TEXT: SENATOR KERRY 7/7 ON JACKSON-VANIK WAIVER FOR VIETNAM
(Waiver denial would hurt U.S. interests in S.E. Asia)

Washington -- Denying Vietnam's Jackson-Vanik waiver "would have serious negative consequences for our bilateral relations with Vietnam and our larger interests in Southeast Asia," Senator John F. Kerry (Democrat of Massachusetts), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said in July 7 remarks to the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade.

Renewing the Jackson-Vanik waiver would qualify Vietnam for most-favored-nation (MFN) trading status when and if it reaches a bilateral trade agreement with the United States. The Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 requires that certain economic benefits be denied countries that 1) deny their citizens the right or opportunity to emigrate; 2) impose more than a nominal tax on emigration, visas, or other documents required for emigration; or 3) impose more than a nominal tax or other charge on any citizen as a consequence of the desire to emigrate. The Amendment authorizes the President to waive the restrictions if such a waiver would serve to substantially promote the freedom of emigration in a given country.

"The record over the last few years clearly proves that our step-by-step approach to normalizing relations with Vietnam is working and is consonant with the many interests we have in that country and the region," Kerry said. "Reversing that policy by disapproving the President's waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment will reduce our influence and threaten future progress on POW/MIA, emigration, human rights, economic reform and trade, and other interests I have not discussed, such as stemming the flow of illegal drugs. In short, it would do irreparable harm to our relationship and our interests not only in Vietnam but also in the region."

"The decision to treat Vietnam as a country, rather than a war, was made when we normalized diplomatic relations in 1995. We cannot and should not turn the clock back now," Kerry said. "The President made the right decision when he decided to waive the Jackson-Vanik amendment and to renew it this month. Congress should let that decision stand."

Following is the text of Kerry's remarks, as prepared for delivery:

(begin text)

STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY
BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
ON THE RENEWAL OF THE WAIVER
OF THE JACKSON-VANIK AMENDMENT FOR VIETNAM
JULY 7, 1998

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to testify this morning on the President's decision to renew the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment for Vietnam. Let me say at the outset that I strongly support this decision, and I believe overturning it would have serious negative consequences for our bilateral relations with Vietnam and our larger interests in Southeast Asia.

Today, the United States has many important and varied interests in Vietnam and in the region. First, we have an overriding humanitarian interest in continuing the process of obtaining the fullest possible accounting of American servicemen missing from the war.

Second, we have an interest in promoting freedom of emigration -- an area in which the government of Vietnam has made substantial process over the last year.

Third, we have an ongoing interest in promoting human rights and democratic freedoms around the world, including in Vietnam where the composition of the population -- over 60 percent of Vietnam's population are under 25 years of age -- and the process of economic development hold the promise of political liberalization over time.

Fourth, Vietnam is a potentially significant market for American services and goods, but that market can only be developed if Vietnam maintains the course of economic reform that it began in the late 1980s. When I was in Vietnam earlier this year, it was clear to me that there was concern within the leadership about the financial crisis in Asia and what implications that crisis had for Vietnam. I believe after talking with the Prime Minister and other senior Vietnamese officials that Vietnam will stay the course. However, if we force Eximbank and OPIC to close down -- which is what supporters of the resolution of disapproval want -- we run the risk of setting that process back. It is in the interest of American workers and businesses to continue to encourage this process of reform.

Vietnam is an integral part of Southeast Asia -- a region where political stability has been sporadic at best. In light of the financial crisis that is engulfing Asia and the turbulent events in Cambodia over the last year, it is in our interest to have an active presence in the region and effective working relationships with the countries of the region, including Vietnam. If fact the Bush Administration's overtures toward Hanoi in 1990 and 1991, which resulted in the so-called "road map" for U.S.-Vietnamese relations, were born out of the need to end the conflict in Cambodia and establish a process to promote regional stability.

We also have overriding strategic and political interests in counter balancing China's position and growing influence in Southeast Asia. Over the last few years China has been aggressively courting the countries of Southeast Asia even those, such as Vietnam, which were historical enemies. China has mended fences with Cambodia's second prime minister, Hun Sen, and was quick to provide aid to Cambodia in the wake of the coup last July in which Hun Sen deposed his co-prime minister Prince Ranariddh. China has also been the number one supplier of arms to the military junta in Rangoon, and has continuously worked to develop Burma as an outlet for Chinese goods from landlocked Yunnan province. Although Vietnam has been invaded by China many times, Beijing has made a concerted effort to improve relations with Hanoi. A trip to the border provides a first hand picture of the budding trade relationship between China and Vietnam.

Last, but certainly not least, we have an interest, a responsibility, and a national need to heal the wounds of a nation and put the past behind us once and for all. The step by step process of normalizing our relations with Vietnam is a means of healing those wounds.

The real question is how we promote these interests most effectively? Those who oppose the Jackson-Vanik waiver want to turn the clock back to the policy that we had in place for some 20 years after the war -- a policy of denial. But Mr. Chairman, as the history of the POW/MIA issue clearly demonstrates, that policy was a failure.

For years after the war, we tried to promote our primary interest in Vietnam -- to resolve the cases of American servicemen still missing from the war -- by denying Vietnam the benefits of trade and diplomatic relations. The policy produced few positive results. Progress on the POW/MIA issue came only when we began to engage the Vietnamese and to recognize that the Vietnamese needed and wanted a relationship with the United States. This recognition was implicit in the Bush Administration's roadmap which set out a step by step process for normalization of relations between the United States and Vietnam.

Today, we can cite enormous progress in the process of POW/MIA accounting as a result of the cooperation that we have received, and continue to receive, from the Vietnamese. In the last five years American and Vietnamese personnel have conducted 30 joint field activities in Vietnam to recover and repatriate remains. 233 sets of remains have been repatriated and 97 remains have been identified. In addition to working jointly with the United States on remains recovery, the government of Vietnam agreed in 1996 to an American request to undertake unilateral action. Since that time, Vietnamese teams have provided reports on their unilateral investigations of 115 cases.

When I became Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs in 1991, 196 individuals were on the list of "discrepancy" or "last known alive cases." These were cases in which individuals survived their loss incidents but they remain unaccounted for because they did not return alive and their fate was uncertain. These are the most difficult and heartbreaking cases. As of today, fate has been determined for all but 43 of the 196 on this list. This means, Mr. Chairman, that their families and friends finally know what happened to them. That is progress by any measure.

Since agreement was reached in December 1994 on joint U.S.-Vietnamese-Lao trilateral investigations in Laos, 22 Vietnamese witnesses have participated in operations in Laos; the government has identified another 32 to participate in future investigations. These witnesses have proved crucial to our accounting efforts in Laos. For example, information provided by Vietnamese witnesses resulted in the recovery and repatriation of remains associated with two cases in 1996: one involving eight Americans and another involving four.

One of the critical questions at the core of the accounting process is what documents or information does Vietnam or its citizens possess that could provide answers. When we started this process several years ago, we had little access to information. That has changed dramatically. We have a full time archive in Hanoi where Americans and Vietnamese work side by side to resolve remaining questions. Thousands of artifacts, documents and photographs have been turned over by Vietnamese officials for review. In the last five years alone, 28,000 archival documents have been reviewed and photographed by joint research teams. We have conducted over 195 oral history interviews in addition to those conducted during the joint field activities. In response to an American request, Vietnam in 1994 created unilateral document search teams. Since that time they have provided documents in 12 separate turnovers totaling 300 documents of some 500-600 untranslated pages. To date these teams have also conducted unilateral research in 19 provinces.

During my tenure as Chairman of the POW/MIA Committee, I spent countless hours and made numerous trips to Vietnam, often accompanied by my good friend and committee colleague, Senator McCain, in an effort to develop and improve cooperation on the POW/MIA issue. I am convinced that we made progress on this issue because of engagement and cooperation, not isolation or containment. And I am equally convinced that the best way to promote our broad range of interests in Vietnam is to continue to engage the Vietnamese and to follow our present policy of step by step normalization of bilateral relation with Vietnam.

The initial waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, exercised by the President just a few months ago in March, was a modest but important step in the continued normalization of our relations with Vietnam. Coming nearly three years after the United States and Vietnam normalized diplomatic relations, this waiver simply enabled the Export-Import Bank and OPIC to begin operations in Vietnam -- a step that is for the benefit of American companies and by extension the American economy. It is important to note that this waiver does not extend most-favored-nation tariff treatment to Vietnam. That step is further down the road, and no doubt will come when the United States and Vietnam have completed negotiations on a bilateral trade agreement.

Those who oppose the Jackson-Vanik waiver argue that we are moving too fast, that Vietnam's performance in the areas of emigration, human rights, and some would even say POW/MIA is unsatisfactory, that our policy of engagement has yielded few tangible results. I disagree and I think the record backs me up.

The use of carrots or incentives creatively has been at the core of our policy toward Vietnam since the President, with the overwhelming express support of the Senate, lifted the unilateral U.S. trade embargo in 1994. There is no question that the President's decision to waive the Jackson-Vanik amendment in March of this year led to significant progress on emigration -- the one and sole issue on which the extension of MFN, US governmental credits and credit insurance is dependent under the provisions of the amendment.

Since the waiver was issued, Vietnam has made significant and consistent progress in fulfilling its commitments under the ROVR agreement which provides for resettlement in the United States of eligible Vietnamese who had returned to Vietnam from refugee camps in the region. As of June 8, Vietnam had cleared for interview 15,081, or 81 percent of the 18,718 potential applicants. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that INS has interviewed only 9447 of those cleared by the Vietnamese to date. So far, 3119 have arrived in the United States. Vietnam is also cooperating with the us to expedite processing of those applicants still in the pipeline and provide an accounting of a list of 3000 individuals which we handed over in January. The Administration expects that a significant number of these people will be cleared for interview once we have given Vietnamese officials additional information with which to find them. Not only did the waiver produce results but the very prospect of a waiver led Vietnamese officials to modify processing procedures for the program last October.

Since the waiver was granted, Vietnam has also adopted more liberal procedures for those in the Orderly Departure Program (ODP) under which some 480,000 Vietnamese have emigrated as refugees or immigrants to the U.S. over the last 10-15 years. At this point there are only about 6900 ODP applicants remaining to be processed, including Montagnards and former reeducation camp refugees. Vietnam's agreement early this month to allow U.S. officials to interview all Montagnard ODP cases as well as the procedural changes adopted by Vietnam will enable the United States to complete these interviews by the end of the year.

Clearly Vietnam has made substantial and measurable progress in the area of emigration, but what about human rights. To be candid, Mr. Chairman, the record is not as impressive. Vietnam continues to be a one-party state that tolerates no organized political opposition. Many basic freedoms, such as freedom of the press or speech, are denied or curtailed, and according to Amnesty International, Vietnam has at least 54 political prisoners.

Human rights is and must continue to be on our bilateral agenda with Vietnam. Treasury Secretary Rubin and Secretary of State Albright have raised human rights issues with Vietnamese officials at the highest levels during their visits to Vietnam. The United States and Vietnam have established a regular, bilateral human rights dialogue in which general issues as well as specific cases are raised. I consistently raise human rights issues during my trips to Vietnam. These entreaties and the gradual improvement in our relations has had some positive results. Several jailed dissidents have been released, and some degree of liberalization has taken place.

No one can go to Hanoi and not recognize that exposure to and interaction with other countries is changing Vietnam. Vietnamese enjoy more personal liberty than they ever had before; they own shops, have economic mobility, and speak to foreigners in most cases without fear. They have more access to information and foreign media and although the newspapers are "state papers", they are increasingly outspoken about corruption and governmental inefficiency. After last year's legislative elections, the number of nonparty members elected to the National Assembly doubled from 8 percent to 15 percent. While this represents a minority of the Assembly's membership, it clearly is a trend in the right direction, as is the fact that the Assembly itself is playing a stronger role on key issues, both economic and political.

Some argue that the only way to change Vietnam's human rights record is to deny them the benefits of trade, force OPIC and EXIMBANK to close their doors, and freeze our relationship here and now. As one who has made more than a dozen trips to Vietnam over the last eight years and who has witnessed how this country has changed in such a short time period, I honestly believe that they are wrong. If we want to promote human rights and political change in Vietnam, we need to expand our contacts, not contract them through all the tools at our disposal -- trade, aid, exchange programs, participation in ASEAN and other regional and international institutions. And we need to maintain the ability to discuss this issue at the highest levels of government. Vietnamese leaders know full well the importance that we place on human rights and that progress on this issue will be part of the context in which our relations develop.

I know this committee will be hearing testimony later this morning from some who argue that Vietnam has not cooperated fully on the POW/MIA issue. As is obvious from my earlier remarks, I disagree, but let me make two additional points. First, during each of my trips to Vietnam I have met with the American teams who work on this issue daily with the Vietnamese. Every one of these teams, including the one now in place, has indicated to me that Vietnamese cooperation has been outstanding. Second, to those who argue that Vietnam is withholding documents or even remains, I say if that is so, the only way you are going to find out is to continue the process and the policy we now have in place.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the record over the last few years clearly proves that our step by step approach to normalizing relations with Vietnam is working and is consonant with the many interests we have in that country and the region. Reversing that policy by disapproving the President's waiver of the Jackson-Vanik amendment will reduce our influence and threaten future progress on POW/MIA, emigration, human rights, economic reform and trade, and other interests I have not discussed, such as stemming the flow of illegal drugs. In short, it would do irreparable harm to our relationship and our interests not only in Vietnam but also in the region.

The decision to treat Vietnam as a country, rather than a war, was made when we normalized diplomatic relations in 1995. We cannot and should not turn the clock back now. The President made the right decision when he decided to waive the Jackson-Vanik amendment and to renew it this month. Congress should let that decision stand.

(end text)