By Gina Jeong ’25
Can you recall some of basic life skill lessons that your school provided you in your elementary school? During the discussions of scenarios where we see somebody in need of help, we are always taught to offer help by asking ‘may I’ instead of ‘can I’ Why is that so? This is to prioritize the interest of the aid-receiver over the aid-giver. If the action is performed under a reversed interest, unnecessary or even actions that could worsen the recipient’s situation may be performed. Hence, education emphasizes the prevention of unintended consequences by the aid-giver.
The field of humanitarianism is a profession greatly driven by the human capacity for empathy. It is within our nature to desire to help alleviate the suffering of others, when we see others in a situation that we believe need our help. Despite the intention to provide good to people in need of help, humanitarianism entails unintended consequences. The position of ‘the helper’ and ‘the helped’ are not established out of nowhere; they are a product of history, often of colonialism. Hence the distinction between the two parties is drawn from the hierarchical structure that was asserted by the colonial dominance. Lack of awareness of the hierarchy that is present in the basis of humanitarianism brings about a paradoxical state of humanitarianism that does harm to the beneficiaries and perpetuates the hierarchical traits of colonialism in the form of neocolonialism.
In places of crisis, iNGOs are given a justified purpose for existence as their help becomes necessary to alleviate a problem. The tremendous presence of UXOs in Laos, which has been a persistent problem since the 70s, urgently calls for mitigation actions such as land survey, clearance, and risk education. The first iNGO in the UXO sector was established in 1983. There are currently three iNGOs in the UXO sector of Laos which are situated in the larger scheme of humanitarianism in the UXO sector of Laos.
The humanitarianism for the UXO Sector in Laos bloomed on the debris of the bombings from the Secret War. The U.S. asserted itself in Laos with the intent of containing communism, a Cold War rhetoric where the US government heavily villainized any communist groups or organizations. This gave them a way to militarily intervene in foreign affairs related to communism in Southeast Asia, Laos being one of the targets of the communist hunt. The U.S. government and its supporters believed the just act was for the U.S. to protect itself and the rest of the world from the spread of the dangerous communist ideologies and practices. Under this belief, the U.S. was able to find its spot in Laos, for the sake of defending the Royal Lao Army against the communist Pathet Lao, and for the sake of blocking the Ho Chi Minh Trail (HCMT) which served as the main supply chain for North Vietnam. The nine years of U.S. military intervention in Laos is known as the Secret War. During this period, from 1964 to 1973 the U.S. dropped 2 million tons of bombs in the country. However, the indiscriminate aerial bombing missions by the U.S. Air Force were not the only events when the U.S. dropped bombs in Laos. Frequently, to avoid bringing the military wastes back to their military bases in Thailand, the U.S. Air Force abided by the protocol to unload military waste on Laos. Thus, the U.S. not only viewed Laos as a communist-infested nation, but also as a legitimate site of military wasteland.
The U.S. had been present in Laos by providing military assistance to the Royal Lao Army (RLA) since the mid-50s. The Royal Lao government, the right-wing Western supported government, was under a civil war against the Pathet Lao group, which was a left-wing guerilla organization formed under communist alliance and was supported by North Vietnam. In 1962, the U.S. and other fourteen countries signed the Geneva Agreement to internationally agree on ‘the neutrality, independence and sovereignty of Laos’. However, due to North Vietnam’s continued presence in Laos despite the signing of the convention, the U.S. decides to remain its presence discreetly. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was deployed during the Secret War, who played a major role in supporting the ground troops of RLA by training Hmong and other tribesmen of Laos to fight against Pathet Lao, though the majority of U.S. intervention was performed through the counterinsurgent aerial strikes.
The bombing missions began in May 1964, and occurred in four different phases (Sisavoth 2015). The first phase happened between May 1964 and October 1966. Most of the bombs were dropped in Northern Laos by American fighter bombers, to support RLA and block off the HCMT. The second phase took place between October 1966 and early1968. During the second phase, the bombings extended beyond the Northern battle sites and HCMT, to the villages and towns. The third phase of the bombing began in late 1968, extending till early 1969. As the third phase began, the American airstrikes started escalating. The number of American planes outnumbered Laotian Airforce’s. By 1969, there were 500 American sorties each day over Laos (Sisavoth 2015). Moreover, Laos became a site of military waste disposal, where the U.S. Air Force dropped abandoned or unused munitions. A vast majority of the bombing missions during the fourth phase lasted from 1969 to 1970, while the military waste disposal continued until 1973. During the escalated periods of third and fourth phase – everything – including schools, temples, shelters, farms, and livestock were targeted for ‘standing in the way.’ During this nine-year period, nearly 2.1 million tons of bombs were dropped in Laos, which cost the lives of 350,000 Lao people.
The U.S. Air Force’s indiscriminate bombing in Laos was fueled by the mission to eradicate any potential communists, which included civilians who did not exhibit any political disposition. However, it is evident that their bombing missions were not solely motivated with the ‘just intention’ to eradicate communism, but also with racism. Firstly, the framing of average Lao civilians as part of the communist ‘threat’ and subsequent bombings at them not only reflected U.S.’s hyper villainization during the cold-war rhetoric, but also a racialized perception towards the people of Laos. The U.S. government operated in Laos while racially interiorizing the country. Its self-acclaimed dominance upon Laos by portraying Laos as a ‘savage’ and ‘infantile’ nation that required a ‘paternal’ savior. The Lao people were also “derealized,” which meant that they were omitted from being respected for humanized treatment . This furth. This further allowed the Air Force to treat the Lao people without dignity, by rationalizing the loss of Lao people’s equally precious lives as a legitimate act for their supposed communist status.
Secondly, the use of cluster munitions proved their intention to readily kill the people in bombed areas. The cluster munitions used during the bombing missions – CBU 24 – are not capacitated to destroy buildings. The bomb is comprised of 665 tennis-ball sized submunitions – also known as bomblets – encased in a large dispenser unit. When it is dropped by an aircraft, the casings open up and release the bomblets from it. Each bomblet is designed to detonate upon impact, causing a fragmentation effect at explosion. The fragmentation of these tiny submunitions is designed more so to kill or seriously disable a living being than to destroy enemy bases. The widespread use of these bombs during the Secret War proves that the bombing missions were aimed at harming all human beings that happened to be in the campaigned areas, rather than to specifically target Pathet Lao forces. Over 30% of the bombs that were dropped on Lao territory failed to detonate, leaving the impacted areas with extremely hazardous wastes (Sisavoth 2015). Today, the sites that have been heavily devastated by the bombing campaigns are no longer able to serve for any type of development.
Today, a large humanitarian scene exists in the UXO sector in Laos to reduce harm from the UXOs. They provide humanitarian assistance in various forms; a) UXO clearance, b) contaminated area survey, c) risk mitigation education, d) UXO victim assistance, e) financial aid, f) program management. Many of those that are not nation-state government agencies are financially sourced by or based in the U.S. (refer to self-constructed figure 1 below). Hence, whilst being the largest contributor to the bombings in Laos, U.S. acts as a ‘supporter’ in the UXO sector. Yet, instead of the attitude of reparation, an innocent attitude of a generous aid giver is held by the U.S., allowing them to evade any condemnation and accountability on the harm that they did in the past and creating. Subsequently, the relationship between the U.S. and the iNGOs creates a paradoxical dynamic in the UXO sector where the ‘help’ of the iNGOs is brought into the question of whether it is real help.
Under the name of humanitarianism, in the framing of justice provided with good will, the iNGOs are able to escape the scrutiny on whether they are truly serving the people they claim to serve. As long as their performance is verified to be ‘good’ by the donors, there is no ramification for the way they conduct the UXO clearance or the way they influence the local society and economy. The neocolonial language used by the iNGOs in narrating the history of UXOs implies the iNGOs’ indifference in establishing a truthful narrative. The historical narrative provides a basis on the justification for their presence and action to the Lao people and the public. However, the distorted historical narrative only does further injustice to the Lao people in the present and brings the iNGOs into question of whether they are truly attempting provide any justification towards Lao people. Similarly, the vertical division caused between foreign expats and local employees through staff hierarchy also shows the lack of accountability from the iNGOs for it brings about an explicitly neocolonialist working condition. The gentrification caused by the influx of iNGO immigrants indicates lack of accountability too. There is a significant lack of awareness in the spatial reconfiguration caused by the Global North immigrants. The luxurious lifestyle they desire to pursue in Laos brings about division that resembles a neocolonial social reconfiguration. Despite the adverse effects of the way their presence is manifested, there is no system in place that keeps them accountable for the impacts caused by them. In conclusion, a paradoxical state of lack of accountability is created by the iNGOs, despite the intentions that they claim to hold.