Imprisoned Vietnam activist charged for writing ‘down with communism'
Prominent Vietnamese land rights activist Trinh Ba Phuong is facing a second charge of anti-state propaganda after prison guards found a document in his cell that said, 'down with communism,' his wife told Radio Free Asia.
Phuong is already serving a 10-year prison sentence related to his dissemination of information about a 2020 land dispute where police clashed with villagers outside Hanoi.
Do Thi Thu, Phuong's wife, told RFA Vietnamese that he has been charged again under Article 117 of the Criminal Code which punishes 'making, storing, and disseminating' anti-state information – a charge commonly used against government critics.
'According to the investigator, in November 2024, my husband was found having papers and banners whose content were deemed against the state,' Thu said, adding that authorities at An Diem prison in central Quang Nam province where he is held forwarded those materials to the provincial security agency which decided to prosecute him.
She said the documents and banners were all written by Phuong to protest harsh conditions in An Diem prison and he kept them in his cell. One included the words, 'down with communism.'
An Diem prison is known for incarcerating political prisoners.
In April 2024, RFA reported on four prisoners of conscience, including Phuong, who were allegedly mistreated by the prison authorities.
'I am very upset about what the prison in Quang Nam province did to my husband! My husband's writing has no impact on society because he is in prison. They are just trying to punish him. Now facing another charge, the number of years my husband will have to spend in prison will be very high if the sentences pile up,' Thu told RFA.
Phuong's lawyer, Dang Dinh Manh, who has decades of experience in political cases, said it is unprecedented for a political prisoner to be prosecuted for expressing his opinions in prison.
'The suppression of political prisoners in communist prisons is quite common, but Trinh Ba Phuong's is the first case where a prisoner is criminally prosecuted for expressing their political opinions,' Manh said.
He said the latest charge against Phuong under Article 117 is 'baseless.'
'Article 117 only applies to acts against the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The Communist Party is a political organization, not a state. There is also no provision that allows equating the Communist Party with the State,' he said.
Phuong's mother Can Thi Theu and younger brother Trinh Ba Tu are also imprisoned, serving 8-year sentences imposed in 2021, also on charges of spreading anti-state propaganda.
The family is known for opposing land grabs and for supporting farmers who have lost their land to development projects.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
4 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Israel-Hamas war roils Somerville mayoral race
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Alain Jehlen Advertisement Somerville Outrage against Israel makes Jews a target Shira Schoenberg is right but too lenient in her op-ed 'Could Somerville mayoral hopeful Willie Burnley fairly represent Zionist constituents?' Willie Burnley Jr. can't represent Somerville Zionists. He can't represent Jews; and in being bad for Jews, he's bad for Americans. Oct. 7, 2023, gave license to target Jews in ways that, if aimed at other minorities, would spark outrage. Once such actions are normalized against Jews, they become normalized against any group the mob targets. Jew hate was primed to erupt. Advertisement No other minority faces such mob punishment. Not the Chinese for Communist Party terror against Tibetans, Uyghurs, or Hong Kong; Arabs for horrors in Iraq or Syria; or Muslims for jihadist massacres in Africa. Only Jews. In doing so, radicals target all Americans who hold to the proposition that all are created equal and, out of many, one. In siding with them, Burnley and others don't just endanger Jews; they also threaten those principles and Americans who live by them. Steve Spear Brookline Still waiting to hear a certain condemnation from Burnley Shira Schoenberg's otherwise excellent op-ed about Willie Burnley Jr.'s campaign for mayor of Somerville noted that Burnley has been compared with New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. The comparison is faulty and unfair. Mamdani Burnley has failed to make any such statements, to my knowledge. In fact, on Aug. 7, I saw him at a 'Somerville for Palestine' rally and press conference in front of City Hall, where I politely asked him, 'How would you characterize what Hamas did on Oct. 7, 2023?' He looked at me and then, instead of answering, simply walked away. Ken Brociner Somerville Divestment would make Somerville more welcoming, not less As a Jewish resident of Massachusetts who has donated to Zohran Mamdani and canvassed for Willie Burnley Jr., I felt misrepresented when I read the phrase 'Both are raising fears among many Jewish, Zionist constituents' in Shira Schoenberg's Aug. 11 op-ed. This narrative implies that Jewish and Zionist are two identities that overlap, which couldn't be further from the truth and dangerously casts the Jewish community as universally supportive of Israel's actions. Advertisement Mamdani, rather than being a bogeyman in the Jewish community, is the leading candidate within it with a To hold that it is antisemitic to say that Somerville should not be investing in companies involved in war crimes is as ridiculous as saying that the divestment movement over South African apartheid in the 1980s promoted hatred against white people. Making Somerville a welcoming place doesn't mean avoiding these questions so as not to offend anyone; it means upholding our values of equality and human rights by divesting from entities involved with human rights violations and Israel's racist policies. Sam Levine Lexington At least the candidate is transparent Somerville mayoral candidate Willie Burnley Jr. has dealt with voters fairly by making his views about Israel clear. Voters can take these views into account. All politicians should be so transparent. Felicia Nimue Ackerman Providence
Atlantic
21 hours ago
- Atlantic
While China Builds, America Litigates
After Donald Trump announced ruinously high tariffs on China in the spring, a simple reminder of that country's growing technological power forced him to back down. Shortly after Trump's April 2 tariff announcement, Beijing abruptly suspended exports of rare-earth magnets. Automakers around the world panicked. These magnets—manufactured in Chinese factories from crucial metals extracted mostly from Chinese mines—have become essential for building cars. Ford Motor paused production at a plant in Chicago. Automotive-lobbying organizations in the United States and Europe warned that car companies were weeks away from halting production. A few reportedly were considering moving some production to China in order to maintain access to supplies. On May 12, the White House agreed to lower tariff rates for China before it had announced trade deals with Europe, Canada, Japan, or other allied countries. China produces 90 percent of the global supply of rare-earth magnets, which are not the only products that Beijing can deny the rest of the world. Decades of industrial policy and fierce entrepreneurialism have created the world's mightiest manufacturing machine. Chinese firms are also dominant producers of many pharmaceutical ingredients (especially for antibiotics and ibuprofen), battery materials, and entire categories of electronics components—not to mention smartphones, household appliances, toys, and other finished goods that American consumers want. In cutting off rare-earth magnets, officials in Beijing flexed but one finger. If they wanted, they could have strangled vital sectors of the American economy. How did America lose so much productive capacity to China and end up in such a vulnerable position? Think about it this way: China is an engineering state, which treats construction projects and technological primacy as the solution to all of its problems, whereas the United States is a lawyerly society, obsessed with protecting wealth by making rules rather than producing material goods. Successive American administrations have attempted to counter Beijing through legalism—levying tariffs and designing an ever more exquisite sanctions regime—while the engineering state has created the future by physically building better cars, better-functioning cities, and bigger power plants. Engineers have quite literally ruled modern China. As a corrective to the ideological mayhem of the Mao years, Deng Xiaoping promoted engineers to the top ranks of China's government from the 1980s onward. By 2002, all nine members of the politburo's standing committee—the apex of the Communist Party—had trained as engineers. Xi Jinping studied chemical engineering at Tsinghua University, China's most prominent science institution. At the start of his third term, in 2022, Xi filled the politburo with executives who had experience in aerospace and weapons. Huge bursts of construction define today's China. A person born in 1993—when the country built its first modern expressway—was able, when she reached the legal driving age 18 years later, to motor across a network of highways that surpassed the length of America's interstate system. As part of China's economic transformation, officials in Beijing have directed the construction of high bridges, large dams, enormous power plants, and entire new cities. The corporate sector, abetted by government policies that encourage manufacturing, is fixated on production too. A rough rule of thumb is that China produces a third of the world's manufacturing, including essential products such as structural steel and container ships. Derek Thompson: The disturbing rise of MAGA Maoism The United States, by contrast, has a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers. More than half of U.S. presidents practiced law at some point in their career. About half of current U.S. senators have a law degree. Only two American presidents worked as engineers: Herbert Hoover, who built a fortune in mining, and Jimmy Carter, who served as an engineering officer on a Navy submarine. (Hoover and Carter are remembered for many things, especially for their dismal political instincts that produced thumping electoral defeats.) Lawyerly instincts suffused Joe Biden's economic policy, which brushed aside the invisible hand in favor of performing surgery on the economy—a subsidy scheme for one corporation, an antitrust case against another. Biden hoped to reindustrialize America via landmark bills such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, but his administration's legalistic commitments repeatedly tripped up the pace of construction. Executive agencies were so obsessed with designing rules for how to do things that little ended up being built. Efforts to connect rural areas to broadband or create a network of electric-vehicle-charging stations barely broke ground before voters reelected Donald Trump. Trump is not a lawyer, but he—like many wealthy Americans—is no stranger to using the courtroom to get what he wants. His business career and his presidency have been rife with lawsuits: against business partners, political opponents, news outlets, and sometimes his own lawyers. Trump's governing style has a litigious air to it too: flinging accusations left and right, intimidating people into dropping their opposition, besmirching people in the court of public opinion. Where Biden was plodding and proceduralist, Trump is naturally inclined toward bare-knuckle lawfare. The lawyerly society has some important advantages. You can't build companies worth trillions without the rule of law to set up an environment where the rich feel safe to invest. The U.S. remains home to most of the world's most valuable companies, in part because lawyers protect their right to profit off of their intellectual property. But the fact that wealthy companies and individuals can easily assert their interests in court is hardly a guarantee of broad economic progress for a society. The United States has made the geopolitical mistake of bringing lawyers to a showdown with China on trade and technology. The first Trump administration levied an initial round of tariffs on Chinese goods and added scores of Chinese tech companies to trade blacklists. The Biden administration refined technology-export controls, designing exquisite webs to ensnare Chinese chipmakers, telecommunications firms, and any company hoping to deploy AI. Xi Jinping, meanwhile, surrounded himself with scientists and engineers. Xi grew up in a China whose Communist Party leaders nursed grievances about imperialist incursions. They understood the Soviet Union to have become strong and modern through heavy industry. China unveiled its first Five-Year Plan in 1953, the year that Xi was born. In the fall of this year, Xi will put the finishing touches on the 15th Five-Year Plan. Thomas Wright: Trump wasted no time derailing his own AI plan In the intervening years, ceaseless construction has helped reinforce the Communist Party's political resilience. Building so many homes, bridges, and power plants means that the material benefits for most of China's population are widely spread. Chinese citizens have seen their conditions of life improve immeasurably over the past 40 years. The steady improvement of parks and subway networks makes urban residents expect that the future will be even better. When Chinese people point to new cities that shimmer at night with drone displays, or metropolises connected to one another by a glistening high-speed-rail network, they show genuine pride, in my experience. One way to impress 1 billion–plus people is to pour a lot of concrete. China has also turned itself into an energy superpower. Two decades ago, it produced about half of the electricity that the United States did. Today, it generates twice as much. Beijing is simultaneously attempting to wean itself off oil imports while leading the world in an 'all of the above' energy strategy that includes coal, nuclear, and wind plants, plus astounding amounts of new solar capacity. Beijing recently announced the construction of the Yarlung Tsangpo dam, which will use 60 times more cement than the Hoover Dam and will dwarf the already gigantic Three Gorges Dam. By the end of this year, more than half of the cars sold in China today will be electric—again the product of forceful policy. The engineering state is effective at making military goods too. China produces about 80 percent of the world's consumer drones, which can easily be adapted for the battlefield. China has approximately 200 times the shipbuilding capacity of the United States; according to the General Accounting Office, many classes of U.S. Navy ships are delayed by up to three years. Last December, then–National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said bluntly that the United States will experience 'exhaustion of munition stockpiles very rapidly' if it were ever to face the Chinese military. America has lost the productive capacity to sustain a major war. American manufacturing output has never recovered to its highs from 2008; the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by a million people since then. The United States has lost the ability to get stuff done as it focuses on procedures rather than results. In 2008, residents of California—the crucible of the American modern economy—voted to fund a high-speed-rail link between San Francisco and Los Angeles. That same year, China began construction of its high-speed-rail line between Beijing and Shanghai. China's line opened in 2011 at a cost of $33 billion. In its first decade of operation, it completed more than 1.3 billion passenger trips. Seventeen years after the ballot proposition, California has built a small stretch of rail to connect two cities in the Central Valley, neither of which is close to San Francisco or L.A. The latest estimate for California's rail line is $135 billion. The first segment of California's train will start operating, according to official estimates, between 2030 and 2033. That's a margin of error of three years—the same length of time that China needed to build the entire Beijing–Shanghai line. Even far smaller projects—a public bathroom, a bus-stop sun shelter —turn out underwhelming, embarrassingly late, or over budget. Americans today live in the ruins of an industrial civilization where the remaining infrastructure is barely maintained and rarely expanded. The result is a deep sense that nothing is working. The United States wasn't always like this. It once had the musculature of an engineering state, where lengthy train tracks, gorgeous bridges, beautiful cities, weapons of war with terrible power, and rockets to the moon were built. When the United States had surging population and economic growth through the 19th century, political elites agreed that its wide territories needed canals, rails, and highways. America's construction boom slowed down after the 1960s. Patrick George: The American car industry can't go on like this What happened then? The American public revolted against environmental harms, the highways then being rammed through urban neighborhoods, and industry regulators who were cozy with big companies. The legal profession started to change. Before the '60s, prominent lawyers filed into government to enact programs such as FDR's New Deal. Afterward, idealistic law students followed in the footsteps of the young Ralph Nader, who campaigned to be a watchdog of alleged government abuses. 'Sue the bastards,' a slogan of that era declared, urging environmentalists and other activists to take government agencies to court. A righteous impulse from that era has convinced many Americans that physical dynamism is undesirable and has robbed society of its ability to improve itself. Rather than expanding new subway systems, building nuclear-energy plants or rare-earths-processing facilities, or designing the path for a new transmission line, many of the country's smartest engineers have been seduced by Wall Street and Silicon Valley, where they can have more fun and make a lot more money. I am not suggesting that the United States copy China's approach. The engineering state's spectacular successes have come at staggering costs. Beijing treats its citizens as yet another building material and Chinese society as something to be engineered too. Officials have restricted ethno-religious minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang from practicing their religion and perpetuating their cultures. Only the engineering state could have pursued the one-child policy, which was ultimately a campaign of rural terror enforced through mass sterilizations and forced abortions. China's efforts to engineer the economy—which have produced slumping real-estate values and a collapse in corporate valuations—have frightened entrepreneurs and their investors. Beijing's efforts to engineer society have made many young people feel adrift, with a substantial portion desiring to emigrate abroad. In spite of sluggish construction, lawyers are a guarantor of America's great advantage against China: pluralism, or the ability of diverse cultures to coexist and thrive under equal protection. Americans are engaged in robust debate about how to make their country better. The United States is more dynamic than Europe and can look to its own history to see the path forward. You can see the remnants of the engineering state amid the mighty industrial works scattered all over the country. Americans can draw on that legacy to stage their country's next act of transformation. I like to imagine how much better the world would be if both superpowers could adopt the pathologies of the other. China would be better if it could be more lawyerly, which means embracing substantive legal protections for individuals. America needs an engineering culture to build homes, build mass transit, and build the energy systems necessary to decarbonize. Ultimately, if America refuses to build, it will be subject to the whims of countries that do.
American Military News
2 days ago
- American Military News
North Korea's Kim, Putin vow cooperation in phone call
This article was originally published by Radio Free Asia and is reprinted with permission. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to deepen their countries' collaboration, North Korean state media said Wednesday, as Putin praised the 'bravery, heroism, and self-sacrificing spirit' of North Korean troops who fought with the Russian military against Ukraine in the Kursk border region. On a telephone call on Tuesday with the Russian president, Kim said that North Korea would 'fully support all measures to be taken by the Russian leadership in the future, too.' According to Russia's TASS news agency, Putin shared with Kim information about his upcoming meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in Alaska on Friday. Trump is expected to press Russia to end the war with Ukraine. North Korea has sent around 15,000 troops to Russia since last fall, according to South Korean tallies — and it has also supplied equipment including artillery and ballistic missiles to support the operation against Ukraine. Pyongyang first acknowledged its role in the Ukraine conflict in late April, around six months after the first reports of their troops' presence. Ukrainian officials have released handwritten letters and combat instructions that are said to have come from North Korean soldiers who were killed in battle. Ukraine has also broadcast messages in Korean appealing to North Korean soldiers to surrender. Includes reporting from The Associated Press and Agence France-Presse.
