We do know there is another category: people who want a deeper personal involvement with the still unfinished story of US-Indochina relations, including responsibility for the enduring human consequences of the war. No doubt some also identify with our broader mission of reconciliation and development with other countries that have a history of conflict with the US, in particular Cuba. Accordingly we want to open a conversation about whether FRD should become a membership organization.
In the meantime, we offer the opportunity to be an individual member of the informal network that FRD seeks to sustain. Concretely that means with a donation of at least $25 annually and provision of an e-mail address you will receive a monthly policy update from Washington and invitations to occasional meetings there and in New York.
Whichever way fits, we hope we will hear from you soon, at least via return of the resources form.
Washington Update: Fall 2001
by Andrew Wells-Dang
Although the September 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent US response have overshadowed all other topics in Washington this fall, there has still been plenty of movement in Congress on issues of importance to Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. And despite the veneer of bipartisanship on display in Washington, the underlying divisions on US policy towards Southeast Asia have been as apparent as ever. The region has been next to invisible in the US media, but the quiet work of building closer US ties with Indochina continues behind the scenes. With a new full-time presence in Washington, the Fund for Reconciliation and Development will continue to advocate for normal diplomatic, educational, cultural and economic relations with the region.
Opening a new chapter in relations with Vietnam, the US-Vietnam Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) was ratified by both sides this fall. The House of Representatives passed the BTA (as part of H.J. Res. 51) on September 6 by voice vote. The Senate followed suit on October 3 by a vote of 88-12. President Bush signed the agreement into law on October 16. On November 28, during its biannual session, the National Assembly of Vietnam ratified the agreement by a vote of 278-85. In Hanoi, Trade Minister Vu Khoan told a press conference: "With this event, the relations between the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the United States of America have come closer to full normalization."
From December 9-14, Vietnam sent its largest official delegation to the US since the end of the war in order to inaugurate the trade agreement. The group was led by Deputy Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and included the Ministers of Trade (Vu Khoan) and Planning & Investment (Tran Xuan Gia), 14 other senior trade officials and diplomats, and 62 Vietnamese business leaders. The delegation met with US Trade Representative Bob Zoellick, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, and World Bank officials in Washington, as well as promoted trade opportunities in Vietnam during visits to New York and San Francisco.
Both Vietnamese and US officials recognize that while the trade agreement is a significant step, other important issues are yet to be resolved in bilateral relations. War legacies, including landmines/UXO and Agent Orange, remain on the table. The question of Vietnam’s debt payments to the US has been partly addressed by the creation of the Vietnam Education Foundation in January 2001, though many of the foundation’s programs have yet to be implemented. Finally, the trade agreement itself creates new areas of potential conflict, as this fall’s dispute over basa catfish imports to the US illustrates. FRD will continue to include these issues in our education agenda.
Ratification of the Vietnam BTA leaves Laos as the only country in Southeast Asia without normal trading relations with the US. Although the US-Lao trade agreement was completed in December 1998 and is far simpler than the Vietnam BTA, it has yet to be considered by the House or Senate. The State Department and US Trade Representative also have backed off from previous support of the agreement. President Bush listed the agreement as part of his overall trade agenda in June, and key members of Congress such as Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL) planned to bundle the agreement together with other trade issues, including the controversial Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) or "fast-track".
Following the September 11 attacks, however, the Administration decided to focus solely on TPA, leaving the Lao agreement out. According to State Department officials, the unresolved Ly-Vang disappearance cases (from April 1999) and issues of religious freedom in Laos are viewed as stumbling blocks to passage of the BTA, even though similar issues have not impeded other trade agreements in the past.
Both BTAs face opposition from extreme segments of the Vietnamese and Lao/Hmong-American communities, as well as from conservative politicians in Congress. In both cases, objections have solidified around human rights concerns, particularly regarding alleged violations of religious freedom in Vietnam and Laos. (In the human rights discourse of many opposition groups, religion appears to take first place above all other rights, followed by other civil and political freedoms, with economic and social rights far down the scale.) Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ) and his chief aide, Joseph Rees, adopted a list of these concerns together with a serving of anti-government rhetoric into the so-called "Viet Nam Human Rights Act" (HR 2833), which passed the House after an hour of debate on September 6 by a 410-1 margin.
In the Senate, sponsors Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Bob Smith (R-NH) invoked an emergency rule to bypass the Foreign Relations Committee and to try to bring the human rights bill directly to the floor. This maneuver backfired when Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) put a hold on the bill. After initial hesitation, the State Department and Bush Administration also came out against its passage. With the Senate’s Democratic leadership unwilling to bring the act to a vote, it has been effectively tabled for this legislative session. The many strong voices of NGOs and individuals in the US and Vietnam who mobilized against the bill deserve credit for this result. However, supporters of sanctions against Vietnam will certainly reintroduce another version next year.
Next to the waves created by the Vietnam human rights bill, opponents of US-Lao relations took a lower profile. On November 20-21, the "US Congressional Forum on Laos" held the ninth in its series of secretive, closed-door meetings on US policy towards Laos. The Forum, which has no official ties to Congress, is coordinated by Philip Smith, Washington lobbyist for the Lao Veterans of America and former Gen. Vang Pao. Smith’s unreconstructed Cold War agenda likens the Lao government to "terrorists," a label that might be more accurately applied to the Hmong insurgency, which Vang Pao supports and funds.
Both Vietnamese- and Hmong-American human rights groups worked closely with the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent body created by act of Congress in 1998. The Commission’s statements carry no formal policy weight, but often coordinate closely with the views of certain members of Congress. Former USCIRF chair Elliott Abrams described the Commission’s purpose as being "to come up with creative policy solutions that the U.S. government can implement to promote religious freedom abroad." On the basis of the Commission’s findings, the members issue opinions on political questions such as the US-Vietnam BTA, the status of ethnic minority groups, or other topics with no direct connection to religion. Statements are frequently released for greatest political impact, such as in advance of the House vote on the Viet Nam Human Rights Act.
In September, the USCIRF recommended that the State Department include Laos on its list of "countries of particular concern" that are "engaging in or tolerating particularly severe violations of religious freedom." (In 2000 and 2001, State selected Afghanistan, Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan as "countries of particular concern".) In a letter to Secretary Powell, the Commission also targeted Vietnam for "grave violations of religious freedom" that did not yet meet "particular concern" status but deserved further monitoring.
The State Department’s October 26 Report on International Religious Freedom did not accept any of the Commission’s additional recommendations. Cambodia is judged to be a country where religious rights are "generally respected." In the Lao PDR, the situation is said to have "deteriorated in some aspects" during the past year; although the number of religious detainees decreased by half to around 20, more than 65 churches were closed. In Vietnam, "the status of respect for religious freedom did not change during the period covered by this report, but remains improved from conditions of the early 1990’s."
At the same time as the debates on trade and human rights (not to mention anthrax and terrorism), the Senate considered amendments to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. This bill provides funding for the State Department, USAID, and related projects. In the Senate, the bill was the subject of a Republican filibuster and finally passed on October 24 with a number of amendments added. One section of the Senate version (Sec. 560) conditions assistance to the Cambodian government on "significant progress" in investigation of two 1994 and 1997 grenade attacks, that the Cambodian communal elections scheduled for February 2002 are judged "free and fair", and that Cambodia’s record of environmental protection is improving. An exception is made for assistance to combat human trafficking through the Cambodian Department of Women’s and Veterans Affairs. Sens. Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced an amendment (SA 1955) prohibiting "any form of assistance to any tribunal established by the Government of Cambodia" unless the President determines that a Khmer Rouge tribunal "is capable of delivering justice for crimes against humanity and genocide in an impartial and credible manner." However, Sen. McConnell also joined with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in sponsoring an amendment (SA 1945) to provide $250,000 in funding to the Documentation Center of Cambodia. And in a small break for Laos, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced an amendment (SA 1931) allocating $5 million in child survival and development assistance to Laos, with the proviso that this money must be channeled through nongovernmental organizations.
On the diplomatic front, personnel rotated at several of the embassies in Washington and the region. New US Ambassador to Laos Douglas Hartwick arrived in Vientiane in July, ending nearly two years of obstruction in Washington from Sens. Smith and Helms. At Vietnam’s embassy in Washington, Nguyen Tam Chien replaced outgoing Ambassador Le Van Bang, who moved up to the position of deputy foreign minister. Emmy Yamaguchi took Charles Ray’s place as US consul in Ho Chi Minh City. And President Bush’s nominee to replace Pete Peterson as ambassador in Hanoi, Raymond Burghardt, arrived in Vietnam in December. A career Foreign Service officer with years of experience in Asia, Burghardt faced no significant opposition.
In a November 30 meeting in New York arranged by the Fund for Reconciliation and Development, Burghardt outlined his priorities as ambassador. He told the audience of US educational, development, and business organizations working in Vietnam, "I expect Vietnam will emerge as an important middle-rank power in Asia, and it’s in America’s interest to help make that happen." On human rights, the new ambassador termed the Viet Nam Human Rights Act "a lousy piece of legislation" and noted that while human rights issues have worsened Vietnam’s reputation, they are best dealt with in the context of developing a more open and transparent society, economy and legal system.
Andrew Wells-Dang has been appointed as the Washington Representative of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development. He brings a background of work with Catholic Relief Services, Oxfam Hong Kong and CET Academic Programs in Vietnam, experience in Cambodia and Laos, and engagement with Indochina issues in Washington as program director at the Asia Pacific Center for Justice and Peace (1998-2001). Andrew will carry out an active program of dialogue with government officials, Congressional staff, foreign policy think tanks, NGOs, advocacy organizations and embassies. In addition to articles for Interchange, he will write a monthly e-mail Washington Update which is available at no cost to not-for-profit organizations working with Indochina and to individual members of the FRD network who donate at least $25 annually. His office is located at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, 245 Second St. NE, Washington DC 20002. Phone 202-547-6000, ext. 109, e-mail washington@ffrd.org.
top
From the Editor...
It has been the year that no one ever expected.
We were especially pleased that eighteen months of intense preparation produced the extraordinary success of the tenth Forum conference in Vientiane in June—thanks to the support of the Deputy Prime Minister and the extraordinary engagement and hard work of staff of the International Organizations Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of Vientiane International Consultants, and by the conference coordinator.
This issue of Interchange is largely devoted to summary accounts of the conference plenaries and panels. More detailed reports of each session and of sectoral group meetings can be found on our renamed web site www.ffrd.org. However, at least as important as the substantive presentations in the public sessions were the personal encounters among the great diversity of regional and international participants. For some, experiencing this kind of open registration international conference was itself a concentrated capacity building project.
And then came September 11th. We were personally fortunate that no one at FRD lost friends or colleagues to the horrendous attacks in New York and Washington. Colleagues at American Express, Chase and Citibank were so close to the tragedy that their offices had to relocate but all escaped unharmed.
The most direct impact on FRD was that the third annual dinner with Foreign Ministers from Indochina had to be postponed until next September.* Psychologically, politically, and organizationally our lives, like yours, have been changed by in ways we still do not fully comprehend by September 11th, and by our government’s international and domestic response. Suffice to say, we have been thrown off stride, and with this much delayed publication of Interchange we are endeavoring to get back to "normal".
"Normal" in 2002 will entail following up on the Forum conference with evaluation meetings in each host country. "Normal" will also include sending observers to Cambodia’s communal elections; organizing networking and educational meetings in New York and Washington; raising funds for new rounds of training and exchange for university based educational advisers and NGO counterparts; and a campaign for assistance to the victims of Agent Orange.
Our new Washington representative will give special attention to the lack of action on the bilateral trade agreement with Laos and to anachronistic impediments to US bilateral assistance to Cambodia and Vietnam. He will also address the problems created in US relations with all three countries by legislators and the militant minority of former refugees who exploit human rights and religious freedom issues for political purposes.
While there is sentiment that the next Forum conference should be held in Vietnam, there needs to be substantial discussion of the need for and character of another such international gathering, or whether new mechanisms should be developed to foster deeper and wider cooperation within and with Indochina. Some favor returning to the US for a conference. My own inclination is that a US venue only makes sense if we tackle frankly the hard issues of the current American relationship with Indochina, for example:
1) US responsibility for enduring war caused damage (land mines, UXO, Agent Orange)
2) Conflicting concepts of democracy, human rights, religious freedom and missionaries
3) US government response to former refugees who support insurgencies and terrorism in their homelands
4) Means to assure good conditions and adequate income for workers producing for the US market
5) The relationship of environmental protection and economic development
Given the lead time required to organize a serious conference, we should decide the when, where and what in about six months if there is a consensus to have some kind of gathering in June of 2003.
And then, Afghanistan…
We were very moved by the immediate expressions of official and personal sympathy which came from Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Cuba after September 11th. Each condemned the unconscionable assault on innocent civilians and pledged support against terrorism. While the Cubans noted the prolonged problems they have faced from US based terrorists, the Cambodians, Lao and Vietnamese did not raise their analogous but much lower key problems. Subsequently, representatives of all four countries have expressed concern about the path of military response chosen by the Bush Administration.
The US war in Afghanistan has received overwhelming support from Congress, the media and public opinion at home. Sentiment in most other countries, including among our allies in Europe, ranges from far more divided to largely opposed. Primary criticisms include the incongruity of the richest and most powerful nation using its highly sophisticated destructive technology against one of the world’s poorest and most isolated countries, the "collateral damage" of civilian victims of bombs and anti-personnel weapons, the refusal to present full evidence on bin Laden’s direct responsibility, the ambiguous US stance on its role in post-war reconstruction, and the essentially unilateral character of the US war against terrorism.
Many countries feel that despite a rhetoric of coalition, the Bush Administration has not moved very far from its earlier unilateralist tendencies, either in the actual conduct of the war or with the intended disposition of al Qaida and Taliban leaders. They are also dismayed by continued American opposition to the International Criminal Court, the Global Warming Treaty, and arms control measures. The US is seen as unwilling to recognize or address underlying causes of terrorism and anti-American sentiment, including delayed and unbalanced involvement in the Israel-Palestine crisis and total disregard of established international goals for development assistance from wealthy countries.
FRD’s role as an organization is to address the consequences of conflict rather than ending those that are still underway. But as American citizens, we struggle to understand what is going on and where it will end. We welcome hearing from you about the impact of September 11 on your work and on your life. Regardless of views on these painful new issues, I hope and trust that our common concern for US relations with Indochina, and Cuba as well, will provide a strong basis for continued cooperation.
Regarding Cuba, FRD’s attention will be focused on restoring to all Americans the freedom to travel to a fascinating country only 90 miles from home. Allowing more open access will contribute dramatically to dissolving the fearsome bureaucratic obstacles to NGO cooperation, humanitarian assistance, educational exchange and investment. We remain interested in organizing a visit for American NGOs with experience in Indochina that wish to initiate programs and find counterparts in Cuba.
—John McAuliff
*Postponement of the dinner means that gourmet Highland Coffee donated by David Thai as a gift for participants will instead be available as a thank you to donors to FRD (see resources page).
top
