IMPRISONMENT OF A HMONG PROTESTANT

UNCLAS HANOI 002310 SIPDIS STATE FOR DRL/IRF AND EAP/BCLTV E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM KIRF PGOV VM RELFREE HUMANR ETMIN SUBJECT: IMPRISONMENT OF A HMONG PROTESTANT REF: HANOI 1687 ¶1. (U) A reliable Vietnamese Protestant source has provided what appear to be genuine court documents related to the prosecution and conviction of a Hmong Protestant named Ma A Chau (also known as Mua A Chau),who had earlier (reftel) been reported to have been detained in Lai Chau province on March 5, 2003. A panel of one judge and two lay assessors on June 18 found Chau guilty of the crime of "resisting a person carrying out official duties" (Article 257 of the Penal Code) and sentenced him to 36 months imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 dong (USD 3). ¶2. (U) The same source also provided a September 2 letter to the Supreme Procuracy and Supreme People's Court protesting the injustice of the arrest and conviction; the writer identifies himself as Ma A Seng, the son of Chau. (Note: It is not clear if the letter was actually sent, since this is a handwritten, apparently original version. End note) He admits an altercation between his father and police officials, but claims to have witnesses who can verify that Chau never struck any of the police officials. He also claims forcefully that the true reason for the arrest and punishment is the Protestant faith of both father and son, despite what he insists (accurately, according to the Vietnamese Constitution) is the right of all citizens to believe in religion. He claims police had been "following" his father for three years, trying to find an excuse to arrest him. He also protests that no family member has been allowed to visit Chau since his March detention. ¶3. (U) Comment: This is one of those cases frequently cited as a clear case of religious persecution, in which the actual facts are impossible to verify or dispute completely. That the son and others believe Chau is a victim due to his faith alone is evident, as well as that he had some sort of unfortunate encounter with local officials (who claimed in the court documents to be explaining some new provincial agricultural policies to villagers). But were the officials indeed harassing him, and, if so, only because he was a Protestant? Did he truly resist arrest (whether the arrest was justified or not) or otherwise impede officials in their "official business?" What, exactly, was their actual "official business?" The answers are likely not as simple as either side would profess. A full explanation would probably have to include a complex mix of ethnic tensions, personal animosities, overzealous and/or overbearing officials, and sense of insecurity by minority Protestants. BURGHARDT