Repressive Measures
Fbe Press Campaign
Beginning on March 3, 2001, a press campaign was
launched against the priest. The official daily Ha Noi Moi (Hanoi Today), published the first article on the incident.
It opened attacks on Fr. Nguyen Van Ly, concentrating mainly on the report the priest
sent to the Internationl Commission of Religious Freedom. That was the report
in which, according to the author of the article, the priest denigrated the
Communist Party and the leader Ho Chi Minh, who was portrayed as a “war criminal.” The priest even went
so far as to urge on the United States to help the people overthrow the regime. The priest thus
committed the serious crime as prescribed by Article 13 of the Constitution defining
the punishment against those who conducts “activities and plots (of sabotage)
against the independence, suzerainty, reunification and integrity of Vietnam.” The
following day, February 4, 2001, the Quan Doi Nhan Dan, a journal of the army, took
the relay, furiously poured charges on the priest in an article entitled “The
Traitor of the People Is Demasked.” Among other accusations, the journal stressed
the magnitude of the crime. “The priest deserves heavy punishment, but the
regime has showed clemency for humanitarian purpose. The authorities only
decided to take an administrative measure to reeducate the priest and
adjust him to the civil and religious
laws.” Then, in the days that followed, all the big headings on the subjet along
with meticulous articles appeared in the official press. For two consecutive
days February 7-8, the journal Lao Dong
of the Union of Workers, charged the priest with undesirable crimes. In March 2001, the official daily Nhan Dan, in
a series of articles entitled “Under the Cover of Religion, an Evil Acti”
elaborated the priest’ s acts of
confrontation with the State, accusing him of committing crimes of treason against
the nation. It nevertheless committed grave mistakes, not only giving an
eclesiastic curriculum vitea of
the priest with gross errors of clumsiess but also a wrong account of
the days Fr. Nguyen Van Ly was in prison, and a tabulation of unfounded subversive
activities. On March 9, 2001, in a maneuver, it collected unfavorable opinions
of the so-called Catholic adepts “indignant
of the conduct of Nguyen Van Ly.
The
outpouring of accusations of the official press against the promotor of the
campaign for religious freedom raised doubts as to whether the authorities
intended to impose stricter measures on the dissident priest. Why did the
authorities impose a house surveillance sentence on the priest on February 27,
2001. Second, the accusations by the officical press were vague as they failed
to qualify Fr. Nguyen Van Ly‘s confrontation as crimes. Still, they could not
produce evidenc but plain accusations, showing the authorities’ abuse of power,
making false accusations and groundless fabrications. In addition, the
prescriptions for this crime are even bias and unclear. The definitions for crimes of treason against the fatherland by
the Penal Code, in fact, were subject to revision in Decamber 1999. pecifically,
Article 78, concerning the defiinitions of the penalty, the terms in prison,
the perpetuity of life imprisonment, and the condemnation to death .
The tone of the campaign became increasingly critical
as Fr. Nguyen Van Ly received strong support from rights international
organizations and government agencies. The priest was accused of undermining
the ratification the Trade Agreements between Vietnam and the United States. On
March 13, 2001, in a communication to the international press, authorities
publicly made allusion to the “subversive” appeals by Fr’ Nguyen Van Ly and the
campaign for religious freedom conducted by Fr. Nguyen Van Ly and the priests of
the archdiocese of Hued, They condemmed these activities as concerted acts of
sabotage. In he weekly press conference, the spokewoman of the Foreign Affairs
Ministry Nguyen Phuong Nga responded with firmness to the critics in the article
of the Asian Wall Street Journal, published on February 9, 2001, saying that
religious repression would certainly jeopardize the ratification of the trade
accords between Vietnam. She nevertheless affirmed that the bilateral trade
accord, which is an effort to join the interests of the two countries, would
not be affected by the people who deliberately sabotage the relations between
the two countries. She also added that the government of Vietnam “neither
restricts nor repress religious activities and the liberty of faith in a
religion and that those who abuse the rights and utilize religion to cause
social disorder and undermine national unity will be severely punished.” Again,
the accusation was unfounded. The measures taken against Fr. Nguyen Van Ly had nothing
to do with religious repression. As regards the government policy, the
spokewoman said that the Vietnamese Communist official information agency
already specified that “the priest
commits acts of violation against the laws of Vietnam. Large layers of the
population among which are religion practioners express their indignation over and
criticize those acts that go against the interests of the country.” The
trade accords between Vietnam and the United States, in reality, was signed in
June 2000 after years of negotiation. The ratification of the accords was
subject to deliberation at the U.S. Congress following reports on measures of
relegation taken against Fr. Nguyen Van Ly. The analysis of the crime attributed
to the priest weighed in by the Foreign Ministry spokewoman certainly
accentuated the seriousness of the confrontation of the priest with the State.
The press campaign accelerated. Fr. Nguyen Van Ly
was repeatedly accused of crimes of sabotage, having undrmined the nationial
interests by sending to the International Commission on Religious Freedom
of the U.S. Congress a report denouncing the situation of the religions in his
country. Although the text was not officially read in the meeting of the
Commission that took place on February 13, 2001, an Englih translation had been
laid into the hands of the participants. Among other things, the report recommends the commission not to accord
support to the Vietnamese communists, an act that, according to the priest,
would only “prolong religious repression and reinforce totolitarian
dictatorship.”
The campaign for religious freedom of Fr. Nguyen Van
Ly received support from the international press. To mete out influence, the
official Press launched a campaign of crimes relevations against the priest,
who had been, in reality, assigned to residence surveillance since November
2000. The authorities had stripped off him all means of communication, the at
Nguyet Bieu and at An Truyen as well. The campaign continued with hissing tone.
On March 26, 2001, the journals of the police and the People’s Army attacked
him with all violence. The daily of the military, Quan Doi Nhan Dan, aiming
without doubt to give a blow at certain leaders of the Vietnamese Communist
Party judged to be much indulgent to the pastor of An Truyen, raised the
question: “Why Didn’t We Rapidly Taken Measure to Force Nguyen Van Ly to Put an
End to His Religious Propaganda Immediately?” The journal continued,
ascertaining that the measure taken against him on February 27, 2001, two years
of assignment to residence, had only
little effect on him since he “continues
to desperately devote himself to his activites, sabotaging, provoking, and
defying the power.” The article also called into question, for the first
time publicly, the attitude of the
ecclesiastic superiors and was indignant with the priest in that whether or not
he would be suspended from his functions in the Catholuc Church. Certain
observers saw in this diatribe the prelude of an arrest and condemnation.
Others saw in it the sign of hesitation of the Vietnamese Communist Party,
embarassed by the critical situation created by the campaign for religious
freedom animated by Fr. Nguyen Van Ly, diffused on the netwok of internet,
supported by the Vietnamese diaspora, and increasingly leant on for propaganda by
the clergy in Hue .
The Quan
Doi Nhan Dan, then, had reason
on one point: the strict control to which the pastor of Antruyen was subjected
and the deluge of accusations that befell him had not prevented the priest neither
from comtinuing his activities nor reviewing the literary mode of expression he
adopted from the beginning. Since November 2000, he had expressed his protest
with appeals for religious freedom, denouncing the infringes of the authorities
on the freedom of cult and demanding the dissolution of the Vietnamese
Communist Party and the holding of general elections. The official press could
not dissimulate furor when Fr. Nguyen Van Ly, in a letter sent to the priests
of Hue who were in retreat for Lent, March 13-16, 2001, presented the alarming the situation. He even
came up with a new process of claims. Reversing the role, it was from him and
not the authorities to draw up reports. In the “Report No. 1 entitled “Serious Violation of Human Rights” handwritten by the priest on March 20, 2001,
reproduced on scanner and diffused throughout the world on the internet, he
informied of the world the suffocationg suppression under which he was
suffering. The system of sonorization
of the commune An Tuyen was unsustainable. Everyday since February 27, 2001, at
about 5 o’clock in the morning, 17 o’clock in the afternoon, diffused by
loud-speakers 5 speeches accusing the
priest of m of ungrounded charges. Still,
inumerable articles and radio and television emissions of the same natured were
repeatedly blared out.
However they had already assigned Fr. Nguyen Van Ly
to residence surveillance, the authorities multiplied their acts of repression
in the christendom of Nguyet Bieu where the priest still had strong support. After the first raid the police tore off the bannes on which
were inscribed slogans of protest by Fr. Nguyen Van Ly, a troop of 500 agents,
police and workers, on March 14, 2001, without a notice came to concrete a
trench of irrigation running through the ground of the Church and the ricefields
in the presence of the parishioners who supported Fr. Nguyen Van Ly in his
fight for faith and rights. The non-violence opposition by the parishisioners
came to no result in face of a police force that instantly disbanded the
protest. Sixteen priests of the archdiocese
of Hue, who were in retreat during the Lent celebration at Hue, wrote and
signed a letter of protest against the dealings of the police and expressed
their support for Fr. Nguyen Van Ly and the parishioners. The call was echoed
widely. At An Truyen, police multipled
raids. They took place at night and seemed to sow terror in the mind of the
parishers and the pastor.
Reactions from
Overseas Rights Organizations
On February
13, 2001, personalities of the Vietnamese diaspora came to testify the
situation of religions in Vietnam before the International Commission on
Religious Freedom of the U.S. Congress,
creating a strong effervercence in many milieus
of Vietnamese immigrants abroad as well as contestant circles in the
country. Anong the participants who came to testify on the situation of religion in Vietnam was Fr. Tran Cong Nghi,
director of the press agency Vietcatholic News Network. The long report he read
before the commission presents a tabulation of constraints that weigh on the
exercise of religious freedom in Vietnam. In particular, he stressed, the
various limitations, imposed on the exercise of cult, the formation of priests,
abuses of power the exercise of the authorities, and the State’s unlawful
confiscations of properties of the Churches. Vo Van Ai, director of the
International Buddhist Bureau of Information whose siege is in Paris, wished
that the question of human rights and democracy be raised in the negotiations
that were taking place between the United States and Communist Vietnam.
According to him, the advantages that Vietnam would benefit from the future
accords with the United States must be taken into consideration and be materialized with reforms accomplished
in the domain of religious freedom and human rights. Having not obtained the
necessary permission from the State, certain personalities in the countrycould not
respond to the invitations. Among them were the Venerable Thich Thai Hoa of Hue
and Fr. Nguyen Van Ly.
The press organ of the Vietnamese Communist Party Nhan
Dan (The People) put itself right with
the Party, accusing the United States of “making the most of religion to grossly meddle
in the internal affairs.” The jounal contended that “the off-the-point critics” launched by “hostile forces” had only the objective “to calumniate and
denigrate the shining image of Vietnam.” According to the journal, “eloquent
proofs belie the allegations of those who have the habit to calumniate Vietnam
by accusing it of repressing the
religions.” Then, it affirmed: “In Vietnam, no one is arrested for reasons of
religion and faith. The situation of certain
religious adepts is due to their violations of the law and those people
must evidently judged according to the Vietnamese law.” In conclusion, one
could also read: “It is clear that those who give themselves the right to judge
the religious situation of Vietnam have intentionally closed their eyes before
reality and fail to understand the trend towards improving the relations of
Vietnam with the countries of the international community one of which is the
United States.”The Foreign Affairs spokewoman finally doubled attack against the Commission of the Religious
Freedom, affirming that by giving themselves the right to judge the religious
situation of another country, the commission committed gross interference in
the internal affairs of another country, and thus is in contradiction with the
Charter of the United Nations.
