The afternoon's discussion continued through the 
list of GVN comments, but again became bogged down -- this 
time over the term "jurisdiction" and the applicability of 
the document under discussion to Amcits living outside of 
both the U.S. and Vietnam.  The GVN was greatly concerned 
with the inability to convey U.S. citizenship and welfare 
protections on a child living in a third country and 
insisted on applicability based on citizenship and 
residence, terms that have little direct relevance to 
adoption laws in the U.S.  The U.S. team suggested that this 
item (Article 4) be set aside, as discussion was not 
progressing. 
5.  (SBU) Long highlighted one item in this article to be 
addressed before moving on.  He noted the unspecified 
reference to "individuals" and requested that this be 
changed to "legally married couples" to reflect this 
requirement in Vietnamese law.  U.S. negotiators pointed out 
that the change is unnecessary because the unspecified 
reference continues "eligible under applicable law".  U.S. 
negotiators also cited the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, 
which defines "marriage" for Federal purposes consistent 
with GVN's requirements.  Nevertheless, at Vietnam's 
insistence, we agreed to the change. 
GVN Seeks to Add New Provisions 
6.  (SBU) The Vietnamese then proposed adding a provision on 
exemption from consular legalization of documents in 
adoption cases, in what they described as an attempt to 
simplify the process for American parents.  The Vietnamese 
team agreed to draft and suggest language on the proposed 
exemption from "Consular legalization".  This proposed 
language was not discussed further. 
7.  (SBU)  Negotiations turned to the GVN's desire to 
include language in the Protocol referring to Vietnamese 
rules regarding the transparency of fees levied in adoption 
cases, and the GVN's requirement that foreign adoption 
service providers (ASPs) make charitable contributions to 
institutions in Vietnam.  Dr. Long referred to the "Chinese 
model" where the Central Authority "controls how all the 
money is spent."  The U.S. team applauded the GVN's desire 
to address the issue of transparency, and requested sample 
language from previous agreements reached with other states. 
The GVN promised to provide those provisions, but indicated 
that previous agreements had not achieved the level of 
transparency they truly wished.  The U.S. team noted that 
such language appeared to relate more to ASP licensing 
rules, which would normally have no place in a Protocol, as 
the licensing rules should be uniform and apply to all 
foreign ASPs seeking to operate in Vietnam, not just U.S. 
ones.  The U.S. team also noted, apparently to the surprise 
of the GVN team, that the U.S does not have an adoption 
treaty or agreement with China. 
8.  (SBU) The GVN delegation expressed continuing concern 
over final recognition of adoptions and the question of an 
adopted child's nationality.  Various language was proposed 
by both sides to reflect that each agreed to recognize 
adoption decrees issued by the other's competent 
authorities, unless contrary to public policy, and taking 
into account the best interests of the child.  No final 
agreement on this language was reached; however, language 
proposed by the U.S. side was included in a revised draft of 
the Protocol submitted by the U.S. for further consideration 
by the GVN. 
9.  (SBU) The second day of negotiations on March 12 again 
quickly foundered on the question of the document's legal 
impact.  Both sides agreed to the title "Protocol between 
the United States of America and the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam Regarding Cooperation in the Adoption of Children in 
Furtherance of the Principles and Provisions of the Hague 
Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in 
Respect of Intercountry Adoption ". The GVN delegation then 
returned to the previous day's discussion of whether the 
U.S. side viewed the Protocol as a document creating new 
legal rights and obligations affecting all levels of U.S. 
government and all citizens.  The U.S. team again asked what 
the GVN wanted to enforce that did not already exist under 
the respective laws of the two states, and challenged the 
idea that this document would create new law that would be 
binding on the provinces of Vietnam.  The Vietnamese side 
halted negotiations at this point, insisting that any final 
document must create new (unspecified) legal obligations. 
The GVN then proposed that, since the two sides could not 
reach agreement on the legal impact issue, that the talks be 
suspended without addressing other outstanding issues. 
Formal negotiations thus concluded mid-morning March 12. 
10.  (SBU) The Vietnamese team drafted "minutes" 
highlighting the accomplishments of the discussions, and the 
morning session ended cordially, but with some frustration 
on both sides.  While both sides held to their respective 
positions on the issue re: creating a treaty with new legal 
obligations versus a statement of understanding of existing 
laws, both sides also indicated that this issue is not 
insurmountable and their strong interest in continuing 
discussions after consultation with respective capitals. 
Included in the "minutes" was a clear statement that the 
next step would be GVN submission of written revisions to 
the amended draft submitted by the U.S. team on the morning 
of March 12th.  The U.S. delegation made clear that the 
existing draft text was acceptable to the U.S. side and the 
USG awaited GVN revisions to that document.  Neither side 
mentioned a date certain to continue discussions. 
What We Agreed On 
11. (SBU) Despite the lack of a final document, several 
items were agreed upon during the discussions: a title was 
found that suited both parties' needs; we agreed upon the 
inclusion of several additional GVN legal citations in 
Article 2 of the Preamble; Article 3 was moved to the 
Preamble; Article 4 was changed to read "legally married 
couples", in lieu of "individuals"; the GVN team agreed to 
propose language regarding transparency of fees; the GVN 
team agreed to draft language on exemption from "Consular 
legalization"; both parties agreed to work from the amended 
draft submitted by the U.S. team on the morning of March 12; 
and both parties committed to continuing discussions after 
consultation in capitals. 
What Still Needs to Be Addressed: 
12. (SBU) The sticking point for the GVN is clearly the 
intent of the document and the legal obligations it creates, 
while the U.S. side cannot agree to a "bilateral treaty, as 
has been repeatedly mentioned to them.  The GVN also would 
like to restrict "jurisdiction" of the document to citizens 
residing in either country, but not including U.S. or 
Vietnamese citizens in a third country.  The GVN would like 
to exempt all related documentation from "Consular 
legalization", which might be difficult for the U.S., as we 
could not guarantee an individual State would not require 
such documents.  The GVN wished to include several 
provisions already present in Vietnamese decrees or laws, 
such as transparency of fees and required humanitarian 
donations from ASPs.  These items seem more appropriately 
confined to licensing regulations for those organizations. 
Comment 
13. (SBU) It seemed very clear that the GVN was 
uncomfortable with any document that could not be considered 
a bilateral treaty, creating new obligations between the 
parties.  This position was unacceptable to the U.S. 
delegation, a position that had been explained to the GVN 
repeatedly in the lead up to these discussions.  Many of the 
provisions the GVN proposed including already exist in GVN 
decrees establishing and implementing regulations on 
adoptions within Vietnam.  Despite USG assurances that U.S. 
citizens who wished to adopt in Vietnam were subject to all 
GVN laws and regulations within Vietnam, they appear to want 
to restate many of those regulations within the text of the 
Protocol.  It appears the Vietnamese want a "bilateral 
treaty" to reiterate many provisions of GVN law, in order to 
assist them with implementation enforcement at the local 
level in Vietnam. 
14.  (SBU) Ironically, many of the issues raised by the GVN 
negotiators were issues of implementation of adoption 
regulations, a concern shared by the U.S. side.   The U.S. 
delegation handed a non-paper on implementation issues to 
the Vietnamese side at the end of the first day.  It listed 
continuing concerns over implementation guidelines contained 
in current Vietnamese adoption regulations and a request for 
clarification of several issues.  Given the lack of progress 
on the text of the Protocol, however, there was no further 
discussion of these items.  These concerns about 
implementation remain a priority for the Mission, as a 
return to the status quo ante would offset the best 
intentions of any agreement, and not be in keeping with the 
best interests of the children, birth parents and adopting 
parents involved. 
PORTER 
 
before adoptions can take place.  The GVN ended the talks on 
March 12.  Both sides agreed on "minutes," which included a 
clear statement that the next step would be GVN submission 
of written revisions to the amended draft submitted by the 
U.S. team on the morning of March 12.  Neither side 
mentioned a date certain to continue discussions.  See paras 
11 and 12 for summary of agreed points and unresolved 
issues.  End Summary. 
2.  (SBU) Negotiations opened in a cooperative atmosphere on 
March 11, but were immediately stymied by questions 
regarding the title and the corresponding legal impact of 
the document. Dr. Vu Duc Long, Acting Director of the 
Department of International Adoptions and the head of the 
GVN negotiating team, made repeated reference to the lengths 
he had gone to within the GVN to gain acceptance for the 
term "Protocol", and was staunch in his position that the 
title must be either "Protocol" or "Agreement". The U.S. 
side indicated flexibility, offering "Executive Agreement" 
or inclusion of the term "Protocol" in the title, but this 
only raised questions about the legal impact of the use of 
such terms, and the GVN became entrenched in their position 
that this document must create new legal rights and 
obligations. 
3.  (SBU) Both sides agreed to set aside these questions for 
later and to work from the draft text submitted under cover 
of A/S Harty's November 20, 2003 letter, and turn to the 
list of concerns provided by the GVN in response to that 
draft in its diplomatic note dated January 15, 2004. Both 
sides immediately agreed to the inclusion of additional 
references to relevant Vietnamese law, and easily agreed to 
incorporate those references (Article 3), along with Article 
2, into the preamble. 
4.  (SBU) The afternoon's discussion continued through the 
list of GVN comments, but again became bogged down -- this 
time over the term "jurisdiction" and the applicability of 
the document under discussion to Amcits living outside of 
both the U.S. and Vietnam.  The GVN was greatly concerned 
with the inability to convey U.S. citizenship and welfare 
protections on a child living in a third country and 
insisted on applicability based on citizenship and 
residence, terms that have little direct relevance to 
adoption laws in the U.S.  The U.S. team suggested that this 
item (Article 4) be set aside, as discussion was not 
progressing. 
5.  (SBU) Long highlighted one item in this article to be 
addressed before moving on.  He noted the unspecified 
reference to "individuals" and requested that this be 
changed to "legally married couples" to reflect this 
requirement in Vietnamese law.  U.S. negotiators pointed out 
that the change is unnecessary because the unspecified 
reference continues "eligible under applicable law".  U.S. 
negotiators also cited the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, 
which defines "marriage" for Federal purposes consistent 
with GVN's requirements.  Nevertheless, at Vietnam's 
insistence, we agreed to the change. 
GVN Seeks to Add New Provisions 
6.  (SBU) The Vietnamese then proposed adding a provision on 
exemption from consular legalization of documents in 
adoption cases, in what they described as an attempt to 
simplify the process for American parents.  The Vietnamese 
team agreed to draft and suggest language on the proposed 
exemption from "Consular legalization".  This proposed 
language was not discussed further. 
7.  (SBU)  Negotiations turned to the GVN's desire to 
include language in the Protocol referring to Vietnamese 
rules regarding the transparency of fees levied in adoption 
cases, and the GVN's requirement that foreign adoption 
service providers (ASPs) make charitable contributions to 
institutions in Vietnam.  Dr. Long referred to the "Chinese 
model" where the Central Authority "controls how all the 
money is spent."  The U.S. team applauded the GVN's desire 
to address the issue of transparency, and requested sample 
language from previous agreements reached with other states. 
The GVN promised to provide those provisions, but indicated 
that previous agreements had not achieved the level of 
transparency they truly wished.  The U.S. team noted that 
such language appeared to relate more to ASP licensing 
rules, which would normally have no place in a Protocol, as 
the licensing rules should be uniform and apply to all 
foreign ASPs seeking to operate in Vietnam, not just U.S. 
ones.  The U.S. team also noted, apparently to the surprise 
of the GVN team, that the U.S does not have an adoption 
treaty or agreement with China. 
8.  (SBU) The GVN delegation expressed continuing concern 
over final recognition of adoptions and the question of an 
adopted child's nationality.  Various language was proposed 
by both sides to reflect that each agreed to recognize 
adoption decrees issued by the other's competent 
authorities, unless contrary to public policy, and taking 
into account the best interests of the child.  No final 
agreement on this language was reached; however, language 
proposed by the U.S. side was included in a revised draft of 
the Protocol submitted by the U.S. for further consideration 
by the GVN. 
9.  (SBU) The second day of negotiations on March 12 again 
quickly foundered on the question of the document's legal 
impact.  Both sides agreed to the title "Protocol between 
the United States of America and the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam Regarding Cooperation in the Adoption of Children in 
Furtherance of the Principles and Provisions of the Hague 
Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in 
Respect of Intercountry Adoption ". The GVN delegation then 
returned to the previous day's discussion of whether the 
U.S. side viewed the Protocol as a document creating new 
legal rights and obligations affecting all levels of U.S. 
government and all citizens.  The U.S. team again asked what 
the GVN wanted to enforce that did not already exist under 
the respective laws of the two states, and challenged the 
idea that this document would create new law that would be 
binding on the provinces of Vietnam.  The Vietnamese side 
halted negotiations at this point, insisting that any final 
document must create new (unspecified) legal obligations. 
The GVN then proposed that, since the two sides could not 
reach agreement on the legal impact issue, that the talks be 
suspended without addressing other outstanding issues. 
Formal negotiations thus concluded mid-morning March 12. 
10.  (SBU) The Vietnamese team drafted "minutes" 
highlighting the accomplishments of the discussions, and the 
morning session ended cordially, but with some frustration 
on both sides.  While both sides held to their respective 
positions on the issue re: creating a treaty with new legal 
obligations versus a statement of understanding of existing 
laws, both sides also indicated that this issue is not 
insurmountable and their strong interest in continuing 
discussions after consultation with respective capitals. 
Included in the "minutes" was a clear statement that the 
next step would be GVN submission of written revisions to 
the amended draft submitted by the U.S. team on the morning 
of March 12th.  The U.S. delegation made clear that the 
existing draft text was acceptable to the U.S. side and the 
USG awaited GVN revisions to that document.  Neither side 
mentioned a date certain to continue discussions. 
What We Agreed On 
11. (SBU) Despite the lack of a final document, several 
items were agreed upon during the discussions: a title was 
found that suited both parties' needs; we agreed upon the 
inclusion of several additional GVN legal citations in 
Article 2 of the Preamble; Article 3 was moved to the 
Preamble; Article 4 was changed to read "legally married 
couples", in lieu of "individuals"; the GVN team agreed to 
propose language regarding transparency of fees; the GVN 
team agreed to draft language on exemption from "Consular 
legalization"; both parties agreed to work from the amended 
draft submitted by the U.S. team on the morning of March 12; 
and both parties committed to continuing discussions after 
consultation in capitals. 
What Still Needs to Be Addressed: 
12. (SBU) The sticking point for the GVN is clearly the 
intent of the document and the legal obligations it creates, 
while the U.S. side cannot agree to a "bilateral treaty, as 
has been repeatedly mentioned to them.  The GVN also would 
like to restrict "jurisdiction" of the document to citizens 
residing in either country, but not including U.S. or 
Vietnamese citizens in a third country.  The GVN would like 
to exempt all related documentation from "Consular 
legalization", which might be difficult for the U.S., as we 
could not guarantee an individual State would not require 
such documents.  The GVN wished to include several 
provisions already present in Vietnamese decrees or laws, 
such as transparency of fees and required humanitarian 
donations from ASPs.  These items seem more appropriately 
confined to licensing regulations for those organizations. 
Comment 
13. (SBU) It seemed very clear that the GVN was 
uncomfortable with any document that could not be considered 
a bilateral treaty, creating new obligations between the 
parties.  This position was unacceptable to the U.S. 
delegation, a position that had been explained to the GVN 
repeatedly in the lead up to these discussions.  Many of the 
provisions the GVN proposed including already exist in GVN 
decrees establishing and implementing regulations on 
adoptions within Vietnam.  Despite USG assurances that U.S. 
citizens who wished to adopt in Vietnam were subject to all 
GVN laws and regulations within Vietnam, they appear to want 
to restate many of those regulations within the text of the 
Protocol.  It appears the Vietnamese want a "bilateral 
treaty" to reiterate many provisions of GVN law, in order to 
assist them with implementation enforcement at the local 
level in Vietnam. 
14.  (SBU) Ironically, many of the issues raised by the GVN 
negotiators were issues of implementation of adoption 
regulations, a concern shared by the U.S. side.   The U.S. 
delegation handed a non-paper on implementation issues to 
the Vietnamese side at the end of the first day.  It listed 
continuing concerns over implementation guidelines contained 
in current Vietnamese adoption regulations and a request for 
clarification of several issues.  Given the lack of progress 
on the text of the Protocol, however, there was no further 
discussion of these items.  These concerns about 
implementation remain a priority for the Mission, as a 
return to the status quo ante would offset the best 
intentions of any agreement, and not be in keeping with the 
best interests of the children, birth parents and adopting 
parents involved. 
PORTER