At the UN’s review of Vietnam’s efforts to eliminate racial
discrimination, international experts heavily criticized the country’s
discriminatory practices towards religious and ethnic minorities.
Below is an article published by Queme:
The Vietnam Committee on Human Rights regrets that Vietnam missed a
precious opportunity to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the United
Nations in Geneva on 21-22 February 2012 during the examination of its
10th-14th periodic reports on implementation of the UN International
Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination
(ICERD) to which it acceded in 1982. Instead of addressing real
challenges, Vietnam confined itself to propaganda. “Vietnam cites the
quantity of laws it has adopted as proof of the rule of law in Vietnam.
It pretends to believe that everything in the garden is rosy, simply
because it says so. In fact, many of Vietnam’s mass-produced laws are
rarely or never enacted; the stark reality for religious and ethnic
minorities is the anti-human rights policy of the regime”, said Vo Van
Ai, President of the Vietnam Committee for Human Rights (VCHR).
“Vietnam’s presentation of its periodic report was surreal”, said
Mr. Ai. “The delegation began by describing the resounding success of
its policies on ethnic minorities, supporting its claims with
Soviet-style statistics - 100% of cities have primary schools and free
clinics! It then proceeded to lament the lack of access to education and
health in the remote regions where ethnic communities live. In fact,
the report was more like a bad exercise in propaganda than a genuine
effort to address problems of racial discrimination in Vietnam”.
The CERD experts saw through Vietnam’s claims, and sharply criticized
the delegation for presenting a theoretical vision of racial
discrimination, with a long list of laws but no concrete details on
their implementation. Regretting that no factual examples of
discrimination were mentioned, French expert Regis de Gouttes observed
that “the lack of complaints against racism is not proof that racism
does not exist. On the contrary, this could stem from the victims’ lack
of knowledge of their rights, or their lack of confidence in the Police
and judiciary”. He also questioned the system of ho khau, or household
registration permits, which is the basis of all discrimination. The US
expert Carlos Manuel Vazquez commented that Vietnam’s claim that
“discrimination is prohibited” is no guarantee that it does not exist on
the ground.
The UN experts also criticized Vietnam’s legal system, notably
Article 87 of the Penal Code on “undermining the unity policy; sowing
divisions between the religious and non-religious” which the government
claimed was enacted to protected minorities. Mr. Vazquez noted that this
article was “so vaguely worded as to be used against minorities,
especially those engaged in peaceful demonstrations”, and called on
Vietnam to revise it. The Vietnamese delegation initially avoided this
question, then stated that they would “think about it”, adding that if
ethnic minorities had their rights, there were also people who “abused”
these rights. Such people were “deceitful and harmful, and must be
sanctioned by the law”. Article 87 is one of a whole chapter of
“national security” provisions in the Vietnamese Penal Code. Since 1995,
the UN has repeatedly pressed Vietnam to revise these “catch-all”
provisions which criminalize the legitimate exercise of human rights.
Taking up reports by NGOs, notably the 30-page alternative report of
the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights, the CERD experts expressed
concern about the use of negative stereotypes that stigmatize ethnic
minorities as being “backward” or “uncivilized”. Once again, the
Vietnamese delegation responded that such stereotypes were “prohibited”.
In practice, however, these negative misperceptions are very real. “The
Vietnamese government, the state-controlled media and the Vietnamese
population in general continue to refer to ethnic minorities by the
derogatory term “moi” (“savages”), whereas the word “Kinh”, used for the
majority Vietnamese population, is a term which implies superiority”,
commented Vo Van Ai.
The CERD expressed further concern about abuses of political and
economic rights suffered by ethnic and religious minorities. French
expert Regis de Gouttes and several other experts cited violations such
as expropriation from ancestral lands, forced population displacement,
restrictions on the rights of freedom of movement and expression,
violence, arbitrary arrests and religious persecution. Mr. de Gouttes
expressed particular concern about repression against “Khmer Krom
Buddhists, affiliated to the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, as well
as Montagnards and Hmongs, who are predominantly Christian”.
Chinese expert Huang Yong’An, who is also Rapporteur for the CERD
examination of Vietnam, raised the serious problem of state confiscation
of lands: “A Chinese proverb says, “oppressive government drives the
people to rebellion”. When we look at the conflicts in ethnic minority
regions, we find that many are related to issues of land-use rights. One
NGO report said, I quote, “peaceful demonstrations on these issues are
repressed by excessive force and violence, resulting in frequent
arrests”.
Confronted by the experts’ concerns on human rights violations, the
Vietnamese delegation simply repeated that “there is no racial
discrimination in Vietnam”. On specific allegations of Police violence
used to repress demonstrations of ethnic Hmongs in May 2011, the
government denied all use of force. In fact, many press agencies
reported Vietnam’s use of armed helicopters and troops to disband these
peaceful demonstrations in Dien Bien province. Vietnam even mobilized
support from armed forces in Laos to prevent Hmongs escaping across the
Vietnam-Laos border.
Several experts urged Vietnam to develop mechanisms to enable ethnic
minorities to claim and defend their rights. Nigerian expert Waliakoye
Saidou urged Vietnam to recognize the competence of the CERD Committee
to receive complaints from victims of abuses in Vietnam, in accordance
with Article 14 of the ICERD Convention. The Vietnamese delegation made
no reply. Asked whether Vietnam was considering the creation of a
National Human Rights Commission on the lines of the Paris Principles,
the delegation replied that it was considering the creation of such a
Commission according to the “country’s specific conditions”, which would
not necessarily conform with the Paris Principles. “Under current
circumstances in Vietnam, where spurious laws have remained unchanged
for decades, where there is no independent civil society and especially
no independent judiciary, a National Human Rights Commission would be a
parody of justice, a total farce”, said Vo Van Ai. Originally posted at: unpo.org
