When he arrived at his first US stop in Seattle, approximately 3000 protesters "welcomed" the prime minister. Some of them opposed Vietnam's practice of dumping cheap goods on US markets. Some of them opposed Vietnam's refusal to have full disclosure on the issue of US military personnel missing or killed in action during the Vietnam war that ended with the fall of Saigon thirty years ago. Some protesters were Vietnamese who fled their homeland because the victorious communists persecuted them. Some protesters opposed the fact Vietnam has a communist government. Whatever their reasons, they assembled peacefully and clearly indicated their views.
That was not the prime minister's last encounter with protesters. During his meetings with President Bush, more than 300 protesters gathered outside the White House. This group was smaller but no less vocal and no less orderly than the protesters in Seattle.
Heads of state and/or government usually experience encounters with protesters during visits to democratic regions. The protesters at the upcoming G8 meeting by far will outnumber the groups protesting Vietnam's prime minister, but the numbers do not tell the full story here. The G8 protesters will be "professional protesters" - the breed that enhance their reputation by disrupting multi-national conferences to promote various radical organizations and programs. The people protesting Vietnam's prime minister were not "professional protesters". They were not people who had no better way to spend a Sunday or Tuesday afternoon. They were people who wanted to assert that Vietnam is not the former adversary turned nice ally as official US policy would suggest.
The ultimate indicator of whether protests succeed is when policy changes follow those protests. This seems quite unlikely in this situation. In his official remarks, Mr. Bush had only praise for Vietnam. No apparent references were made to Vietnam's questionable human rights practices, its prohibition on political opposition, its one-party system, its economic dumping practices, its alleged use of child and prison labor, and the other topics that led the protesters to take to the streets. In fact Mr. Bush's comments portray the image of a conservative Republican praising a committed communist for "progress" whose results expanded the influence and authority of socialism in Vietnam.
The protests succeeded in that they attracted attention to Vietnam's prolific problems and they assured Vietnam's leader not everyone in the US thinks Vietnam is in the midst of true reform. Since Vietnam censors its press and restricts Internet access to wire services, few Vietnamese will be aware of these protests, so it will be simple for their leaders to ignore the protesters' messages. Meanwhile in the US the vocal minority no doubt has the tacit concurrence of the silent majority in respect of concerns about US/Vietnam relations. Smooth acquiescence is not the way to improve those relations. Nor should the expression of opposition to Vietnam's current government be construed as a new attempt to "Americanize" Vietnam to fight the old war by different means. The Vietnamese in Vietnam are prevented from effecting change there. This does not imply they do not want change. Hence the obligation to initiate that change exists in places such as the US where expressions of opposition are allowed and encouraged. Perhaps in eventual rhetrospect those 3000 protesters in Seattle and those 300 protesters at the White House will have the satisfaction to recognize their activities were the start of the process to bring real economic progress and reform to Vietnam.
Go To Page: 1
