At one time, it did. But today it might have second thoughts about that. Why? It has realized that there are still millions in southern China that it cannot touch. If those just walk down, Laos will be outnumbered and trampled on badlyl. Plus, over the last 30 years, the Hmong-Americans have returned to Laos with pots of dollars, flooding its economy and has made it thrive better than ever. There's been a change of heart. Now Lao chicks and guys are looking to have Hmong husbands and wives, respectively. The Lao OGs look forward to having Hmong daughters-in-law and sons-in-law.
The Lao people are a bit more systematic than the Hmong just because they are more used to a system, especially the French system. Dispersed from China in the centuries, the Hmong hardly learned a governing system that would apply effectively to all or internationall y but one where each clan "chief" would manipulate for his liking only. That wouldn't fly in the international political eyes.
Any government in the LPDR's position would have to retaliate against any insurgent or rebel within its borders. Its national security is at risk. How will the control be stable if it let rebels run all over it? Its retaliation is justifiable in that respect. But I think there's some human rights issues that it may have crossed unreasonably.
The Lao Prince is very helpless right now. What VP and the Lao Prince failed to see when VP was still alive was that no government was going to re-plant the royal seed back to Laos. There wouldn't be any democracy then. Monarchs are just as communistic as Communism itself. Pilgrims abandoned English because of the monarchs. America's founders retaliated against the English king because they wanted a government by the people, not by a monarch who controlled their freedom in every way--from the media to judicial processes. VP did connect well with the American CIA and also with the Royal Lao family. But VP kept pushing to re-plant the Lao monarch in Laos. America would not be the appropriate country to back him up on that, since America detested and continue to detest the monarchy as the only ruler of a country or people.
First, there are a lot misconceptions on which I bolded. First I will address the Royalties helplessness. Now I will agree if the last King of Laos was a puppet. However a puppet King is actually consider very useful. I would argue that Japan was defeated in WW2 and was dissolved into a more Democractic state, yet they have Emperor. And the image of their Emperor still stand strong.
Monarchs and Communism are different. They can lead to an Authoritarian and Totalitarian government, but are not the same. The founding fathers weren't enlighten people as many American would like to praised.Althou
gh would that it be true as descendants of American ally.
Detest monarchy? Yet American and America medias go "Gogo Gaga" over the British Monarchs; Prince William and Kate's baby over the summer 2013. Just like their marriage back in April 2012.
Second, the system of the government. I can't argue that. The Lao government hasn't done any much progress, yet I haven't see much of regress. The economic impact dues to touring, that is your opinion whether its an advantage or disadvantage to the Hmong or Laotian government.
The Hmong weren't ever listened to simply because those leaders have used the wrong tactics. I think Kofi Anan even told the two Hmong human rights organization that approached the UN that the UN had no authorization to grant or recognize anyone's sovereignty. And he was right. The UN doesn't have that right. Yet the Hmong kept thinking the UN just didn't pay attention to us due to our smaller number. Not true. We have never approached them correctly the way the world is functioning these days. Plus, just imagine what credibility we had when we had two human rights organization going to the UN separately, each claiming it was the one for the Hmong? lol
Personally I consider the UN a useless organization from an international political relationship; It is effective from an economic view, that is what I referring as benefits. Again when comes to peaceful diplomacy, UN has different priority. Now if let's say I decided to create and fund of a militia secretly to retake Laos in the name of the exile Prince(referring the accusation of Vang Pao back in 2007: Operation Tarnish Eagle except for the Lao Prince, I made that one up) the UN will zerks. I am not suggesting an assault, that is bad proposal in my view.
But what I try to say is that UN will responds when major players responds to major threat.