While today is a holiday, it is by no means one to rest and forget. Under the radar in recent news is the parallel policies of the Chinese and Vietnamese governments, particularly when they concern dissidents. As Google’s threat to pull the plug on its Chinese operations continues to stir conversations in Beijing and Washington, many do not know about similarities between Beijing and Hanoi.
Two days from today, Nguyen Tien Trung will face trial on charge of treason by the Vietnamese government. Trung, a French-educated pro-democracy blogger and software engineer, had first been drafted by the Vietnamese army following his return from France and arrested the day after his dishonorable discharge. He is founder of the Young Vietnamese for Democracy Association and, according to government media, a member of the banned Democratic Party of Vietnam.
Trung’s was part of a series of high-profile summer arrests that included Le Cong Dinh, Tran Huynh Duy Thuc, Nguyen Si Binh. The first is one of Vietnam’s top human rights lawyers and a former Fulbright scholar at Tulane, the second is chairman of a top Vietnamese Internet company, the third is a Vietnamese-American democracy activist. The American government, Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have all called for their immediate release.
Government media has also been particularly preoccupied with these cases. VTV, the government’s central news channel, devoted a significant amount of prime-time to air the four’s public confessions. Similarly, many major national newspapers carried the full text of their confessions. While the Vietnamese government is no stranger to human rights-related arrests, the extent of official attention it has showered on these four is still surprising.
The spotlight is shifting away from Le Cong Dinh, the American-educated lawyer with an international reputation, towards Nguyen Tien Trung, as the latter’s trial date nears. Trung is merely 26 years old, far younger than the other three middle-aged men. Trung graduated from Le Hong Phong High School, southern Vietnam’s academic powerhouse. He then went on to graduate school in computer science in southern France, where he was an outstanding student. His profile eerily matches that of many young Vietnamese who have the opportunity to study abroad. Many will surely be watching the outcome of his trial, where he may face the death sentence.
In a recent article, the New York Times highlights the simmering tension between Google’s 80 million Chinese users and their government. At the same time, Vietnamese Facebook users have had trouble accessing the site for months and blame the government for this partial block. With a former Fulbright scholar in jail and a young blogger on trial, Hanoi’s suspicious eye on Beijing, bauxite and imperial past notwithstanding, may just relax.
As violence diminishes in post-civil war Iraq, sectarianism is becoming entrenched in the political institutions of the country according to the first of a two-part series by Nir Rosen in our November/December 2009 issue. What does this say about Iraq’s future? A government rife with corruption and authoritarian tendencies begins to appear increasingly threatening when sectarianism is thrown into the mix. Although the decrease in violence over the past two years is certainly something to be happy about, it shouldn’t cloud the necessity to foster minority protection rights. Sunnis and Shias have tired of violence and recognized the legitimacy of the central government for now, but ten years down the road, when Shias are receiving all the civil service jobs and Iraqi schools are imposing a Shia-based education on its Sunni students, can we be sure that another civil war won’t break out? And this isn’t even considering the volatile north, where the central government stands by watching the Kurdish authority committing human rights abuses against Shabaks, Yazidis and other minority ethnic groups.
The Obama administration’s attention is currently solely fixed on Afghanistan, and understandably so. The President has rejected all of the proposals set before him by his war council and continues to ponder over whether or not to employ an Iraq-styled “surge” in Afghanistan. While considering the question of whether to increase troops or not, he should also ask if the “success” he would be looking to replicate with the surge is the type of success he wants. The decision facing Obama has been compared to the dilemmas faced by Lyndon Johnson in 1964 with respect to Vietnam. “Eikenberry’s stand” gives the President some time to continue to weigh the pros and cons of a troop increase. During this time, he should not only refer back to the consequences of Johnson’s decisions in Vietnam, but also to what is shaping up to become an untenable peace in Iraq.
As reported earlier, a judge found Ezra Nawi guilty of assaulting two members of the Israeli border police during the 2007 demolition of a Palestinian house. Nawi, a human rights activist, was finally sentenced on October 21. According to www.supportezra.net, Nawi will serve one month in prison and must pay a fine of 750 shekels, plus 500 shekels in compensation to each police officer involved. Additionally, Nawi will serve a six-month suspended sentence if arrested again within the next three years for “unlawful assembly” or for “interfering with a policeman carrying out his duty.”
David Schulman notes in the aforementioned BR article, “[Nawi] will not be the first imprisoned for defending the defenseless.” Today we salute not only our veterans but peace activists who work to make suffering and war unnecessary. Read more about the current state of Israel’s peace movement in “Peace Out” by Helena Cobban, from the July/August 2009 issue of Boston Review.
In BR’s web-only feature, The Trial of Ezra Nawi, David Schulman reports that peace activist Ezra Nawi was scheduled for sentencing on September 21. According to Nawi’s support site, the sentencing has been postponed. Nawi faces incarceration for an act of civil disobedience in 2007: resisting Israeli border police who were bulldozing a Palestinian home in Um al-Kheir. BR will stay abreast of Nawi’s sentencing and notify readers once it is rescheduled.
Meanwhile, Obama’s meeting on Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas reached no firm conclusion. Speaking to the UN, Obama insisted that peace negotiations should resume without preconditions–thereby sidestepping the Palestinian demand for a freeze on Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. Obama impatiently pushes ahead, but might do well to consult another piece from the BR archive (one of my favorites): Joseph Levine’s History Matters, in which he dissects the historical claims and current status of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Contrary to the U.S.’s current easing up on Netanyahu, Levine asserts:
As the occupier and principal aggressor, Israel must demonstrate good faith by taking significant actions to meet Palestinian demands. If Israel does not enact such measures, then the world community, especially the United States and the United Nations—the external parties chiefly responsible for the terrible situation in the first place—must employ sanctions to ensure Israeli compliance.
Strong words, but I encourage you to read the rest of Levine’s argument and reflect as we wait for negotiations to commence.
Today, President Obama attempted a forceful reply to critics on both the left and the right for his policies on detention and torture. In a speech at the National Archives, in a room redolent with the iconography of liberty and rights, Obama attacked the Bush administration’s “ad hoc” legal approach to the detention and treatment of terrorism suspects. However redolent Obama’s speech was with the fragrance of American founding values, the president emphasized one overall – the consistency inherent in the idea of the “rule of law”.
In BR’s January/February issue, David Cole grappled with the same question – and reached a remarkably similar conclusion. Detention without trial, Cole argued, was not only legal, but necessary. Many detainees could not be brought to trial in the U.S. under international law. What they could be afforded, he claimed, was some modicum of due process – proceedings to clarify whether they had actually been members of Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, for example. “Enhanced interrogation techniques,” moreover, would be firmly out of the question. Above all, Cole wrote, “Guantánamo is a black mark because of this resistance to law and refusal to recognize the basic human dignity of the detainees. If we are to fix the problem, we need not abandon military detention, but we must subject it to the rule of law.”
Still, Cole endorses a legally shaky principle of detention without trial as a “preventative” measure, meant to prevent strongly suspected terrorists from reengaging in violence. According to a recent New York Times article, one in seven former detainees returns to terrorism after release.
International humanitarian law affords Cole – and Obama – more flexibility with the Guantánamo detainees than they would have for domestic terror suspects. But human rights groups have been critical of ideas like these, which appear to represent an intermediary step between the “ad hoc” policies of the Bush years and a doctrinaire approach to detention that would essentially follow an established legal order — whether domestic or international. Leaks from a meeting between representatives from several leading human rights organizations and Obama indicate that they now see little difference between his policies and those of George W. Bush.
Lurking behind these debates are several definitional problems.
Recent Comments