Monday, March 3, 2014

Vietnam’s Love-Hate Affair with the Internet

Internet repression continues as 30-month prison sentence for blogger is upheld

The Vietnamese authorities’ continuing attack on dissent, free speech and a free Internet is exemplified by the trumped up tax evasion approval by a Hanoi appeals court earlier this month that sent the human rights lawyer and blogger Le Quoc Quan to jail for 30 months.

Hundreds of supporters wearing demonstrated outside the court for Quan, convicted last October by a lower court. He had been in detention since December 2012. A European Union delegation, representatives from the United States and Canadian governments and a small group of journalists were present at the trial.

In fact, the government has a complex, love-hate relationship with the Internet, complicated by the fact that it believed erroneously that control would be easy and that circumventing even basic blocks would be beyond the ability of many. That was news to the country’s internet users, who have been energetically getting around programs designed to keep them in their place.

Though classified as an “enemy of the Internet” by Reporters Without Borders for its blocking of websites and arrests of bloggers and journalists, Vietnam’s Communist government has done an awful lot to ensure access. The country has long valued literacy and learning and according to Professor Carlyle Thayer at the Australian Defense Force Academy, the government believed that the “knowledge era” was key to the nation’s economic development.

The Internet helped to provide that and greater world integration, something Hanoi has been increasingly keen for since doi moi in 1986 when the country began a period of economic renovation, shunning its former isolationist politics.

Twenty years ago the Vietnam Communist Party (CPV) noted three dangers facing the country: corruption, deviation from the socialist path and falling behind. The Internet was seen a perfect way to engage more with the world.

“Vietnam has seen a more rapid growth of the Internet over the last few years than most other countries in the region and is one of the fastest growing Internet countries in the world,” according to a 2011 report by market research firm Cimigo, headquartered in Ho Chi Minh City. “Since the year 2000, the number of Internet users in Vietnam has multiplied by about 120 times.”

Putting the genie back in the bottle

The state uses three main laws against bloggers, activists and others whom the state dislikes. Criminal Code Article 88 relates to “conducting propaganda against the state.” A second is Article 258, relating to “abusing democratic freedoms,” and Article 79 covers “activities aimed overthrowing the Communist Party of Vietnam and People’s Socialist Republic of Vietnam.” However numerous other Internet laws have been drafted, largely aimed at keeping citizens’ net activities restricted to useful research or harmless entertainment. This has stymied growth in some ways, as it is only now that businesses are as present online as individuals.

In August 2008 Decree 97 made it illegal to “abuse” the Internet to oppose the government. What got more attention was Circular 7, restricting bloggers to cover only personal, not political, topics. At the time blogging was a favored pastime in Vietnam and Yahoo! 360 the favored platform. Interest in blogging and blogs in general has since waned significantly. According to Cimigo, in 2009 40 percent of Internet users visited blogs and 20 percent blogged themselves. By 2011 those numbers had halved as people increasingly moved to social media sites like Facebook.

It was the quiet blockage of Facebook in 2009 that caught the world’s attention. The government never mentioned a ban publicly although a purported scan of instructions to ISPs to block the site did rounds online. As the government never said much, Vietnam’s legion of Facebook users simply muttered something about “technical problems” as they “fixed” the DNS settings to access the site. Nokia was advertising Facebook apps on its new phones when the site was still technically blocked (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/vietnam/100928/facebook-internet-china-press-freedom)

In 2010 the government tried to launch its own social networking site (which led to headlines such as ‘In Communist Vietnam, State Friends You’), go.vn, where users had to provide their full names and ID card details, but could also “friend” Communist luminaries. The Minister for Culture and Information Le Doan Hop praised the site’s usefulness for young people and promotion of “culture, values and benefits.” Shockingly, perhaps, it has never managed to be a serious rival to Facebook or even local entertainment site Zing.

In 2010 came a decision requiring all public hotels to install Green Dam monitoring software. Theoretically it allowed the government to see what was being looked at, possibly by whom and take appropriate steps. In fact decision 15/2010/QD-UBND was something of a paper tiger; many pointed out how such a piecemeal and scattershot approach would have limited utility and could be wholly circumvented by any serious activist, though rights organizations took the appropriate potshots as a matter of course.

In 2010 a ban was put in place, ostensibly on all online gaming between 10pm and 6am, to combat gaming addiction. However, it was never fully possible to enforce thanks to most popular gaming sites being hosted by overseas servers.

The most recent attempts at curbing net use via legislation has been Decree-Law 72 on Management of the Internet which formally came into effect in September 2013. Like many laws it is confusing and vague enough to be useful for any enthusiastic government prosecutor. Among other things it banned the sharing of news online. Or, rather, it banned the aggregation of news onto websites. The government took the time to publicly respond to the flurry of foreign concern and the head of the Ministry of Information and Culture’s Online Information Section protested to Reuters that the law did not violate any of Vietnam’s human rights commitments. “We will never ban people from sharing information or linking news from websites,” he said, arguing it had been misinterpreted.

There has been talk that Decree 72 was also designed to protect intellectual property, as violations have long been problematic and go far beyond dollar copies of new Hollywood films on DVD. One of the things 72 supposedly sought to do was prevent websites re-posting news from its original source with no attribution and thus make things easier for news sites whilst also laying groundwork for membership of the Trans Pacific Partnership in regards to intellectual property protection.

The more interesting requirement was that ISPs locate servers, or at least one, within Vietnam and deliver information on users to the government, rather as Internet cafes have been required to do. They were also required to take down anything contravening laws. However Vietnam’s most trafficked sites do not have servers within Vietnam and with such new laws do not entirely see the point, either. Indeed there are not many substantial servers located there at all, and bloggers who fear the law usually host their blogs overseas in any case. Should the government instruct local ISPs to block say, Google, many users will simply respond again to “technical difficulties” by readjusting their settings.

Peaceful evolution, ongoing repression

The threat of peaceful and not so peaceful evolution hangs heavily over the heads of those in power in Hanoi.

Vietnam is regularly excoriated for its human rights record which generally means the way the nation locks up its dissidents, bloggers and religious leaders. Even US President Barack Obama made mention of blogger Dieu Cay’s ongoing detention, ostensibly for tax reasons.

According to Human Rights Watch there were at least 63 political prisoners convicted in Vietnam last year. And yet, as Professor Thayer said in a 2011 paper: “Great effort is put into monitoring, controlling and restricting Internet usage. The enormity of resources devoted for these purposes contrasts with the comparatively small number of political activists, religious leaders, and bloggers who have been arrested, tried and sentenced to prison.”

Though the numbers have increased since the above was written there is still little mass organizing in this area, and large scale protests tend to be over more concrete issues: workers’ rights and wages or land grabs. However those considered potentially subversive are closely monitored, watched by both a physical presence and an online one.

There have been many attacks against varied blogs and websites; 16 starting in 2009 and intensifying in April of the next year. Varied activists came under fire: Catholics discussing land issues — there have been ongoing spats between Catholics and the state over land grabs — as well as environmentalists and political agitators. Sites allied to the anti-bauxite movement were also hit.

IP addresses were allegedly traced back to within Vietnam and to addresses connected to the military. The attacks, verified by McAfee and Google, were botnet attacks where spyware hid in seemingly innocuous Vietnamese language keystroke software (though a Romanised alphabet Vietnamese has 29 letters and many diacritics). Neel Mehta, a security expert with Google, wrote in a blog post that: “While the malware itself was not especially sophisticated, it has nonetheless been used for damaging purposes.”

For now, though internet use grows, freedom is at the same stand still of years past.

Asia Sentinel


Australia’s LABOR Party WANTS BOATS TO KEEP COMING


The Left is white with rage that Abbott has been able to stop the boats. It is blind to 1200 deaths at sea yet wide-eyed to New Guinean savages killing one Iranian on an island detention centre that Rudd reopened. 

Detainees on Manus are the guests of Gillard and Rudd, not Abbott and the funeral of the one fatality served only to prove the “comfortable” Iranian family were country shopping and not "escaping persecution", as the Left claims.
Labor and its supporters, the Greens, GetUp, the ABC, Fairfax and the Guardian, are doing their best to scuttle the Abbott boat initiatives with attacks on the military and claims of covert secrecy. 
The only reason the Lefties want to know what Abbott is doing is so they can scuttle it!
Morrison and Abbott are doing exactly what the Pickering Post suggested they do: Bribe the Indonesian military! A mere $60 million has changed the ball game and $60 million is a tiny fraction of the ongoing $14 billion the Gillard/Rudd fiasco was costing us.
One year ago the Post reported: “Gillard’s nonsense talk of regional solutions, expert panels and Malaysian swapsies shows she has no idea how Labor’s disaster of its own making actually works.
“Look at it this way; if someone has been paid to kill you it’s best to double his fee to kill the bloke who wants you killed.
“Abbott needs a discreet envoy to arrange to pay these (Indonesian military) crims more than they are being paid now and the tap gets turned off, overnight! 
“And these payments need only be a tiny fraction of the cost to us of their illegal immigrants.
“Now, if you really want to stop the boats Tony, give me a letter of authority and I’ll have the deal signed and sealed within a week!
"No more boats.”
What the Post suggested Abbott must do to stop the boats here: 
And this “secrecy” nonsense is a furphy as Gillard also refused to allow journalists anywhere near detention centres. She kept critical information from Australians. 
We weren’t allowed to know who or how many unprocessed illegals were, and still are, living among us. 
She refused to divulge vital information regarding the Guillain-Barré syndrome disease introduced by detainees to the mainland that threatened and hospitalised Australian citizens. Enquires to Gillard's Office went unanswered. 
Where was media's Left then?
Without the Post’s informants we would still be ignorant of the real reason the mainland Curtain Centre was closed.
There were murders that went unreported under Gillard’s cloak of secrecy. Under Morrison one murder is front page news. 
This is what went unreported under Gillard's cloak of secrecy: 

Sunday, March 2, 2014

Indonesia Needs an Act of Restitution


Oscar-winning or not, Joshua Oppenheimer’s “The Act of Killing” has directed worldwide attention to Indonesia’s darkest past, when in 1965-1966 up to a million people were killed in a state-sponsored, systematic butchering. 

There is no more hiding place for Indonesia.

We have to admit our own history, whether we like it or not. We can’t afford to pretend there was no wrong done, as our government and ruling elites have always maintained. It’s such denials that enable a documentary like “The Act of Killing” to come into being in the first place.

Continued denials and a failure to tackle the issue places the entire nation in the position of protecting the mass murderers, a crime that puts Indonesia among the lowest of nations. And why should we protect those involved in the killings in the first place? The purge was conducted by a past generation, and most of the current generation have nothing to do with the crime. Why should we sacrifice the present and the future to protect the organizations — most of which still exist — that were involved?


It’s false to assume that admitting past crimes, apologizing for them and then moving on will shame the organizations. We believe they are noble steps that should have been taken a long time ago so that the state can provide restitution for surviving victims and families of the murdered.
These families have been waiting for so long. The demand for justice won’t go away. If the elites of the organizations involved in the mass killings will participate in restoring justice, they will help clean the stain on their histories — rather than bring them down with denials, and together with them the nation’s pride.

Must we wait for outsiders to force us? It’s sad that we should need the Oscars to prompt us to right this terrible wrong for ourselves. ‘Editorial, Jakarta Globe’


When a Cold War in East Asia is not a Cold War



The Cold War comprised the second half of Europe’s ‘short’ 20th century, which lasted from 1914 to 1989. The First World War and Russian Revolution destroyed Europe’s old order, and gave rise to an age of totalitarianism. Soviet policy after the defeat of Nazi Germany drew on old Russian fears and traditions but the communist ideology that it espoused was global in ambition and attraction. Resisting further communist expansion was important for the West because there was no ideological and, or so it seemed at times, practical limit to it. The strategy of ‘containment’ sought to build countervailing military and economic centres on the Soviet periphery, to isolate communism politically, economically and militarily, and ultimately — in the words of ‘NSC 68’ (the 1950 National Security Council report to the US president) — to ‘foster the seeds of destruction within the Soviet system’.

Despite superficial parallels between today’s China and the Soviet Union (not least a peculiar interest in white-wall tyres) it is difficult to see that current differences between China and the Philippines, or China and Japan, amount to a similar threat to the existence of the ‘free world’ itself. This is not to belittle the challenge that China’s view of international affairs poses to the system of international law and the principle of (legal) equality of states on which the current international system is based. But China’s aspirations are not to sweep away the domestic political systems of the US and its allies, nor are they expansionist in the way that the Soviet Union subjugated Eastern Europe, or sought to do in Afghanistan or Angola. China and the West are not isolated from each other in the way the Soviet Union was, and today’s conflict is about status, not ideology.

Increasing firmness and resolve in meeting Chinese provocations may well be necessary to manage regional tensions, but even more forceful proposals for pushing back against China are still a far cry from the economic, political and military necessities that fighting the Cold War imposed on the US and its allies. There is a danger that evoking the image of the implacable Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union may well become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And yet, there is one important aspect that East Asia today does share with the Cold War (and earlier times): the fact that war between the great powers is becoming thinkable again. (Re)Learning to live in the shadow of a possible third World War means that the geostrategic holiday of the post-Cold War era is well and truly over for the countries of East Asia. Managing rapid military-technological competition is not something the US or its allies do very well any more. It has been a while since escalation paths, crisis stability or theatre and strategic balance were the subject of presidential campaigns and household debates. And without a serious threat, the US and its allies were spared the difficult choices about the risk and loss of sovereignty that participation in an integrated alliance system entails.

Overall, the Cold War example is thus more useful as a reminder of how difficult managing great power conflict in Asia will be than for any insights about the particular challenge posed by China. China is fundamentally different from the Soviet Union, and so will have to be US and allied strategies to deal with it. On the positive side, this means that a new Cold War is not inevitable, or even likely. On the negative side, however, the Cold War was also a historic success, because great power rivalry did not result in major power war. Ensuring that the same is true this time again will be difficult enough, even without misleading historical analogies.

Stephan Frühling is Senior Lecturer in the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific.