Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
10HANOI1
2010-01-12 10:08:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Hanoi
Cable title:  

Violent Demolition of Crucifix Overshadows Progress on

Tags:  PHUM PGOV PREL KIRF VM 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO5534
OO RUEHHM
DE RUEHHI #0001/01 0121008
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O R 121008Z JAN 10
FM AMEMBASSY HANOI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0707
INFO RUEHHI/AMEMBASSY HANOI
RUEHHM/AMCONSUL HO CHI MINH CITY 0359
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 HANOI 000001 

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/01/12
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL KIRF VM
SUBJECT: Violent Demolition of Crucifix Overshadows Progress on
Religious Freedom in Vietnam

CLASSIFIED BY: Virginia Palmer, Deputy Chief of Mission; REASON:
1.4(B),(D)
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 HANOI 000001

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/01/12
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL KIRF VM
SUBJECT: Violent Demolition of Crucifix Overshadows Progress on
Religious Freedom in Vietnam

CLASSIFIED BY: Virginia Palmer, Deputy Chief of Mission; REASON:
1.4(B),(D)

1.(SBU) Summary: Hundreds of Vietnamese security forces and local
"thugs" tore down a crucifix in Dong Chiem district of Hanoi on
January 6. Credible Catholic church sources report that these
individuals used tear gas to disperse the parishioners and that as
many as 12 individuals were injured. The Catholic church in Hanoi
called the demolition of the crucifix an "act of sacrilege" and
characterized the attacks on parishioners as "savage and inhuman
acts." Dong Chiem authorities and Ministry of Public Security
officials say the parishioners violated Vietnamese laws by building
the crucifix on state land, defend the GVN's right to enforce
Vietnamese law, and deny using force on the parishioners.
Political Counselor conveyed our concerns about the credible
reports of security forces using force on the parishioners and
cautioned that the GVN's handling of this situation could
complicate efforts to move relations forward. The Ambassador will
reiterate this message during his lunch with the Deputy Foreign
Minister January 13. End summary.




2. (SBU) According to our Catholic church sources, at approximately
0200 on January 6, 600-1,000 policemen, security forces and local
"thugs," some armed with weapons, batons, tear gas, and police
dogs, besieged the parishes of Nghia Ai, Tuy Hien, and Dong Chiem.
They blocked access to mount "Nui Tho" (near An Phu commune, My Duc
district, Hanoi) and began demolishing a crucifix. Parishioners of
Dong Chiem parish reportedly urged the police and security forces
to stop, but were unsuccessful. The police/security forces/armed
individuals sealed off the perimeter around the mountain, and fired
tear gas on some of the parishioners. Approximately one dozen
parishioners were beaten, of whom two were seriously injured and
were hospitalized.



3.(SBU) On January 6, the Catholic Archdiocese of Hanoi's office
issued a statement claiming ownership of the mountain, called the
demolition of the crucifix an "act of sacrilege," and characterized
the attacks on parishioners as "savage and inhuman acts." On
January 8, ten bishops of northern Vietnam issued a statement
describing the destruction of the crucifix - and the violence
against the parishioners - as "two ingredients of government policy
in resolving religious disputes." On January 8, the People's
Committee of My Duc district in Hanoi fired back, issuing a
document that criticizes the local parish priest for erecting the
crucifix in March 2009 without permission from competent agencies,

and arguing that this act violated existing laws and regulations.
The People's Committee further blamed the local parish priest for
instigating local parishioners to erect a new crucifix in 2009,
after the former one had been removed.




4. (C) Ministry of Public Security officials telephoned the Embassy
on January 11 to ask Political Counselor to meet with Senior
Colonel Chau the following morning. Colonel Chau opened the
meeting by noting that he was following through on his commitment
to PolChief during their first meeting in September to provide the
USG the "official position" on developments of possible interest.
He later explained that the meeting was motivated in part by MPS's
desire to "correct" misinformation that would being circulating in
Vietnam and abroad by foreign media and others to discredit the GVN
and its record at improving religious freedom in Vietnam.




5. (C) Reading from a prepared report which he noted had been
approved by the MPS leadership, Chau provided the following
"official position:" The Catholic church in Dong Chiem, with the
support of central Catholic church authorities, erected the
crucifix in March 2009 on land under the authority of the
provincial authorities, not the church, and without state
authorization. This "illegal act" violated several Vietnamese laws
and regulations, including construction laws, religious laws, and a
Ministry of Defense regulation that prohibits construction in
"military" zones. Despite repeated requests from local, provincial
and central government authorities to remove the crucifix, the
local parish refused. Moreover, according to MPS, the local priest
in Dong Chiem during mass encouraged his parishioners to resist
calls to remove the crucifix. As a result, on January 6, Dong
Chiem officials were forced to remove the crucifix in order to
enforce Vietnamese law and restore public security and order. In
response, the local priest mobilized "hundreds" of priests, nuns,
and parishioners to oppose the local authorities. Dong Chiem
officials talked most of these individuals to disperse. Contrary
to erroneous press reports, local authorities did not use violence

HANOI 00000001 002 OF 002


to disperse the individuals. Two individuals suffered minor
injuries, but these were the result of skirmishes between them and
innocent bystanders.




6. (C) Colonel Chau lamented that the foreign media and certain
individuals in Vietnam were using the local authorities' decision
to implement the law as pretext for arguing that Vietnam does
respect religious freedoms. Chau defended Vietnam's record and
urged the U.S. to distinguish between issues related to "religious
freedoms" and those related to "Vietnamese law." Colonel Chau
noted that there were reports that some parishioners were
constructing a replacement crucifix made of bamboo. Finally, Chau
said the GVN was responsible for implementing Vietnamese law and
providing public security. Any individual(s) found to be stirring
up unrest would be dealt with under the law.




7. (C) Political Counselor replied that we had reliable information
and press reports that suggested that public security forces and
other armed individuals had used violence on some of the
parishioners, and that several were injured as a result, a charge
that Colonel Chau denied. Political Counselor noted recent
progress on religious freedom and agreed Vietnam had the right to
uphold its laws. However, he cautioned that the mood on Washington
regarding Vietnam was souring in some quarters following the recent
deterioration in human rights here. Credible reports of security
personnel engaging in violence to resolve differences with
religious followers - whether they be Catholics in Dong Chiem or
Buddhists in Lam Dong - would only sour the mood further and could
complicate efforts to move forward in the relationship. Chau took
note of the message, but defended Vietnam's record on religious
freedom and encouraged the Embassy to make sure that Washington
"understands the real Vietnam."




8. (C) Comment: We welcome MPS's pro-activeness in reaching out to
us to provide an "official" GVN position on the recent and past
events surrounding Dong Chiem. However, we seriously question the
accuracy of their information - particularly Colonel Chau's denial
that public security forces used tear gas and other methods to
disperse parishioners, or that public security officials were not
responsible for at least some of the injuries suffered. MPS's
motivation in reaching out is largely driven by a desire to get out
in front and "shape" the story, and avoid having to respond to
criticism that its security forces were either involved in acts of
violence against the parishioners, or sat by while such violence
occurred. At this early stage, it is too early to say for sure
whether this is a "religious" or "land" issue. We suspect it is a
combination of the two. We are conferring with our Catholic church
contacts regarding MPS's assertions that the local parish violated
Vietnamese law in erecting the crucifix and refused to remove it
despite requests from authorities. Either way, the GVN's handling
of the situation - particularly its recourse to violence, rather
than the chronology of events that led up to the fracas that
matters. As in Lam Dong, local authorities "thuggish" responses
threaten to overshadow the progress made in other areas of
international religious freedom. End comment.
Michalak

Share this cable

 facebook -