As civil society activists from Asia and Europe leave Vietnam after the closure of the Fifth Asia-Europe (ASEM) People\u2019s Forum<\/b> held in Hanoi from 6-9 September 2004, many questions remain about Vietnam\u2019s organization of this event, which precedes the official ASEM Summit to be held on 8-9 October in Hanoi. Hailed by its organizers as an opportunity to \u201cenhance mutual understanding, solidarity and joint-actions for the common interests of our people,\u201d<\/i> the Forum was marred by restrictions on information and participation imposed by the Vietnamese authorities and the Forum\u2019s Vietnamese organiser, the Vietnamese Union of Friendship Organizations (VUFO).<\/p>\n
On the very first day, VUFO announced that the international media was banned from attending the Forum. The ban included all the foreign journalists who had travelled to Hanoi specifically to cover the event, including ten Southeast Asian journalists invited by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, a German-based organization promoting political dialogue within Vietnam. Associated Press and other international news agencies were also formally banned from attending the Forum\u2019s discussions, which included issues such as peace and security, economic and social security, democratisation and people\u2019s rights, and a specific workshop on \u201cthe media and democracy\u201d.<\/p>\n
VUFO said the media had been excluded because there was \u201cno room to accommodate them\u201d<\/i>. They promised to organize daily press briefings and hand out a list of participants so that journalists could request interviews. No lists were ever made available.<\/p>\n
The media ban drew strong international protests. Thailand\u2019s daily newspaper \u201cThe Nation\u201d<\/b> said it was \u201ca step back from Vietnam\u2019s place on the global stage\u201d<\/i>, one, which \u201ctarnished the country\u2019s image\u201d<\/i>… \u201cVietnam must learn how to cope with the realities of today\u2019s world. Over the past years, the Communist Party has benefited greatly from the positive tone of the coverage by the international media. But from a journalist\u2019s point of view, both the negative and the positive aspects of modern-day Vietnam must be included in the coverage to allow readers to form their own opinion. Hanoi\u2019s action will only have the opposite effect of what the country had in mind when it carried out the ban… In this age of globalisation, no country can expect to prevent the free flow of information from reaching its people…\u201d (Editorial, 8 September 2004<\/a>)<\/i>.<\/p>\n In an interview with the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights, Lord Avebury<\/b>, Vice-Chairman of the UK Parliamentary Human Rights Group<\/b> declared : \u201cCommunist fear of the free media is alive and well in Hanoi. To stop journalists attending a meeting on media and democracy shows that the Vietnamese government doesn\u2019t fully understand what democracy means. I hope the EU will make it clear at the ASEM Summit that Europe\u2019s relations with the countries of the region will only be strengthened if we can agree on respect for the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, including freedom of expression\u201d<\/i>.<\/p>\n Paulo Casaca, Member of the European Parliament<\/b> (Socialist, Portugal) said, \u201cIt is extraordinary that a Forum aimed especially at holding a public discussion is held behind closed doors. This shows that the Vietnamese authorities have a lot to hide, a lot of things that they don\u2019t want to be seen by the world at large, especially the very negative repression of peaceful religious movements. We are facing the repression of religious movements that are completely peaceful, that never threaten anyone, and only use the strength of their ideas. It is absolutely unacceptable that the Vietnamese State is repressing them the way they have been doing\u201d<\/i>.<\/p>\n Antoine Bernard<\/b>, Executive Director of the Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH)<\/b> condemned the media ban as a \u201cshocking and regrettable decision, a flagrant violation of freedom of information. The excuse put forward to justify this decision \u2013 to reduce the number of participants because of lack of space \u2013 is obviously a fallacious pretext that fools no one. The masks have fallen. This ban (on the media) confirms overwhelmingly that the Vietnamese regime systematically and blatantly violates the fundamental freedoms of expression, opinion and association, and especially freedom of information\u201d<\/i>.<\/p>\n Following these protests, the Forum was opened to the media on the last day, and some foreign journalists were allowed to attend the workshops, but were expressly prohibited from reporting on the proceedings. \u201cThey are sponsored by different organizations and are not allowed to work as journalists when participating in the forum, according to Vietnamese regulations,\u201d<\/i> said Do Tuan Song of the Forum\u2019s organizing committee.<\/p>\n Not only journalists, but also a number of Asian NGOs were excluded from the Forum because of political pressure from their governments who were concerned to preventing activists from criticising their country\u2019s human rights record. A delegation of 10 Cambodians<\/b> invited by the London-based One World Action<\/b> was intercepted and detained by Security Police at Ho Chi Minh City Airport and banned from participating in the Forum. Phay Siphan<\/b>, former Senator and Chairman of the Cambodia Centre for Human Rights<\/b> who headed the delegation, was intending to deliver a strong speech at the People\u2019s Forum criticizing State repression and the worsening human rights situation in Cambodia (Mr Siphan was expelled from the Senate because of his harsh criticisms of the Cambodian government). \u201cThe Cambodian government has apparently negotiated with the Vietnamese government not to allow the Cambodian delegates to attend because it would be embarrassing to the Cambodian government\u201d<\/i>, said Tom Crick<\/b>, Asia programme officer of One World Action<\/b>. After negotiations, the Vietnamese foreign ministry allowed four of the Cambodians to attend the Forum, but they all decided to return to home in solidarity with their banned colleagues.<\/p>\n Two delegates from Burma<\/b> who slipped through various channels to be able to attend the forum were told by the VUFO secretariat not to distribute campaign materials on democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Other pro-Burma supporters were forbidden to distribute materials for a signature campaign calling on the European Union to continue to block the entry of Burma\u2019s military regime in the ASEM.<\/p>\n Ms Ton Nu Thi Ninh<\/b>, vice-president of the National Assembly\u2019s Committee on Foreign Relations, defended the government\u2019s stance by stance by explaining that Vietnam\u2019s one-party system was \u201cnot on the fashionable side these days\u201d<\/i>. \u201cBut we must defend the right of minorities\u201d<\/i>, she said ironically, alluding to the 2-million minority of Communist Party members in a population of 81 million Vietnamese. \u201cI claim the right for us to try that challenge and build democracy within a one-party system\u201d<\/i>.<\/p>\n A rare insight into the People\u2019s Forum was given by one of it\u2019s key speakers, Ms Deborah Stothard<\/b>, Coordinator of Southeast Asia-based Altsean Burma \u2013 the Alternative Asean Network on Burma<\/b>, who addressed the Plenary session on \u201cDemocratisation and People\u2019s Rights\u201d. In an interview with Penelope Faulkner<\/b>, Vice-President of the Vietnam Committee on Human on Human Rights, given directly from the Forum in Hanoi, Ms Stothard gave her impressions of the ASEM 5 People\u2019s Forum and her first-time visit to Vietnam. Below is a transcript of the interview, which was broadcast to Vietnam on Radio Free Asia<\/b> on 10 September (9.00 pm) and 11 September (6.30 am) 2004.<\/p>\n