[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 OF THE REFUGEES?

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