HANOI MUSEUM EXHIBITION CRITICIZES VIETNAM'S PAST ECONOMIC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 HANOI 001814 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR EAP/MLS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR VM SUBJECT: HANOI MUSEUM EXHIBITION CRITICIZES VIETNAM'S PAST ECONOMIC POLICIES HANOI 00001814 001.2 OF 003 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: A new exhibition at the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology (VME) in Hanoi is currently enjoying considerable public interest and media attention, as the exhibit indirectly criticizes the GVN's past economic policies, while carefully praising current pro-market reforms. The museum's director claimed that the GVN did not attempt to censor the exhibit, which was partly inspired by a Smithsonian exhibition on racial segregation in the United States, despite the exhibition's often strong critiques. Although the exhibit does not likely reflect an overall trend towards cultural openness by the GVN, it does set a new precedent for careful political criticism. End Summary. State Museum Attracts Vietnamese Visitors -------------- ¶2. (SBU) On July 9, Pol and Econ interns visited the Vietnamese Museum of Ethnology's (VME) exhibit entitled "Hanoi Life Under the Subsidy Economy, 1975-1986" and met with the VME's Director, Dr. Nguyen Van Huy, and Vice Head of the Southeast Asian Department, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Thu Huong. Located in the outskirts of Hanoi, the spacious and well-maintained museum houses the new exhibition in a large room alongside its permanent collection of traditional artifacts. In stark contrast to other State museums, a large number of both foreign and Vietnamese visitors crowd the VME, which boasts multimedia displays and realistic reproductions. At the entrance of the exhibition, mannequins stand in line at a life-size storehouse for food, setting the scene of the "Bao Cap" (Subsidy) Economy period, while Vietnamese adolescents take pictures of their friends pretending to be in line to receive rations. Subtle Criticisms of Past Policies -------------- ¶3. (SBU) With its collection of old photographs, authentic household objects and a reproduction of an insalubrious neighborhood, the exhibit depicts the poor living conditions of Hanoi residents prior to the GVN's implementation of the "Doi Moi" (Renovation) policy in 1986 by the GVN. Numerous signs throughout the showroom describe the difficulties common people faced to acquire basic necessities: "Food was bought with coupons...Distribution of goods was dependant on the rank of the citizen...High-ranking officials were served at special shops." To illustrate these experiences, ration coupons are displayed next to small stones with an individual's position in the line chalked on each rock. These served to ensure people's place, should they need to leave temporarily. The concluding sentence of a caption describing a food stall summarizes the prevalent sentiment of the time: "Queuing to buy rice was always a suffering." ¶4. (SBU) Without openly blaming the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) or the GVN for these hardships, the exhibition nonetheless points to Bao Cap policies as the source of economic failure. Signs and captions, in both English and Vietnamese, denounce the "socio-economic mismanagement, inefficient systems and inappropriate mechanisms of Bao Cap" and blame the system's breakdown on "production problems, corruption, fraudulent use or connivance between trade staff." Exhibits also note that as a black market emerged, "Buying and selling coupons illegally was common." On top of these economic problems, the exhibition also hints at GVN censorship and dissent within the country during the period. Adjacent to a sign describing the GVN's "cultural management" policy, a caption of a theatrical play book reads, "if a name in a local play of the bad character is the same as a local official, the play could be banned." Under another sign explaining the gradual path to Doi Moi, novels, poems and "Tien Phong" (Pioneer) newspaper articles, all hostile to Bao Cap, are on display. ¶5. (SBU) Despite these subtle criticisms, the exhibition does not go as far as directly blaming the GVN for Bao Cap. Censorship of cultural expression is depicted as a "strict and rigid management of all art forms," but the only repercussions mentioned are "unequal opportunities for people to enjoy cultural experiences." The entire exhibit mitigates the responsibility of the GVN and defines Bao Cap as a time when "the courage and the intelligence of millions of people were suppressed," without delving into the actual root causes. While some video displays mention the debate during the mid 1980s about economic reforms, the final sign of the exhibition praises the GVN's Doi Moi reforms, which led Vietnam from a subsidence economy to global markets integration. Once the country instituted market reforms, "the energy of the people virtually exploded, creating a boom in socio-economic development." The final photograph of the exhibit shows the signing of the U.S.-Vietnam Bilateral Access Agreement in May 2006, symbolizing a bright outlook ahead, as Vietnam prepares to enter the World Trade Organization "later this year." One middle-aged Vietnamese visitor told Econ intern that the significance of the exhibition is that it depicts the contrast between today's prosperity and the hardships under Bao Cap, but "it is not a criticism of the GVN." HANOI 00001814 002.2 OF 003 Exhibit Embraced by Vietnamese Public -------------- ¶6. (SBU) During the meeting with Huy, Pol intern noted that the exhibition differs greatly from other State museums' exhibits by offering a frank portrayal of Vietnam's history, and inquired whether this initiative marks Vietnam's new willingness to honestly reexamine its past and Socialist policies. Without answering the question, Huy provided a detailed overview of the strong public interest in the exhibition. Since its opening, the VME has seen an average of 800 to 900 visitors on Saturdays and Sundays, which "surprised everyone at the museum." The VME was actually unable to accommodate all visitors during the first week, due to a shortage of tickets and parking spots. ¶7. (SBU) Huy also pointed out that the exhibition attracts people from all levels of Vietnamese society. While older Vietnamese come with their own sentiments and experiences, younger individuals visit the museum "to satisfy their curiosity." "The newest Vietnamese generation does not know life under the Subsidy Economy and it is difficult for them to grasp the living conditions of that era," he added. As a result, grandparents have to explain to their grandchildren their past hardships. Lauding "this inter-generational communication," Huy mentioned that people also share their feelings and reconnect with each other through their common experiences. Conveying visitors' reactions to the exhibit, Huy passionately explained that "people are truly happy to look back and witness the changes, but they also look forward to the future." American Advisor Participates in the Exhibition Design. -------------- -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Huy noted that the VME staff created the entire showing, but a lengthy preparation time was necessary to collect daily-life objects and conduct interviews with older Hanoi residents for a direct account of their experiences. An American curator (NFI) from Alaska helped with the creation of a "community video," which allowed residents to freely recount their memories about the Bao Cap period. This first-ever media experience in Vietnam was included in the exhibition's section dealing with the early debate about economic reforms. Although the community film only relayed soft criticisms against Bao Cap, Huy insisted that "the initiative was entirely carried out by the people and the museum performed minimum edits without modifying the substance of the videos." No GVN Censorship of the Exhibition -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Pol intern speculated about possible GVN or CPV interference with the exhibit's contents and inquired whether the VME maintained its creative and intellectual freedom during the design process. Huy candidly replied: "We were not censored." After the GVN approved the project last September, the VME worked on the exhibit without any constraint. "I decided the content myself and no governmental agency objected," Huy declared. The VME secured funding from the Vietnamese Academy of Social Sciences as part of its activities marking the 20th anniversary of Doi Moi. Although he acknowledged that he planned this project for the past four years, Huy claimed that he did not have a clear vision for the exhibit other than "leaving an open-ended conclusion for visitors by reflecting different views from different people." ¶10. (SBU) Finally, Huy noted that his inspiration for the exhibition stemmed from his visit to the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History exhibition depicting racial segregation and the history of the Jim Crow era in the South. Recollecting his sentiments after contemplating a display of a train with sections dividing white and black passengers, Huy praised the ability of American museums to objectively reexamine U.S. history and stated his belief that the VME could act in the same capacity for Vietnam. He noted that for this reason, the VME decided to display a famous Vietnamese poem by the exit of the Bao Cap exhibition. Published shortly before the CPV's 6th Congress (which lead to the institution of Doi Moi),the piece strongly criticizes Bao Cap policies and condemns the Party for restricting the people's aspirations. While the GVN condemned the poem at the time, Huy explained that the exhibit displays the work to recapture the end of Bao Cap. Quoting one of the poem's verses -- "Who understands and who has to change" -- he concluded that, "I believe the Party had to change, that is why Doi Moi came." Comment -------------- ¶11. (SBU) The VME's exhibition on Bao Cap provides an unprecedented critique of GVN socio-economic policies prior to Doi Moi. The exhibit's implicit praise of Doi Moi policies is likely the main HANOI 00001814 003.2 OF 003 reason the GVN tolerates these critiques. Although the Bao Cap exhibit does not reflect an overall trend towards cultural openness by the GVN, it does set a new precedent for careful political criticism. End comment. MARINE