CORRESPONDENCE - 85A COMBINED REPORTS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM 2012

Home Browse Search

the United States itself and for the sake of peace, security, stability and prosperity of the entire Asian - Pacific region. Third, reality and statistics on Vietnam — U.S. relations as described in the appendix testify that the U.S. Government and the majority of the American people have recognized and established an increasingly wide- ranging relationship with the State of Vietnam under the leadership of the Communist Party of Vietnam. In that light, the ordinance is a wrong and contradictory act against the foreign policy of the federal government of the United States. Fourth, it is the mutual exchange of delegations between Vietnam and the United States, official meetings and working sessions between the two governments on each other's territory that has helped to bring about benefits to both peoples, including your constituents. The ordinance, if passed, would ruin opportunities to generate economic benefits, jobs and earnings for the very same majority of your constituents. Fifth, the ordinance would obstruct cooperation of the Vietnamese and U.S. governments with each other's diplomatic agents and delegations. Both governments have entered into official agreements to facilitate each other's mission in promoting mutual understanding, friendship and cooperation of mutual benefit. Cities and provinces in Vietnam have consistently paid full respect to the Vietnamese government's policy on relations with the United States. There is not a single city or province in Vietnam that would enact a conflicting law in the nature of what you have been urged to do by a group of radical anti - communist constituents. I wonder where the Vietnam — U.S. relationship would head to if a city or province in Vietnam took a reciprocal action against U.S. delegations in line with the proposed ordinance. Would the U.S. Government tolerate with an ordinance that has an adverse effect on the U.S. interest? Sixth, to the majority of Vietnamese community in the U.S., such an ordinance does not reflect aspirations and interests of the larger part of the Vietnamese - American living and working in the U.S. nor represent their views and voices. Over the last few days, many Americans of Vietnamese origin have shared with me their concerns about the negative implications the oridinace may have for the Vietnam -U.S. relationship, their business in Vietnam and the Vietmanese community. They said they would not exercise their "human rights" in making their concerns known to the city leaders because they fear of troubles some anti - communist extremists who are Vietnamese - Americans would cause to their lives and businesses. Seventh, your concerns about individuals such as Viet Khang, who was imprisoned for violations of the Vietnamese law, should not be a motive to push for such a wrong ordinance. You might be aware that differences in our countries' views on democracy, human rights, religious freedom are inevitable because of our differences