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 002220 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
 
DEPARTMENT ALSO FOR CA, CA/OCS, CA/OCS/CI, CA/OCS/ACS/EAP, 
CA/OCS/PRI, DEPARTMENT ALSO FOR CA/VO/F/P, EAP/BCLTV, L/CA 
AND L/T 
BANGKOK FOR DHS/DD 
HO CHI MINH CITY FOR CONS AND DHS OIC 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CASC PREL VM
SUBJECT: Vietnam Adoptions - DCM Meeting With Vu Duc Long 
 
REF:  A) Hanoi 2138, B) Hanoi 2159, C) Boswell-Savage email 
(August 7, 2004, subject:  RE: Talking Points - DCM call on 
Mr. Long) 
 
¶1.  (U) Summary.  On August 9, 2004 Deputy Chief of Mission 
John Boardman met with Mr. Vu Duc Long of the Department of 
International Adoptions at the Ministry of Justice to 
further clarify the content of the diplomatic note ref A. 
Director Long explained that because adoptions concern 
fundamental human rights, the Vietnamese system requires 
that an agreement touching upon it be framed as a treaty. 
However, due to differences in how the GVN and USG define 
"treaty", it will be possible to sign a document with the 
accepted title, if it has "the content of a treaty."   To 
have "the content of a treaty", the GVN insists that such an 
agreement form new "binding obligations", chiefly the 
creation of a centralized USG agency to verify Prospective 
Adoptive Parent (PAP) application dossiers and Adoption 
Service Provider (ASP) licenses and activities.  If the USG 
cannot provide such centralized oversight, the GVN asks for 
a central authority to serve as a point of contact to assist 
with these verifications at the state and local level.  When 
asked to clarify what the GVN is seeking in terms of 
"humanitarian support", Long sidestepped into an awkward 
explanation that the ASPs must help support the orphanages 
from which they adopt.  He was unable specify what such 
support entailed, other than to say that it should be 
"reasonable", and that ASPs will need to have "good 
relations" to adopt in Vietnam.  Finally, Long confirmed 
that the adoption of children with special needs, as with 
applications made by 'friends of Vietnam', could currently 
be considered on a case-by-case basis.  End Summary. 
 
GVN ANTICIPATES ARRIVAL OF A/S HARTY 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶2.  (U) On August 9, 2004 Deputy Chief of Mission John 
Boardman met with Mr. Vu Duc Long of the Department of 
International Adoptions at the Ministry of Justice to 
further clarify the content of the diplomatic note ref A. 
After DCM Boardman and Director Long reiterated the 
importance of restarting American adoptions in Vietnam, Long 
indicated that with hard work from both sides, substantial 
deliverables may be ready for A/S Harty's visit to Vietnam 
in October.  Long also assumed that A/S Harty would want to 
meet with other officials, suggesting that he does not see 
adoptions as being the primary cause of her visit to 
Vietnam. 
 
THE DEMAND FOR A TREATY 
----------------------- 
 
¶3.  (U) Long and the DCM went immediately to the central 
question of why a treaty is required.  Long explained that 
the Vietnamese system recognizes four categories of 
international agreements: state-state, government- 
government, ministry-ministry, and those conferred by the 
Supreme Court or other agencies.  In Vietnam, because 
adoption concerns the central rights of human beings, it 
must be legislated at the state level.  In the Vietnamese 
system "treaty" is the proper name for agreements between 
states. 
 
¶4.  (U) Understanding that the USG has a different 
understanding of the term treaty and does not intent to sign 
a document bearing that title, Long agreed that a document 
with the current title could satisfy the requirement for a 
treaty if it were signed by a high-level USG official and 
had "the content of a treaty". 
 
¶5.  (U) When questioned by the DCM on what was meant by "the 
content of a treaty", Long replied that it must place new 
binding obligations and rights upon its signatories.  The 
"binding obligations" sought by the GVN seem to be 
obligations regarding oversight of ASPs and the applications 
of PAPs.  See paras 7 and 8. 
 
¶6.  (U) When pressed further on why Decree 68 mandates a 
treaty, Long acknowledged that because there had been no 
central regulation of the adoptions process in Vietnam prior 
to Decree 68, there had been "problems".  To correct these 
prior deficiencies, Long asserted that Decree 68 raises 
adoptions to the highest (State) level and requires a 
central authority to regulate adoptions. 
 
GVN WISH TO PREVENT FRAUD THROUGH CENTRAL AUTHORITY 
OVERSIGHT 
--------------------------------------------- --------------- 
- 
 
¶7.  (U) Long then focused on the importance of being able to 
verify the lawfulness and authenticity of application 
dossiers submitted by PAPs, the licensing and activities of 
ASPs, and the identity and dossiers of orphans. The GVN 
would like to establish clear responsibilities for these 
matters, with the USG responsible for verifying PAP 
application dossiers and ASP licensing, and the GVN 
responsible for verifying the dossiers of orphans. 
 
¶8.  (U) The DCM replied that the USG could not perform 
federal oversight of ASPs as licensing of ASPs and adoptions 
are both governed at the state level in the U.S..  The USG 
does not have the authority to determine whether or not an 
ASP could operate in Vietnam.  He suggested that the 
authority to issue or revoke a license to operate lies with 
the GVN.  Long in turn suggested that a federal central 
authority serve as a point of contact for the GVN so that it 
could "discuss" the history and lawfulness of a PAPs' 
dossier or an ASPs' license and activities without needing 
to refer to each of the 50 states.  This request was 
repeated throughout the meeting.  Long also reiterated that 
in order to be licensed to operate in Vietnam, ASPs must 
have prior experience in Asia and "good relationships" in 
Vietnam. 
 
¶9.  The DCM attempted to focus the conversation on the 
prevention of fraud in the aspects for which the GVN would 
like to take responsibility.  He asked about practices for 
licensing or revoking the licenses of ASPs.  He asked about 
verification that an orphan is truly an orphan and that 
there was no exchange of funds.  In response to all of these 
questions, Long made unclear statements that the Vietnamese 
system would be stronger than the Chinese system and 
repeatedly turned the questions back to USG oversight over 
ASPs and PAPs. 
 
LEGALIZATION/AUTHENTICATION 
--------------------------- 
 
¶10.  (U) Following on, Long again raised the GVN desire to 
eliminate the need for consular legalization of documents. 
He explained that if the GVN were assured that the ASP was 
legally licensed and the application dossier was complete 
and lawful, there would be no need for further `consular 
legalization' (meaning authentication) of documents. 
 
 
REQUEST FOR HUMANITARIAN SUPPORT 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶11.  (U) As requested in ref C, DCM then pressed for 
clarification of what the GVN is seeking in terms of 
"humanitarian support".  Long then launched into an 
impassioned explanation that if foreign parents wish to 
adopt healthy children, then the foreign ASPs handling their 
adoptions must provide support to the local orphanages to 
ensure the health of the children.  He could not name an 
amount or specify language to include in the document, 
saying only that the amount should be "reasonable".  He did, 
though, push further to suggest that ASPs will need to have 
"good relations" with the orphanages if they expect to have 
children referred to their PAPs, and made a clear link 
between those "good relations" and the humanitarian support 
provided. 
 
SPECIAL NEEDS CHILDREN 
---------------------- 
 
¶12.  (U) Mission did not broach the subject of a pilot 
program, but did verify that special needs children are 
currently eligible for adoption.  Long said that adoption of 
special needs children would be reviewed on a case-by-case 
basis.  In a seeming attempt to appear to be accommodating, 
Long also offered that adoptions applications from diplomats 
and friends of helpful U.S. Senators would be considered as 
special cases.  Conoff replied firmly that the USG would not 
encourage such special exceptions to the law. 
 
DUAL CITIZENSHIP 
---------------- 
 
¶13.  (U) When raised by the DCM, Long insisted he had no 
concerns regarding the citizenship of children adopted under 
this agreement.  He simply stated that Vietnamese children 
must maintain their citizenship until given the choice at 
age 18, and that as the USG allows for dual citizenship, the 
issue was "not a problem". 
 
BURGHARDT