Dr Gary Yia LEE concludes in his January 2008 - his latest - latest
article on the Hmong resistance in the jungle of Laos as follows:
"The problem is real and cannot be ignored or simply stemmed out by
force as there are many underlying social, political and economic
factors involved, not just ideological differences. So long as these
needs are not addressed, even if existing insurgent groups are stemmed
out, new ones will rise up to show their displeasure in one form or
another. "
Here is the full article:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~yeulee/Topical/Hmong%20rebellion%20in%20Laos.html
THE HMONG REBELLION IN LAOS: Victims of Totalitarianism or terrorists?
(By Gary Yia Lee, Ph.D).
Contents
1 Introduction
2 Why the Hmong
3 Who are involved?
4 Messianic Freedom Fighters
5 Exiled Politicians
6 Pathet Lao dissidents
7 The foreign connections
8 Lao military bases with North Vietnamese troops
9 Government responses
10 Military suppression
11 Resettlement and economic aid
12 Denial of the problem
13 Current situation
14 Surrender to whom?
15 Conclusion
16 References
17 Footnotes
Acknowledgement: information for this chapter came from various
sources both in and outside Laos, including the Internet. I would like
to thank all those informants who generously shared with me their
information, resources and time. This paper is based on an older
version entitled �Bandits or Rebels?�, originally published in a
special issue on Indochina of the Indigenous Affairs Journal, 4/2000
(October-December 2000). Written 2005, updated 2008.
Introduction
On the 4th of June 2005, a group of 171 people (20 Hmong and 9 Khmu
families with 83 adults and 88 children) emerged from the forest and
put themselves in the hands of a government police officer in the
Saisomboun Special Zone, north of Vientiane province. Their arrival
had been well publicised as one of the few rebel groups that
voluntarily surrendered. Government troops of the Lao People�s
Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) and other officials were soon on the
scene, including four US citizens from the Fact Finding Commission, a
lobby group based in California, USA. The US visitors were there to
witness the rallying and to ensure that the group was given all the
help they needed after spending 30 years in the jungle of central Laos
refusing to be part of the Lao communist regime. The Americans were
promptly arrested for �liaising illegally� with the Hmong, but were
released and deported a few days later after diplomatic discussion
between the two countries (BBC News, World Edition, 7 June 2005).
The new arrivals were taken a few hours later by military trucks to
Phu Kout in Xieng Khouang province where they were allocated 50
hectares of farm land and other forms of emergency assistance, with
local officials welcoming them �as a gesture of appreciation for their
support to (sic) the government's policy of alleviating poverty�,
according to Vientiane Times, the official English language newspaper
(http://www.vientianetimes.org.la/Contents/2005-107/Phou.htm). For
the Lao authorities, the Hmong families coming out of the jungle were
no more than villagers on the move in search of new farming land.
There was no question of rebellion or resistance.
On the other side of the globe, however, the U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, on 7 June 2005 in New York, welcomed reports on the humane
treatment extended to �Hmong, coming out of remote areas of Laos� and
urged the Vientiane government to continue providing the necessary
assistance to them in case a larger number decide to follow in the
days ahead. The Secretary-General said the UN was ready to provide
every kind of humanitarian assistance to such groups the Lao
government may request (News Updated, Tuesday 12 July 2005 at
http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=86608&cat=World).
This is the first time, the UN made any public acknowledgement of the
existence of Hmong rebels in Laos.
Meanwhile, a television report in France entitled "The Secret War in
Laos" was broadcast on 16 June 2005 on France Channel 2 (http://
info.france2.fr/emissions/73095-fr.php). It shows a campaign of
�ferocious repression, even extermination� conducted for the last
three decades by the leaders of the one-party state of the Lao PDR
against thousands of Hmong in the jungle of Saisomboun and
Bolikhamsay province (Lao Movement for Human Rights, �Petition to Save
the Hmong in Saisomboun� at http://www.mldh-lao.org/petition_online/petition1.php).
A Lao Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mr Yong Chanthalansy, dismissed the
televised report as an attempt to �make something out of nothing�,
claiming that there were no rebels in Laos and that the two French
reporters had been mislead by �bad people� (�khaun-bordi�) to invent
the report (Lao Language Program, Radio Free Asia, 26 June 2005).
Ever since 1975 when the communist Pathet Lao (Lao Nation) gained
control of Laos with the support of the then Soviet Union and North
Vietnam, reports have continued to circulate about the exploits and
suffering of many thousands of Hmong resistance fighters in remote
jungles of that country. Initially they saw themselves as part of a
rather ill-coordinated liberation movement to bring back democracy and
non-communist rule to the country. After many years with little
progress, this mission was changed in the last five years to one where
the few small groups who remain, are simply fighting for survival as
remnants of the so-called �secret army� which the American Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) recruited and supported during the Lao civil
war from 1961 to 1973 (Conboy, 1995 and Warner, 1998). They now see
their plight as the legacy of their involvement as members or
descendants of the members of this CIA �secret army� and are thus
targeted for extermination by the new communist regime.
This paper will focus on the Hmong and their armed resistance in Laos.
It will begin with a short overview of the Hmong and their past armed
rebellions. I will then discuss the current situation by looking at
the internal and external factors and groups involved, before
concluding on what will be the likely future of Hmong armed resistance
in that country. In a sense, the Hmong cannot be said to be rebels
against the Lao PDR government, as these dissidents have never joined
the new regime and raise up against it from within its own ranks.
Rather, they have chosen to resist the new communist rule by being
fiercely anti-communist and by isolating themselves in their mountain
fastnesses, refusing to be under the control of the new authorities.
Why the Hmong?
During the sixty-one years (1893-1954) of French colonial control of
Laos, a number of armed rebellions by ethnic Khmu and Hmong minorities
took place (Gunn, 1990). However, the Hmong remain today the only ones
involved in armed resistance against the ruling authorities, although
there are more than 40 other minorities living in the country. To
explore the reason for this occurrence, we need to look at the role
the Hmong have played in recent Lao history, and mythical religious
beliefs which shape their political outlook and which influence them
to instigate or join armed insurgency.
The Hmong began migrating from southern China to Laos during the last
half of the 19th century, partly pushed by the Chinese Taiping
Rebellions but largely in search of new farming lands. They settled
in increasing numbers in Samneua, Phong Saly, Luang Prabang and Xieng
Khouang provinces. After Laos became a French colony in 1893, they
became subjected to heavy taxes: a resident tax paid to the local Lao
chiefs and a colonial tax for the French administrators. This
official tax burden soon lead Hmong leaders to organise an ambush
against tax collectors in 1896 at Ban Khang Phanieng in Muong Kham,
Xieng Khouang province (Yang Dao, 1975: 46). The French were
concerned enough to agree to negotiate with the recalcitrant Hmong,
resulting in the establishment of Hmong Tasseng (or canton chief)
positions that were accountable directly to the French authorities.
The first Hmong Tasseng was given to the chief negotiator, Kiatong Mua
Yong Kai (Muas Zoov Kaim) in Nong Het, and a second Tasseng was
created near Xieng Khouang town for Ya Yang Her (Zam Yaj Hawj). This
new arrangement would allow Hmong leaders to collect taxes from their
own people and to have autonomy at the level of village
administration, thus bypassing Lao officials at the Tasseng and Muong
(or district) levels (Savina, 1924: 238). This was to affect greatly
later Hmong involvement in the political events of Laos, for it gave
the Hmong leadership a tendency to prefer dealing directly with
Western allies (be them French or Americans) instead of the Lao,
primarily because of a basic distrust of Lao officialdom based on
these early confrontations. It also created a political outlook that
would subsequently make some Hmong unwilling to accept orders directly
from the Lao authorities.
These early administrative arrangements with the French brought
relative calm to their relations with the Hmong until the latter took
up arms again with the Pachai (Batchai) Vue messianic revolt from 1918
to 1921. This was to be the first of many revivalist cults that
eventually gave rise to the "Chao Fa" or Lord of the Sky resistance in
Laos today. A Hmong living in Tonkin (North Vietnam), Pachai was
called upon to lead the rebellion out of a mythical belief that God
had ordained him to deliver justice to his people who greatly suffered
in the hands of Thai Dam (Black Thai) mandarins who not only
conscripted Hmong men from their highland villages to work as free
labour in lowland Thai Dam settlements but also levied opium tax on
the Hmong.
However, the uprising soon included other grievances when French
soldiers became involved in putting it down. Pachai fled Tonkin and
sought refuge in Laos where he attracted a larger group of followers
who saw in him the messiah they had been waiting for. It was claimed
that the rebellion at its peak covered a territory of 40,000 square
kilometres, spanning from Dien Bien Phu in Vietnam to Nam Ou in Luang
Prabang and down to central Laos as far as Muong Cha (now renamed
Saisomboun, the site of the current Hmong rebellion). Many Hmong took
up arms with Pachai either out of their own personal grievances
against lowlanders or in the fervent belief that they were part of a
holy war foretold in many of their myths to regain the country they
had lost long ago. In China, the Hmong had staged many such bloody
uprisings through the centuries against Han Chinese domination based
on a belief in the coming of a mythical king and a new Hmong kingdom
(Tapp, 1982: 114-127).
When the Pachai rebellion spread to Laos, the largest military
expedition ever organised by the French "by that date was mounted to
break Batchai's rebellion; four companies of tirailleurs were brought
in from other parts of Indochina to restore order." (Gunn, 1986: 115).
Pachai was eventually tracked down and killed in his hide-out in Muong
Heup, Luang Prabang, on 17 November 1921 (Le Boulanger, 1969: 360).
Following his death, many Hmong rebel leaders who surrendered were
decapitated at Nong Het by the French in front of Hmong spectators who
were forced to assemble there. Other supporters of the revolt had to
pay compensation to the French at fifty piastres "for every Lao or
Vietnamese (soldiers) killed, not including compensation for loss of
houses, cattle and crops" (Gunn, op cit.: 120).
From these early dissident experiences, the Hmong gravitated to full
participation in the Lao struggle for independence from France
(1945-1953) and the subsequent Lao civil war (1954- 1975) while other
ethnic minorities remain very much in the background due to their
smaller numbers or their lack of political participation in Lao
national affairs. For the Hmong, however, political rivalry in Nong
Het, Xieng Khouang, for the position of the local Tasseng chief made
the Lo and Ly clans into bitter enemies when the French gave it to
Touby Lyfoung in 1939 a few years after the death of Lo Bliayoa, the
local kiatong chief (Chongtoua, 1998: 54). Touby Lyfoung thereafter
remained faithful to the French and their right-wing Royal Lao
Government (RLG) until his death in a communist political re-education
camp in 1978.
During Japan�s occupation of Laos in 1945, Faydang, one of Lo
Bliayao's sons and Touby's political rival, sided with the Lao Issara
(Free Lao) Movement. The Lao Issara, later known as the Pathet Lao
(PL or Lao Homeland), urged on initially by the Japanese and later
aided by North Vietnam and the Soviet Union, eventually won the fight
for control of Laos in 1975 from the RLG, its America-supported
faction in the civil war. The left-wing PL depended much on Faydang's
Hmong and other hill tribes as its main support base in the jungles of
north-eastern Laos. According to Stuart-Fox (1997: 79-80), the
movement relied on ethnic minorities because it had "little
opportunity to mobilise lowland Lao" people who were firmly under RLG
control.
Prior to Laos being independent from France in 1954, those Hmong who
sided with Touby Lyfoung were serving the French as right-wing village
militia and French colonial soldiers. After the France left Indochina,
the USA stepped in to counter the spread of communism (Freedman,
2002). Like the French, the Americans continued to see the Hmong as a
trustworthy source of support. The French helped set up the RLG and
its army which included many Hmong recruits. Among the latter was a
young officer named Vang Pao who subsequently became a General and the
Commander of the Second Military Region for the RLG in north-eastern
Laos, the home of the Hmong and the seat of many major battles in the
war.
In 1961, Vang Pao was offered support from the American CIA to set up
the so-called "secret army" to combat the advances of PL troops.
According to Prados (2003: 165), �in 1964 the Hmong secret army stood
at 19,000 troops, building toward a strength of 23,000� The Hmong not
only increased in number, but they also benefited from a constant
stream of SGUs (special guerrilla units) sent to Thailand for advanced
training� [and].. given heavier U.S. weapons�. Known as Project
Momentum by the CIA, this military support was to last until the Paris
Cease-fire Agreement in 1973, leading to the dislocation and death of
more than ten per cent of the estimated 300,000 Hmong involved in both
sides of the war in Laos at the time.
Who Are Involved?
When the PL finally took over Laos in 1975, the Hmong under Gen. Vang
Pao found themselves under a communist regime they had been fighting
against since 1961. More than 200,000 of them sought refuge in
Thailand, and most were later resettled in the West. The majority who
could not escape to Thailand in the years immediately after 1975
adapted themselves to life in the new Lao People�s Democratic Republic
(Lao PDR). Many right-wing Hmong leaders, former police and military
officers under the old RLG, were taken to political re-education camps
where they remained for many years and where some eventually died. A
large number of Vang Pao followers, distrustful of the new authorities
and their forced political �seminars�, went into hiding deep in the
jungles of Phu Bia, the highest mountain of Laos and other adjacent
areas from where they have continued to wage a constricted war of
resistance against the Lao PDR government (Lee, 1982: 212-214). It was
estimated that by mid-1980, 3500 Hmong in the Phu Bia area were
involved in this armed resistance, compared to 150,000 other Hmong in
the country at the time (U S News and World Report, 2 June 1980).
However, the Fact-Finding Commission on Laos, a non-profit lobby
group based in Oroville in California , states in February 2002 that
there are today 20 such veteran groups consisting of 17,177 people
still living in the jungles resisting and defending themselves against
the Communist Lao government with �3,334 soldiers�, and that �their
military actions are not offensive, but are to protect themselves and
their families in the jungles from the Pathet Lao and North Vietnamese
troops.� (Lao Human Rights Council, Submission to the US House
Committee on Ways and Means, 9 April 2003). A journalist, Andrew
Perrin, visited such a group in 2003 and was informed that it now had
only 800 persons left from an initial 7,000 (Time Asia Magazine, 5 May
2003).
Messianic Freedom Fighters
In 1976, the two major groups of Hmong rebels in Phu Bia were under Mr
Yong Youa Her (Ntxoov Zuag Hawj), a former sargeant in Vang Pao's
secret army, and Mr Xai Shua Yang, a former Tasseng (canton chief) at
Pha Khao, east of Long Cheng that used to be Vang Pao's military
headquarters. Before 1975, Yong Youa was part of a Hmong revivalist
movement which, amidst all the suffering sustained by the Hmong in the
Lao civil war, was advocating the formation of a "true" Hmong society,
in anticipation of the return of the legendary Hmong king who would
rescue Hmong believers from oppression by other people. Under Yong
Youa's military guidance and messianic leadership, the resistance
movement soon became known as "Chao Fa" (a Lao term meaning "Lord of
the Sky" or God).
According to Lee (op.cit.: 213), Yong Yua's leadership attracted many
Hmong, desperate to stay alive but unwilling to submit to the PL
government. At one stage his messianic army was said to have 400 or
500 men, operating in units of 20 to 50 against PL forces. Believing
that they were invulnerable and had God's protection, they went to war
with strong religious convictions, carrying their own flag. They only
had old rifles, left-over from Vang Pao�s days, but used them
sparingly and only when sure of their aim, in order to preserve their
scarce ammunition. Sometimes, they might supplement their arm caches
with what they could take from their dead victims.
By 1979, Xai Shua Yang's followers had to split into small bands after
they ran out of food and could no longer withstand the shelling and
gassing of their strongholds by PL and Vietnamese troops. A few months
later, most of them reached Thailand with their families, leaving only
Yong Youa and his followers to roam the thickets of Phu Bia.
In the refugee camps in Thailand, the �Chao Fa� movement was taken up
by former adherents who escaped from Laos, headed by Pa Kao Her. He
named his group �the Ethnic Liberation Organization of Laos�. For a
time, the organisation gained support from China which supplied it
with arms and military training from 1979 to 1980, following the 1979
border clash between China and Vietnam, the Lao PDR government's
principal ally. The Thailand "Chao Fa" members who called themselves
�freedom fighters�, established their base in Nan, near the border of
Laos and launched intelligence and armed operations into Sayaboury
province in Laos as well as Phu Bia.
After 1980, China no longer supplied aid to the Chao Fa in Thailand,
so the group was forced to depend on donations from Hmong refugees
living in America and other countries. It also had to dissolve into
small scattered elements, due to crackdown by the Thai government
acting on border security agreements it has signed with the Lao PDR
government in 1994. By 1998, Yong Youa seems also to have pinned his
hopes on Gen. Vang Pao to return to the jungles of Laos and help him
with the resistance, declaring in a video message that "I am
continuing the fight for you and we are all suffering from your dirty
legacy (of cooperating with the American CIA)". It is rumoured that
Yong Youa is no longer alive, and has been replaced by Moua Toua Ter
as shown in a video made in September 2002 by the Fact Finding
Commission, a Hmong resistance lobby group based in California, USA.
The Chao Fa freedom fighters are reported until recently to have
continued their activities along the Thai-Lao border near Sayaburi
province in Laos (Vang, 2004a). The group later changed its name to
�Democratic Chao Fa Party of Laos� with Pakao Her as President and
Nhia Long Moua as Vice-President. Pakao Her moved to Chiangrai with
his family while many of his followers were living among the 16,000
remnants of Hmong refugees from Laos at Tham Krabok, north of Bangkok.
In October 2002, Pa Kao Her was assassinated when someone fired 28
bullets into him as he was standing outside his house, an act
attributed by his wife to �Lao people� (Vang, 2004b). On 3 July 2005,
Nhia Long Moua also passed away, leaving no one as his replacement.
The leadership and support base of the Chao Fa in Thailand thus
appears to have been decimated, although its die-hard followers claim
that they still have a network of supporters in the diaspora and have
been able to maintain direct contacts with those inside Laos to keep
the fighting going in the remote jungles of Saisomboun Special Zone.
Exiled Politicians
After coming to the United States in 1975, Vang Pao first settled in
Montana but soon moved to California where he established the United
Lao National Liberation Front (ULNLF) in 1981. The Front was supported
by a number of prominent former RLG figures such as Sisouk Na
Champassak (former RLG Minister for Defence), Gen. Phoumi Nosavanh
(the rightist liberator of Vientiane after its occupation in 1960 by
Neutralist forces under Captain Kong Le), Gen. Thonglit Chokbengboun,
Mr Outhong Souvannavong (elderly statesman and a former minister of
the first Lao cabinet after independence from France in 1954), and
other refugee Lao politicians. They formed a government in exile with
Souvannavong as Prime Minister and Vang Pao as Minister for Defence
(Chan, 1994: 47).
Following its establishment, members of the Front often travelled to
different countries with Lao �migr� communities to promote their
organisation. They were able to increase its membership and financial
donations greatly between 1982 to 1992. They set up a base in Thailand
within the former Ban Vinai refugee camp in Loei, with Mr Vue Mai as
their local representative and coordinator. With the covert assistance
of the Thai border military, Vang Pao's ULNLF had penetrated deep
inside Laos by 1984 with many contact points established in the
jungles of his former RLG Second Military Command area in north-
eastern Laos. It also tried valiantly to make headway into central and
southern Laos, but found the going difficult as most of Vang Pao's
operatives were Hmong and were not familiar with this part of the
country. Vang Pao received little cooperation from Lao resistance
groups whose exile leaders preferred to squabble with each other and
to do most of their fight verbally against the new Lao authorities
from the comfort of their armchairs overseas in France, America or
Australia.
Like the Chao Fa movement and other Lao resistance groups in Thailand,
the ULNLF fell victim of the Thai-Lao rapprochement in 1993. The Lao
PDR government, mindful of the use of Lao refugee camps for resistance
activities against its control of Laos, made overtures to the Thai
government in an effort to bring the two countries closer together and
to stem out these dissident operations. Vang Pao who used to be able
to spend much of his time in Thailand was no longer welcome there and
was barred from the country. He was no longer able to make radio
contacts with his supporters in Laos the way he used to do, and to
direct his organisation�s resistance activities in the homeland.
Pathet Lao Dissidents
It is interesting to note that it is not only the �Chao Fa� followers
and the Hmong who used to serve under Vang Pao that have resisted the
new Lao PDR government. In July 1995, Bouachong Lee, a Hmong major in
the Pathet Lao army, staged a minor coup against government military
installations near Luang Prabang, the former royal capital (Asia Week,
28/07/95). He was reported to be upset with the Lao government for by-
passing him for a promotion and for trying to retire him from active
service without all the promises made to him before 1975 having been
materialised. The same discontent is said to simmer within the ranks
of many Pathet Lao Hmong supporters, due to lack of promotions and
unfulfilled promises by the government. Bouachong and his supporters
were arrested while trying to escape to Thailand. He is now said to
have his jaws and other body parts broken from torture and to remain
chained in prison to this day. A number of other Hmong leaders who
used to oppose Vang Pao and to work faithfully with the Pathet Lao are
now also in prison on suspicion of supporting him and planning a
rebellion against the Lao authorities. Two Khmu and Lao middle-
ranking military officers are said to have joined the Chao Fa in the
jungle after defecting from the new Lao government.
In 2003, the Hmong in Samneua province which was the old stronghold of
the Pathet Lao during their initial years of political struggle,
became the subject of harsh military suppression when some took up
arms against the Lao on the ground of racial discrimination. It was
alleged that one of the Hmong leaders there purchased a utility truck
with money sent to him by relatives in America, but the prized utility
was confiscated by a Lao official who accused its owner of receiving
money from overseas resistance groups. Other Hmong in turn accused the
Lao of pocketing US$36 million from an American opium crop replacement
project that had been operating in Samneua during the previous five
years. Those Hmong who could not escape to the jungle were arrested
and imprisoned. A number was said to have died from torture and
starvation, with their bodies left to decompose in front of other
prisoners (Radio Hmonglao, 23 April 2004).
Thus, a major cause of discontent is the perception by some Hmong in
and outside Laos that they are the subject of blatant racial
discrimination by some elements of the Lao population and government
officials. It has been alleged, for instance, that the current Lao
President who is a prominent ethnic Lao member of the Lao Politburo
once made a speech to an all-Lao audience that no military and police
personnel of Hmong background, even those who served the communist
Pathet Lao for the last 40 years, were to be promoted beyond the rank
of major because they were not to be trusted so long as Vang Pao
remains alive. This happens to be true of the current Hmong army and
police officers in Laos when officers of other ethnic backgrounds have
become colonels or generals. The Hmong who were some of the first
Pathet Lao soldiers now find themselves still serving under Lao or
Khmu commanders, but have no one of their own in any high-level
positions.
The Foreign Connections
As already mentioned, the Hmong resistance in Laos was initiated by
isolated groups who used to serve in the CIA �secret army�or in the
Royal Lao Army, and who could not escape to Thailand. Some of them,
through former supporters in Thai refugee camps, later established
support networks that spanned not only Laos and Thailand, but also the
United States and other resettlement countries. The resistance in Laos
thus became linked to the refugees in temporary asylum in Thailand and
expatriate communities in the West.
Let us now look at these foreign connections that have kept the
resistance alive until today.
Thailand
Between 1975 and 1994, Thailand was refuge for more than 300,000
refugees from Laos. It thus inadvertently became the base for many of
the resistance groups which ran inside the refugee camps. Vang Pao�s
ULNLF was able to operate with the covert cooperation in military
training from Thai Army border intelligence units which were using the
Hmong resistance fighters to collect military information inside Laos
for Thailand. At the time, Laos and Thailand had not opened up to each
other, and the Thai were still treating the new Lao regime with
suspicion, depending mostly on refugees from Laos for border military
intelligence. From 1983 to 1991, the Thai informally provided radio
communications and short-term military training to groups of freedom
fighters operating under the Chao Fa and the ULNLF, sending small
teams of them into Laos and waiting at the border to accompany them
back into the refugee camps on their return to Thailand. It was
alleged that Thai army officials had an arrangement with the Chao Fa,
known as �Special Operation 3091� in which Hmong freedon fighters
would be trained to fight inside Laos in return for Thai assistance to
help them regain control of Laos or to gain Thai citizenship in the
event that such political control could not be realised. Two training
camps were established in northern Thailand, one from 1985 to 1988,
and the other in 1988. This Thai intervention allowed resistance
fighters in Laos became better co-ordinated and to even have regular
radio communication contacts with supporters in Thailand. Although
Chao Fa leaders had photographs and videos to support their
allegations, the Thai government today denies any involvement (Vang,
2004a).
When the Thai and Lao PDR governments started negotiations on border
security in 1993 and set up a joint Thai-Lao Border Commission with a
formal agreement signed in August 1996, the resistance support
networks in Thai refugee camps were quickly dismantled and their
members dispersed. By then, Thailand also had new changes of
governments and younger new military commanders who had developed new
attitudes towards a communist Laos that was opening up its markets to
the free economy of Thailand and other nations. The older die-hard
right-wing elite of Vang Pao's generation were gone. Many of the new
army commanders in Thailand did not even know who Vang Pao was,
although he used to be admired as one of its closest and best anti-
communist allies during the Lao civil war throughout the 1960's and
early 1970's.
Cha Fa leaders claimed that the Thai-Lao border security agreement
included the revelation of the locations of Hmong freedom fighters in
Laos who were then attacked by Lao troops. In Thailand, the
authorities began arresting Lao and Hmong refugees suspected of
supporting resistance activities, and those from America were stopped
and turned back at the airport in Bangkok. After 1991, Thai troops
would chase �Cha Fa soldiers in Thailand into Laos where the Lao
military was waiting.� (Vang, 2004a). Many died or were maimed by
land mines in this way.
By 1992, all three Hmong refugee camps (Nam Yao, Chiang Kham and Ban
Vinai) were closed, and more than 20,000 of their residents
repatriated "voluntarily" (by UNHCR counts) to Laos where they were
assisted to re-integrate into the local communities. With the closing
of the refugee camps in Thailand, the resistance groups in Laos have
been on their own since 1993. The remaining of the Hmong refugees who
had not been repatriated or accepted for resettlement in Western
countries, ran away to live at Tham Krabok, a large Thai Buddhist drug
rehabilitation centre and temple in Saraburi province, north of
Bangkok. Others were dispersed into various parts of northern
Thailand, or were relocated to Ban Napho camp in Nakhone Phanom, the
last camp that was closed by the UNHCR in December 1999.
After the death of the Abbot of the Tham Krabok Temple in 1999, the
Thai government became concerned that the Hmong refugees would
continue to remain there permanently and asked the Lao government to
accept them back into Laos, but the latter did not agree (Ranard,
2004:23). Instead, it put political pressure on Thailand to stop
providing haven for Hmong insurgents at the temple complex. The Thai
then successfully lobbied the US government to agree to accept its
15,000 residents for resettlement in September 2003. On 26 May 2005,
this unofficial refugee camp in Thailand was officially closed,
marking an end to Hmong support for the resistance in Laos (Washington
Post.com, 27 May 2005; p. A20).
A new issue facing the Thai authorities is a new group of Hmong from
Laos at Ban Maenam Khao in Phetchaboon Province. Having heard that the
US government was accepting the Hmong in Tham Krabok for resettlement,
small numbers of these Hmong started to trickle into Thailand across
the Lao border to claim political asylum. Some allegedly paid people
smugglers to put them temporarily where they are now located. Their
number has now swelled to more than 6,000 persons. The Thai are
negotiating with the Lao government to accept them back, but most of
the asylum seekers have discarded their Lao identity papers, claiming
that they had suffered political persecution in Laos or were
descendants of members of the old CIA �secret army� so that the Lao
are not keen to accept them back. Official negotiations continue on
the problem, along with intense lobbying from Hmong political groups
in America.
United States of America
As the country responsible for supporting the Indochina War, America
was also recipient of the biggest number of Indochinese refugees since
their exodus from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in 1975. The number of
refugees from Laos accepted for resettlement in the US is estimated at
more than 350,000 with two thirds being Hmong. Vang Pao was among the
first to resettle there. As stated earlier, he and Phoumi Nosavanh (a
former General in the Royal Lao Army exiled in Thailand) set up the
United Lao National Liberation Front (ULNLF) in 1981 in America with
affiliates among Lao refugees living in France and Australia. The
Front and other resistance groups have also lobbied the American
government for support and for political or economic sanctions against
the Lao government. This is despite the fact that US Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright has clearly stated that the US Government
"does not support Laos Resistance Movement" (Business Day, 31 July
2000).
Regardless of the official American stand, much of the support for
resistance groups and their morale still emanate from the US, largely
because of the huge number of expatriates from Laos in that country
who act as a source of financial donations and the presence of Vang
Pao, Laos' major enemy. He was sentenced to death in absentia by the
new Lao government in 1975, but he continues to represent a threat to
the Lao regime. Judging from public statements made by Lao officials,
there is no doubt that Vang Pao still commands fear among the Lao
authorities, although he has vehemently denied being involved in any
resistance activities in Laos or the spate of bomb explosions in the
Lao capital of Vientiane in 2000 (Asia.dailynews.yahoo.com, July 29,
2000).
The Lao government accuses the Hmong in America of continuing to send
arms and money to resistance groups in the Lao PDR. It claims that six
Hmong Americans were caught doing this at Nong Khai province in
Thailand just across the border from Vientiane in January 2000 (Far
Eastern Economic Review, 6 May 2000). Two Hmong men from America
visiting northern Laos had also disappeared in 1999, although the
object of their visit was never made clear. Overall, many Hmong in
America still have relatives in Laos and often send them large sums of
money - an activity regarded with suspicion by Lao officials. Many of
them also visit Laos each year as tourists or on business - again
making the Lao authorities suspecting some of them as using these
visits as a front for politically subversive activities.
More importantly, the US continues to be home to many exile political
activists and pressure groups working for democracy in the old
homeland of Laos. Among the most active are: the Center for Public
Policy Analysis, the Lao Representatives Abroad Council (RI), Lao
Progressive (RI), the General Assembly of Delegates of Laotians
Abroad, the United Lao Congress for Democracy (WI & MN), the
Montagnard Human Rights Organization (VA), the Lao Students Movement
For Democracy (WA), the Lao Nationalist Reform Party (TN), the Lao
Democracy Institute (MA), the Hmong International Human Rights Watch
(NE), the United League for Democracy in Laos (USA), the Lao Veterans
of America (USA), the Lao Human Rights Council (WI), the Hmong United
Liberation Front (Chicago), and the Lan Xang Foundation (TN & GA),
with many other unlisted groups.
Public forums, seminars, and mass demonstrations are often organised
to bring [political issues of pertinence from the homeland to the
attention of the American media and politicians in the US capital.
The Center for Public Policy Analysis, which has its headquarters in
Washington D.C., and the Lao Democracy Institute are particularly
active in issuing press releases on human rights abuse by the Lao PDR
government. In August 2004, a group of concerned Hmong in Minnesota
organised the Long March to Freedom campaign in which volunteers and
one of the local Hmnong church leaders walked from Minnesota to
Washington DC to bring atrocities suffered by the Hmong in the jungle
of Laos from the Lao military to attention of the American public.
There is not a week gone by without Hmong discussion groups on the
Internet in the US engage in hot debate about some fresh allegations
about abuses suffered by the Hmong in the hands of the Lao
authorities. It would appear that the Hmong in America simply cannot
forget Laos and the communist rulers there.
Although the few radio stations which broadcast in the Hmong language
in California, Wisconsin, Colorado and Minnesota, tend to focus on
American domestic issues, the Hmong Lao Radio (www.hmonglaoradio.org)
spends most of its air time on political propaganda against the Lao
government. Apart from news items, commentaries and interviews that
are critical of the Lao authorities, it has a very popular news
exhances segment where Hmong around the world can send family messages
to each other. It also concentrates on resistance news from Laos.
Clandestine Radio Watch 122 (at http://www.schoechi.de/crw/crw122.html)
reports that the station is operated by the United Lao Movement for
Democracy, formerly known as the United Lao National Liberation Front,
Gen. Vang Pao�s exile political group. Its transmission was relayed to
Laos via Tashkent and was first detected on 6 December 2002. The
station today broadcasts on-air to Hmong communities in Laos and in
America three times a week, as well as on the Internet, although the
latter has suffered from frequent jamming.
A major US connection to the Hmong resistance in Laos is the existence
of human rights organisations that specifically lobby against Laos
with the United Nations and the American government. Before his sudden
passing away on 23 August 2005, Dr Vang Pobzeb, the Director of the
Lao Human Rights Council based in Wisconsin, USA, spoke to the 23rd
Meeting on Indigenous Affairs of the United Nations in Geneva on 18-22
July 2005 before 1000 participants to whom he made a heartfelt appeal
to the Lao government to stop its human rights abuse and ethnic
cleansing against the Hmong in Laos. His presentation was featured by
Radio Free Asia (http://www.rfa.org/lao/feature/miscellaneous/
2005/07/25/globalTribeConference/).
In a similar vein, the Hmong International Human Rights Watch has also
been lobbying on behalf of recent Hmong refugees from Laos in
Thailand. No less vocal is a new Hmong international political group
based in Fresno, California. Although it does not yet wish to be
identified officially, it claims to have already made an impact on the
Hmong resistance problem in Laos by being accepted to address the UN
International Forum on Indigenous People (16 - 24 May 2005) in the UN
General Assembly hall in New York, with �51 representatives fully
dressed in Hmong national costumes being present among 180 indigenous
groups world-wide� (Txia Yao Yang, telephone interview, 18 August
2005). The group will meet with UN officials again in October 2005 to
further discuss human rights and resistance issues in Laos.
Another organisation based in the US which has had most impact on the
exile global Hmong community and the international media is the
quaintly named Fact-Finding Commission on Laos, a political lobby
group whose mission is �working to bring the plight of veterans of
the US Secret War in Laos to the attention of the US Congress and the
American People�. Since September 2002, it has brought out video
footages of the struggles and suffering of the Hmong in the resistance
in the Saisomboun Special Zone in the hands of Lao government
military. For the first time, graphic images of starving children and
sick women, crying grown men on the run from enemy soldiers, can
clearly be seen in the living rooms of Hmong communities in the West.
No longer is there only talks and rumours, but graphic evidence.
Video images of disembowelled, murdered and gang raped Hmong young
girls from the rebel area were distributed around the world, prompting
allegation of war crimes against the Lao government from Amnesty
International (14 September 2004, Press Release).
China
At the peak of the Chao Fa resistance in Phu Bia in 1979, rumours were
circulating of Hmong armed bands harassing Lao troops near the border
of China and Laos. Pa Kao Her, the Chao Fa Hmong leader in Thailand,
was known to have sent 100 young Hmong for military training in
southern China and received military aid from a local Chinese army
commander. On their return to Thiland, however, most of their Chinese
arms were confiscated by the Thai border patrol police. Vang Pao also
allegedly made contact with Chinese leaders in August 1978 (FEER, I
September 1979). Following the capture of a few dissidents bearing
Chinese weapons, one prominent Lao official openly commented that "the
Chinese have mobilised some Hmong and Lu minority people for a
movement against our government" (FEER , 8 December 1979).
However, there is no conclusive evidence on the extent or
effectiveness of China's direct use of tribal people to interfere in
Lao internal affairs, despite later visits made to China by Vang Pao
in 1988 and by the Vice-President of the Democratic Chao Fa Party of
Laos, Nhia Long Moua, as recently as 2004. The Chinese seem to have
shied away from giving aid to Hmong resistance groups in Laos after
learning that one of the Chao Fao Hmong�s intentions was to recruit
large numbers of Hmong in China to fight for Laos and make it a Hmong
country.
Nevertheless, being mindful of this possible threat from its big
northern neighbour, the Lao PDR government made high level friendship
visits to China when Hmong resistance activities in Laos increased,
the latest being a State visit by the Lao President, Mr Khamtay
Siphandone, to Beijing on 14 July 2000 at the invitation of the former
Chinese President Jiang Zemin. Another Lao delegation also visited
Yunnan province bordering Laos a few days later. The official Chinese
Xinhua News Agency (14 July 2000) reports on the Khamtay-Jiang meeting
that "the two leaders reached common ground on furthering
comprehensive and cooperative relations between the two countries, and
will as soon as possible sign a document to define the framework for
the further development of Sino-Lao relations".
The latest news on Sino-Lao relations focus only on the furthering of
trade links between the two countries, and on large investment
projects such as the commercial growing of orchids and rubber trees in
northern Laos by Chinese companies. China is keen to promote trade
cooperation with Laos, said Chinese Prime Miniter Wen Jiabao in
Kunming, Yunnan, during his working session with Lao Prime Minister
Bounnhang Vorachit who was in China to attend the second summit of the
Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS) countries on 4 July 2005 (07 July
2005, KPL News at http://www.kplnet.net/).
Vietnam
Between 1954 and 1973, the Pathet Lao relied heavily on North
Vietnamese military troops to gain control of Laos. Since 1975, it
has continued to depend on Vietnamese military interventions against
the Hmong resistance fighters. In July 1977, Laos signed a Treaty of
Friendship and Cooperation with Vietnam which includes, among other
things, the provision for �the realisation of a close cooperation with
a view to reinforcing the defence capacities [of the two parties] �in
the struggle against �foreign reactionary forces.� (Article 2). This
latter reference is clearly addressed to Lao and Vietnamese liberation
groups in other countries.
This Treaty and other links with Vietnam have not helped to quench the
resistance movement, but only to reinforce the claim by the latter
that Laos is but a colony of communist Vietnam. To avoid being seen
in this light, Vietnam has consistently denied any involvement by
saying that Laos is a country capable of looking after its own
security. This is despite the fact that in June 2000, Vietnamese
Communist Party chief, Le Kha Phieu, told a visiting Laotian army
delegation that he wanted the two countries' armies "to cooperate in
the struggle against hostile forces." (egroups.com/message/archive-
laonews/ 1298).
Resistance sources claim that two battalions of Vietnamese troops were
sent to Laos in October 1999 (Hmong Voice Radio, 22 July 2000). This
seems to have been confirmed by foreign diplomats in Vientiane, one of
whom was quoted by Agence France Press (2 June 2000) as saying that
"in the past few months there have been frequent clashes in Xieng
Khouang province which are getting bigger, causing mounting casualties
for the Lao army", including heavy material losses such as a
helicopter carrying artillery being shot down by the rebels. These
losses have forced the Lao government to seek help from Vietnam. The
diplomat went on to say that "the Vietnamese army has sent soldiers
and military equipment to bolster the Lao army which is struggling to
control the situation. We have seen military vehicles carrying
Vietnamese troops on the streets of the capital."
The US based Fact-Finding Commission on Laos alleged that Vietnamese
troops, in conjunction with the Pathet Lao forces, have used
helicopters, MI 6, MI 8, and MI 17, to bomb the positions of the Hmong
involved in the resistance in the jungles of northern Laos. Since
December 1, 1999, the Lao government has received more military troops
from Vietnam. Seventeen military bases, with many battalions of
Vietnamese soldiers, are strategically located near the mountain
locations where the Hmong veterans of the American secret war in Laos
and their families are hiding. These locations are claimed to be as
follows:
Lao Military Bases with North Vietnamese Troops
Location
Province
Estimated Troop Strength*
1. Baben
Louang Namtha
15,000 (Regiment #442)
2. Muang Na
Louang Phrabang
15,000
3. Muang Soie
Xieng Khouang
7,500
4. Ban Ban
Xieng Khouang
7,500
5. Sai Som Boun Special Zone
Xieng Khouang
15,000 (Regiment #335)
6. Na Mouang / Vangviang
Vientiane
7,500
7. Pakha/Mouang Fouang
Vientiane
7,500 (Battalion #614)
8. Vientiane
Vientiane
15,000
9. Muang Paksan
Borikhan
7,500
10. Ban Nam
Borikhan
2,500
11. Ban Lakxao
Borikhan
2,500
12. Cong Thong
Borikhan
2,500
13. Saravanh
Saravanh
5,000
14. Xekong
Xekong
10,000
15. Pakse
Champasak
8,000 (Regiment #5)
16. Muang Moon
Champasak
3,000 (Battalion #11)
17. Attapu
Attapu
4,000
* Troop strength includes both North Vietnamese and Lao.
Source: Lao Human Rights Council Inc., U.S.A, Submission to the US
House Committee on Ways and Means, April 9, 2003
Altogether, there are 122,500 combined Lao and Vietnamese troops in
Laos. According to Tim Laard (BBC News, 27 August 2001), the
relationship between Vietnam and Laos is seen �by Vietnam as closer
than lips and teeth - and by Laos as deeper than the waters of the
Mekong River.� The Hmong International Human Rights Watch in the USA
stated in a submission to the UN Commission on Human Rights, that
evidence of Lao and Vietnamese government joint involvement in the
planning of military actions against Hmong insurgents in Laos
"surfaced over two years ago when, on 25 May 1998, a Russian-made
YAK-40 military jet flying over Saisomboun�. was shot down". Among
those killed in the crash were said to be 14 most senior Vietnamese
officers (including Lieut.Gen. Dao Trong Lich, the Chief of Staff and
Deputy Defence Minister, another lieutenant-general, three major-
generals and nine colonels and lieutenant colonels) together with 12
Laotian top military personnel (HIHRW, Press Release �Deteriorating
Human Rights Conditions for the Hmong Living in Laos, 22 July 2000�).
Following a spade of bombings in Vientiane in 2000, exchanges of
official visits between Vietnam and Laos increased markedly. On 16
July 2000, the Vietnam News Agency reports a story on a six-day visit
to Laos by "a high-level Vietnamese military delegation" which was
headed by the Vietnamese Deputy Defence Minister, Lieut. Gen. Le Van
Dzung, member of the Communist Party of Vietnam Central Committee and
Chief of the General Staff of the Vietnam People's Army. The
delegation was said to hold "talks with their Lao counterparts in the
spirit of solidarity, friendship and mutual understanding�. (and) also
discussed activities to promote mutual assistance and set the
orientation for further friendship and cooperation in the near
future."
A high-level provincial delegation from Xieng Khouang, the seat of
most of the Hmong resistance activities, visited Hanoi on 13 June 2000
- just after bombings started in Vientiane. The visit was headed by
the province's Communist Party deputy secretary, Mr Sivongya
Yangyongyia (a Hmong). The group met with the powerful external
relations commission of the Vietnamese Communist Party (Agence-France
Press, 14 June 2000) with the aim to "strengthen relations between the
two parties". The Lao delegation also visited areas with ethnic hill
tribes in Vietnam to see how they are being run by the Vietnamese
government. Hmong Voice Radio (22 July 2000), however, sees the visit
as a punishment for the Pathet Lao Hmong leadership in Xieng Khouang
for being too weak by allowing Hmong dissidents to shoot government
officials at random, to burn houses and to kill innocent villagers.
The party leadership was thus called to Vietnam to get a lecture.
In April 2003, after an attack on a bus killing 13 people in Vang
Vieng, the Lao Army Chief of Staff Maj-Gen. Khenekham Senglathone went
to Hanoi to meet his Vietnamese counterpart, the Vietnamese Deputy
Prime Minister and the Minster of Defence �for talks aimed to
strengthen relations� (Rand, 2003). Since then, there have been
reports of Vietnamese border troops killing Hmong insurgents who
strayed from Laos in search of food in Vietnamese territories
(Associated Press, 16/9/04 at http://perso.wanado.fr/patrick.guenin/cantho/vnnews/erupt.htm).
As recently as July 2005, the Lao News Agency KPL (http://
www.kplnet.net/) referred to border cooperation between Laos and
Vietnam, stating that the Border Guard Command in the two northern
border Vietnamese provinces of Dien Bien and Son La signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with a visiting delegation from the
Military Command of Laos' Phongsaly and Luang Prabang provinces on
promoting joint efforts in the management of their common border. The
two sides agreed to educate local communities about the two countries'
border regulations, to inform each other on situations relating to
border security, to increase bilateral patrols of common border areas,
to crack down on border crossings and other violations of border
regulations according to the laws of each country and to inspect and
repair landmarks. Although no mention is made of insurgents, there is
no doubt that they are included as a potential threat to be dealt with
by the agreement.
These foreign connections, support bases or influences for the
resistance or for the Lao government play an important part in
maintaining the ongoing struggle between the two parties, and in the
survival of the resistance movement both outside and inside Laos.
This is especially true of the relationship between resistance
fighters and expatriate Hmong communities in America with the latter�s
concerted and very vocal representations to their local American
congressmen, the international media, the Internet and the UN body.
For the Lao PDR government, its political and military relations with
Vietnam have been most important in keeping a lid firmly on an awkward
situation that it refuses to acknowledge openly. So long as these
foreign connections remain strong, Hmong resistance in Laos will
likely continue because these influences seem to work for and against
each other to reinforce the ideological stands and resources of the
parties involved in this long drawn-out conflict.
Government Responses
At the beginning, the new Lao government tried to talk the Hmong into
joining in the new political life and socialist economy of the country
through face-to-face �seminars�, leaflet drops and radio propaganda
broadcasts. However, after many failed attempts, it resorted to armed
suppression following increasing ambushes of Lao army convoys and
troops by the Hmong along Route 13 and the road linking Vangvieng and
Vientiane in 1976. The Hmong reportedly used arms and ammunition left
hidden by Vang Pao in the Phu Bia region, and later captured weapons
from their enemy or took them from dead government soldiers.
Military Suppression
As ambushes by the Hmong dissidents became more wide-spread and
government troops proved ineffective to stop them, four regiments of
Vietnamese troops were sent into the Phu Bia area in 1977 to crush the
rebellion, causing thousands of Hmong to flee to Thailand with 2,500
arriving in December 1977 alone. Aerial chemical poisoning was also
alleged to be used on the rebels by the Lao government (Yang Dao,
1978), but this has proved difficult to confirm (Evans, 1983). The
1977-78 campaign by government troops aided by 50,000 Vietnamese
regulars dealt a severe blow to the resistance, from which it has
never really been able to recover (Evans, 2003).
Although the resistance has suffered many setbacks, casualties on the
government side have also been heavy - with some military units
reported to be nearly wiped out in ambushes by the Hmong. In December
1997, the Chao Fa are said to have eradicated all but one member of a
company of government troops near Khang Khai south of the Plain of
Jars. Hmong civilians are also targeted, and many have died from
attacks on villages or ambushes by both sides. Without Vietnamese
military assistance, Lao government initiatives have become
ineffective, resulting in the Hmong resistance claiming in 1998 that
they had captured the following areas: (1) Muong Mai, Thasi, Pa Na,
Nam Hia, Na Kong, Phu Makthao, Chomthong and Muong Sa in Borikhamsay
province; (2) Khang Khai, Tha Papang, Nam Tao Samseng, Phu Bia, Muong
Mork, Phu Nanon and Samthong in Xieng Khouang province; and (3) Phu
Kongkhao and Phu Nhay in Luang Prabang province.
Hmong and other inhabitants in rebel territories were said to be
living in fear, not knowing which side to align themselves with. It
has been claimed that because of these insurgent activities, the Lao
government has retaliated and killed many innocent Hmong civilians.
The Fact-Finding Commission, for instance, claims that from February
to May 2003 alone, 739 Hmong had been killed, 615 injured and 414
captured in skirmishes north of Bolikhamxay province, and 216 Hmong
killed in October 2002 in Saisomboun (Rand, 2003). The Hmong
International Human Rights Watch also alleged in a submission on 22
July 2000 to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva that the Lao
government and the Vietnamese military "are carrying out heavy
military attacks against Hmong civilians living in the Saisomboun
special region, Xieng Khouang province and Borikhamsay province -
killing thousands of Hmong people�. These renewed attacks have been
going on since 1 December 1999, non-stop but nothing is being done to
halt this genocidal campaign" (HIHRW, 2000).
On 12 October 2000, Radio Hmong Voice claims that a new Khmu general
from southern Laos has been moved by the Lao government to be the new
Saisomboun commander to replace Gen. Bounchanh because the latter is
seen to have become too friendly with the local Hmong. This source of
information also states that Mr Sue Yang (no rank specified), the
Hmong officer in charge of the Krom Pachai PL Hmong troops in Khang
Khai, Xieng Khouang, has been transferred to be the commander of
southern Laos in Savannakhet, because the government allegedly
believes southern Lao army officers were too lacking in their duties
and allowed the incursion of a group of 60 exiled Lao insurgents from
Thailand into southern Laos and briefly raised the old royalist flag
on the roof of the Lao customs office near Pakse on 3 July 2000.
Along with these official military movements, the Lao PDR government
put Brigadier-General Myka Sivongsa in charge of the general campaign
against Hmong resistance fighters across Laos with the aim to
"exterminate them" by the years 2001-2002, although the target date
has obviously been passed without an end to the resistance in sight.
Resettlement and Economic Aid
Apart from military suppression, the Lao government has also tried
various development projects, chiefly in the "Saisomboun Special Zone"
which was established in 1994 north of Vientiane in an area formerly
known as Muong Cha under the old Royal Lao Government. This is the
area closest to Phu Bia, the base of most of the Chao Fa groups. It
hopes to make Saisomboun the centre for political and economic
development to attract resistance Hmong into the folds of the Lao PDR
authorities, by withdrawing lowland ethnic Lao personnel from the area
and putting Gen. Bounchanh (a Khmu who successfully suppressed many
Chao Fa Hmong in the 1977-78 campaign) as the local military
commander, with Col. Lo Lu Yang (a PL Hmong) as deputy commander.
Another Hmong who was formerly the district governor at Moung Hom, Mr
Siatou Yang, became the unification coordinator. The Special Zone
covers the districts of Muong Phoun, Muong Hom, Muong Cha and Long
San. The Lao thus put Hmong to work with the dissident Hmong to try to
bridge the deep political divide between them.
Outside of the Saisomboun Special Zone, Mr Tong Yer Thao, who is now
the Provincial Governor of Samnuea and was formerly Vice-President of
the Lao National Reconstruction Front (Neo Hom Sang Xat), was
appointed by the Lao PDR government to be responsible nationally for
negotiating with resistance leaders and assisting with the
resettlement of their followers into the Muong Kao area, Borikamsay
province. Under the program, each family who rallies to the
government is given lowland wet rice farming land along with other
forms of assistance such as food and housing materials during the
first year of settlement, overseen and assisted from time to time by a
team of local bureaucrats from the Provincial Administration.
Families are settled together in new villages. On the whole, the
largest number of Hmong who now live peacefully as Lao citizens have
joined the Lao government under this program, despite reports of the
occasional family which returns to join the resistance in the
jungle.
Denial of the Problem
For the past 30 years, the Lao authorities have tried to hide the
problem from the outside world and the international media by stating
that it has no reason to torture or kill its own people, its support
base. It has also dismissed Hmong resistance activities as being
merely the work of armed "bandits" and "highway robbers". For
example, an ambush on 21 May 1994 which killed an Australian
hydrologist and five Lao civilians 70 kilometres north of Vientiane
was blamed on "Chao Fa bandits" (BBC, 05/21/94). The same pattern of
response took place when two bus attacks occurred on Route 13 linking
Vientiane and Luang Prabang in February and April 2003 � the first
killing 10 persons and the second 13. Although survivors claimed that
the 30 or so attackers �looked Hmong and spoke the Hmong language�,
the Lao Deputy Prime Minister Somsavat Lengsavad explained that �both
incidents involved robberies of armed bandits� and �dismissed
suggestions that they were carried out by antigovernment Hmong
rebels.� (Asia Time Online, 17 May 2003).
One major issue relates to the fact that the Lao government has not
been forthright with inquiries or explanations on the disappearance or
mysterious deaths of former Hmong resistance leaders who have "come
out" to live under its control. Many of those who left their jungle
hide-outs to negotiate for the safe return of the resistance fighters
into normal life under the new authorities were said to have been
arrested, tortured and imprisoned (Hmong International Human Rights
Watch, Statement submitted to the Lao PDR Ambassador to Washington DC,
31 March 2000). A number of Hmong leaders who voluntarily repatriated
from the refugee camps in Thailand after their closure in 1992 had
also disappeared, were allegedly murdered or put in prison, including
Mr Vue Mai, the camp leader at Ban Vinai, the largest Hmong refugee
camp in Thailand with more than 40,000 residents and one of the
former support bases for many resistance groups inside Laos.
This has deterred many of the rebels from finally laying down their
arms, reinforced by a strong belief that the government is intent on
exterminating those involved in the resistance rather than a genuine
desire to make peace with them. This fear is grounded not only in
these unexplained cases over the years, but also by propaganda from
overseas Hmong political groups, conveyed through Radio Free Asia or
the Hmong Lao Radio, and other covert means of contacts.
For instance, it was alleged that Hmong resistance fighters �who are
captured are dismembered. Their penises are cut off and placed in
their mouths.. Women when captured are raped, then killed. Some are
tied to stakes and left to die from exposure. Others have a sharp
bamboo stick shoved through their vagina up into their chest cavity,
the stick is rolled, and they are left to bleed to death�.Children who
are captured because they are unable to keep up with the fleeing
adults have their throats cut or are killed by being swung around and
having their heads bashed against trees. There was one report of three
children being skewered together on a bamboo pole� (Lao Human Rights
Council, 2003).
The Lao government has also been accused by Amnesty International
(Press Release,13/9/04) of using starvation as a weapon to bring the
Hmong resistance to its knees. The accusation is based on the
reported �deaths of scores of civilians, mainly children, from
starvation and injuries sustained during the conflict. It is known
that several of approximately 20 rebel groups with their families are
surrounded by Lao military and prevented from foraging for food that
they traditionally rely on to survive. Amnesty International has
protested to the Lao authorities at what it believes is the use of
starvation as a weapon of war against civilians.� Again the
government �vigorously denies� the claim (The Nation, 14 September
2004).
It is difficult to confirm the veracity of both sides of the conflict.
The Lao government, on its part, has vehemently denied these claims by
its opponents, referring to videos of murdered and starving Hmong
resistance children as �a fabrication harming the good image of the
Lao People�s Democratic Republic by ill-intentioned groups� (The
Nation, 14 September 2004). On its part, Amnesty International (2004)
requests that �The Lao authorities must, as a matter of utmost
urgency, permit UN agencies and independent monitors unfettered access
to those rebels who are recently reported to have �surrendered�. They
must also permit humanitarian agencies to provide medical and food
assistance to those injured as a result of this and other military
actions against the rebels. � Several hundred ethnic Hmong rebels are
reported to have �surrendered' to the Lao authorities in recent
months. UN agencies, diplomats and journalists have not been given
access to these people and Amnesty International has received
conflicting reports as to their reception and treatment by the
authorities.�
So far, however, the request has fallen on deaf ears as the Lao
government continues to prevent the international media and the
diplomatic corps from visiting areas undergoing suppression campaigns
by Lao and Vietnamese troops or under the control of the Chao Fa
rebels.
Denying existence of rebels allows government to deal with them in any
ways it sees fit, and also to let Vietnamese troops into Laos without
fear of international criticism. Thus, in 2000, the Lao government
has allegedly permitted Vietnamese troops, Battalion no. 213, to cross
the Mekong river into Sayabouri province near the Thai-Lao border,
supposedly to help fight drug trafficking along the border rather than
to defend it against "freedom fighters" because a Lao government
spokesman states that there are "no freedom fighters in the area" in
spite of claims by the Chao Fa insurgents that they operate there.
Until the Time Asia Magazine report �Welcome to the Jungle� and its
accompanying heart-wrenching photo-essay was published on 5 May
2003, the plight of the Hmong rebels in Laos was known only to the
Hmong. The International community became further informed on the
issue, following the arrest of two other Western journalists (a
Belgian and a French) in June 2003 who tried to follow the footsteps
of the Time Asia reporter into the jungles of northern Laos. Their
well-publicised imprisonment and subsequent release finally put the
Hmong resistance in Laos firmly on the international map. This has
been followed by another televised report from the BBC in 2004 and by
the most recent broadcast, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter,
on France Channel 2 on 16 June 2005. The problem has now finally
grabbed the attention of the UN, despite attempts to deny its
existence by the Lao government.
Current Situation
It was announced in 2000 that a number of resistance groups have
formed a "New Lao Liberation Alliance" which will "mean a new
challenge to the government of the Lao PDR" (Hmong Voice Radio, 11
September 2000). The Alliance comprises six "groups of freedom
fighters", namely:
1. the Lao Pasa Liberation Front, an ethnic Lao group to be
responsible for Luang Namtha, Bokeo and Oudomsay provinces in north-
western Laos;
2. Local Freedom Fighters with an ethnic minority leader to cover
Sam Neua and Phong Saly provinces;
3. Hmong Liberation Front, formerly lead by Gen. Vang Pao, to
oversee activities in Xieng Khouang and Luang Prabang provinces;
4. Ethnic Issara, with recently defected Khmu PL military officer as
leader, covering Sankham, Vang Vieng, Phaun Hong, Vientiane, Muong Hom
and Saisomboun;
5. Chao Fa group to be responsible for Phu Bia, Kham Keut, Nong Het
and Muong Khun;
6. Lao People's Liberation Front, a merging of three other Lao
resistance groups, lead by Captain Vinai, to cover Khammouane down to
Sepon in southern Laos.
The Alliance states that the formation of the last group, the Lao
People's Liberation Front, was necessary as the leaders of the former
smaller three member groups denied the 3 July 2000 attack at Vang Tao,
southern Laos, by exiled resistance fighters from Thailand. They have
thus been replaced by a new and more vocal leadership. The
announcement claims that the Alliance has its headquarters in
Vientiane, Laos. It is not certain whether this new Alliance is pure
political propaganda without substance, or whether it does exist in
reality. Judging from the past performance of similar groups, the new
alliance will probably remain in existence mostly on paper. It is very
difficult to see how they will coordinate and carry out their
activities, given the long distance and cultural gulf between the
various member groups and the lack of support from the general Lao
refugee population overseas, foreign governments, and the local people
in Laos. They will probably end up squabbling between themselves and
disintegrate, as happened with similar groups previously.
On its part, Vang Pao's movement does not seem to have slowed down its
activities, judging by what it has publicised recently. It has renamed
itself the "United Lao Movement for Democracy" with its own website
(http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM) - a new development for resistance
groups- and its own radio station (www.hmonglaoradio.org). It
organised an international conference in 1997 and the conference
proceedings and resolutions were featured in detail in the site, with
full participation and support from members of the exiled Lao Royal
family. Among other things, Vang Pao wants the overthrow of the
current communist Lao authorities and their replacement by a monarchy
with a democratically elected government and the late King Savang
Vatthana's grand-son, Prince Soulivong now living in France, being re-
installed on the throne, following the abolition of the old monarchy
by the PL when it took over Laos in 1975. All these hopes, however,
appear to have come crashing down when many of Vang Pao�s faithful
supporters deserted him after his peace overture to representatives of
the Vietnamese authorities with a secret meeting in Amsterdam in
November 2003. Many now see Vang Pao as having �self-destructed�,
taking �a wrecking ball to his historic legacy� (Kennedy and McEnroe,
2005).
Regardless of these setbacks, exiled refugee leaders in the West who
engage in homeland politics keep pushing the old line that the current
Lao government is no more than a puppet of the Vietnamese politburo,
the real colonial master of Laos, a belief that they continue to feed
to Hmong and other resistance groups in the homeland. They use as
evidence the posting of Vietnamese troops in large numbers in Laos and
the alleged settlement of �2 million Vietnamese civilians� in various
parts of the country (Radio Free Asia, interview with Dr Pobzeb Vang,
25 July 2005). In 2003, the Fact Finding Commission on Laos even went
to far as claiming that �ethnic Hmong groups have united with other
disaffected Laotian including army defectors and local militia, to
carry out an organised rebellion� across eleven of the seventeen
provinces of Laos[1]. This ideological stand has prevented the
resistance leaders from having any trust in the pronouncements and
overt intentions of the new Lao government. Like their Lao PDR
opponents, these exile politicians and the resistance leaders use only
information that will make the maximum embarrassment to their enemy,
information that is often greatly exaggerated and repeated over and
over since 1975. The ultimate aim of some resistance groups is the
total destruction of the current Lao communist government, while
others content themselves simply with minor political disparagement in
order to force the Lao PDR authorities to change their political
course to a more democratic and freer regime with a multi-party
political system to replace the current totalitarian one-party state.
In its attempt to cling to power, the Lao PDR government seems intent
on stemming out the resistance by force as well as political
persuasion and economic development projects. With such divergent
views on the situation, it will be difficult to find viable and
enduring solutions to the problem, so long as the current proponents
of these conflicting views remain active on their different turfs and
refuse to find solutions through some common grounds.
Evans (Bangkok Post, 8/7/03), an academic specialist on Laos,
attributes the survival of the Hmong resistance to the remoteness of
their villages and the rugged terrain where they are. However,
according to Dommen (2001: 934), the Hmong involved also have a
dogged determination to resist and survive, because they were marked
for extermination from the beginning by the communist Pathet Lao in a
warning broadcast over Radio Pathet Lao entitled �The US-Vang Pao
Special Forces Must be Completely Cleaned UP� on 6 May 1975.
In a way, the Hmong resistance now provides the only legitimate
political issue against the Lao communist government into which exile
political groups can put their teeth. Other opposition groups have
come and gone over the years in Laos, through lack of activities or
severe suppression by the government. Thus in response to the TV
broadcast on France Channel 2 on 16 June 2005, the Lao Movement for
Human Rights claimed to have collected 4043 signatures to petition the
Lao PDR to: (1) demand solemnly on the Lao PDR authorities to put an
immediate end to its campaign of repression against this population
and to recognise publicly their existence; and (2) demand on the Lao
authorities to permit, without conditions and delay, international
agencies to have access to this population in distress in order top
provide them with urgent humanitarian aid.
The LMHR organised a public protest in Paris on June 25, 2005 at the
Trocadero in Paris, which gathered nearly 600 people, and stated that
�we remain ready for action. The LMHR invites Lao exiles around the
world and friends of democracy and freedom to keep on signing its
online petition, �and to pursue your efforts in approaching the
political authorities of your country, your elected Member of
Parliament, and the international institutions regarding this critcal
issue. Restons mobilis�s!� (http://www.mldh-lao.org/petition_online/
petition1.php). In keeping with its call to stay ready for action, it
has organised another public demonstration in Paris for Saturday 24
September at the Place du Trocad�ro. It was also urging Lao
communities in the US, Canada and Australia to organise simultaneous
public events in their countries.
Between 2005 and 2008, what has been happening to Lao exile politics
in the West and Hmong resistance in the Lao state? There are now less
than 800 of Hmong resistance fighters in the country. Their resolve
seems to have been weakened significantly in 2006 with the sudden
death of Dr Paozeb Vang, the outspoken President of the Lao Human
Rights Council based in Wisconsin, USA. He was responsible for
bringing many matters of importance concerning the Hmong of Laos to
the attention of the United Nations and the world media. The
resistance was dealt a further blow with the arrest of General Vang
Pao on 4 June 2007 in California by the American FBI on charges of
buying weapons and plotting �the violent overthrow� of the Lao
government in violation of the American Neutrality Act[2]. He and
nine co-conspirators were put in prison briefly but are now out on
bail, awaiting their court hearings which have yet to be set. If
convicted, they all face life imprisonment, a prospect seen by the
Hmong in America as a clear betrayal of their loyal service to the
American CIA during the Lao civil war in the 1960�s. From faithful
ally against communism, the Hmong became classified as terrorists by
the American government now that the United States is �at peace� with
Laos , while small groups of Hmong continue to put up passive
resistance against the legitimate government of Laos with the support
of homeland political activists in the West. This terrorist
classification was only revoked by the Bush Administration in December
2007 after much political pressure from various quarters in
America.
It is estimated that the Hmong rebellion in Laos is at its lowest
point at present with the arrest of Gen. Vang Pao and the escape to
Thailand of leaders of the resistance groups since 2005. More than
2,600 of the 8,000 Hmong currently receiving temporary shelter in
White Water, Phetchaboon, Thailand, claim to have fled from the jungle
of Laos. A video documentary entitled �Hunted Like Animals� (2006),
made by UN lobbyist Rebecca Summer, depicts the terrible plight
suffered by these White Water Hmong families. Apart from giving
viewers the most graphic images of young Hmong being killed by Lao
government troops, raped and disemboweled, the documentary carries
interviews of Hmong women who surrendered and were allegedly made sex
slaves of Lao soldiers, by being passed from one barrack to another.
One woman claimed to have become pregnant as a result, as she was seen
in tears pleading for recognition as a genuine refugee and for
acceptance for third-country resettlement.
What about the rest of the Hmong resistance movement in Laos? By and
large, only the groups who are in Saisomboun and the Vangvieng area ,
north of Vientiane, appear to have remained faithful to the resistance
but their number is getting smaller by the day[3]. As of January
2008, the majority of the resistance fighters in Muong Mok in Xieng
Khouang, near the Vietnam border, have decided to join the new Lao
government after more than 30 years of fiercely refusing to be part of
it. In the past, the Lao authorities sent Hmong leaders on its side
to work with the dissidents in order to bring them out of the jungle
to live under the new communist regime. However, only two of these
leaders were said to have survived as the others fell victims to the
guns of the insurgents. In the end, the Lao government decided to ask
Vietnamese troops from Vietnam to be stationed in great numbers in the
region. They started to build roads deep into the jungle of Muong Mok
to access the hiding places used by members of the resistance. Instead
of armed suppression as was previously the case, they used schools and
health clinics to entice the Hmong whose children acutely need
education and health care. Those who surrendered were rewarded with
agricultural land and corrugated iron roof sheets to build durable
houses. According to a Hmong trader who has visited the area, some of
those now living under Vietnamese control still have sons and
daughters hiding in the jungle, but at least they have been given the
freedom to choose between life as normal citizens of the Lao nation
and life as dissidents constantly on the run. Many now have land to
farm, to raise domestic animals, and to enjoy a more sedentary
existence.
Surrender To whom?
And what happened to the 171 resistance Hmong who surrendered on 4
June 2005 after they were taken away by military trucks? The official
view was that they were only �farmers looking for land�, not rebels.
By denying that they are resistance members who surrendered, this has
allowed the government to deal solely with the group without any other
agencies being able to help in their resettlement or to monitor their
safety. The US-based Lao Human Rights Council was quick to respond by
accusing the Lao authorities of denying the UN and other NGO�s access
to the group to render humanitarian aid in blatant violation of human
rights since no one could keep track of what the Lao government has
done to these former Hmong resistance members (Radio Free Asia, 25
July 2005, interview with Dr. Pobzeb Vang).
According to Ed Szendrey, of the California-based Fact Finding
Commission, who accompanied the last stage of the group�s walk from
the Saisomboun Special Zone, no soldiers were in the village when the
first group reached the roadside but they were warmly welcomed by
local people. "It looks like the government is prepared to handle it
on the local level and not get the military involved," he said by
satellite telephone. "It looks like the Lao government is actually
handling it pretty well." (Berger, 2005). It was expected that if
everything went well with this first group, as many as 2,000 more
Hmong would come out at various locations incentral northern Laos with
the remaining Hmong, claimed to number 14,000, joining in the next few
months, as they only want to live a peaceful life with the rest ofn
the population. They have been running in the jungle for 30 years and
are now facing starvation.
It is worthy of note that the group, while discussing its surrender on
1 June 2005 with the other resistance members in the jungle, never
planned to surrender to the Lao authorities. It had naively envisaged
being met by UN representatives and taken away swiftly to the US for
resettlement. In a video yet to be released on the surrender, stage-
managed by the Fact-Finding Commission, the two leaders of the group,
Nhia Thao Yang and Wa Neng Vue, clearly stated that they were not
surrendering to the Lao authorities, but to the UN and the US � the
latter being held responsible for the plight they are now in as part
of the old CIA-secret army in Laos.
As it turned out, the Lao authorities took matters differently and
never allowed the UN or the US near the surrendering Hmong. The
official English-language Vientiane Times referred to them simply as a
new group of settlers that was part of the �normal movement� of
thousands of people from remote areas to the plains as part of a
poverty reduction programme. The newcomers have given up
�unsustainable swidden cultivation�. The provincial governor of Xieng
Khouang province where they were taken to live, has appealed to others
in similar situations to join this �poverty reduction� effort by
settling in specific �focal points� so the government could better
build for them infrastructures and to offer needed services such as
health and education (www.vientianetimes.org.la/Contents/2005-107/
Phou.htm). There is not one mention of the group being part of a 30
year-old resistance movement surviving on tree leaves and tubers in
the jungle, without ever having known how to grow crops through
�unsustainable swidden cultivation�.
The latest information indicates that the 171 surrendered individuals,
with initially 20 Hmong and 9 Khmu families, have split into smaller
groups and gone in different directions[4]. Some have chosen to join
relatives in other villages. A few families have escaped to Thailand
and become part of the hopeful throng of Hmong asylum seekers who have
been waiting since 2005 to be allowed by the Thai government to
resettle in a third country. However, the majority of the group have
been relocated to Lat Huong, an old settlement on the road linking
Xieng Khouang town and Phonsavanh. They have been given farming land
and building materials for house construction by government officials,
and are said to be better off than their older established neighbors.
One informant states that �we have been living here for a long time,
but do not even have land and houses like these newcomers from the
jungle.� There have also been rumors that some of the newcomers
have been killed by government soldiers or have disappeared after
being told to guide soldiers back into the jungle to find the
remaining bands of resistance Hmong who have refused to surrender.
Conclusion
The Lao PDR government has tried hard to blame the political
instability in Laos on overseas Hmong, not local Hmong inside Laos
whose dissidents have so far been officially labelled only as
"bandits". It has tried quietly to solve the problem of local Hmong
resistance in the backwaters of its jungles in northern Laos. It has
tried to deny that such resistance groups exist rather than
acknowledging them for what they are. It has made prominent reference
in the country's Constitution to ethnic minorities as inseparable
groups in the make-up of the Lao nation's unity who are accorded equal
rights and obligations. It established the Saisomboun Special Zone as
a show-case development site for the Hmong to attract Hmong rebels.
There are now Hmong district and provincial governors, Hmong deputies
in the National Assembly and even two Hmong Ministers (one as Minister
for rural development and one as Minister for Justice) in the 2008 Lao
government. Many Hmong are now in middle management in the Lao public
service, more than under the old right-wing Royal Lao Government. A
group of Lao soldiers who arrested and killed a number of Hmong
civilians in 2002 in Saisomboun were reportedly executed by their
local commander in front of survivors as an example of what is not
allowed by the Lao government.
Apart from political differences, there seems to be other equally
important factors involved in the equation, including racial
discrimination of ethnic minorities by private Lao citizens, poverty
and high inflation, ripe official graft and corruption, lack of
economic and employment opportunities leading people to be easily
susceptible to alternative political propaganda, resentment for lack
of promotion and forced retirement of Hmong communist party
supporters, alleged framing of Hmong officials for drug trafficking
and other crimes leading to their arrests and imprisonment to deprive
the Hmong of their leadership, murder and mysterious disappearances of
repatriated Hmong refugee leaders and resistance leaders who rallied
to the Lao PDR government.
These factors, together with free-for-all political propaganda (by
word of mouth or radio broadcast) and material support from the
diaspora Hmong outside Laos, will continue to make it difficult for
the Hmong resistance fighters to stop their activities and for the Lao
government to pacify them. This is now especially the case when the
issue has been well played into the hands of the United Nations, the
world media and international human rights organisations which have
been keeping a close watch on anything to do with the Hmong and human
rights abuses in Laos.
Regardless of this continuing impasse between the Lao government and
the Hmong resistance movement, we need to keep the problem in
perspective. There are currently 460,000 Hmong living in Laos
according to the 2005 Lao government census. Of this number, less than
1,000 are now actively involved in the resistance, and their number
ebbs and flows according to their fortune and the action of the Lao
government at any particular time. The number may be small, but the
Lao authorities will need to resolve many of the causes of this
discontent. The problem is real and cannot be ignored or simply
stemmed out by force as there are many underlying social, political
and economic factors involved, not just ideological differences. So
long as these needs are not addressed, even if existing insurgent
groups are stemmed out, new ones will rise up to show their
displeasure in one form or another. Resettlement as has been done in
Muong Kao (Bolikhamsay province), Saisomboun and Muong Mok (Xieng
Khouang) is a constructive and peaceful response to the problem, and
is indicative of a cool and clear-headed approach. The government
should be commended for stopping its previous use of armed
retaliations and turning to rural development instead. This is the
only way that will promote cooperation and trust between those
involved in this long-standing conflict.
References
Amnesty International (2004), �Laos: Atrocities Against Children Are
War Crimes�, Press Release, 14 September.
Berger, S. (2005), � America's 'secret army' begins last surrender of
Vietnam war�, The Telegraph (UK), 06 June.
Chan, S.(1994), Hmong Means Free: Life in Laos and America,
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Chongtoua, T.(1998), "Touby Lyfoung ou l' Integration des Hmong dans
la Nation Laotienne", Lao Studies Review, No. 3.
Conboy, Kenneth (1995), Shadow War: The CIA's Secret War In Laos,
Boulder: Paladin Press.
Dommen. A. (2001), The Indochinese Experience of the French and the
Americans:Nationalism and Communism in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam,
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Evans, G. (1983), The Yellow Rainmakers, London: Verso Editions.
____ (2003), �Laos Is Getting a Bad Rap from the World�s Media�,
Bangkok Post, 8 July.
Freedman, L.(2002), Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam,
New York: Oxford University Press.
Gunn, G. (1986), "Shamans and rebels the Ba'chai (Meo) rebellion of
Northern Laos and Northwest Vietnam (1918-1921)", in J. Siam Society,
Vol. 74, pp. 107- 121.
____ (1990), Rebellion in Laos: Peasants and Politics in a Colonial
Backwater, Boulder: Westview Press.
Hamilton-Merritt, J. (1980), "Poison-Gas War in Laos", Readers Digest,
October.
Hmong International Human Rights Watch (2000), �Deteriorating Human
Rights Conditionsfor the Hmong Living in Laos�, Press Release, July.
Kennedy, T. and McEnroe, P. �Ex-gurerrilla�s Gamble for Peace
Backfires�, Star Tribune, 5 July 2005
Lao Human Rights Council (2003), �Statement for the Record:
Submission to the US House Committee on Ways and Means�, 9 April.
Le Boulanger, P. 1969, Histoire du Laos Francais, Farnborough: Gregg
International.
Lee, G. Y.(1982), "Minority Policies and the Hmong in Laos" in Stuart-
Fox, M. ed. Contemporary Laos: Studies in the Politics and
Society of the Lao People�s Democratic Republic, New York: St Martin
Press.
____ (2004) �Transnational Adaptation: An Overview of the Hmong of
Laos�, in Tapp, N., Michaud, J., Culas, C. and Lee, G. eds, Hmong/
Miao in Asia (Chiangmai: Silkworm Books
____ (2005), �The Shaping of Traditions: Agriculture and Hmong
Society�, J. of Hmong Studies, Vol. 6.
Lemoine, J. (2005), �What is the Actual Number of the (H)mong in the
World?�, J. of Hmong Studies, Vol. 6.
Perrin. A. �Welcome to the Jungle�, Time Asia, 161(1), 28 April 2003.
Prados, J. (2003), Lost Crusader: The Secret Wars of CIA Director
William Colby, New York: Oxford University Press.
Ranard, R. (2004, The Hmong: Introduction to their History and
Culture, Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics
Rand, N. �Laos: Hotbed of Unrest�, Asia Time Online, 17 May 2003.
Savina, F. M.(1924), Histoire des Miaos, Hong Kong : Societe des
Missions Etrangeres.
Stuart-Fox, M. (1997), A History of Laos. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tapp, N., (1982), "The relevance of Telephone directories to a Lineage-
based society: a consideration of some Messianic myths among the
Hmong", J. Siam Society, Vol. 70: 114-127.
Vang, H., (2004a), �As refugees leave, former soldiers fear for their
lives�, WisInfo.com Thailand Team Report, at
http://www.wisinfo.com/thailand/thai_17542503.shtml Accessed
30/8/2005.
____ (2004b), �Wife of slain CIA fighter fears retribution�,
WisInfo.com Thailand Team Report, at http://www.wisinfo.com/thailand/thai_17542503.shtml
Warner, R. (1998), Shooting at the Moon : The Story of America's
Clandestine War in Laos Hanover: Steerforth Press.
Yang Dao (1975), Les Hmong du Laos Face au Developpement, Vientiane:
Editions Siaosavath.
Yang Dao (1978), "Guerre de Gaz: Solution Communiste des Probl�mes des
Minorites du Laos", Temps Modernes, no. 402, Janvier.
Footnotes
[1] ABC Radio, Asia Pacific Program, 17 July 2003 09:54:51 at
http://www.abc.net.au/asiapacific/location/asia/GAPLocAsiaStories_903754.htm
[2] See Curt Brow , �Vang Pao charged in Laos plot�, Star Tribune
(Minneapolis-St Paul), June 5, 2007.
[3] See Roger Arnold, �Still a Secret War�, The Digital Journalist,
October 2006 at http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0610/dis_arnold.html.
[4] Interview with Hmong informant from Xieng Khouang, Laos, on 20
January 2008.