San Idelfonso, una comunidad otomí Localización

The movement of people has occurred throughout the history of mankind. People movement along the Thailand–Myanmar border is part of this phenomenon. These migrations originate from economic, social and political motives (Kukathas 2005).

Thai and Myanmar people moving back and forth across this area occurred before the border between these two countries officially existed. The nature of the relationship between Thailand and Myanmar is historically rich and complex. This goes back prior to the fall of Ayuthaya in 1569 (and again in 1767). In the period of nineteenth century imperialism in Southeast Asia, the boundaries of competing power domains resulted from negotiation among the colonial powers. In the past, the military power of kings was concentrated in the capital as the centre of power, and was weakest at the far periphery of the kingdom because, for Thai and Burmese kings, control of manpower and the allegiance of vassal provinces were far more important than control of territory. It was

thus more prestigious to conquer the centre of power in order to be able to manage people and resources, than to occupy the outlying territories (Chutintharānon and Tun 1995).

Figure 1.1: Catchment areas of northwest Thailand showing river systems, dams and elevation

Consequently, people who lived in the far periphery never considered themselves as Thais or Burmese because there was no clear idea of which countries occupied which territories. Thus they did not strictly belong only to one nation. Given that the Thailand–Myanmar border runs for 2,400 kilometres, people living on both sides have been doing their business and crossing the frontiers to meet their relatives and family for centuries as part of everyday activities. Historically, the boundary of sovereign authority could be defined without the agreement or ratification of another country. So both countries left the border corridor indeterminate, without including it in either country (Winichakul 1994).

During the period of colonisation, after the British invaded Burma1 in 1824, the common borders among Southeast Asian countries gradually became established. British colonialism in Burma and French colonialism in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam ‘forced Thailand to accept a new ordering of political space and a new regime of interstate relations built upon the principle of territorial sovereignty’ (Battersby 1998, p.474).

In Siam Mapped (1994), Thongchai Winichakul offers a clear explanation as to why the

idea of a boundary was different between the British government in Burma and the Siamese court.2 The British conquered the southern part of Burma in 1826. They made Arakan and Tenasserim provinces British. A British government official, Henry Burney, was in Bangkok in late 1825. He requested the court to appoint a high-ranking official to negotiate the western frontier of Siam (Winichakul 1994). According to Siam’s point of view, the issue was not urgent, because it was not certain at the time that the British would defeat the Burmese. The Siamese court simply replied

...no boundaries could ever be established between the Siamese and the Burmese. But the English desire to have these fixed. Let them enquire from the old inhabitants residing on the frontier of Mergui, Tavoy and Tenasserim, what they know respecting the contiguous territories, and let what they point out be the boundaries between the English and Siamese possession (The Burney Papers, Vol. 1, p. 154–155, cited in Winichakul 1994, p.64).

Bangkok had no interest in setting the boundary because this boundary issue only mattered for local people, not people in the capital, Bangkok. Moreover, according to another response of the Siamese court, the boundary establishment was not an important

1

The term ‘Burma’ is used here for pre-1988 before the country’s official name was changed to Myanmar.

concern. This is because the Siamese court believed that the natural boundary already existed since ‘the boundaries between the Siamese and Burmese consisted of the tract of mountains and forest, which is several miles wide and which could not be said to belong to either nation’ (The Burney Papers, Vol. 1, p. 122, cited in Winichakul 1994, p. 64).

The long stretch of mountains and hills dividing Thailand and Myanmar has served as a natural separation line. The Tenasserim Hills or Thiokhao Tanaosi in Thai, are the geographical name of a 1,700 km long mountain chain, which is in the northern section of both countries along the low-lying Kraburi River that runs along the southern border between Thailand and Myanmar. These natural separation lines have been the location for peoples of both kingdoms to exchange products and other necessities. Villagers come across with their home-grown produce or hand-sewn items. Most of the trade has been conducted without any government sanction, except at key trading posts accessible by road and to tourists, such as those in Mae Hong Son province, Mae Sot in Tak province and Mae Sai in Chiang Rai provinces.

Although Siam had notions of boundary, they were totally different from those of the Western point of view. According to Thongchai Winichakul (1994, p. 75), Siam did not lack the terminology and concept of boundary. However, none of these terms, such as

khobkhet, khetdaen, anakhet, or khopkhanthasima, refers to a boundary line. They simply

indicate areas, district, frontier and limit without a clear-cut sense of division between the two powers. These areas and their surroundings mattered for Siam only when the Siamese court was able to control and protect them. ‘A town may or may not have a common border connecting it with another town, let alone a line dividing the realms of two towns or countries’ (Winichakul 1994, p.75). In addition, the boundaries and guardhouses between two or more connecting towns meant nothing since the people on both sides of the boundary were allowed to travel or settle freely between the frontier areas (Winichakul 1994, p.76).

However, the use of Western-style political mapping techniques and the emergence of a modern Siamese state forced Siam to draw borderlines. As the practice of multiple loyalties in a single area is unacceptable in the modern state era, frontier people were forced to be included or excluded within clear territorial boundaries. The issue of ‘belonging’ became more important to state integrity and national security (Toyota 2006,

p.6). Eventually, the Anglo-Siamese Treaty, or Bangkok Treaty of 1909, between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Siam was established with the drawing of new national boundaries. This currently serves as the legal instrument which demarcates the 2,400-kilometre long border between Thailand and Myanmar.

Figure 1.2: Map of Myanmar and its border with Thailand

As a result, due to this imposed boundary, many Indigenous peoples were divided into different countries. This legal separation ignored traditional cultural and economic relations of the people living in-between the nation states. Consequently, ethnic minorities along the border areas were arbitrarily split. This separation eventually left a legacy of a poorly demarcated land border (Battersby 1998, p.474). Although politically the governments in Rangoon, Phnom Penh and Vientiane did not correspond to any territorial jurisdiction conferred by international law (Battersby 1998), people from different sides of the boundaries have been limited in travelling across the borders since the treaty of 1909. Nowadays, ten Thai provinces share the border with Myanmar: Mae Hong Son, Chiang Rai, Chiang Mai, Tak, Kanchanaburi, Ratchaburi, Petchaburi, Prachuap Khiri Khan, Chumpon and Ranong.