Lao Voices

Amongst this entire going on, I can’t help but to think back to the Material Support Issues that we discussed back in April 2007, that Soukthavi brought up. Where does that issue stand now? Does this force us to look at ourselves more? Maybe there’s a legitimate reasons as to why it stated as such.

At the beginning of this year, everyone was Gung-Ho about voicing their opinions and their rights, we need to go to Washington DC to march, send a letter to your congressperson, I was told. Their voice must have heard and made me wondered if it was the leading cause, and the beginning of the investigation, sort of telltale on ourselves. Below was the news from Washington Post, reported on 1/11/2007,

Previously, some people who had aided guerrilla groups fighting the military junta in Burma had had asylum claims rejected because they were part of armed groups or provided “material support” to them. In addition, the applications for citizenship for Hmong and Montagnard fighters who had battled alongside U.S. troops in Laos and Vietnam had been stalled, and several of their supporters suspected the problem was that they had taken up arms against the communist government.

Administration officials said they did not know why applications for the Hmong and Montagnard had not been processed. But they acknowledged that language in the law could have had an unintended effect on the former fighters. They said they will ask Congress to insert language in the law to ease restrictions that affect those groups.

Read rest of article here.

I’ve never thought that it’d have came this far, and that they were able to raise $9.8 million, when I wrote about it back in April 2007, it was mostly from a hunch, but now I know to trust my instinct. Below was the discussion that we had in our old LP forum (sorry, missing some comments, not available through cache.)

Soukthavi wrote: Hey, should we be showing concern too over the Material Support problems with the Patriot Act and the REAL ID act?

Although it sounds like an issue affecting mainly Hmong and Montagnards, I can see how it might affect some of our relatives and those of us who are trying to help them in the future.

Just curious.

Darly wrote: Could you please explain the issue to us? I’ve been searchingon google about the subject and found mostly news about the Hmong and the special exception to the law. I’ve also read about the testimonials from people with relatives in Sri Lanka and how they face many problems in trying to bring their relatives in the US.

Thanks.

(Note: missing conversations were that Soukthavi took the phrase below from a Laotian’s blog, and we were discussing this author’s point of view on the issues)

Darly wrote: The statement of “the way the US calls people terrorists gets us into trouble if we try to help relatives overseas who are involved in anti-communist activities, or if they were involved in the past” is a bit strange to me.

I wrote: I think for you to understand the above statement, you have to think like the author, or the ‘gouh sodh’ people (make sure you pronounce the words with Lao Southern accent.) The overall picture is that Laos is a communist country, but it’s considered peaceful now, not at war. The ‘gouh sodh’ are the former ‘royal army soldiers’ that are currently living in the US (living among us), Thailand, or other neighboring country of Laos. They are the one that are involved in ‘anti-communist activities’. These ‘gouh sodh’ solicit money from an average person, such as you or me, and since we know them, we don’t think twice about helping, the reason that they might give us is that the money is for ‘tum boun’(charity), build a Wat in Laos, or any other excuses that they want to give us (therefore indirectly we are supporting their anti-communist activities.) The author feels that the ‘gouh sodh’ people are classified by the US as terrorists because they are a group of militant movement, which ‘technically’ I think they are also because their goal is to create war, how else would they be able to take back Laos? The author feels that these ‘gouh sodh’ should not be classified as such, because technically speaking, they are the good guy, trying to fight the Laos communist, but they forget one thing, these ‘gouh sodh’ are mostly older men, mostly in their late 50s, 60s, and some even in their 70s, they don’t have the energy to fight the war, us young folks don’t have that interest. We are willing to work with communist countries in term of trade, and even feel safe visiting these countries. I think the fighting days are over for Lao people, it’s time to reflect, time to rebuild, definitely not time for war.

If the ‘gouh sodh’ people have the energy to fight the war, more power to them because I think, they already have positioned line up for themselves if they win ‘THIS WAR’. So, who is up for the general!

Darly wrote: Thank you Nye for your explanation. I was not thinking in the local term and that is why I didn’t understand the statement.

I was looking at the bigger picture and how the Patriot Act is causing a great deal of problems for people that are trying to obtain their residency status, whether temporary or permanent. At the same time these people are also facing difficulties in trying to bring their relatives into the US.

From my understanding if you are/were involved in an activity against a legitimate government, which is illegal in the eyes of international law, then you are considered a “terrorist”. This law is very broad and leaves room for interpretation and so the Hmong people are labeled as terrorists.

I see the big picture. This law makes it hard for people in Sri Lanka to bring their relatives to the US. Some of the people there are forced to help the Tamil Tigers, who are taking arms against a legitimate government.

With that I don’t see the law as having a specific affect on those who are fighting against a communist government of Laos or a communist government in any other country. That anti-communist statement by the author gave me confusion. This law was not exclusive to the Hmong people.

Technically, the Hmong are considered “terrorists”, just like any other groups that took arms against their government. I am not an expert on Lao history but based on my readings the government of Laos in pre-1975 was a legal body of ruling. Laos was a neutral country with neutral government according to the Geneva Convention.

The Hmong and the other Laotians guerrilla soldiers were acting as as the hands and feet of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, fighting a secret war against the Pathet Lao.

With the broad definition of a “terrorist” or “terrorist group” from the Act, what the Hmong people have done in the past, while in good faith (helping the US) is catching up to them. The law can be amend with good amount of publicity.

One thing to keep in mind is that a country can not sponsored an activity against other sovereign government. The US has never confessed to conducting an illegal war in Laos. This law has to be amended without losing its power.

I don’t know if there are some Hmong or Lao people out there that are acting as freedom fighters and trying to regain control of Laos. If they can’t let go of the past, then they can carry their hatred to their graves.

I’m from the new generation. I want to build and not destroy. I grew up in Laos in the 1980s and saw the destructions that were caused by the generation before me. It was a civil war. It was bloody like any other war and we are still paying for it. One third of the land in Laos is not usable, due to UXO.

I am not exempt from pains and sufferings from this secret war either. But I believe in reconciliation for our people. I supported Normal Trade Relations (NTR) for Laos while many of you out there were against it.

Most of you need to go to Laos to see the country first hand. If you are talking about the Hmong people there who are suffering and starving, well there are not just Hmong people, there are other Lao ethnic groups that are starving too. Poverty and hunger see no race or ethnicity.