Listening to this horrifying description of prison camps in Laos by the previous speaker, I have the impression we are talking about Vietnam. In fact, the Vietnamese re-education camps, based on the Gulags of the Soviet Union and the Chinese laogai, served as a models to the Communist regime in Laos. The methods of slowly killing political prisoners by hunger, ill-treatment, forced labour and lack of medical care are the same, and I am sure there are many members of the audience here today who have first-hand experience of prison hospitality in Laos, Burma and Vietnam.



I would like to focus this presentation today on the Vietnamese legal system. I believe this is the pivotal element that can either make or break the democratic process, and it is also a domain where the European Union, if it adopts a strong, coherent policy, can make a real difference in ensuring the respect of civil liberties and human rights in Vietnam.



In July this year, Vietnam presented its periodical report to the United Nation’s Human Rights Committee in Geneva on its compliance with one of the UN’s most important human rights instruments, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Vietnam adhered to this treaty in 1982. Whilst they promised to provide two-yearly progress reports, this was just the second report they submitted in almost 20 years.



On this occasion, our organization, the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights and Queâ Me: Action for Democracy in Vietnam prepared a Shadow Report on Vietnam’s non-compliance with the treaty. Our analysis, which was largely endorsed by the experts on the UN Human Rights Committee, showed that Vietnam grossly violates its citizens civil and political rights, and it employs two different methods to do this:



- Firstly, through the systematic use of coercive State power. Violating its own laws as well as its international obligations, Vietnam uses arbitrary arrest, detention without trial, torture, forced labour, religious and ethnic repression to retain political control. Even international visitors are deprived of their rights. Only last year, Euro MP Olivier Dupuis who is with us today - was arrested, interrogated and deported from Vietnam after he staged a one-man peaceful demonstration for the release of Buddhist dissident Venerable Thich Quang Do in Saigon. And just last week, Vietnam prohibited a European Parliamentary delegation from visiting detained religious leaders Thich Quang Do and Father Nguyen Van Ly;



- Secondly, at an increasing cadence, Vietnam is making human rights violations possible through the law, deliberately using the law to legalize political repression and stifle political and religious dissent.



Over the past few years, Vietnam has embarked on a frenzy of law-making, promulgating over 13,000 new laws and regulations, more than it has ever done over the past 40 years. But these laws are not designed to build a society grounded on the rule of law, which is “phap quyen” in Vietnamese, but to reinforce the rule by law, “phap tri”, the use of the law to control the people and protect the one-Party State.



Under pressure from the international community, for the very fist time, Vietnam has incorporated human rights provisions into its Constitution and laws. But at the same time, it has rendered these provisions meaningless by a whole arsenal of regulations and directives which criminalize the peaceful exercise of freedom of expression, religion, association, assembly and the press. Under these repressive laws, religious and political dissidents are convicted as common criminals, enabling Vietnam to claim with impunity in international fora that “there are no prisoners of conscience in Vietnam, only people who have violated the law.”



The Vietnamese Constitution, for example, promulgated in 1992, formally guarantees political and economic rights, but it conditions them on compliance with the “interests and policies” of the Marxist-Leninist State. Since State policies are established and enforced by executive, legislative and judiciary powers, all of which are under Communist Party control, these constitutional guarantees give no protection to the exercise of human rights.



Article 70 of the Constitution, for example, states that “all citizens enjoy the right to freedom of belief and religion”, but adds that “no-one can misuse belief and religion to contravene the law and State policies”. Article 69 guarantees “freedom of speech [and] freedom of the press”, but the Press Law stipulates that “no one shall be allowed to abuse the right to freedom of the press and freedom of speech to infringe on the interests of the State”. Article 50, which guarantees “political, economic, social and cultural” rights for the very first time, is totally undermined by Article 258 of the Criminal Code, which hands down jail sentences on all those who “abuse democratic freedoms to encroach upon the interests of the State and social organizations”.

The ultimate impediment to human rights, denounced by the UN Human Rights Committee as being inconsistent with international human rights law, is Article 4 of the Constitution which enshrines the political monopoly of the Vietnamese Communist Party, which, “acting upon Marxist-Leninist doctrine and Ho Chi Minh thought, is the leading force of the State and society”. This Article not only excludes pluralism and alternative thinking, but implies that only those who support Communist ideology and policies are entitled to the protection of their individual freedoms and rights.

The Vietnamese Criminal Code contains particularly serious impediments to human rights. Twenty-nine articles criminalize a whole range of “national security” offences, fourteen of which are punishable by death. This broadly-defined, catch-all concept of “national security” makes no distinction between violent acts, such as terrorism, or the peaceful, legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Among the “national security” crimes are nebulous offences such as "undermining the unity policy”, "sowing divisions between religious and non-religious people",", (Article 87) “distorting or defaming the people’s administration” , “making, storing or circulating documents or cultural products with contents against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam” (Article 88).

Under these laws, dissident Nguyen Dan Que was sentenced to 20 years in prison for sending a petition on humanism overseas; Pham Van Quang is serving 15 years for brandishing a South Vietnamese flag during an international marathon in Ho Chi Minh City; Buddhist monk Thich Quang Do received a 5-year sentence for attempting to aid to flood victims in the Mekong Delta, and only last year, Roman Catholic priest Father Nguyen Van Ly was condemned to 15 years in prison and 5 years probationary detention under Article 88 for criticizing the Government’s religious policies.

Most pernicious is Article 73 of the Criminal Code on “actions aimed at overthrowing the people’s government”, which carries the death penalty as a maximum sentence. Vietnam has made no moves to repeal this clause, despite repeated calls from the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance and the UN Human Rights Committee.

Under Article 73, human rights defenders are condemned to crushingly harsh sentences for a whole range of peaceful, legitimate activities. I could quote the cases of Buddhist monk Thich Thien Minh, condemned to a double life sentence for advocating religious freedom ; Nguyen Dinh Huy, jailed for 15 for attempting to organize a public meeting on democracy in Ho Chi Minh City; Tran Van Luong, condemned to death for distributing human rights leaflets in the street (his sentence was subsequently commuted to 20 years in prison following a protest campaign by the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights).

In the past, political trials and long sentences such as these were the general rule. But recently, to avoid international condemnation, Vietnam’s methodology of repression has changed. Harassment, intimidation, house arrest and surveillance are employed in a subtle strategy to isolate critics and suppress dissent. But again, the backbone of this strategy is domestic legislation which empowers the State to maintain people under quasi-permanent house arrest, deprived of all communications and denied their citizenship rights.

Most pervasive is Decree 31/CP on “Administrative Detention” (quan che hanh chanh), adopted in 1997. This Decree empowers local Security Police to arrest and detain suspected “national security” offenders for up to 2 years without a Court order. Since detainees are not brought to trial, they have no opportunity for legal defence. In 2001-2002 alone, this decree has been invoked to detain Buddhist monks calling for religious freedom, Communist dissidents setting up anti-corruption associations (scholar Tran Khue), citizens protesting Vietnam’s border treaty with China (journalist Bui Minh Quoc), writers circulating critical essays and articles on the Internet (Ha Sy Phu, Mai Thai Linh). This Decree not only violates Vietnam’s international obligations, but it contravenes its very own Constitution (72), which provides that no-one can be detained without a due process of law.

Under Vietnam’s legal system, even prisoners who have served their prison sentences are not free. Under Article 38 of the Criminal Code, “national security” offenders may be detained under “probationary detention” (quan che) for up to 5 years under “the supervision and re-education of the local authority”, deprived of their civic rights, forbidden to leave their residence and maintained under constant Police surveillance. In theory, quan che cannot be applied without a court sentence, but in August last year, the authorities passed a new Decree making it automatically applicable to all former political and religious detainees.

Describing this repressive treatment of released prisoners, Buddhist dissident Venerable Thich Quang Do, released in a Government Amnesty in 1998, wryly commented: “I have left a small prison only to come in to a larger one”. Today, Thich Quang Do is detained incommunicado at the Thanh Minh Zen Monastery, a prisoner within his own room.

In Vietnam today, restrictive legislation curbs the exercise of basic rights and freedoms in all aspects of daily life.

Freedom of Religion and Belief is gravely violated by the Government’s policy of recognising only State-sponsored religious bodies controlled by the Communist Party and the Vietnam Fatherland Front, whilst outlawing and repressing all “non-recognised” religious organisations. Under Religious Decree 26 adopted in 1999, all religious properties confiscated by the Communist authorities after 1975 become the permanent property of the State, government agencies are empowered to determine which religions are authorised, and all religious activities, including the appointment of religious hierarchy, are subject to State approval. In brief it is the Communist Party, not the religious denominations, which regulates religious activities in Vietnam.

Freedom of Expression and the Press is totally undermined by the Press Law, the Publications Law and numerous Decrees and Directives which oblige journalists to exercise self-censorship, prohibit them from travelling to sensitive areas and prevent Vietnamese reporters from frequenting foreign correspondents in Vietnam. In fact, Vietnam claim’s of press freedom are pure double-talk. A recent editorial in the Communist Party People’s Army daily, Quan Doi Nhan Dan, resumed their true credo. It ran: “Press freedom is dangerous…It is a destructive freedom that is unacceptable”. Restrictions on the press are increasing daily. In the one month of June this year, the Government prohibited journalists from reporting on the notorious Nam Cam corruption scandal involving top-level Communist officials, called for new controls on customer access in Internet cafés, and banned Satellite TV, restricting viewing to foreigners, top government officials and Party members. Cyber-dissidents Le Chi Quang and Pham Hong Son were recently arrested in Hanoi for circulating articles on the Internet. 120,000 copies of a popular Ho Chi Minh City newspaper, “Youth” (Tuoi Tre) were destroyed and its three editors exposed to sanctions because they published a survey showing that Bill Gates and Bill Clinton were more popular with Vietnamese youth than Ho Chi Minh.

Although Freedom of Association and Peaceful Assembly are guaranteed in the Vietnamese Constitution, these rights are curtailed by “national security” and “public order” laws which prohibit public gatherings and proscribe the right to strike and demonstrate peacefully. There are no free trade unions in Vietnam, and strikes are prohibited in 54 sectors perceived to be “of public service” or important to national security or defence. Recently, confronted by farmers and peasants carrying placards and peacefully demonstrating in Hanoi against the confiscation of their lands, VCP Secretary-general Nong Duc Manh angrily exclaimed : “The fact that people gather with placards is abnormal. Other countries would not allow that. Our democracy is in many cases excessive !”

There are no indigenous human rights NGOs in Vietnam, and independent human rights monitors have not been granted access. Fifteen VCP veterans were arrested and interrogated in September 2001 for their involvement in founding an anti-corruption association following a government drive to stamp out graft and corruption within Party ranks.

Pressure for legal reform has come not only from abroad. In August this year, twenty-one prominent Hanoi dissidents, mostly ranking members of the Communist Party, academics and military veterans, sent a Petition to the National Assembly protesting that “the systematic, blatant, immoral and unlawful repression” of citizens for their democratic views “is increasing, in flagrant violation of the Constitution and law”. Comparing today’s repression to the Communist Party purges of the 1950-60s, they declared : “this is one of the darkest periods for culture, thinking and civilization in Vietnam”. These dissidents, most of whom are under house arrest or tight Police surveillance in Vietnam, called for the creation of a Constitutional Court to review anti-constitutional legislation and sanction officials who issue directives in violation of constitutional rights. Unless the legal system is drastically reviewed, they stressed, there can be no free exercise of civil rights and political freedoms in Vietnam.

But if Vietnam is failing in its international obligations, the same may be said for the European Union too. The EU is one of Vietnam’s largest aid donors and a major trading partner, and just recently, the European Commission allocated a budget of some 162 million Euros for 2002-2006. The 1995 Vietnam bilateral Cooperation Agreement has a human rights clause, which states that it is founded on the mutual respect of democratic principles and human rights. This means that if Vietnam fails to respect these rights, or makes no efforts to improve its human rights record, the EU has not only the right but the duty – towards its citizens and taxpayers – to suspend this Agreement and block EU funding to Vietnam.

So far, implementation of the Cooperation Agreement’s human rights clause is reduced to a so-called “human rights dialogue” between Vietnamese and EU officials. This dialogue takes place behind closed doors, and the European Parliament received no report on its content or – if any – its results. When we human rights NGOs raise specific issues with the Commission, Mr Patten invariably tells of the EC’s deep concern, and assures us that these issues have been raised in the EU’s talks with Vietnam. And that’s that. No pressure, no public statements, no concrete action. The Vietnamese authorities know the rules of the game, and that is why, with total impunity, they cynically impeded last week’s European Parliamentary investigation of religious freedom in Vietnam.

To ensure respect of the bilateral Agreement, Europe must set down specific benchmarks for human rights improvements, and demand that they be fulfilled within an agreed time-frame. A specific mechanism should be set up to measure progress and recommend eventual sanctions, and the European Parliament should play a dynamic role in this process at every stage.

The benchmarks today should be the July 2002 recommendations of the UN Committee on Human Rights, and those of the UN Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, Mr Abdelfattah Amor.

The EU must take action quickly, for this is a critically important time. Vietnam is currently embarking on a 10-year Legal Reform Strategy funded by a multilateral donor partnership lead by the World Bank, the Asian Development Programme (ADP) and the UN Development Programme (UNDP). The agreement was signed in April 2002, and the Vietnamese Ministry of Justice has received funding to prepare a report on “Legal System Needs Assessment” which was to be ready in June 2002.

If the European Union unequivocally asserts the applicability of the UN’s recommendations and conditions aid to compliance with international human rights law, these legal reforms could have a real impact on human rights protection in Vietnam. If not, then the European Union and international donors could be helping Hanoi to build a cage of control around its people, a legal stronghold that will stifle fundamental freedoms and human rights, and empower the regime to repress its citizens with impunity.