Web pages about "Viet Nam"

Viet Nam: At least 14 arrests under the excuse of Olympic torch relay

Tue, 06 May 2008 15:11:57 +0100

Using the Olympic torch as an excuse to crack down on peaceful critics is yet another bitter twist in Viet Nam’s pattern of repressing legitimate and peaceful dissent. Those arrested before and during the torch relay should be released immediately, said Amnesty International.

“Furthermore, the Vietnamese authorities must urgently investigate allegations of beatings against those detained, and ensure their safety and wellbeing.”

As the Olympic Torch relay made its stop in Viet Nam’s largest city, Ho Chi Minh City on 29 April 2008, police arrested at least 12 demonstrators who had protested peacefully against Chinese policies. The majority of arrests took place Hanoi, over 1,700 kilometres away from Ho Chi Minh City and the Olympic torch.

Amnesty International is deeply concerned at the ongoing campaign by the Vietnamese government to silence dissenting voices. Lawyers, trade unionists, religious leaders and Internet dissidents with links to emerging pro-democracy groups have been targeted since this crackdown began in 2006.

Earlier in April Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung urged the authorities to make the Olympic torch relay a success and ensure it would not “be affected by evil forces' distorted information,” according to state controlled media.

In the days leading up to the torch relay, at least three people were arrested, including Nguyen Hoang Hai, a journalist and blogger who had featured articles about protests against China's international policies. Most of those arrested on the day of the torch relay had voiced criticism against China about an ongoing territory dispute with Viet Nam over the Spratly and Paracel Islands, and about its policies in Tibet.

Background

According to reports received by Amnesty International, Nguyen Xuan Nghia and another arrested person, Vu Hung, a teacher, were beaten by police. Vu Hung is among four who have since been released.

It remains unclear whether charges have been brought against any of those who remain in detention, such as writer Nguyen Xuan Nghia and Vu Anh Son, who are reportedly held in Kien An district, Hai Phong province.

In breach of international human rights law the Vietnamese penal code criminalises peaceful dissent. Amnesty International has repeatedly called on the authorities to urgently reform provisions relating to national security and ensure they are either removed or brought into line with international law. The organisation reiterates its calls on the Vietnamese authorities to honour its international human rights obligations by releasing all prisoners of conscience.

Secrecy surrounds death penalty

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:08:25 +0100

At least 1,200 people were executed in 2007 and many more were killed by the state, in secret, in countries including China, Mongolia and Viet Nam.

The figures come from Amnesty International's yearly statistics, Death Sentences and Executions in 2007, issued on Tuesday, which say that at least 1,252 people were executed in 24 countries and at least 3,347 people were sentenced to death in 51 countries. Up to 27,500 people are estimated to be on death row across the world.

The figures also show an increase in executions in a number of countries. Iran executed at least 317 people, Saudi Arabia 143 and Pakistan 135 – in comparison to 177, 39 and 82 executions respectively in 2006.

Eighty-eight per cent of all known executions took place in five countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the USA. Saudi Arabia had the highest number of executions per capita, followed by Iran and Libya. Amnesty International has been able to confirm at least 470 executions by China – the highest overall figure. However, the organization has said that the true figure for China is undoubtedly much higher.

China, which the report refers to as the world's top executioner, classifies the death penalty as a state secret. As the world and Olympic guests are left guessing, only the Chinese authorities know exactly how many people have been killed with state authorization.

"The secretive use of the death penalty must stop: the veil of secrecy surrounding the death penalty must be lifted. Many governments claim that executions take place with public support. People therefore have a right to know what is being done in their name," said Amnesty International.

During 2007, many countries continued to execute for crimes not commonly considered criminal, or after unfair procedures. Among them:

Ja'Far Kiani, father of two, was stoned to death for adultery in Iran in July.
A 75 year-old North Korean factory manager was shot by firing squad in October for failing to declare his family background, investing his own money in the factory, appointing his children as its managers and making international phone calls.
Mustafa Ibrahim, an Egyptian national, was beheaded in Saudi Arabia in November for the practice of sorcery.
Michael Richard was executed in Texas, USA, on 25 September after a state courthouse refused to stay open an extra 15 minutes to allow the filing of an appeal based on the constitutionality of lethal injections. Richard's attorneys had been unable to file the appeal on time because of computer problems; problems they had already brought to the court's attention. The US Supreme Court then refused to stop the execution. Earlier in the day, however, it had agreed in a Kentucky case to review the lethal injection issue, a decision that led to a de facto moratorium on all other lethal injection executions around the country. The Supreme Court's ruling is expected later this year.

Three countries – Iran, Saudia Arabia and Yemen – carried out executions for crimes committed by people younger than 18 years of age, against international law.

However, 2007 was also the year where there was good news about the death penalty. The United Nations General Assembly voted – by 104 to 54, with 29 abstentions – to end the use of the death penalty.

"The UN General Assembly took the historic decision to call on all countries around the world to stop executing people. That the resolution was adopted in December with such a clear majority shows the global abolition of the death penalty is possible," said Amnesty International.

"The taking of life by the state is one of the most drastic acts a government can undertake. We are urging all governments to follow the commitments made at the UN and abolish the death penalty once and for all."

Breakthrough UN resolution on global moratorium on executions (News, 15 November 2007)
Amnesty International's Death Penalty page

Free imprisoned trade unionists

Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:01:44 +0000

Two days after Tran Quoc Hien was chosen as spokesperson for the United Workers-Farmers Organization (UWFO) in January 2007, he was arrested. The legal consultant only took the job because four other leaders had been arrested before the start of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Viet Nam in November 2006.

The Vietnamese authorities allege Tran Quoc Hien "joined reactionary organizations through the internet", and that "[u]nder the guise of helping members of the public lodge petitions" he and his accomplices incited demonstrations and posted "distorted" articles on the Internet.

He was also accused of being a member of Bloc 8406, an Internet-based pro-democracy movement calling for peaceful political change and respect for human rights. On 15 May 2007, Tran Quoc Hien was sentenced to five years' imprisonment plus two years' probation. Amnesty International does not know where he is.

The four UWFO leaders, Nguyen Tan Hoanh, Tran Thi Le Hang, Doan Huy Chuong and his father Doan Van Dien, are believed to be held at B5 prison camp in Dong Nai province. Amnesty International does not know when they might be tried or on what charges.

UWFO aims to protect and promote workers' rights, including the right to form and join trade unions without government interference. The organization also calls for justice for people whose land and property have been unlawfully confiscated by government officials, and for an end to exploitation of cheap labour and dangerous working conditions.

Viet Nam does not allow independent trade unions. Peaceful dissenting activists and government critics face arrest, imprisonment, house arrest, surveillance and harassment.

Internet dissident released in Viet Nam

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:48:45 +0000

Internet dissident Nguyen Vu Binh has been released from prison after spending almost five years behind bars.

According to official media, the 39-year-old was granted an amnesty by President Nguyen Minh Triet on 8 June, after he sent a letter to the head of state "pleading for clemency".

The journalist and writer served over two-thirds of his seven-year sentence. According to media reports, he left Ba Sao prison on 9 June to be reunited with his wife and two daughters in their Ha Noi home.

Amnesty International (AI) had considered Nguyen Vu Binh a prisoner of conscience, imprisoned solely for the peaceful expression of his opinions. The organisation has campaigned extensively for his release.

On his release, Nguyen Vu Binh sent a message to AI through a friend. He says he is conscious that the support AI and other human rights and democratic organizations gave him was not for him personally, but for universal values such as freedom, democracy and human rights. He concluded that: "The way to thank you is to continue to struggle for these values."

Nguyen Vu Binhwas arrested in September 2002 and convicted for "spying" after he wrote and posted articles about democracy on the internet and kept email contact with political groups in exile.

In addition to the seven years in prison, Nguyen Vu Binh was also sentenced to a three-year probation period following his release. It remains unclear whether he is currently under such probation or whether he is a free man. AI is calling for no such restrictions to be imposed on him.

It is hoped the release marks the reversal of a political crackdown in which more than 20 people, including lawyers, trade unionists, religious leaders and internet dissidents, have been arrested in Viet Nam. Eleven of these have been convicted in apparently politically-motivated trials.

AI calls on the authorities to immediately and unconditionally release all those serving prison sentences for exercising their right to peaceful dissent.

Press freedom: Deliberately targeted for doing their jobs

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:54:41 +0100

The freedom of the press is an essential element of the protection of human rights. Despite many issues and challenges, a fully functioning free press operates as the "fourth estate", exposing abuses of power and holding the other pillars of society to account. UNESCO places the media above all forms of communication and defines it as "an essential component in the building of a world at peace."

In reality, the press in most parts of the world is not completely free. Different situations present different threats and restrictions on press freedom, some more deadly than others, but there are few places where journalists are fully free to seek out and expose the truth.

Kofi Anan, speaking on World Press Freedom Day last year, said that most journalists who die in the line of duty around the world are murdered -- "deliberately targeted, as individuals, for exposing corruption or abuses of power; for opposing entrenched interests, legal or illegal; in short, for doing their jobs." In times of political strife, journalists are often among the first victims when groups turn to violence to achieve their aims.

The situation for journalists is stark in some of the conflict scarred countries of Africa. In 2002, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) named Zimbabwe one of the world's worst places to be a journalist. Almost all foreign journalists have been expelled from the country, Zimbabwean journalists are among the thousands who have fled the Mugabe government seeking asylum

In 2002, the government enacted the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA). Many of the provisions of the AIPPA contravene international human rights standards, particularly in relation to freedom of expression. The Daily News, Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper, was closed in September 2003 when the Supreme Court ruled that the newspaper was publishing illegally because it had not registered with the state-controlled Media Information Commission (MIC), a requirement of AIPPA. The MIC has refused to register the paper, which remains closed at the time of writing.

An AI report, Zimbabwe: Rights Under Siege, issued in 2003 catalogued abuses against journalists in Zimbabwe. "In 2002 alone, approximately 44 media workers were arrested and five media workers were physically attacked. Two media houses were petrol-bombed in 2002, bringing the total number of bomb attacks on the physical infrastructure of the independent press to four since 2001."

The most dangerous place in the world

However, for just over a year, the most dangerous place in the world for journalists has been Iraq. Of twelve journalists listed as killed since the beginning of the year by Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF -- Reporters Without Borders), five of them have been killed in Iraq. According to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), 38 media workers -- journalists, cameramen, photographers and translators -- have been killed since the beginning of the war.

The circumstances surrounding these deaths have highlighted worrying trends in US policy towards journalists. The US Army has publicly stated that it prefers embedded journalists, journalists who travel with troops receiving greater access to information and protection from the army. However, these journalists are usually restricted in the kinds of stories they can cover, as they are barred from leaving the unit and are rarely given access to people outside.

Journalists who reject the option of "embedding", preferring to try and do their job freely, have said that they are increasingly afraid that they are being deliberately targeted by the coalition forces as well as armed groups. A lack of proper investigation of incidents by the US forces has done nothing to dispel this view, despite denials by US spokespeople.

What is clear, however, is that the coalition forces are failing to protect journalists in Iraq. An investigation by RSF into the US attack on the Palestine Hotel in Iraq, in which two journalists were killed, found that, while there was no evidence that the hotel had been deliberately targeted, the army was "criminally negligent". According to the RSF report, "Two murders and a lie" published in January this year, soldiers in the field were never told the hotel was full of journalists. "The question is whether this information was withheld deliberately, out of contempt or through negligence."

In the most recent incident on 18 March, in which two journalists working for the Arabic satellite news channel Al-Arabiyya were killed, the US military concluded that they were killed in an "accidental shooting" by soldiers who opened fire within the "rules of engagement". These rules of engagement have not been made public, despite numerous calls for the military to do so.

The killings happened in the context of continuing criticism of the two main Arabic channels, Al-ArabiyaAl-Jazeera, by the coalition. Muwaffak al-Rubai, a member of Iraq's Governing Council, accused the stations of inciting violence, lying and being "anti-coalition". The Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman Dan Senor described a report about US forces targeting women and children as "poisonous". Al-Arabiya was previously banned from working and its bureaux in Baghdad were closed for two moths. Al-Jazeera was banned from covering the activities of the governing council for a month at the beginning of the year.

In a meeting with the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), the British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon made the occupying forces' policy chillingly clear. "The journalists know that they had to write the truth in return for the protection they were given. If they write rubbish, they might find themselves less well looked after."

This lack of protection has put journalists at increased risk from armed groups in Iraq. The GuardianTimes reporter James Hider on 14 April this year as saying that the threat of kidnapping has become so acute that the majority of western journalists are no longer venturing beyond Baghdad. There have also been a number of incidents of journalists being detained by the coalition forces, such as the Korean journalists detained in March and the four Iraqis working for Reuters and NBC who were held for three days in January and, according to Reuters, subjected to sleep deprivation and other "uncomfortable treatment". newspaper reported

The Geneva Conventions specifically state that journalists are civilians and should be protected as such under the Conventions. The consistent failure of the coalition forces to acknowledge their duty to protect journalists, whether or not they agree with what they write, and the attacks upon them have been condemned by the NUJ.

Caught in the line of fire

The situation does not necessarily improve once open conflict has ended. An Amnesty International action for World Press Freedom Day highlights the increase in acts of repression and intimidation by the authorities against journalists in the Democratic Republic of Congo. "Despite optimism that the transitional period in the DRC, which began in June 2003, would lead to an improvement in respect for the right to freedom of expression, the indications are that the situation is worsening.

"Journalists in the DRC have suffered serious human rights abuses in pursuing their profession. Some journalists have been killed, tortured or "disappeared". Many are routinely threatened and harassed. But the most prevalent and systematic official tactic to stifle legitimate press comment and to intimidate journalists has been the (ab)use of criminal laws governing libel and similar offences. Under these laws, the DRC authorities have unjustly arrested, detained, imprisoned or imposed punitive fines against hundreds of journalists in recent years."

In Venezuela, journalists are being caught in the line of fire, according to the General Secretary of the IFJ, Aidan White. Over three days at the beginning of March, the IFJ reports that two cameramen were shot, a photographer was injured by rubber bullets and two other reporters were hit by tear gas and sharp items. They also report that a female journalist was assaulted and received death threats and two other journalists were stripped of their equipment and then punched by government supporters.

Amnesty International has criticized the Venezuelan government for failing to effectively investigate incidents of political violence attributed to both government and opposition supporters. "The impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators encourages further human rights violations in a particularly volatile political climate."

Less deadly pressures

In countries removed from bitter conflicts, journalists generally face less deadly pressures on their work. However, this does not mean that they are free to find and print the truth.

In China, there was an increase of 60 per cent in the number of people detained or sentenced for Internet-related "offences" in 2003 compared to the previous year. A number of those who have been arrested are journalists, such as Liu Haofeng, who was sentenced to three years for "endangering state security" by writing two articles that appeared on a China Democracy Party website based in California. Mu Chuanheng, one of the first Chinese dissidents to use the Internet to express his views, served a three-year sentence for "incitement to subvert state power".

Tao Haidong was sentenced to seven years for "incitement to subvert state power" for posting three books he wrote criticising the Communist Party on the Internet and Xu Wei has been tortured and ill-treated as he serves a 10-year sentence for posting articles of political and social concerns on the Internet. (People's Republic of China: Controls tighten as Internet activism grows)

The authorities in Viet Nam have also targeted Internet users. At least ten people, including Nguyen Vu Binh, a 35-year-old journalist and writer, have been arrested and some sentenced to long prison terms for using the Internet whilst criticising the government or sharing information with overseas Vietnamese groups. (Socialist Republic of Viet Nam: Freedom of expression under threat in cyberspace)

In Cuba, 23 of the 75 dissidents sentenced to long prison terms last year were journalists. They included members of independent journalist organisations, cooperatives and news agencies not recognised by the authorities, including Carmelo Agustín Díaz Fernández, president of the unofficial Agencia de Prensa Sindical Independiente de Cuba (the Independent Union Press Agency), Ricardo Severino González Alfonso, President of the unofficial Sociedad de Periodistas "Manuel Marquez Sterling" (Manuel Márquez Sterling Journalists' Society), and Cuba correspondent for RSF and Raúl Rivero Castañeda journalist and director of the unofficial press agency, Cuba Press, which he founded in 1995. (Cuba: One year too many: prisoners of conscience from the March 2003 crackdown)

Fourteen journalists in Eritrea have been held in secret incommunicado detention since the authorities clamped down on increasing criticism of the government and calls for democratic reform in September 2001.Ten of them were arrested in September 2001, when the government also shut down all the privately-owned news media, which remain closed, and four others have been arrested since then. (Eritrea: Arbitrary detention of government critics and journalists)

In Ethiopia, the Ethiopian Free Press Journalists Association (EFJA) was banned in November 2003. Its president, Kifle Mulat, who also edits an independent newspaper, has been jailed four times and frequently receives threats. Over the past twelve years, the EFJA has documented arrests of hundreds of private-press journalists, editors, publishers, owners and distributors, with scores sentenced to prison terms. It has campaigned against the government's proposed new Press Law, which would be even harsher than the current 1992 law that was entitled "Proclamation for the Freedom of the Press".

Iran's judiciary relies on vague laws relating to defamation and national security that are frequently used to close publications and try and imprison journalists and commentators. Limits to freedom of expression and association are exacerbated by a flawed judicial structure. It lacks true independence and requires judges to draw both on written and non-codified, traditional law, while also holding them personally responsible for damages.

In many areas of the country, judges also serve as investigators, prosecutors and judges on the same case: an astonishing lack of separation between prosecutorial powers and judgement that flies in the face of international standards, which has resulted in a catalogue of unfair trials that have lead to the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience.

Article 513 of the Penal Code, under which offences considered to amount to an "insult" to religion can be punished by death or imprisonment, has been used to suppress the media. In 1999, journalists connected with the newspaper Neshat (Happiness), including the publisher, Latif Safari, editor Mashallah Shamsolvaezin and another journalist, Emadeddin Baqi, were detained, tried, convicted and sentenced, each to prison terms in excess of two years, for the publication of two articles which discussed the place of the death penalty in society. In April 2004, Mashallah Shamsolvaezin and Emadeddin Baqi become co-founders of Society for Defence of the Rights of Prisoners, an NGO aimed at helping those imprisoned in connection with freedom of expression.(Iran: A legal system that fails to protect freedom of expression and association).

In Russia, restrictions on freedom of expression included the takeover or closure of independent news outlets such as the television network TV-6, which was closed down in January 2002. TV-6 had been a persistent critic of government policy, especially over the war in Chechnya. (Annual Report 2003: Russian Federation)

Media ownership and restrictions

Alongside such official threats to media freedom, an increased narrowing of media ownership, with fewer and fewer proprietors owning more and more media outlets, has brought its own restrictions. Media freedom depends on, according to UNESCO, "independent and pluralistic media, and a better balanced dissemination of information, without any obstacle to the freedom of expression."

To take the example of one of the world's biggest media companies, News Corporation, the Iraq war clearly illustrated a cohesive editorial line across its outlets. From The Australian newspaper to Fox NewsThe Times and The Sun in the United Kingdom, every News Corporation outlet strongly voiced support for the war. As these outlets make up an increasing percentage of the world's mainstream media, this kind of unanimity works against a pluralistic media landscape. in the US and

A survey of commercial television in the United States, in relation to the Iraq War and its aftermath, by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) showed that 80% of Fox News viewers held one of three major misconceptions* about the issues and 45% held all three. PIPA's report on the survey also found that, the more misconceptions held by the respondent, the more likely it was that they supported the war. As News Corporation continues to expand its control of the world's media, the more danger there is that "a better balanced dissemination of information" will be more of an aspiration and less of a reality.

In the UK, a recent series of articles in The Daily Express reporting that "hordes of Gypsies" are ready to "flood in" to the country on 1 May provoked a strong reaction. The Minister for Europe, Denis McShane, called it a "rancid hate campaign", with other MPs condemning it as "obscene" and "racist". What is particularly striking about this, though, is that the newspaper's own journalists reported the stories to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). They sought help from the PCC to protect them by introducing a "conscience clause" to protect those who resist pressure to produce stories they regard as racist.

Editorial pressure and interference -- such as the fact that the newspaper's editor, Peter Hill, admits that the proprietor Richard Desmond contributes to editing the front pages -- restricts the ability of journalists to write fair, balanced and truthful articles and stories. The fact that Peter Hill is a member of the very same PCC to which the journalists complained denies journalists adequate protection. The PCC ruled that it has no jurisdiction to respond to the journalists' call. The issue has now been taken up as a campaign by the NUJ and a group of Labour Party MPs.

There is nothing wrong with having an editorial position; in fact, a range of newspapers with different stances on issues adds to the pluralism of the media. But editorial pressure on journalists to distort, hype and write things they know are untrue does the opposite.

Threats and obstacles to a truly free press are widespread and take many different forms, some more stark than others. The starkest, of course, is the on-going threat to journalists' lives. This is why a number of journalist organisations came together with Amnesty International at the UN Commission on Human Rights in April 2004 to launch the Movement to Protect Media in Zones of Conflict - the Need for a Protective Press Emblem (PEMBLEM).

However, this is only the first step. Journalists have found that being clearly marked with the word Press is not a defence. Any emblem needs to be backed up by international respect for those who wear it; if not, then it could as easily become a target. Journalists deserve protection like any other civilian. It is the duty of all -- be they large armies, armed insurrectionists, governments or opposition campaigners -- to protect them. The world's press might not be ideal and the pressures outlined above may affect what they publish, but the world would be a far less free place if they were not there at all.