Professor Dr Kriengsak Chareonwongsak
Executive Director, Institute of Future Studies for Development (IFD)
kriengsak@kriengsak.com, http://www.ifd.or.th
This article was first published in the Bangkok Post on July 8th 2001 during a period of considerable conflict between Thailand and Myanmar, so much so that the border between the two countries was closed.
The recent decision by the Thai Prime Minister to visit Burma on 19 – 20 June 2001, in the midst of ongoing tense relations between both countries, was highly risky. It was particularly risky in light of the fact that some parts of Burmese history textbooks were amended to negatively accuse the Thai royal institution, thus further igniting anti-Burmese sentiment. Yet, the result of these negotiations will prove that Thailand’s leader has a world-wide vision, looking at the advantages of good, Thai-Burma relations. What is especially significant about this visit to Burma is that it marks a significant step towards the better recovery of the conundrum between the two countries. It builds upon and at the same time, builds up, the intentions of both nations to eliminate drug smuggling and to open border trade both at Tah Kee Lek border crossing and at the border of Mae Sai District of Thailand from 24 June 2001.
Restoring Thai-Burma relations will bring advantages to both parties. Thailand’s relationship with Burma has become increasingly strained in recent times. Tensions between the two nations have increased mostly because of security issues such as amphetamines smuggled into Thailand, illegal Burmese workers, and Burmese minorities camped along the 2,400 kilometers of shared borderline. Poor relations with Burma have resulted in a number of Thai civilian deaths, damage to cities and towns within reach of Burma’s munitions, and other significant losses.
Executive Director, Institute of Future Studies for Development (IFD)
kriengsak@kriengsak.com, http://www.ifd.or.th
This article was first published in the Bangkok Post on July 8th 2001 during a period of considerable conflict between Thailand and Myanmar, so much so that the border between the two countries was closed.
The recent decision by the Thai Prime Minister to visit Burma on 19 – 20 June 2001, in the midst of ongoing tense relations between both countries, was highly risky. It was particularly risky in light of the fact that some parts of Burmese history textbooks were amended to negatively accuse the Thai royal institution, thus further igniting anti-Burmese sentiment. Yet, the result of these negotiations will prove that Thailand’s leader has a world-wide vision, looking at the advantages of good, Thai-Burma relations. What is especially significant about this visit to Burma is that it marks a significant step towards the better recovery of the conundrum between the two countries. It builds upon and at the same time, builds up, the intentions of both nations to eliminate drug smuggling and to open border trade both at Tah Kee Lek border crossing and at the border of Mae Sai District of Thailand from 24 June 2001.
Restoring Thai-Burma relations will bring advantages to both parties. Thailand’s relationship with Burma has become increasingly strained in recent times. Tensions between the two nations have increased mostly because of security issues such as amphetamines smuggled into Thailand, illegal Burmese workers, and Burmese minorities camped along the 2,400 kilometers of shared borderline. Poor relations with Burma have resulted in a number of Thai civilian deaths, damage to cities and towns within reach of Burma’s munitions, and other significant losses.
However, border trade worth about 10 billion baht per year would be lost if relations between the two were not restored. When Burma closed the Ta Kee Lek border crossing, over the last 4 months (March-June 2001) it resulted in a loss of more than 2,000 million Baht in revenue and was the cause of many business owners, in Thailand’s adjoining Mae Sai District, incurring huge financial losses. Similarly, closure of other border crossings would result in the loss of valuable tourism income to the merchants in those other areas.
