Vietnam's crackdown on dissent

To discourage the others

New-style diplomacy trumped by old-style repression

See article

Readers' comments



Mike Martin


Are you saying that The Economist should have suppressed the fact that 'The crackdown prompted a rare rebuke from America'? That it should not have printed that the US Embassy in Hanoi 'professed itself “deeply disturbed” and called for the immediate and unconditional release of the nine'?


It seems like democracy is slowly spreading to more countries. I think that here in America, we take it for granted that we have the right to speak our mind and the freedom to do so without worrying about any consequences. Because I grew up learning this, I believe that people everywhere should have the same rights. They shouldn’t be targeted because they state their opinion publicly, because then people everywhere should get into trouble for all of their thoughts. I think that the UN and all countries should encourage this freedom, and people shouldn’t live in fear of the government that is designed to protect them and make them feel secure. I am glad to hear that this country is starting to change their views, because if people lived in fear, no one would ever be honest. There would be less conflict if people didn’t feel threatened every time they said what they were thinking. I think that even if there are many different opinions, if they could be stated, situations would be much more peaceful.


I'm not sure I, as an American, appreciate the Economist's implication that it is the US' job to ensure the respect of human rights in Vietnam.
Certainly, the Vietnamese themselves view our record on this matter as atrocious: from My Lai to Columbine to Abu Gharaib, our exhortations reek of hypocrisy. There are many countries with admirable human rights records whose words carry more gravitas. UK, France, Sweden, Japan - all of whom have strong ties to Vietnam - may well be better placed to wag their fingers.
To the rest of the west: where's the outrage?
The protestations from London, Paris, Tokyo, Stockholm? Oh? There are none? Interesting. So why does the US get singled out as the appeaser?
In case you'd forgotten, Sec. of State Clinton clearly stated that the new approach to be taken with East Asia's authoritarian governments was not going to involve the browbeating of the past. We know how prickly Vietnam is and how, as reported in this magazine in the past, the more we push Hanoi, the more recalcitrant they may become.
As someone who has followed Vietnam's development for 20 years, I find it odd that the Economist should qualify recent sentencing as "stiff penalties" - refer to sentences handed down 15 to 20 years ago.
The US has made a commitment to reducing its tendency to lecture East Asians (which they have done); while Vietnam has made no statement to the effect that they will change their anti-dissent laws (which remain unchanged).
The Economist's problem is with Vietnam and its laws. If you're smart enough to contact Carl Thayer in Australia, you ought be smart enough to frame these issues in a Vietnamese context and not a Vietnam vs. the USA context. Thayer could certainly have told you about the internal Vietnamese politics that shape the debates about individual freedoms in that country. The Communist Party presents a unified voice, but behind the scenes, there is fierce debate over the very issues you condemn. Why not discuss the efforts that are being made internally?
What happens in Vietnam can no longer be seen through the prism of US desires or designs. Certainly, Vietnam has a more benign policy toward dissent than Beijing or Tehran. Or Riyadh or Rabat. Or Moscow or Tunis or Minsk.
This crackdown was inevitable: between the economic situation, the metastatic growth of religion, and an uncontrollable blogosphere, any Hanoi-watcher knows that now is not the time to be pushing the envelope. I think the Economist should report on the dynamics of Vietnamese politics and how the confluence of current events points to an inevitable crackdown (if that's what we want to call this rash of prosecutions). It's part of Vietnamese Politics 101.
Given the past between the US and Vietnam, and given the US' low standing in the realm of human rights, I wish you had chosen another country's policy toward Vietnam to analyze in conjunction with the current developments. This is not an American issue, it is a Vietnamese issue. Shame on the Economist for trying to link them.


It's nothing new about this, hence, it should not create any shockingly surprises. It would be a surprise, however, for the West, European and U.S. countries, continue to ignore all the violations of human rights over business, a chance to make an extra buck for their own capitalists. It would be a surprise for the same matter when the European countries and U.S. continue to claim (without any shame) that they always advocate for freedom, human-rights while in fact they wouldn't care.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

