Become a Member for $9.99/month

On March 17, 2023, environmental lawyer Đặng Đình Bách, imprisoned in Việt Nam since 2021, began a partial hunger strike. By mid-April, when his wife Trần Phương Thảo was allowed to see him, he was "emaciated.”

Bách, a prominent advocate for environmental justice, informed his wife that if he was not exonerated, he would begin a "full hunger strike" on June 24, 2023—the second anniversary of his arrest. He has also reportedly been denied access to his "traditional" asthma medication. [10]

Bách is currently serving a five-year sentence for "tax evasion." [1, 4] His case is not an isolated one, but rather part of a well-recorded pattern of Việt Nam silencing its critics. Human rights defender Huỳnh Thục Vy, for example, was similarly imprisoned in 2021 on charges of "disrespecting the national flag" before her release on June 1, 2024.

But it is Bách's continued incarceration that has created a controversy that ensnares Việt Nam, the United Nations, and a coalition of the world's largest development banks. His imprisonment, which UN bodies have deemed arbitrary, is part of a wider crackdown on civil society. [1]

This crackdown is now happening in the shadow of Việt Nam's $15.5 billion Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), a landmark international agreement to help the nation move away from coal. [5, 11]

The Case of Đặng Đình Bách Đặng Đình Bách was the director of the Law and Policy of Sustainable Development Research Center (LPSD), an NGO that provided legal advocacy for marginalized communities affected by industrial pollution and land grabbing. [1, 4]

He was a key figure in Vietnamese environmental policy. His NGO was a member of the Việt Nam Sustainable Energy Alliance (VSEA), a coalition whose advocacy was "instrumental to persuade the Government of Việt Nam to pledge for zero-net carbon emissions by 2050." [10]

He was also an executive board member of the VNGO-EVFTA Network, a group of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) established to monitor the EU-Việt Nam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA). [1, 4]

In 2021, Bách was a candidate for the Domestic Advisory Group (DAG), a civil society body based in Việt Nam, created to monitor the government's compliance with the EVFTA's environmental and labor conditions. [4]

On June 24, 2021, he was arrested, allegedly without a warrant, just before the first meeting between the Việt Nam DAG and its EU counterpart was set to take place. His home and the LPSD office were searched, and computers were confiscated, also without warrants.

He was later formally charged with "tax evasion" under Article 200 of the 2015 Criminal Code. After a trial on Jan. 24, 2022—that UN experts would later describe as failing to meet international standards—Đặng Đình Bách was sentenced to five years in prison. This sentence was confirmed on appeal on Aug. 11, 2022. [1, 4]

The glaring irregularities in his case prompted several UN Special Rapporteurs to send a formal Joint Allegation Letter (JAL) to the government of Việt Nam on Feb. 18, 2022. [4]

A Baseless Narrative On March 17, 2023, Việt Nam’s Permanent Mission in Geneva formally responded to the UN's 2022 letter. [3] The government’s response paints a picture of routine law enforcement, flatly rejecting all allegations of impropriety.

Regarding Đặng Đình Bách, the government stated:

His trial for "tax evasion" was "public and transparent." [3] He "admitted that there was tax evasion at the LPSD." [3] The allegation that non-profits like LPSD are tax-exempt is false; his organization was "not eligible for tax exemption," and he had instructed employees "to evade taxes." [3] All claims that he was arrested for his human rights work were "baseless, untrue, negative inference, [and prejudiced]." [3] The UN, however, dismantled this official narrative. In a 17-page opinion (No. 22/2023) from the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD), Việt Nam's claims were directly contradicted: [1]

WGAD, citing credible sources, found that Bách’s trial and appeal were closed to the public, his family, and even representatives from the US and German embassies. [1] WGAD stated that state-run media had falsely reported a confession, when in fact Bách "has steadfastly maintained his innocence.” [1] WGAD concluded that the tax evasion charges were a "pretext" to shut down his environmental work and that his detention was arbitrary. [1] The UN's own legal analysis, cited in its 2022 JAL, argued that under Việt Nam's own laws (Decree No. 218/2013/ND-CP and Circular 78/2014/TT-BTC), the foreign grants his NGO received should have been classified as "exempted tax," not "payable tax." [1, 4] Việt Nam's 2023 rebuttal failed to quell international concern. In May 2023, the UN sent another JAL, this time highlighting the "escalating administrative and judicial harassment" of Bách’s wife, Trần Phương Thảo. Authorities were then demanding she pay her imprisoned husband's alleged tax debt of 1,381,093,134 đồng ($52,400), threatening to confiscate the family's property. The UN decried this as a likely act of "reprisal" for her advocacy, [10]

As of November 2025, Bách is still in prison; the UN’s focus for Bách’s case (that has been stated in its statement) expanded from Vietnamese authorities to their powerful international partners.

JALs to JETP Partners On July 10, 2025, the UN's Special Rapporteurs sent a new wave of JALs . This time, the recipients were some of the world's largest financial and development institutions: Germany's Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), France's Agence Française de Développement (AFD), the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and the International Finance Corporation (IFC).

These organizations are the key implementers and financiers of Việt Nam's $15.5 billion JETP. The JALs charge that this massive investment in a "just" transition is proceeding even as the Vietnamese government targets climate leaders and environmental defenders, creating a "profound chilling effect" on civil society. [5, 11]

The letters explicitly link Đặng Đình Bách’s situation to the JETP. They note that his arrest "had taken place alongside JETP negotiations" and that by June 24, 2025, he had marked his fourth year of incarceration. [5, 11]

The UN asked these powerful institutions a direct set of questions:

What human rights due diligence have you conducted? How have you accounted for the risk of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), like the tax charge against Đặng Đình Bách? What grievance mechanisms are available for victims such as Đặng Đình Bách and his family? How are you using your leverage to ensure respect for human rights? [5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13] Only two organizations, Germany's GIZ and the ADB, have responded. [2, 7]

GIZ and ADB Respond The responses from GIZ and the ADB , dated July and September 2025 respectively, are an exercise in bureaucratic distancing and a clear attempt to dodge accountability. [2, 7]

Germany's GIZ, a major implementation partner, claimed it is "neither a financial institution nor a donor" but a "service provider." [7] This technical distinction attempts to separate GIZ from the financial leverage of the $15.5 billion package.

Most strikingly, GIZ stated that its internal due diligence has not “identified an elevated risk" of human rights violations. This claim is made despite the UN's numerous public letters and the WGAD's 17-page opinion. GIZ added that these internal risk assessments "are classified as internal documents and are currently not published." Finally, it claimed that its mandate is "too limited" to address human rights issues in specific local projects. [7]

The Asian Development Bank (ADB), which the UN identified as having a "lead role in financing" the JETP, [5] took an even harder line.

First, the ADB claimed it is "not a party" to the JETP's Political Declaration.

Second, it stated that as of September 2025, it had "not made any such investments to date.”

Third, in a tone of cold detachment, the ADB stated that regarding Đặng Đình Bách, it "do[es] not have any additional information" beyond what is available in "publicly available media sources" [2] despite having received a formal allegation letter from seven UN Special Rapporteurs detailing his case. [5]

The ADB assured the UN that if it does finance projects, it will follow its policies, which require consultation "free of intimidation or coercion." [2]

The 'Just' in an Unjust Transition The responses from GIZ and the ADB are a blatant, cynical display of institutional cowardice.

A man is "emaciated" and on a hunger strike in prison, and his wife is being harassed by the state while facing the loss of her home. The UN's highest body on arbitrary detention has investigated and declared his imprisonment a sham—a pretext to silence him. [1]

In the face of these facts, GIZ's claim that it found "not an elevated risk" is an insult. An environmental lawyer is in prison specifically because of his advocacy, which is inextricably linked to the very agreements (EVFTA, JETP) that GIZ is paid to implement. To hide this assessment in an "internal document" is an abdication of transparency. [7]

The ADB’s response is, if anything, even more troubling. Its claim that it is “not a party” to an agreement it publicly promoted as a “lead” financier is plainly disingenuous. [2, 5] To claim that it only knows of Bách from "media sources" after receiving a formal UN communication is a callous, bold-faced lie. [2]

These institutions—GIZ, ADB, and the other silent partners (EIB, JICA, AFD, IFC)—wield the power of $15.5 billion. They have a moral and, under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, a documented responsibility to use their leverage. As the UN JALs noted, not one of the JETP's funding commitments has been "conditional on the protection and respect of human rights." [5, 11]

This hypocrisy lies at the heart of the JETP. These organizations champion "stakeholder engagement" and "civil society participation" in their policy documents, yet when a stakeholder is imprisoned for attempting to participate, they look the other way, claim their hands are tied, or assert that it is not their problem.

At the very least, GIZ and the ADB responded. The EIB, JICA, AFD, and IFC have, according to the public record, remained silent .

The Bottom Line of Morality There is nothing "Just" about a Just Energy Transition that is implemented while one of the country's leading environmental defenders is in prison.

Việt Nam's actions are two-faced, pledging a 2050 net-zero transition while jailing the very activist whose work was "instrumental" in securing that pledge. [10]

Their partners are enabling this, and they are hiding behind bureaucracy; GIZ says it is a "service provider," [7] and the ADB says it "hasn't invested yet." [2] These are the excuses of organizations terrified of jeopardizing their investment, protecting their "partner" relationship with a repressive, authoritarian government at the expense of human rights.

Perhaps the individuals within these organizations—the ones who work "in good faith”—are horrified. But in large institutions, individual morality is often diluted by the cold, amoral logic of the bottom line. In this regard, the JETP is not a "Just" partnership; it is just business. And for Đặng Đình Bách and his family, it is a profound injustice.

References: Human Rights Council, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. (2023, May 26). Opinion No. 22/2023 concerning Đặng Đình Bách (Viet Nam) (A/HRC/WGAD/2023/22). United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/detention-wg/opinions/session96/A-HRC-WGAD-2023-22-VietNam-Advance-Edited-Version.pdf Asian Development Bank. (2025, September 2). [Response to Joint Communication AL OTH 65/2025]. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=39200 Permanent Mission of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. (2023, March 17). Response of Viet Nam to the Joint Communication sent by Special Procedures concerning Huynh Thuc Vy and Dang Dinh Bach Ref. AL VNM 2/2022 (Note No. 47/VNM.23). https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=37425 Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council. (2022, February 18). [Joint Communication AL VNM 2/2022]. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=27089 Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council. (2025, July 10). [Joint Communication AL OTH 65/2025]. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=30032 Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council. (2025, July 10). [Joint Communication AL OTH 66/2025]. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=30033 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). (2025, July 24). [Response to Joint Communication AL OTH 70/2025]. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=39112 Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council. (2025, July 10). [Joint Communication AL OTH 71/2025]. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=30035 Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council. (2025, July 10). [Joint Communication AL OTH 70/2025]. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=30036 Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council. (2023, May 25). [Joint Communication AL VNM 3/2023]. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=28088 Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council. (2022, July 10). [Joint Communication AL VNM 2/2025]. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=27089 Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council. (2025, July 10). [Joint Communication AL OTH 68/2025]. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=30037 Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council. (2025, July 10). [Joint Communication AL OTH 67/2025]. https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=30034

Not a ‘Just’ Transition: Việt Nam’s Green Energy Push and the Silencing of Đặng Đình Bách

Aerolyne Reed

Related Posts

The Ecology of Authoritarianism in Việt Nam and the Activism It Shapes

Solitary Confinement in Việt Nam: Punishment Within

Economic Triumphs and Human Rights Failures in the EU-Việt Nam Comprehensive Strategic Partnership

The Fine of 7.5 Million Đồng: The Rising Cost of Free Speech on Social Media in Việt Nam

Việt Nam’s Silence on Iranian Unrest Shows the Limits—and Morality—of its Diplomacy

Are Vietnamese Values Compatible with Universal Human Rights?

Doãn Quốc Sỹ and the River of Fate: The Tragedy of the ‘Romantic’ Intellectual

Thailand Quietly Hands Refugee Y Quỳnh B’Đăp Over to Việt Nam Despite Legal Petitions

OPINIONS

Việt Nam’s Leaked ‘2nd U.S. Invasion’ Plan and the War Against Its Own People

Economic Triumphs and Human Rights Failures in the EU-Việt Nam Comprehensive Strategic Partnership

The Hiup Fake Milk Scandal: A Failure of Governance or a Betrayal of Public Trust?

POPULAR STORIES

Memory in Print: The Death and Resurrection of South Vietnamese Literature

Việt Nam 2025: 9 Key Events That Reshaped the Country

Hà Nội’s Trống Đồng Stadium: A Development Boost or Urban Showmanship?