[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
WHY DOES THAILAND WANT TO GET RID O
- Subject: WHY DOES THAILAND WANT TO GET RID O
- From: darnott@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:48:00
REQUEST FROM DAVID ARNOTT: I wonder if anyone could help with
the data, arithmetic and thinking round the economic, political and strategic
issues related to refugees (Burmese and others) in Thailand. I am unclear
about some of these questions and would appreciate guidance.
There seems to be renewed Thai interest in sending the
Burmese refugees back (see the AFP/Bangkok Post article of 27
November, "Thailand wants UNHCR to mediate return of Myanmar
refugees", separatelly posted ). Is the motivation economic, political,
strategic or other?
FOREIGN INPUTS INTO THE THAI ECONOMY
Representatives of the Royal Thai Government (RTG) have been quoted
as saying that the refugees are a drain on the Thai economy. Is this the
case?
I would have thought the opposite, that if there were no refugees in the
country, the Thai economy would be worse off. For instance:
* The Burma Border Consortium (BBC), which coordinates the
delivery of assistance to the refugees, spends about US$15 million
a year in Thailand on food and other supplies for the refugees, vehicles,
gasoline, materials for housing, administration (including salaries for local
staff), etc. All this money comes from outside the country and thus
benefits the Thai economy.
* Ditto for the 30 or so medical and other groups also working with the
refugees. (does anyone have figures for these groups?)
* UNHCR has a sizeable operation in Thailand, with funds coming from
outside the country. If there were no refugees in Thailand, this would
presumbly be closed down or considerably downsized, to the detriment
of the Thai economy. (figures, anyone?)
* Ditto for other UN agencies ?
* Donor governments in Thailand presumably spend money on
refugees apart from their donations to BBC
* Considerable funds are spent in Thailand by the multitude of film crews,
journalists, human rights NGOs, -- some of which produce books, videos and
other products in Thailand -- related., directly or indirectly to the
presence of
the refugees (at present mainly Burmese, but previously Cambodian),
whether in camps or not. It might be difficult to put a figure on these
inputs,
but my guess is that they are very high, and of direct benefit to the Thai
economy, in terms of publishing, hotels and transport etc. etc. The NGOs also,
as with those working directly with refugees, employ local Thai staff .
* Any other inputs I have not thought of?
THE BURDEN ON THE THAI TREASURY
What expenses do the Thai authorities incur because of the refugees?
* Extra military expenses, perhaps -- though whether soldiers are in barracks,
on exercises or patrolling near refugee camps, they take up resources. Would
someone try to put a figure to how much less the Thai army would spend per
year if there were no refugees. Similarly for any other sectors of the Thai
administration involved with the refugees.
* Compensation costs for land used for the camps? Expenses for repair/
construction of roads, barbed wire fences or other infrastructure? Do
such items come out of the Thai treasury, or do the refugee agencies or
donor governments make a contribution? (figures, please)
* Any other items I have missed?
STRATEGIC OR OTHER FACTORS
If, having done the calculations, it appears that financially, the
presence of the refugees is a net benefit to the Thai economy, then
we would have to look for other motives for the wish of some sectors
of the RTG to get rid of the refugees. These could be:
* Strategic -- perhaps there is a view in the National Security Council
and/or elsewhere that the existence of Burmese refugees camps in Thailand
acts as a "pull" factor for the Burmese military and their allies, requiring
a reciprocal border presence by the Thai army. (I imagine some Thai
soldiers miss the former ethnic buffer zones which kept the traditional
enemy at a distance)
* Local complaints -- perhaps people in the area where the refugee
camps are located do not like the refugees there (even if they are of the
same ethnic group as the refugees and/or benefit fincancially from inputs
such as listed above).
* Foreign policy issues -- perhaps the RTG thinks that if there were no
refugee camps in Thailand, relations with the Western neighbour would
be better.
* Any others I have not thought of?
If anyone has any insights or data on these or related questions, please
post on the nets or send directly to David Arnott at darnott@xxxxxxxxxxx
Internet ProLink PC User