[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 50 (Monday, May 2, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    U.S. POLICY TOWARD THE REPATRIATION OF LAO HMONG ASYLUM SEEKERS

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, May 2, 1994

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, there has been considerable concern 
recently, particularly among the Hmong community in the United States, 
about reports of forced repatriation to Laos of Hmong asylum seekers in 
Thailand. I wrote to the Secretary of State on February 22, 1994 on 
this topic, and on April 25, 1994, I received a reply from the 
Department of State which provides background on this issue and the 
U.S. role in the repatriation program. The exchange of letters follows:

                                     Committee on Foreign Affairs,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, February 22, 1994.
     Hon. Warren M. Christopher,
     Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: I write to seek your comment on 
     questions raised about the repatriation of Hmong asylum 
     seekers from Thailand to Laos under the Comprehensive Plan of 
     Action for Indochinese refugees (CPA).
       Many in the Hmong-American community are clearly concerned 
     about the repatriation process and the fate of Hmong 
     returnees upon their return to Laos. A number of serious 
     allegations are being made about the use of force and 
     corruption to convince some Hmong people to return to Laos 
     against their will. The so far unaccounted for disappearance 
     of one returnee (Mr. Vue Mai) has caused anxiety and aroused 
     concern about the likely fate of other returnees.
       Against this background, I would appreciate having your 
     latest assessment of the Hmong repatriation program and the 
     experience of those who have already been returned to Laos.
       The Chairman of the Denver-based Lao Human Rights Council, 
     Mr. Vang Pobzeb, has written in particularly strong terms. 
     Apart from expressing deep concern about the repatriation 
     process, he makes a number of allegations about the role of 
     U.S. officials in the process. In short, Mr. Pobzeb accuses 
     officials from the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in 
     Bangkok of lying about this issue and engaging in a cover up 
     of abuses in the Hmong repatriation program.
       These allegations have come as a surprise to me. They do 
     not square with the generally high regard I have for your 
     Department's commitment to the cause of human rights and 
     humanitarian issues. I know you would not tolerate the sorts 
     of abuses referred to by Mr. Pobzeb. But such allegations 
     require investigation and I therefore seek your comments. For 
     this purpose, I attach a copy of Mr. Pobzeb's letter.
       With kind regards,
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lee H. Hamilton,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____



                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 1994.
     Hon. Lee H. Hamilton,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of 
         Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of February 22 
     regarding your concerns, and those of Mr. Vang Pobzeb, for 
     the treatment of Hmong asylum seekers in Laos and Thailand. 
     We apologize for the delay in our response.
       We would like first of all to address two of the issues 
     raised by Mr. Pobzeb: the disappearance of Hmong leader Vue 
     Mai and the matter of the 305 Hmong who went from Napho camp 
     to Phanat Nikhom camp and back.
       Since learning of Vue Mai's disappearance, the United 
     States Government has taken specific actions to bring our 
     concern to the attention of the Lao and Thai Governments and 
     to urge that every effort be made to locate Vue Mai and 
     guarantee his welfare. In addition to direct communications 
     with our Embassies in Vientiane and Bangkok on this issue, we 
     raised our concerns directly with the Foreign Minister of 
     Laos during his visit to Washington last year. The Government 
     of Laos has denied any involvement in the disappearance and 
     has pledged to investigate. According to information we have 
     so far received, no evidence has appeared to tie either the 
     Lao Government or elements of the waning Lao resistance 
     forces to Vue Mai's disappearance.
       Since the case of Vue Mai is unique and since our 
     monitoring efforts have to date produced no credible evidence 
     of persecution of those who return to Laos, the United States 
     continues to support the voluntary repatriation program. As 
     part of the Tripartite Agreement (Thailand, Laos, UNHCR) 
     signed in Luang Prabang, Laos in 1991, the Thai Government 
     agreed that repatriations to Laos will take place without 
     force. Direct observations of repatriation movements by U.S. 
     Embassy Bangkok officers confirm that this commitment is 
     being honored. The United States has, over the last two 
     years, provided $2.7 million to assist in the repatriation 
     and reintegration of those who return home. Of that amount, 
     $1.5 million was mandated by Congress to support non-
     government organization activities in support of Hmong 
     repatriation.
       An important fact not mentioned by Mr. Pobzeb is that the 
     majority of Hmong returning to Laos during the last two years 
     are refugees who could have chosen to be interviewed for 
     resettlement in the United States. They instead chose to 
     return home. Another fact is that there are fewer than 2,000 
     Hmong who have been screened out, that is, determined not to 
     be refugees. The vast majority of the approximately 20,000 
     Hmong who remain in camps are eligible for the U.S. program. 
     The United States accepted 7,000 Hmong in FY 93, and will 
     accept a similar number in FY 94.
       The disappearance of Vue Mai is of importance to the United 
     States Government both because of our concern for Vue Mai 
     himself and for any possible impact his disappearance may 
     have on the process of voluntary repatriation to Laos. We 
     will continue to pursue this matter until it is resolved.
       The 305 Highland Lao to whom Mr. Pobzeb refers are a group 
     of Hmong who had been screened out, or determined not to be 
     eligible for refugee status, and who had, according to the 
     Thai Ministry of the Interior, attempted to bribe their way 
     into the resettlement process by paying about $2,000 each in 
     exchange for transportation from Ban Napho repatriation 
     center to Phanat Nikhom camp and the promise of illegal 
     access to the U.S. resettlement program. According to the 
     Ministry, three camp officials and several Phanat Nikhom 
     Hmong leaders were allegedly involved in the scheme to take 
     advantage of the screened-out Hmong population who are 
     ineligible for resettlement. The scheme was uncovered by 
     officials of the United Nations High Commissioner for 
     Refugees (UNHCR) in Phanat Nikhom. Our Embassy in Bangkok 
     reports that in all probability the camp officials will be 
     prosecuted.
       With the completion of the investigation in Phanat Nikhom, 
     the 305 Hmong were returned to the Napho camp. An officer 
     from our Embassy in Bangkok visited the group after their 
     arrival in Napho and found that they were being treated well. 
     Subsequent to arrival in Napho, some members of the group 
     returned voluntarily to Laos pursuant to normal return 
     procedures.
       Finally, Mr. Pobzeb's statements that officials of the 
     Department of State are corrupt and criminals, ``violators 
     and traitors of human rights,'' and ``have continued to 
     lie,'' are untrue. Some of his other statements are also open 
     to question. It is unlikely, for example, that Mr. Werner 
     Blatter, Chief of the UNHCR office in Geneva dealing with the 
     Comprehensive Plan of Action, stated, as Mr. Pobzeb says he 
     did, that there are ``mass killing and human rights 
     violations in Laos,'' especially since it is Mr. Blatter's 
     organization that encourages and supports repatriation to 
     Laos. The Department of State is interested in the truth of 
     any allegation, but requires that allegations be supported by 
     credible evidence.
       We hope this information provides a clearer perspective on 
     United States policy and actions in connection with Hmong 
     repatriation. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you 
     have further questions.
           Sincerely,

                                             Wendy R. Sherman,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
     Legislative Affairs.

                          ____________________