April Reber
Racialized environmentalism and politicized economics converged in July and August, 2000, when a coalition of Thai farmers, Royal Forestry Department (RFD) and other government officials blocked off roads leading to Hmong farms in the mountains in Thailand. This coalition collaboratively targeted Hmong lychee orchards that had almost reached maturation (it takes lychee trees 10 years to fully mature). According to my respondents, the Thais who cut down the trees came from three mountain villages that overlook the mountain valley where the fields are. Similarly, the RFD office is in the mountains near one village and overlooking the fields. According to Hmong, these local Thais identified Hmong fields and cut down Hmong lychee trees, leaving Thais and other ethnicities’ orchards standing. Sitting in front of his small shop thirteen years later, one man said “It was very sad. I cried and cried. Tears filled my eyes and I cried a lot.”
Land disputes between state and minorities are not new in the Southeast Asian Massif and this event is one in a long history. While others focus on the development of these problems (Vandergeest 2002; Tomforde 2003), in this paper, I focus on how Hmong memories of the incident re-characterize Hmong as agentive, contradictory predominant views of Hmong.
Background of the lychee tree incident
While the Thai government has had a tenuous relationship with minorities over land control, I summarize only issues relevant to the lychee tree incident. During the 1970s and 1980s, NGOs and the Thai government (with the active support of the king) successfully restricted Hmong opium production by replacing it with cash crops, such as lychee trees (Kaye 1990: 35; Tomforde 2003: 353). This program was called the King’s Royal Project.
Over the past several decades, the Thai government, through the RFD, has constricted land and resource use in the northern mountains where most ethnic groups live, limiting these groups’ livelihood and pushing for minority relocation. These issues led to conflict between minority groups and the government in the late 1990s with ethnic groups claiming rights to the land and challenging government restrictions.
At the research site, Thai accused Hmong of limiting and contaminating their water supply, as well as destroying watershed areas. In February 1999, according to Hmong leaders, local Thai district authorities told the lychee farmers to relocate (Community Voices 2000: 44) and soon after, the government expanded the Doi Phu Kha National Park (soon after the initial minority protests).
After the local Thai authorities told Hmong to relocate, Thais gathered from four subdistricts and demonstrated, accusing Hmong of encroaching on the forest. With mounting pressure from these demonstrators, district authorities told Hmong farmers to “remove [their] property and vacate the land within 30 days” (Community Voices 2000: 44).
In April 1999, Hmong countered the accusations by joining the Assembly of the Highland People and the Northern Farmer’s Network to demonstrate in Chiang Mai. Protestors wanted the government to determine a resolution to the land and forest issues.
After that, on August 21, 1999, Mr. Prodprasop Suraswadi, the Director-General of the RFD, leading several Thais and RFD officials, began implementing the government’s reforestation program. He initiated planting tree saplings in Hmong fields in the area (but did not plant these saplings in neighboring orchards or in the deforested areas, according to my respondents). “Also, Mr.Prodprasop announced to the public and media that, ‘If one of my trees dies, I will cut one lychee tree in return’” (Community Voices 2000: 46)
Within a year, Thais from the area blocked off roads leading to the fields and cut down Hmong trees. Many respondents talked about how Thai killed their farm animals and ate them, and destroyed their farmhouses, water containers, and farming equipment. For many, it was an emotionally traumatic event that people still regularly discuss. It was also financially devastating. Many people mentioned trying to find employment after the incident, and having to rebuild their lives and livelihoods (See Appendices A). This incident was a significant event in the village’s history.
To see full report please contact PI