The fate of repatriated Hmong refugees and immigrants remains uncertain

The fate of repatriated Hmong refugees and immigrants remains uncertain

Dr. Christopher T. Vang
Associate Professor
CSU, Stanislaus

Recently, international news reported that Laos has allowed some visitations to the newly open reeducation camps for repatriated Hmong refugees and immigrants. For most people, this is great news, but for others, this is just the turning point of a new beginning.

As most Hmong in America remember, late last December, thousands of stranded Hmong refugees and immigrants in Thailand were returned to Laos despite the political outcry of international communities, non-governmental organizations, human right organizations, and United Nations officials. Whether these refugees were repatriated by force or not, there was nothing anyone could do to stop the action put in place by the government officials of Thailand and Laos.

Some Hmong Americans claimed to have written to the King of Thailand for assistance, but nothing was done. Others claimed to have pressured United Nations Security Council and UNHCR for international support, but again, nothing happened. NGO, like Doctors’ Without Border, reached out to the international community seeking political and humanitarian support for the identified refugees, but nothing could stop the action. Human right organizations pressured US Congress and State Department to stop the repatriation, but again, nothing could change the course of action led by Thai authorities. Moreover, several US Congressional leaders wrote to the King of Thailand, US Embassy, Lao Embassy, US Secretary of State, and other departments asking for diplomatic discourse to delay the process, but nothing could be halted. Every efforts and actions have failed to stop the repatriation of these refugees and immigrants. Some were curious, why?

Nobody may know the answer. But, there is no right or wrong answer either. Perhaps, it is all about political games. In fact, many have tried their very best to help. However, no one could change the international accord between Thailand and Laos.

And of course, after the fact, every political group had an answer to this question and its rationale could be as good as milk of politics. Some could make it believable and incredible. However, the fact of the matter was that no one really tried to suppress the policy in place. Instead, most groups were reacting to the action by expressing indignations and political implications to protect their interests in international politics. For instance, less than a month later, the Human Right Watch’s annual report denounced the action by chastising Thailand and Laos for repatriating Hmong refugees in violation of international human right protocols and laws. However, this kind of bashing was nothing new but merely a political movement to protect its interests in the world. When all things considered, Hmong refugees and immigrants were the victims and scapegoats of political displacement similar to the sacrificial animals to be sacrificed for everyone’s misdeeds. Perhaps, stronger actions could have taken place prior to the repatriation. Moreover, international intervention should have happened during the three years period. Sadly, very few people knew what really happened inside the camps because Thai officials banned foreigners and outside visitors.

In addition, for instance, everyone knew that if these refugees were ever deported back to Laos, their future would be uncertain and their lives would be in great danger. As claimed by numerous agencies and sources, since 1975, the track records of abuse, torture, imprisonment, reeducation, interment, and human right violations should have prompted UN, NGO, and other agencies to take a closer look at the policy before the repatriation took place. Most knew for at least two years that Thailand and Laos had no choice to resettle these people in the west other than reaching an accord to return them to where they have came from. The screening process could have been imperfect but there was no much of a choice to deal with these refugees and immigrants when so many factors were involved in the process. Alternatives were considered but were not the right solution to the problems. Bashing Thailand was not right either since Thailand has dealt with refugees from neighboring nations for decades. On the other hand, Laos took a course of action to accept its responsibility to reclaim its people despite its national indoctrination of communism. The whole thing was intended to stop further influx of refugees coming from other countries to Thailand, especially from Laos. For the most part, the policy seems to be working by discouraging people in further seeking political asylum in Thailand.

Following the forced repatriation, many groups and organizations gathered in the west to take a new course of actions to seek support from international community to pressure Laos to grant permission to NGO and international community to pay visit to the new detention facilities inside Laos. Months later, limited visitations were allowed to high officials to peek at these camps. Some US Congressional leaders were being criticized for making false claims that there was no abuse or human right violation in these detention facilities. Meanwhile, others claimed receiving reports of abuse, torture, disappearance, imprisonment, violence, and persecution, taking place against these people. Again, many groups turned on one another when the politics continues to play as usual even these refugees and immigrants are subject to uncertain fate inside Laos. Astonishingly, no one seems to know the actual policy the government of Laos is using for these people.

Looking back, the whole process was a double-edged sword for Hmong refugees and immigrants. There was no concrete action taken by the international community when they were stranded in the detention centers and bar-wired camps in Thailand. The international politics and policies caused these people to become several groups. The whole situation made them susceptible to political factions and polarizations. The cliques of these groups caused more problems when questioned their political asylum status. Their return to Laos was not a good choice but was better than nothing because they had waited for at least two long years in the camps. Perhaps, they may have limited freedom in Laos, but it is better than having no freedom at all if they would continue to live in the internment camps in Thailand.

Their fate in Laos is never certain regardless of how short or how long they will live in the world of supreme and absolute leadership and authority without constitutional due process. The insidious of political mistreatment will continue for the next two to three decades. The pain and suffering will echo over and over again in the next fifty to one hundred years. The children and grandchildren of these refugees and immigrants will be labeled as “the repatriated society.” The blood and lineage of the family is stained with this label for the next century. Moreover, their social identity will be branded until they are fully saturated into the society at large.

The everlasting heartache most refugees and immigrants have suffered is their unforgotten past with the US. Their parents and family members have tie with the Central Intelligent Agency’s (CIA) Secret War in Laos. The war leads them to the result of their present mistreatment and persecution against their will because of their role in the US foreign policy to protect and support the US best interests in Southeast Asian countries. They not only rescued the American down pilots in the wilderness but also suffered heavy casualty while defending the expansion of communist regime into Laos. Those who may not know their past may have no sympathy for their escape to Thailand, but for those who used them before understand why these people want to have their freedom. Regardless of who they are and how they have lived their lives after the war and prior to their trekking to Thailand, most of them deserve to be saved by the US because they are the lost soldiers, missing in actions, prisoners of war, and abandoned ones who could not escape when the US withdrew its support in Laos.

This historic repatriation of nearly 8,000 Hmong refugees and immigrants will remain part of Hmong history and will continue to linger in the minds of so many people around the world. The government officials of Thailand have achieved its mission to end Hmong refugee diaspora from Laos. The government of Laos has taken an unusual policy to reclaim its people by allocating social service programs to the returnees. Although, the government of Laos subsidized financial assistance to these returnees, the pittance will give them a slim chance to a new life to start all over again in the land of unforgotten past. Their future remains uncertain and undetermined unless the international community keeps its eyes on the movement and progress of these people. Otherwise, despite the Human Right Watch’s condemnation of Thailand’s repatriation policy, their plights seem to be doomed from the start.