VZCZCXRO4418
PP RUEHCHI
DE RUEHVN #0492/01 1521118
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 011118Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY VIENTIANE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9964
INFO RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK 6599
RUEHHI/AMEMBASSY HANOI 2654
RUEHGO/AMEMBASSY RANGOON 2116
RUEHPF/AMEMBASSY PHNOM PENH 1770
RUEHCHI/AMCONSUL CHIANG MAI 0390

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 VIENTIANE 000492 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EAP/MLS, DRL 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/01/2016 
TAGS: PINR PHUM PREL LA
SUBJECT: LAO PRESS CONFERENCE ON HMONG MASSACRE DIRECTLY 
ATTACKS U.S. AMBASSADOR 
 
REF: A. VIENTIANE 413 
 
     ¶B. VIENTIANE 367 
     ¶C. VIENTIANE 360 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Patricia M. Haslach, reason 1.4 (b) and (d). 
 
Summary 
------- 
¶1. (C) In a hastily organized press conference this 
afternoon, MFA's Press Spokesman called allegations of a 
massacre of Hmong civilians April 6 (reftels) a fabrication, 
and directly accused the Ambassador of having "threatened a 
high-ranking government official" during the course of an 
(actually quite cordial) meeting with the Governor of 
Vientiane province on the subject. The press conference, from 
our read, was an undisguised attempt to embarrass the 
Ambassador in front of the diplomatic and press corps, and 
was based on a totally incorrect interpretation of events 
surrounding the massacre reports. We believe these GoL 
actions should not go unanswered. In view of these very 
serious charges against the Ambassador, we are offering 
suggested language for a public statement below. End summary. 
 
Meeting with MFA on massacre 
---------------------------- 
¶2. (C) In what we can only regard as a major GoL 
miscalculation, MFA called in the Ambassador this afternoon 
to discuss the allegations of an April 6 massacre of Hmong 
civilians by Lao military (reftels).  MFA Europe-Americas 
Department DG Southam reviewed the reports of the massacre, 
without mentioning the reporting from sources like Amnesty 
International, and implying that the story had come only from 
U.S. sources. Southam ignored our previous approaches to the 
GoL on the massacre (our April 21 call on MFA's Human Right 
Department, DAS John's April 26 meeting with the Foreign 
Minister, and a second follow-on meeting with the Human 
Rights Department April 26) and said the Ambassador had 
inappropriately called on the Governor of Vientiane province 
May 4 and had "threatened" the governor over the issue. 
 
¶3. (C) Specifically, Southam claimed the Ambassador during 
that meeting had said the "U.S. military" was concerned about 
the massacre and "demanded" an investigation of the inciden4*@Q3FQu  He 
upbraided the Ambassador for even asking anyone but MFA about 
the massacre.  Needless to say, he also rejected out of hand 
all charges regarding the killings. 
 
¶4. (C) The Ambassador pointed out to Southam that there had 
been no such "threat" during the meeting with the Governor 
(we are not sure what got mangled in the translation but what 
the Ambassador said was that the U.S. military took serious 
all allegations of human rights abuses by our military and 
always launched an investigation and prosecuted those found 
guilty.)  She assured Southam that no Lao official had been 
threatened, and recited our chronology of the massacre report 
to make it clear that our Embassy had acted totally 
appropriately, going first to MFA over the allegations, never 
publicly accusing the GoL on the incident and urging only 
that the government conduct a serious investigation of what 
were manifestly serious allegations. We assumed this would 
put the matter to rest, given that the gist of Southam's 
attack was based on a misunderstanding, or at worst a 
mistranslation. 
 
Press conference a personal attack 
---------------------------------- 
¶5. (C) As a result, we were blindsided by the Press 
Spokesman's attack against the Ambassador made during his 
late-afternoon press conference, called ostensibly to deny 
allegations of the massacre. In the presence of a large part 
of the diplomatic and press corps, Press Spokesman Yong 
launched into an undisguised accusation against the U.S. 
Embassy of having fabricated the massacre charges and, more 
importantly, of the U.S. Ambassador having behaved 
improperly. 
 
¶6. (C) After claiming that only the U.S. Embassy had raised 
the allegations of the April 6 massacre (ignoring AI and 
other reporting on the event), Yong went on to say that 
Ambassador Haslach had brought up the charges of the massacre 
during the May 4 meeting with the Governor of Vientiane 
province and had "threatened a high-ranking government 
 
VIENTIANE 00000492  002 OF 002 
 
 
official." Echoing Southam's private conversation earlier in 
the morning, he accused the Ambassador of "inappropriate 
behavior" and of violating "diplomatic courtesy and 
practice." Yong went on to say that DG Southam had called in 
the Ambassador today to "seek clarification" of her comments 
and to "reject" the "U.S. Embassy charges" of the massacre. 
He concluded by advising diplomatic missions to "act 
correctly" and "handle carefully" information from outside. 
 
¶7. (C) Embassy Political Officer, who attended the press 
conference, spoke out after Yong's comments to deny that 
threats were made against the Governor of Vientiane and to 
stress that the U.S. Embassy had acted totally appropriately 
in raising the massacre issue, bringing it to MFA and asking 
only that the GoL investigate the charges. The Political 
Officer also pointed out that the meeting with the Governor 
was a courtesy call, and the Ambassador had raised the 
massacre allegations in the course of that call, as the 
incident had taken place in Vientiane province. Privately, he 
launched into Yong over what we regarded as a very serious 
breach of protocol and an unbridled effort to publicly 
embarrass the U.S. Ambassador over an issue that should have 
been, and in fact already had been, dealt with privately in 
the meeting with Southam. 
 
Comment 
------- 
¶8. (C) Embassy has already reported extensively on the April 
6 massacre. Information on this incident has been widely 
circulated, comes from many disparate sources, and is highly 
credible. We have no doubt that this event took place as 
reported. Only this morning, the Australians told us that a 
Lao military source had confirmed that a killing of "bandits" 
had taken place at the time and place of the massacre. The 
Australians have been instructed to demarche the GoL on the 
massacre. The Lao press conference, which the Lao no doubt 
hoped would put this issue to bed, will only draw attention 
to the allegations. Coupled with more reports of recent 
murders G^-pQfT~ens), the spotlight the Lao are putting on themselves 
will only further embarrass them before the world community. 
 
¶9. (C) We feel strongly that this attack on the Ambassador's 
behavior was a reckless action that was based on a 
deliberately falsified interpretation of our actions 
regarding the massacre reports. The accusations that 
Ambassador threatened a Lao official are particularly serious 
and utterly untrue: the Lao should have sought clarification 
from us, not laid the matter out before the press and 
diplomatic community.  This was an unacceptable breach of 
diplomatic protocol that, in a moment, sets our relationship 
back. We therefore offer the following draft language for use 
in a public statement or Qs and As. We anticipate there will 
be considerable press interest in this issue. 
 
Draft guidance: 
 
On June 1, the Lao Foreign Ministry Press Spokesman made 
implications in a public press briefing that the U.S. Embassy 
had fabricated information regarding a massacre of civilians 
by Lao military forces that took place on April 6.  The 
Spokesman went on to publicly accuse the U.S. Ambassador of 
having made "threats" against a provincial governor. 
 
These accusations are baseless. The U.S Government stresses 
that at no time did its Ambassador to Laos make threats 
against a government official.  Moreover, all actions by the 
U.S. Embassy in Laos regarding the reported massacre were 
correct and designed to encourage the Lao government to 
launch a serious inquiry into the allegations. These massacre 
reports are serious and should be addressed by the Lao 
government. 
 
The U.S. Government deplores the Lao government's rash 
decision to make public accusations against the Ambassador. 
This was a serious and unjustified breach of diplomatic 
protocol.  Personal attacks of this nature on diplomatic 
personnel are inappropriate and in violation of normal 
diplomatic practice. Moreover, the U.S. Government repeats 
its call on the Lao government to make a serious inquiry into 
the reported massacre of civilians on April 6. 
HASLACH