VZCZCXRO6647
OO RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHFK RUEHHM RUEHKSO RUEHPB
DE RUEHHI #1434/01 1650805
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 140805Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY HANOI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2328
INFO RUEHHM/AMCONSUL HO CHI MINH CITY 1326
RUEATRS/DEPTTREAS WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 1085
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEHRC/USDA WASHDC
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEHZU/APEC COLLECTIVE
RUEHZS/ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 08 HANOI 001434 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/MLS AND EB/TPP/BTA/ANA 
STATE PASS USTR GREG HICKS, DAVID BISBEE 
USDOC FOR 4431/MAC/AP/OPB/VLC/HPPHO 
TREASURY FOR OASIA 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD EINV EAID ECON KIPR PREL VM
SUBJECT: VIETNAM: PREPARING FOR THE JOINT COMMITTEE MEETING 
-- REVIEW OF KEY ISSUES 
 
 
HANOI 00001434  001.2 OF 008 
 
 
SENSITIVE - DO NOT POST ON INTERNET 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary and Introduction:  The United States and 
Vietnam will convene a meeting of the Bilateral Trade 
Agreement (BTA) Joint Committee in Hanoi, June 19-20.  In 
preparation, Mission is providing a review of implementation 
issues to raise with the Vietnamese side during the 
discussions.  In our view the most important issues are: 
WTO/BTA inconsistent provisions in Vietnam's new IPR law and 
draft regulations and continued poor IPR enforcement, 
clarity on how the new Common Investment Law (CIL) and 
Unified Enterprise Laws (UEL) are consistent with BTA 
provisions, confirmation that sanitary and phyto-sanitary 
(SPS) regulations will be science-based and not unduly 
inhibit trade, continued cases of use of reference pricing 
by Customs, and the need for regulations defining the 
trading/distribution rights of foreign companies.  However, 
while continuing to note areas where implementation is 
lagging, we should also acknowledge the tremendous progress 
that Vietnam has made.  End summary and introduction. 
 
Intellectual Property Rights 
---------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) The new IPR law is a vast improvement over 
previous laws, bringing Vietnam's substantive law into 
closer conformity with international norms and strengthening 
enforcement.  However, serious concerns remain: 
 
-- Term of Copyright protection:  Article 27 provides for a 
term of 50 years from publication for films, photos, 
dramatic works, applied art works, or anonymous works.  For 
other works the term is life of the author plus 50 years. 
This term does not comply with the BTA, which requires that 
where the term of protection of a work is not based on the 
author's lifetime, the term must not be less than 75 years 
from publication or, if the work is not published within 25 
years from its creation, 100 years from creation. 
 
-- Content-Based Restrictions on Copyright Protection: 
Articles 7 and 8 of the new IPR law provide that IP rights 
cannot "infringe upon interests of the state, the public or 
legitimate rights and interests of other organizations, 
individuals and shall not violate other applicable 
provisions of relevant law."  In addition, the state can 
prohibit or limit IP rights "in order to ensure the 
objectives of national defense, security, people living 
(sic) and other interests of the nation and society ." We 
had hoped that regulations would narrow this language, but 
instead there are draft copyright implementing regulations 
taking this language further, confusing censorship with 
copyright protection by denying copyright protection to any 
work that might be subject to censorship.  We understand 
that there is a new draft of the regulations, which we do 
not yet have, but which we hope is an improvement. 
 
-- Overly Broad Provisions on Fair Use and Compulsory 
Licensing: Articles 25 (use without obtaining permission or 
paying royalties) and 26 (use without obtaining permission, 
but paying royalties) allow broad exceptions to normal IP 
rights.  For example under Article 26, "broadcasting 
organizations using published works for the purpose of 
carrying out broadcasting programs with sponsorship, 
advertisements or collection of money in any form" do not 
need to get copyright holders' permission to broadcast works 
and are to pay royalties "in accordance with the Government 
regulations."  This provision could exempt all commercial TV 
and radio broadcast.  The draft implementing regulations do 
not clarify this issue. 
 
-- Potential Conflict between Civil Code and IPR Law: 
Vietnam's Civil Code also contains some IPR provisions. 
Article 5 of the IPR law provides that the Civil Code 
applies where the IPR law is silent and that in the case of 
conflict between the IPR law and other laws, the IPR law 
applies.  Government officials say that in the case of a 
 
HANOI 00001434  002.2 OF 008 
 
 
conflict with the Civil Code, Article 5 means that the IPR 
law would apply.  Nevertheless, principles of statutory 
interpretation are still undeveloped in Vietnam and it is 
hard to predict how courts would rule on such a conflict. 
 
-- Notice and takedown provisions:  Neither the IPR law nor 
the draft Information Technology law provide adequate notice 
and takedown provisions for internet IPR violations. 
 
-- Enforcement provisions:  Mission has not seen draft 
implementing regulations on enforcement.  However, the draft 
copyright implementing regulations provide guidance on civil 
(Articles 49 - 51) and administrative procedures (Article 
52).  Article 51 provides that in order to prove copyright 
ownership, a plaintiff must provide a certificate of 
copyright issued by COV, a certificate showing an 
application for copyright, or a written certification by a 
"socio-professional" organization.  This requirement may 
violate BTA Article 3(2) by effectively requiring a 
"formality" in order to enforce copyrights.  Other concerns 
include whether IPR law Articles 202, 214 comply with BTA 
requirements for disposal outside the channels of commerce; 
Article 214's provision for re-export of goods; and whether 
the new law will provide legal penalties severe enough to 
deter. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) International obligations:  Vietnam has joined all 
the international conventions that, in the BTA, it pledged 
to join, except for the Union for the Protection of New 
Varieties of Plants (UPOV) convention.  Post understands 
that the Ministry of Justice is evaluating a proposal to 
join the UPOV and that the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural 
Development expects that Vietnam will join this year.  The 
new IPR law and previous regulations provide some 
protections for plant varieties.  However, Vietnam's 
enforcement of its IPR obligations under international 
conventions is poor, as it is in general. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Enforcement:  The most important IPR issue is not 
the new law and regulations, but enforcement.  Mission 
recommended that Vietnam continue to be on the 301 watch 
list primarily because of weak enforcement of the current 
laws.  Legal DVDs, CDs, and software are virtually 
unobtainable in Vietnam.  The government and SOE's are among 
the worst offenders.  A particularly egregious violator is a 
digital-terrestrial service operated by the Ministry of 
Posts and Telematics, which illegally broadcasts overspill 
satellite signals to end-users for a one-time decoder box 
purchase fee. 
 
Trade in Goods 
-------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Technical Barriers to Trade(TBT)/Sanitary and Phyto- 
sanitary (SPS) Measures:  The National Assembly is now 
debating a new draft law on standards and technical 
regulations, which should be passed in its spring 2006 
session (May to June).  Under the draft law, technical 
regulations are mandatory while standards, which can be set 
either by government or non-government (including foreign) 
entities, are voluntary.  The new draft law contains BTA/WTO 
consistent language requiring that technical regulations and 
standards be based on science, look to international 
standards, and not unreasonably inhibit trade.  It 
encourages transparency, allowing for public comment before 
a new regulation or standard is issued, and provides for 
procedures to contest the implementation of regulations and 
standards. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) In the past, U.S. businessmen have raised a number 
of complaints about TBT/SPS, including insufficient notice 
of changes in applicable regulations, lack of transparency, 
and uneven application of regulations.  Regulations have at 
times lacked a sound scientific basis and been inconsistent 
with international norms.  For example, in November 2005, 
the Ministry of Health imposed a blanket ban on all imports 
 
HANOI 00001434  003.2 OF 008 
 
 
of chicken, ostensibly to prevent the spread of Avian 
Influenza (AI), although international standards do not call 
for a blanket ban regardless of whether the exporting 
country has an AI problem.  On the other hand, Vietnam has 
made progress in its SPS regime and recently became the 
first country in Asia to open its market to U.S. boneless 
beef and offal.  An SPS Enquiry Point under the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) was set up in 
September 2005, but it will not operate until after WTO 
accession.  MARD sent a letter to USTR requesting technical 
assistance in February 2006. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Trading Rights:  Vietnam has still not fully 
implemented BTA obligations regarding trading rights for 
U.S. firms because it has not yet passed the necessary 
implementing regulations.  Implementing regulations for the 
Common Investment Law (CIL) and Unified Enterprise Law 
(UEL), which will come into effect on July 1, 2006, as well 
as the Commercial Law (CL), which entered into force on 
January 1, 2006, are now being drafted and should provide 
the necessary permanent legal basis for trading and 
distribution rights.  In the meantime, a diplomatic note of 
July 2005 provides a temporary legal basis for trading 
rights for U.S. companies.  The GVN had provided us in 
August 2005 with a point of contact for U.S. business to 
apply for trading rights (and distribution services rights) 
as permitted under the BTA.  One company, Colgate Palmolive, 
was granted a license to import through this method, though 
this license was limited to a single product, and the 
company had to reapply to have trading rights for this 
product extended into 2006.  The GVN appears to be 
interpreting its obligation here very narrowly and the 
application process for these rights is burdensome; it has 
not yet, to our knowledge, given blanket authorization to a 
company to directly import goods.  Other companies, e.g. 
Carrier and American Indochina Management (AIM), which are 
American-owned but Singapore and Hong Kong registered, 
respectively, have been told they are ineligible for these 
rights since they are not registered in the United States. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Customs:  Vietnam has essentially complied with 
its obligation to comply with WTO rules to establish a 
system of customs valuation based on transaction value and 
to ensure that other fees and charges do not exceed the cost 
of services rendered.  We continue to hear occasional 
complaints of "reference pricing."  These appear to be 
isolated incidents and seem to get resolved through a post 
clearance audit process, which is still pretty cumbersome. 
It also appears that Customs officials may resort to some 
sort of reference price when faced with a good that is 
unusual or infrequently imported, e.g. used golf clubs. 
Post clearance audits occasionally have the appearance of an 
attempt to get more money out of importers. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Recently, FAS raised a problem regarding the use 
of reference prices for dried peas.  (Note: The peas were of 
Canadian origin, although the supplier was American.)  Dried 
peas for food or feed use come in under HS 07131090.  They 
are properly invoiced at less than USD 300/ton.  However, in 
the Vietnamese Customs reference-price book, all the 
commodities under the 0713 subheading, which include all 
kinds of beans and lentils as well as peas are given a USD 
2/kg or USD 2,000/ton reference price.  Based on the 
reference price, Customs rejected an invoice for imported 
U.S. dry peas for less than USD 300 and valued the shipment 
at USD 2000/ton.  When the importer appealed, Customs only 
lowered the tariff to USD 800, still well above the actual 
prices.  With a 30 percent tariff on dried peas, this 
effectively closes the market.  We should question the 
Vietnamese about the continued existence of a reference 
price book and ask how it is used as well as about the role 
of post clearance audits. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) State Trading:  According to BTA rules, state 
owned enterprises (SOEs) should make sales and purchases in 
accordance with commercial considerations.  Vietnamese laws 
 
HANOI 00001434  004.2 OF 008 
 
 
and regulations have removed most of the overt preferences 
for SOE's, but the system is still not transparent.  The GVN 
is in the process of "equitizing" many SOEs.  Generally, 
this simply refers to changing the form of the SOE into a 
shareholding company.  Along with equitization, the state 
usually distributes some portion of the shares to workers 
and managers.  Therefore with equitization, management and 
de facto state control are not necessarily changed.  The 
shares of equitized SOEs rarely end up being offered to the 
public or being listed on the stock exchange or sold in arms- 
length, commercial transactions.  Even the shares not 
distributed to enterprise workers or management are often 
sold to friends and relatives of current management. 
Vietnamese statistics are not consistent in defining SOEs. 
Often SOEs that have been equitized are included in the 
private sector even though the state continues to hold a 
majority share. 
 
¶11. (SBU) To a certain extent, equitization appears to make 
enterprises act in a more commercial, market-oriented 
manner.  A 2005 study by the GVN's Central Institute for 
Economic Management (CIEM) and the World Bank found that 87 
percent of equitized firms reported better performance even 
when management did not change.  In the study, the surveyed 
firms reported that productivity went up by 18 percent; 
workers' average salaries went up by 11 percent; sales 
increased by 13 percent and after tax profits increased by 
49 percent.  However, a USAID supported study, using data 
derived from the Provincial Competitiveness Index, found 
that SOEs tend to "crowd out" private companies, having more 
favorable access to inputs (such as finance and land) and 
customs in provinces where there are more SOEs. 
 
Services 
-------- 
 
¶12.  (SBU) General issues:  In a number of service sectors, 
Vietnam made commitments, such as on percentage of U.S. 
equity permitted, in terms of joint ventures.  However, the 
new Unified Law on Enterprises (UEL) no longer provides for 
joint ventures as a legal form of enterprise.  It is unclear 
how Vietnam's commitments will be fulfilled under the new 
law.  Post has heard conflicting reports on how these 
commitments will be treated.  Some experts say that the 
equity percentages will simply apply to shareholding 
companies and other forms of enterprises under the new law. 
However, one expert said that proposed regulations would 
effectively recreate joint ventures as a form of enterprise 
and require U.S. companies to meet the requirements for 
being a joint venture before being allowed to avail 
themselves of their rights under the BTA.  Another issue is 
how the rights of U.S. companies that are currently 
operating in Vietnam as joint ventures would be affected if 
and when they transform themselves into one of the forms of 
enterprise recognized under the UEL.  Finally, a number of 
sectors are considered to be "conditional," e.g., subject to 
an approval process under the CIL.  It is not clear yet what 
the standards for approval will be or how they will impact 
U.S. investors. 
 
¶13.  (SBU) Legal Services:  Vietnam's National Assembly is 
supposed to pass a new law on lawyers in 2006.  The law had 
its first reading in the current National Assembly session 
and should be passed in the fall session.  Under the BTA, 
U.S. law firms are permitted, as of entry into force of the 
agreement, to establish 100 percent owned law firms, as well 
as joint ventures, and to consult on Vietnamese laws if the 
consulting lawyers have graduated from a Vietnamese law 
college and satisfy Vietnamese requirements.  A local U.S. 
law firm confirmed that it was able to participate actively 
in Vietnam's legal market and has been able to hire 
Vietnamese lawyers to advise on issues of Vietnamese law. 
However, the GVN has split the legal profession between 
solicitors and barristers.  The effect of this split has 
been to make it impossible for the law firm to use its 
Vietnamese lawyers to represent clients in court. 
 
HANOI 00001434  005.2 OF 008 
 
 
Fortunately, the new law on lawyers is expected to abolish 
the distinction between solicitors and barristers. 
 
¶14.  (SBU) Market Research:  The new Commercial Law does not 
provide regulations and the Ministry of Trade has said that 
it does not plan to provide separate regulations on this 
issue.  It is therefore not clear how the Vietnamese plan to 
implement their BTA commitment to allow U.S. companies to 
avail themselves of their BTA rights.  At the same time, 
however, we are not aware of any U.S. business interest in 
this sector. 
 
¶15.  (SBU) Telecom:  Under the BTA, Vietnam is supposed to 
abide by the WTO Telecom reference paper, which requires, 
inter alia, an independent regulator, a pro-competitive 
legal framework, and cost-based interconnection fees.  There 
have been regulations or decrees to implement some issues 
mentioned in the reference paper: 
 
-- competitive safeguards (Competition Law passed in 
December 2004), 
 
-- interconnection (Directive  No. 07/2005/CT-BBCVT by 
Minister of Post and Telematics dated September 15, 2005 on 
network interconnection and public telecommunications 
services, Decision No.12/2006/QD-BBCVT dated April 26, 2006 
issuing Regulation on interconnection between public 
telecommunications networks), and 
 
-- universal service (Decision No. 74/2006/QD-Ttg dated 
April 7, 2006 approving a program on provision of public 
welfare telecommunications services until 2010). 
 
¶16.  (SBU) However, many problems remain: cross- 
subsidization still exists although reduced considerably by 
Decision 191/2004/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister on the 
establishment of the Public Welfare Telecommunications 
Service Fund and Decision 217/2003/QD-TTg on management of 
post and telecommunications fees and prices.  VNPT Group is 
being restructured to separate the management and finances 
of the individual subsidiaries and thus, theoretically, 
eliminate opportunities for cross-subsidization.  However, 
even under the new structure there could be still 
opportunities for cross-subsidization since the VNPT Board 
of Management could "reinvest" profits from a profitable 
subsidiary to one which is not making a profit. 
 
¶17.  (SBU) MPT has made a little progress towards becoming 
an independent regulator. However, MPT lacks a systematic 
mechanism for regulating the telecom sector, which is still 
almost entirely state-owned.  Although MPT officials do not 
sit on the VNPT board, a fundamental conflict of interest 
problem remains in that VNPT, which, while technically an 
SOE "owned" by the Ministry of Finance, has been 
"established" under MPT (other telecom players have been 
established by other ministries).  This arrangement follows 
the practice for the majority of Vietnam's SOEs and presents 
a fundamental problem for regulatory systems in other 
sectors as well.  Detailed regulations on transparency of 
interconnection arrangements or public availability of 
licensing criteria have not yet been issued.  Decree 160 on 
Telecommunications discusses licensing criteria, but the 
criteria are not clear.  Regulations on the public 
availability of the terms and conditions of individual 
licenses have not yet been issued. 
 
¶18.  (SBU) The only private Vietnamese telecom firms, of 
which there are a few, are non-facilities-based Voice over 
Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers.  Mission is aware of two 
telecom service providers that have asked for our assistance 
and been in contact with USTR. (Note that a Business 
Cooperation Contract (BCC), a type of revenue-sharing 
concession that enables restricted market entry for a fixed 
period of time, is currently the only form of foreign 
investment in Vietnam's telecommunications sector.)  VITC is 
a U.S. company with a BCC with Vietnam Post and Telecom 
 
HANOI 00001434  006.2 OF 008 
 
 
(VNPT) (the telecom monopoly) to provide wholesale and 
retail international voice and data communications through 
VNPT's various subsidiaries.  UTS is a U.S. VoIP provider 
with a BCC with Vishipel, a telecom company owned by the 
General Corporation for Marine Transport (an SOE).  VITC 
sought Mission's assistance in selling 25 percent of its 
equity to VNPT (the deal fell apaQ over a disagreement over 
who owed whom money). UTS asked for help when its VoIP quota 
was reduced, but quotas have since been abolished.  (See 
Septel on Telecom for more details.) 
 
¶19. (SBU) Distribution:  The new Commercial law, which took 
effect on January 1, 2006 will implement this right, but 
implementing regulations have not yet been issued.  In the 
meantime, a July 2005 diplomatic note from the Ministry of 
Trade confirmed that it was ready to grant licenses to 
interested U.S. businesses.  As mentioned above under 
trading rights, the GVN in August 2005 instituted a POC at 
the Ministry of Trade through which U.S. companies could 
apply to avail themselves of trading and distribution 
rights.  This was meant as a stopgap measure until 
legislation implementing these rights was passed.  Most U.S. 
companies we have talked to are not interested in a 
distribution JV in which they have only a minority share. 
There is only one company which has attempted to pursue a 
distribution JV, American Indochina Management (AIM).  As 
noted above, AIM has been told by the GVN that it does not 
qualify for BTA distribution rights since it is not an 
American-registered company. 
 
Investment 
---------- 
 
¶20. (SBU) The new CIL and UEL appear to have moved towards 
creating a level playing field for foreign and domestic 
companies.  Under these two laws, which come into effect on 
July 1, 2006, both domestic and foreign enterprises are 
treated essentially the same.  However, we have not yet had 
the opportunity to evaluate the draft regulations for these 
two laws. 
 
¶21.  (SBU) Investment Licensing: CIL Chapter IV, Section I, 
sets out the procedures that both foreign and domestic 
enterprises must follow to register an investment.  Domestic 
enterprises do not need to register if they have investment 
capital less than VND 15 billion (about USD 1 million).  All 
foreign investors must register.  However, for both foreign 
and domestic enterprises that have less than VND 300 billion 
(about USD 20 million) in investment capital and do not fall 
into the list of conditional investment sectors, 
registration is a relatively simple notification process and 
does not require evaluation.  Domestic and foreign 
investments over USD 20 million are subject to an approval 
process. 
 
¶22.  (SBU) Entry, Sojourn and Employment of Aliens:  It is 
unclear if Decree 105/2003/ND-CP is inconsistent with 
Article 8 of the BTA, which states that each party shall 
permit nationals and companies of the other Party to 
transfer or engage executives, managers or those possessing 
specialized knowledge, subject to the laws of each party on 
entry and sojourn.  Decree 93/2005/ND-CP, which amends 
Decree 105/2003/ND-CP,  provides that in case a foreign 
invested enterprise needs to hire a number of foreigners 
exceeding three percent of the total laborers of the 
enterprise they may file an application to the local 
authority for consideration. 
 
¶23.  (SBU) Consensus requirement:  BTA Annex H 4.2(b) 
allowed Vietnam to maintain until December 2004, a 
requirement that a limited number of important joint venture 
decisions (appointment or dismissal of key officers, 
amendments to the charter, approval of the final financial 
statements, and loan for investment) be decided by 
consensus.  For U.S. companies that have been pushing to 
gain the right to hold a 51 percent share of joint ventures, 
 
HANOI 00001434  007.2 OF 008 
 
 
dropping the consensus requirement is important to ensure 
that majority ownership confers meaningful control of a 
joint venture.  There are two questions to raise about this 
issue.  First, how will the Vietnamese implement 4.2(b) now 
that joint ventures no longer exist under the UEL? 
 
¶24.  (SBU) Second, how does Vietnam reconcile 4.2(b) with 
the supermajority provisions in the new UEL?  Under the UEL 
all decisions by a shareholders' meeting must be made by a 
65 percent majority of participating shareholders.  The 
following decisions must be approved at a shareholders' 
meeting by a supermajority: 
 
-- amending of the corporate charter, 
-- reorganizing or dissolving the company, 
-- sale or investment of over 50 percent of corporate 
assets, 
-- approving the development strategy of the company, 
-- removing of members of the boards of management and 
supervision, 
-- deciding on classes of shares and total number of shares 
of each class, 
-- approving the annual financial statement, 
-- electing members of the boards of management and 
supervision. 
 
Annex H does not specify what should replace "consensus" and 
arguably any provision for less than 100 percent meets that 
requirement.  However, discussions at the WTO may have made 
this issue moot. 
 
¶25. (SBU) Requirement that the general director or first 
deputy general director be Vietnamese citizens:  BTA Annex H 
4(a) phased out this requirement by December 2004.  In a 
diplomatic note dated June 8, 2005, the GVN confirmed that 
this requirement had been abolished.  BTA Annex H 4(a) 
applies only to joint ventures, which will no longer exist 
under the new CIL and UEL, however, neither of these new 
laws appear to require that enterprise officers be 
Vietnamese citizens.   It would be useful to confirm that 
under the new laws and their regulations, foreign invested 
enterprises will not face any citizen requirements for 
leading enterprise officers. 
 
¶26.  (SBU) Capital Requirements:  BTA Annex H 4.1 phased out 
minimum capital requirements in December 2004.  In a 
diplomatic note dated June 8, 2005, the GVN confirmed that 
this requirement had been abolished.  BTA Annex H 4(a) 
applies only to joint ventures, which will no longer exist 
under the new CIL and UEL, however, neither of these new 
laws appear to require that foreign invested enterprises 
have a minimum share of capital.  It would be useful to 
confirm that under the new laws and their regulations, 
foreign invested enterprises will not face any minimum 
capital requirements. 
 
Transparency 
------------ 
 
¶27.  (SBU) One of the great successes of the BTA has been 
increasing transparency in Vietnam.  All legal normative 
documents (LND) must be published in Vietnam's Official 
Gazette and the Prime Minister issued Decree 161/2005/ND-CP 
which forbids agencies from issuing any legal norms except 
by means of an LND.  The decree also requires agencies to 
send LND drafts that affect business to the VCCI for 
publication on its website (in Vietnamese) and to allow 20 
days for comments.  Previously drafts had been published, 
but often with little or no time for interested parties to 
read and comment. 
 
¶28.  (SBU) The USAID funded STAR program is working with the 
GVN to create an electronic version of the official gazette, 
which would have the same legal authority as the printed 
gazette.  English language versions of some important laws 
and decrees, as well as economic information, are available 
 
HANOI 00001434  008.2 OF 008 
 
 
on websites, such as the Vietnam Economic Portal 
(www.vnep.org.vn).  A number of Vietnamese government 
agencies, including the Ministries of Trade and Justice, 
have websites with legal and economic information.  The open 
debate over the draft CIL in fall of 2005 was an example of 
how much the legal process in Vietnam has changed.  Foreign 
businesses vigorously objected to certain provisions of the 
law and many of their comments were taken into account, 
resulting in a much better law.  Nevertheless, it is often 
difficult to obtain up-to-date information on new drafts of 
laws and regulations, especially in English, even those 
which the GVN must provide to the WTO working party.  It can 
also be difficult to obtain economic data from the 
Government Statistical Office (GSO); the process is 
cumbersome and non-transparent and GSO charges significant 
fees. 
 
BOARDMAN