Re-visiting refugees
I wrote on this blog back in December 2004 about visiting a group of refugees from Vietnam on Christmas Island who were locked up in detention and were facing being sent back to Vietnam. All of them were eventually recognised as being legitimate refugee or humanitarian cases, although many of them had to endure close to two years of imprisonment before this occurred.
I had the great pleasure last night of catching up with many of them while I was visiting Melbourne where many of them have now settled. They are all working and/or studying and there are a couple of new babies on the scene too. Of course most are still subject to the uncertainty of the cruel and pointless temporary visas, but they are already making good contributions to Australia. It just reinforced to me, yet again, what a pointless waste of money and inflicting of trauma to have locked them up for two years.
The very fact that these people were recognised as refugees is also a clear demonstration of the fact that there are still serious human rights problems in Vietnam, particularly for those who are advocating democracy.
The photo here is one of those examples of a picture telling a thousands words. It shows Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest who is a long-standing human rights activist, at his trial this year when he was sentenced to eight years jail for committing “very serious crimes that harmed national security” by trying to organize a boycott of the upcoming election. The photo shows that even during his trial, he was being silenced.
This link goes to the most recent Human Rights Watch country report on Vietnam, and this link goes to other recent statements about the human rights situation in Vietnam, including one which notes that, apart from the democratic rights group known as Bloc 8406, “the government continues to harass, arrest, and impose restrictions on members of independent trade unions and unsanctioned religious groups such as ethnic minority Christians in the northern and central highlands, Mennonites, and members of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV).”
11 Comments, Comment or Ping
philip travers
You need your mettle about you on these issues.Even the likeable Jack Marks from the Sydney Morning Herald, almost turned jingoist against the Indonesians.I am sure that this man, the priest, is not wanting to stir up hatred against Vietnam the place and its people,which includes those who have locked him up,more he is trying to insure Vietnam has a sense of spirituality,instead of government decisions that seem to claim an aspect that is almost like the Inquisition,and, maybe, that government knows that, as history, and is actually asking the imprisoned a question by their actions.Is the Vietnam government being clever in its own way,by a sort of teaching that remains uninspiring to us!? I think that government has got the capacity to move on human rights etcetera,and they simply havent heard anyone express anything to suggest why they should, rather than criticism of the fact they havent.That change would in fact be very brave and unchartered waters for them.It is fair enough a point not to be run from Rome,if that is there thoughts… like China.Its another matter,if in fact that would proceed,if they went down the human rights and religious freedoms path.I would still visit Vietnam if I was traveling despite this stuff ,because after all we are seeing partially their Justice system at work.
Jun 1st, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
I think it’s most about democracy and freedom of speech, rather than religion, philip – although freedom of religion is an important part of that principle anyway.
I’ve added a link at the bottom of the post to the most recent country report on Vietnam from Human Rights Watch. It mentions that the two most senior monks in the Unified Buddhist Church are confined to their monasteries.
Jun 1st, 2007
philip travers
Senator!I note your emphasis,I note mine,cannot a priest in speaking about human rights and the problem of religious thought as expression be one and the same thing.After all he hasnt renounced his Faith, it is part of the process of his activity,which simply is speaking.The Vietnamese Government is being criticised for a lack of human rights obligations and that includes free speech.The boycott of the election,on the part of the advocates of Democracy,and the Governments response,would surely suggest to that government,the advocates see no potential for human rights and free speech under that government.They would of then been seen by the Vietnamese Government of deciding they were the only people who could evolve law.Thus as a Catholic Priest the people of Vietnam would of been influenced by Rome,in the case of Nguyen.Is there any good reason to believe that the Vietnamese Government isnt open to ideas from Democratic countries including Australia,except for matters deemed human rights free speech and democratic processes?As I know much co-operation has occurred between Australians an Vietnamese.My point is that Government may be feeling ,and thinking those who dispute its right to govern are not acting in the best interests of the country as much as their own problem of a opposition grouping.Thus if religious people dispute some decisions it then infers to me the religious know how to make better decisions,if the decisions werent solely about stopping people on matters religious and speech and general human rights.The problem of workers pay and conditions isnt uniquely at odds with a government of that type.Mistreatment of workers is a unique problem to any country with the problem,and correction.Influence from outside may help everyone!
Jun 2nd, 2007
Evil Pundit
Let us all give thanks to the peace protesters of the 60s and 70s, without which the current Vietnamese Government would not have been possible.
Here’s hoping today’s peace protesters are equally successful in promoting totalitarianism in Iraq and Afghanistan!
Jun 2nd, 2007
Marilyn Shepherd
EP, you are a total cretin. America lost that war without a skerrick of help from anti-war protestors. Perhaps you would have liked them to stay and have another 58,000 young American lives wasted, a few hundred more My Lai massacres, another few million Vietnamese dead, millions more tonnes of napalm to burn the skin off the children, how about millions more gallons of agent orange to kill more Vietnamese, US and Australian soldiers for centuries to come.
I have had a gutful of morons like you blaming people like me for wanting the killing to stop.
Jun 2nd, 2007
Evil Pundit
So, Madilyn, are you saying you were responsible for helping the communist tyrants gain power in Vietnam, so they could oppress, torture and murder millions of innocent people?
Or are you merely claiming responsibility for supporting today’s Islamist fanatics, so they can oppress, torture and murder millions of innocent people?
Either way, I can see why you might feel guilty, if you had a conscience.
Jun 3rd, 2007
Adele
I can see why John Howard wants more people to learn history, if Mr Pundit’s nonsense is anything to go by.
I think the truism that “those who don’t know the past are condemned to repeat its mistakes” is one we should require every politician to write on a blackboard 100 times each week. Wilful blindness about the most basic facts is a scary thing at the best of times, let alone when it involves actions that cost thousands of lives.
Jun 3rd, 2007
bazz
I’ve looked at a lot of blogs, but you’ve got some strange commenters here, Mr Senator. It’s very rare to see someone still trying to win the argument on behalf of the war criminals from the Vietnam War era, unless you travel to the lunar right outposts of the craziest of the Right Wing Death Beast blogs. Even Robert McNamara has accepted it was a total disaster.
I’ve never heard of peace marches winning a war before, although admittedly our own RWDB Foreign Minister is desperately running the line that we’re losing the war in Iraq because the terrorists have better PR, so maybe this “all those deaths in Vietnam were the fault of Left” is the latest desparate talking point from the nutters to try to divert attention from their present day debacles.
I’m not sure why we need any army if PR is what wins wars, but General Alexander Chickenhawk knows best no doubt, or so Field Marshall Rupert Chickenhawk’s poodles in the News Ltd papers keep telling us. It would certainly save us a lot of money if we stopped buying warplanes and paid lots of spin doctors instead.
Jun 3rd, 2007
philip travers
There are many ways to answer Evil Pundit..Marilyn didnt effect him.So obviously his tolerance of dead Americans is high, then perhaps his tolerance of dead non-combatants is also high across the division that did exist.Which obviously included children,and this man should play guitar and sing he is a real heart-string puller,perhaps he loves his self image so much,that, being born himself wasnt one of his requirements.Sorry, Evil Pundit, you just dont recognise the reality of family..he aint heavy…… his my brother{not mine}.
Jun 3rd, 2007
PETER JONES
T0 Marilyn Sheperd
Marilyn you really should study this issue because you are wrong wrong wrong.
You obviously know next to nothing about this conflict.
Though the U.S lost some actions/battles and often took a tactical beating they gave better than they got in the overall sense of the fighting.
The tet offensive was a major disaster the vc/nva forces, and finally allowed the us general westmorland to engage and destroy the enemy in a way that was to his advantage.
Due to his lack of feel for /understanding of asymetric warfare a major conventional clash of arms was the only form of battle he could really prevail in at his level of command.
Where they did lose comprehensivly was in the
propaganda war back home, it was ONLY because of the political pressure exerted by Anti War Groups
(who were not in fact anti war but pro enemy)and those ignorant romantics that were the backbone of their feet on the ground, that the North Vietnamese, Russians and to a lesser extent Communist Chinese were able to run such a successful propaganda war, and force the US to retire from the conflict for internal political reasons.
The abject failure of the democrats to use the security services and law to stifle the enemys
agents provocateur and propaganda machine was the only reason the us was FORCED to pull out in 1972.
Back in the 1950s Mao tse Tung said of the American people THE A BOMB IS A PAPER TIGER THEY(THE US) WILL NEVER USE IT.THEY ARE WEAK THEY CANNOT STAND CASUALTIES WHEN THEIR SOLDIERS ARE KILLED THEY CRY.
A very accurate estimation of the us civilian population.
Very concious of this truth early on the communist block mobilised its extensive espionage and propaganda assets throughout the western world to support the North vietnamese.
It is true that the total us losses were approx 58000 over 8 years approx, but compare it to 53000 in 3 years (us only) during the Korean war
and i dont hear you complaining about that.
More to follow
Jun 22nd, 2007
PETER JONES
Whilst it can be truly said that the johnston administration bungled almost every tactical and strategic issue surrounding that war (through a combination of excessive timidity, micromanagment
a comprehensive lack of understanding of the number of troops that were actually needed to fight the simultaneous guerilla war and the invasion by North vietnam through laos and Cambodia and the selection of at least two theatre commanders who whilst excellent generals for conventional war were temperementally unsuited for command of a guerilla war.
Though all this is true it still would not have prevented the us from continuing militarialy.
Because their caualty rates were quite sustainable considering the size of the forces they were fighting.
Bear in mind the PEACE MOVEMENT NEVER ACHIEVED PEACE IN VIETNAM (it was never meant to, the various groups behind that loose coalition were committed to a North Vietnamese victory) the war continued after the us pullout albiet at a less intense level,until the nva tore up the treaty and launched a massive conventional invasion.
Even then guerilla war sputtered on between the anticommunist hill tribes and the nva until they were wiped out sometime in the 1990s.
A few years ago a us general visiting the north
spoke with his nva equivalent about the war he said “you know we won every battle” his former enemy said “that may be true but, but its also irrelevent”.Meaning we won the political war, and because of the failure of the us to fight and win it, meant that it also won the ultimate victory.THE WEAPON THAT GAVE THEM THAT VICTORY WAS IGNORENT CITIZENS LIKE YOURSELF WHO WIELD THEIR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS IN A MANNER THAT SHOULD INVITE PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE/STUPIDITY.By the way a long forgotton 1 month campaign in Syria against the vichy french during ww2 cost over 500 Australian dead compared to over 500 Australian dead over 8 years in Veitnam.Do you think the military cost to this country was high ?
Jun 22nd, 2007