Laos--the land of a million elephants and 260 million bombs
A disclaimer, as always. Please take this analysis with a grain of salt and do your own research!
I want to start off this piece by thanking Andrew Sun for his amazing insights and inspiration to think critically about my travel. I encourage anyone to read his pieces, especially this one on Laos.
So what can I say about Laos?
If there’s one oversimplification I would use to describe the history of Laos in relation to the world, it would be the following.
“Seriously, can you just leave us alone????”
The Lao people emerge from three ethnic groups, and in the 1300s, the first unified Lao Kingdom started to form. Known as the “land of a million elephants,” the country engaged in the violent and strategic territorial struggle amongst its Thai, Vietnamese, and Cambodian neighbors. However, they started losing land in the 18th century to the Siamese kingdom, opening the doors for one of the main characters in my SE Asia substack rambles: France.
Just like the Cambodians, The Siamese royals that controlled Laos permitted French colonization for territorial protection against its neighbors. Handoffs between the French and Japanese during and after WW2 finally led to a free Laos in 1953. Still, what remained was a national economy almost entirely in the hands of the Lao elite—mainly benefactors of poorly distributed American aid—and Thai, Chinese, and Vietnamese investors. And that’s when things got worse.
The “Shadow War”, American Brutality, and Oppression Everywhere
The American government began funding the Royal Lao Government with arms as soon as they achieved independence. However, many factions within Lao politics reasonably saw this government as another one of America’s anti-communist puppet governments, and Soviet and Chinese funds began to promote pro-communist insurgencies. Resentment quickly descended into civil war, with three factions usurping three different territories within Laos. The Western-backed faction was the Royal Lao Government (RLG), which had its fair share of problems.
“Its corruption, lethargy, and indifference is as great if not greater than it ever was. Few people living under its rule actively support it. American officials have been unable to push for basic reforms due to the political necessity of getting on with the Lao civilian and military elite so that continued American bombing will be permitted.”1
Prince Souvannaphouma of the Royal Lao Government, among others, knew that a Laos that does not intervene in its neighbors’ affairs would be the best shot at a Laos without violence. And so, The “Declaration on the Neutrality of Laos” was signed in 1962 by representatives of major global powers (including the USSR and USA).
Done deal, right? Nope. An analysis of Laos’ involvement in the Vietnam War follows a similar story from its past.
“The basic cause of tension in Laos is obvious enough - its political position of the country…Historically, conflict among her neighbours has tended to create conflict in Laos herself. That is why one of the themes of a foreign policy that has been developed as Laos has emerged into independence has been the effort, made by successive Prime Ministers in their different ways, to detach the problem of Laos from that of Vietnam.”2- (p.199, E.H.S Simmons)
In the eyes of the Lao Royal Government and its American benefactor, Laos was unjustifiably being used by the Vietnamese communist forces (NLF) to facilitate the movement of Viet Cong soldiers and supplies to South Vietnam with the help of the Pathlet Lao Communist forces. Thus, having his hand somewhat forced by the Americans, Souvannaphouma agreed to the U.S. bombing of NLF camps along the storied Ho Chi Minh trail.3
U.S. Bombing escalated in 1965 and 1966 along the trail, even though it could not certify the effectiveness of the bombs, and the American government intentionally misled the public by inflating the estimated NLF soldiers present in the territory.4 Worse, while the American government succeeded in killing some of its intended targets, it took the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Lao lives, many of which not involved in the conflict at all.
I cannot dispute the claim that the NLF had intentions to invade Laos and displace thousands of Laotion families for Vietnamese settlers, as Chomsky rightly points out in his lesser known, “A Visit to Laos”.
Yet, in analyzing the primary source of Lao internal displacement, it was American bombs. And it didn’t really help the “American cause”.
“It is doubtful that any military purpose, in the narrow sense, is served by the destructive bombing. The civilian economy may have been destroyed and thousands of refugees generated, but the Pathet Lao appear to be stronger than ever. If anything, the bombing appears to have improved Pathet Lao morale and increased support among the peasants, who no longer have to be encouraged to hate the Americans. The situation is exactly like that in Vietnam, where, in the first year of the intensive American bombardment in the South (1965), local recruitment for the Viet Cong tripled to about 150,000, according to American sources” (Chomsky)
Sounds like something similar to what’s happening right now in Gaza, no? I’ll return to this soon.
TLDR: my shallow assessment of Laos history
“Laos is at the mercy of foreign pressures. This is not the first century in which a world power struggle has been undertaken in part of the territories of South East Asia. To put the matter in the proverbial language beloved by Laotians—‘How does the ant prevent the buffaloes from fighting?’”5 (p.206)
Inter-kingdom conflicts have been a constant in the world order sionce the advent of organized agriculture. Still, colonialism’s magnificent malevalence in exploiting existing class conflicts while imposing an extra level of exploitation is what creates the chaos we find in much of SE Asia.
The modern history of Laos begins with a tiny elite trying to protect its kingdom by allowing the French to come (1800s). This produces a massive national liberation movement culminating in the independence of the country under an intense period of decolonial nationalism (1950s). But it doesn’t remove elites from power. It creates a power vacuum in which efforts for democratic governance get displaced by Cold War geopolitical battles, class struggle, and civil war (1960s-1970s). And yet, even when a national liberation movement finally wins (1975), the collective scars, societal distrust, and material destruction and scarcity open the doors for an equally senseless authoritarianism under the veil of nationalism (1975-1980s).6
In what situation does the U.S. dropping 260 million bombs upon mostly rural peasants justify the fight for freedom? I would argue none.
A Simplified Variation of SE Asian history in the 19th-20th centuries.
Land-owning elites → Colonial rule → Nationalism and independence movements → Elites usurp power, civil conflict ensues → Cold War powers try to protect their own interests over the lives of civilians → a terrifying equilibrium of authoritarian communism emerges in the aftermath of death.
“When I arrived in Laos and found young Americans living there, out of free choice, I was surprised. After only a week I began to have a sense of the appeal of the country and its people—along with despair about its future.”- Noam Chomsky, 1970.
Returning to Gazas: Parallels and Pains
Just as in the Vietnam piece, I can’t help but relate the history of Laos to the current situation in Gaza.
First, I’ll present the situation occuring in Laos.
“According to this visitor, the Pathet Lao had set up a hospital, a printing press, a small textile mill, a bakery, and a shop for making arms and ammunition in the caves. The bombardment was said to include guided missiles that can dive into a cave, as well as high explosives and anti-personnel weapons. The people come out only at dusk and dawn to try to farm, but the planes attack any visible target, even trails and cultivated fields…
His harrowing account of life under perhaps the most intensive bombardment in history received little attention in the United States…Just prior to the Communist recapture of the Plain of Jars in February, 1970, Henry Kamm reported that the Lao peasants were not informed that they were to be evacuated, though those who wished to stay (in what would become a free fire zone, in fact) would be permitted to do so. Reports in Vientiane indicate that a large part of the population went over to the Pathet Lao despite the abysmal conditions.”
Now, an interview transcript with a legal scholar of international law and its implications in Israel’s invasion of Palestine.
Ezra Klein: Israel has responded with the view that Hamas is a kind of organized fighting force that cannot be allowed to continue to exist as any kind of fighting force. That as long as Hamas exists as a structure, it will continue planning and using creative means to try to figure out how to strike at Israel’s weaknesses, and so that they need to destroy Hamas.
Asli Bali: I think the view that the absolute destruction and extermination of your adversary is the war objective is simply grossly disproportionate and impermissible as a matter of use ad bellum, which is to say the law governing resort to the use of force…
What’s made much more complicated is that Israel is not always clear in claiming that it’s Hamas as an armed actor that must be destroyed. Oftentimes, it seems as if it’s just Hamas as a whole, and Hamas has many different characteristics. It is an armed faction in Gaza, but it is also the governing authority that represents all of the civil service, all of the bureaucracy, all of the municipal services, everything that enables any territory to run from crossing guards to sanitation workers to people who are operating the hospital systems.
And so the idea of destroying the governing authority is totally impermissible and would be actually targeting of the civilian infrastructure, which is, indeed, something I think we’re seeing. And so there’s a troubling question of, how does Israel define the object that it’s seeking to eliminate or exterminate? And in the context of Gaza, which is a very, very small territory with a very dense civilian population, is going to have the kinds of consequences we’ve seen of just grotesque, disproportionate harm to civilians.
Now pretend that we equate the following between the case of Laos and Gaza. Of course there are obvious differences, but for the sake of the argument, hang with me.
United States =~ Israel
Pathlet Lao =~ Hamas
A deliberately uninformed American public =~ the American public today
In both cases, you have a indigenous people dragged through decades of colonial rule independence (Laos from the French and Palestinians from the British Mandate after the Treaty of Versailles), finally being given the opportunity on the international stage to exert independence (Laos in 1953, Palestinians in 1947 at the UN), and both being subject to territorial neighbors conducting land grabs and illegal occupations of their territories (Laos from the NLF, Palestinians from Israeli settlers). What happens?
Resentment builds among a population. The doors for authoritarian populism emerge, and societal distrust international law’s ability to represent non-Western interests (in both cases from the UN). The Pathlet Lao and Hamas both take power, in many cases, with popular support. They build and maintain necessary infrastructure, while at the same time posing serious threats (whether through peasant starvation or violent anti-semitism). And we’re left in a situation where the United States facilitates a total war against these populations, killing tens of thousands of civilians in the name of freedom.
I hope by now that the pattern I’ve laid out is clear.
Laos today
Laos is a beautiful country that prides itself on its tranquility and Buddhist principles of respect and non-violence. I see kindness permeating through many of the people I’ve met along the way, through smiles and patience, light chuckles and timidity, and an ability to give tourists grace as we gallavant (often without cultural respect) upon their lands. However, it certainly has problems, many of which emerged after the post-Vietnam War order.
Hundreds of people, mostly children, die every year from unexploded bombs dropped by the U.S. Many more live with permanent physical deformities and familial traumas. People don’t seem to like to talk about the past or the war. But you can see its emotional shrapnel everywhere you look.
Laos has relied upon tourism as the fundamental driver of its economy, leaving it vulnerable to and economic shocks and cultural degradation. Education, especially rural, is backsliding.Yet, when I talked to people involved in the industry, almost all expressed gratitude. Given its precarious political repression and poor credit rating, China has become Laos’ modern day benefactor, building much of their basic and advanced infrastructure.7 At the same time, inequality between non-Lao (often Chinese or Vietnamese investors) and Lao people has grown.
There are estimates of only 800 elephants left in Laos, far from the mythic status it once held.8 Yet life moves on. Laos survives. And its historical relevance remains as important as ever.
“Laos: the labyrinthine war,” Far Eastern Economic Review, April 16, 1970, correspondent. Through https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/noam-chomsky-a-visit-to-laos
Laos and the War in Vietnam, E. H. S. Simmonds, The World Today , May, 1966, Vol. 22, No. 5 (May, 1966), pp. 199-206 Published by: Royal Institute of International Affairs https://www.jstor.org/stable/40393860. p. 199
p.203
p. 204-205. I encourage anyone who is interested in learning about the pro-Communist efforts in Laos to read the Pathlet Lao’s policy manifesto in October 1965.
p.206
I encourage anyone to read my piece on Vietnam because it has so many parallels to the story of Laos
https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/01/24/laos-economic-reckoning/
Save the Elephants and Free the Bears has been conducting great conservation work.
wow, thanks for the shoutout and great piece :)