Home Contact Us
Search :

Southeast Asia - Articles

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
#3186, 8 July 2010
Myanmar-Thailand Border Dispute: Prospects for Demarcation
Tanvi Pate
Research Intern
Email: tanvi@ipcs.org

In recent years, Myanmar-Thailand relations have experienced a surge of positive bilateralism due to their common membership in Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). However, the thaw in relations still leaves the boundary dispute between two countries largely unresolved. A major clash occurred in February 2001 and tension on the border still prevails. It’s critical to look at the history of this boundary dispute, problems that fester on the border and what implications these could have on Thai-Burma’s effort to demarcate the boundary? Whether the improving economic relations have lessened the tensions or not? What will be the likely future in terms of finding a solution?

Thailand and Myanmar share the long border of 2400 kilometres approximately, out of which around 60 kilometres only is demarcated. The problem lies in the crux of the ‘Burney Treaty’ which was signed in 1826 by Thailand and Britain after the colonisation of Burma in 1824, establishing the current boundary between the two countries. After the independence of Myanmar in 1948, Thailand disagreed with the demarcation emphasising on imposition of the treaty by the British. Since then the border has been at the heart of issues between two nations that in turn is amplified by problems like ethnic insurgency and illegal immigration. The February 2001 clashes which led to death of a dozen civilians and almost hundred Burmese soldiers were the manifestation of these deeper problems. Both the governments presented different accounts of the event as Myanmar expounded that the fight between the Tatmadaw and the Shan State Army (SSA) spilled into the Thai territory near Ban Pang Noon causing subsequent clashes, whereas Thai accounts elaborated that the clashes were provoked when Tatmadaw captured a Royal Thai Army (RTA) base at Ban Pang Noon. Skirmishes again occurred in May 2002 and SPDC was forced to close the border crossings from May to October of that year.

With the advent of Thai Rak Thai, new policy of engaging the neighbours came into force. With regard to Myanmar, Thaksin promoted the policy of ‘forward engagement’, whereby economic relations were to be given a priority. Thaksin eventually managed to replace General Watanachai and the RTA army chief General Surayud in 2002, the main instigators of the border war, after undertaking a fence mending trip to Yangon. Myanmar showed reciprocal interest in Thaksin’s overtures and since then stability in economic relations have been achieved. Resultantly, Thailand is now the biggest investor in Myanmar and their bilateral trade touched $2.21 billion in the first three quarters of FY 2009-10. Thailand is a major consumer of the Burmese gas as it buys approximately 30% of the net output.

Surprisingly, harmonious economic relations have had a limited impact on the question of boundary dispute as major problems related to cross border activities still remain unaddressed. The Joint Boundary Committee (JBC) established in 1993 has achieved a limited success and the last meeting was conducted in 2005 with no follow-up thereafter. Amongst the rampant threats the main ones are trafficking, illegal logging, drugs smuggling and ethnic insurgency. There are around 500,000 illegal Burmese migrants in Thailand and the accompanying social issues of health, crime and unemployment add to the government’s worries significantly. Drug trafficking is also a serious problem for Mae Sot is now one of the major drug distribution hubs and the Methamphetamines (Ya Ba) is considered number one security risk in Thailand. On Myanmar’s side there are similar grievances against Thailand on illegal logging across the borders and lax response to the insurgency problem. Moreover the quest of the Myanmar army to defeat various insurgents groups often flares up tensions on the borders. For instance, Burmese offensive in the Kokang region against the United Wa State Army (UWSA) on 23rd and 24th April 2010, led the Thai army to close down a border town of Nor Leang. Such recurrent incidences have deepened the uncertainties causing delay in the demarcation process.

Being members of ASEAN and obligatory to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), Myanmar and Thailand will have to find out a peaceful bilateral solution to their border dispute. It would not be wrong to claim that both countries are increasingly adopting peaceful means of finding an optimal solution as the JBC recently prepared a negotiation framework for the Parliament’s reading that is awaiting consideration from the cabinet. It is possible that Myanmar would be more forthcoming this time as in January 2010, it accepted to resolve the maritime border dispute with Bangladesh on the basis of ‘equity’. However solution to the border remains mired in uncertainty as nationalism has started to take root in the Thai society, adequately displayed by the Thai-Cambodian border crisis in 2008. Moreover until a democratic government is established in Myanmar, stability on the borders will remain elusive and given the fact that RTA operates almost independently of the government in ruling, the Thai army could take radical actions of curbing the menace which could spiral the tensions out of control. Both Thailand and Myanmar in the near future will have to deal with ASEAN’s community spirit on one hand and national sentiments on the other, therefore demarcation of boundary is indeed going to be a cumbersome process as both history and the future have to be weighed in equally.

Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
IPCS Columnists
Af-Pak Diary

D Suba Chandran
Across the Durand Line: Who is in Control Now? Will That Change?
Taliban Talks and the Four Horsemen: Between Peace and Apocalypse
Pakistan: Talks about Talks with the Taliban, Again
Dateline Islamabad

Salma Malik
Pakistan and TTP: Dialogue or Military Action?
The Musharraf Trial & Beyond

Dateline Kabul

Mariam Safi
Afghanistan, US and the Peace Process: A Deal with the Taliban in 2014?
Dhaka Discourse

Prof Delwar Hossain
Bangladesh: Domestic Politics and External Actors
Bangladesh Post Elections 2014: Redefining Domestic Politics?

Eagle Eye

Prof Chintamani Mahapatra
US in Asia: A 'Non-Alignment' Strategy?
Indo-US Strategic Partnership Post Khobragade: The Long Shadow
East Asia Compass

Dr Sandip Mishra
North Korean Peace Gestures and Inter-Korea Relations
Japan: Implications of Indiscriminate Assertiveness
China, Japan, Korea and the US: Region at Crossroads

Himalayan Frontier

Pramod Jaiswal
Chinese Inroads to Nepal
Constituent Assembly-II: Rifts Emerging
Nepal: The Crisis over Proportional Representation and the RPP Divide
Maritime Matters

Vijay Sakhuja
Increasing Maritime Competition: IORA, IONS, Milan and the Indian Ocean Networks
China in the Indian Ocean: Deep Sea Forays
Iran Navy: Developing Long Sea Legs

Middle Kingdom

DS Rajan
China in the Indian Ocean: Competing Priorities
China-Japan Friction: How can India Respond?
Nuke Street

Amb Sheelkant Sharma
Nuclear Security Summit 2014 and the NTI Index
Nuclear Power: An Annual Report Card

Red Affairs

Bibhu Prasad
Maoists in the Northeast: Reality and Myth-Making
Surrender of Gudsa Usendi: Ominous beginning for the Naxals?
South Asian Dialectic

PR Chari
Federalism: Centre as Coordinator and Adjudicator
Limits of Federalism

Spotlight West Asia

Amb Ranjit Gupta
Saudi Arabia-US Estrangement: Implications for the Indian Subcontinent
Syria Today: Is Regime Change the Answer?
The Arab World: Trying Times Ahead
Strategic Space

Manpreet Sethi
US, China and the South Asian Nuclear Construct
Responding to Pakistan’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons: A Strategy for India

The Strategist

Vice Admiral Vijay Shankar
Strategic Non-Nuclear Weapons: An Essential Consort to a Doctrine of No First Use

OTHER REGULAR contributors
Gurmeet Kanwal
Harun ur Rashid
N Manoharan
Wasbir Hussain
Rana Banerji
N Manoharan

Ruhee Neog
Teshu Singh
Aparupa Bhattacherjee
Roomana Hukil
Aparupa Bhattacherjee

Related Articles
Panchali Saikia,
"Myanmar Elections 2010 – III: ASEAN’s Ambivalence," 3 November 2010
Vibhanshu Shekhar,
"ADMM+: Another Case of ‘Pretentious Diplomacy’?," 29 October 2010
Panchali Saikia,
"Manmohan Singh in Southeast Asia," 27 October 2010
Pankaj Jha,
"US-ASEAN Meet: Resurrecting a US Role?," 7 October 2010
Chloe Choquier,
"ASEAN and SAARC: Resolving Intra Regional Disputes," 24 May 2010
Vibhanshu Shekhar,
"Socialist Vietnam Demands Market Economy Status," 13 October 2009
AN Ram,
"India-ASEAN FTA: The Road Ahead," 7 September 2009
Tuli Sinha,
"The India-ASEAN FTA: An assessment," 24 August 2009
Tuli Sinha,
"India-ASEAN FTA and India’s Northeast," 9 June 2009
Kimberley Layton,
"ASEAN Combats a Fever," 8 May 2009

Browse by Publications

Issue Briefs 
Special Reports 
Research Papers 
Seminar Reports 
Conference Reports 

Browse by Region/Countries

East Asia 
South Asia 
Southeast Asia 
US & South Asia 

Browse by Issues

India & the world  
Naxalite Violence 
Suicide Terrorism 
Peace & Conflict Database 
Article by same Author
Crisis in Thailand-IV: Analysing ASEAN, US, UN and EU Responses

ASEAN and SAARC: Intra Regional Connectivity

India-Myanmar-Thailand Highway

Y! MyWeb
Print Bookmark Email Facebook Subscribe
Year 2014
 January  February  March  April  May  June  July  August
 2013  2012  2011  2010  2009  2008  2007  2006
 2005  2004  2003  2002  2001  2000  1999  1998

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) is the premier South Asian think tank which conducts independent research on and provides an in depth analysis of conventional and non-conventional issues related to national and South Asian security including nuclear issues, disarmament, non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, the war on terrorism, counter terrorism , strategies security sector reforms, and armed conflict and peace processes in the region.

For those in South Asia and elsewhere, the IPCS website provides a comprehensive analysis of the happenings within India with a special focus on Jammu and Kashmir and Naxalite Violence. Our research promotes greater understanding of India's foreign policy especially India-China relations, India's relations with SAARC countries and South East Asia.

Through close interaction with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Foreign Service and the three wings of the Armed Forces - the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, - the academic community as well as the media, the IPCS has contributed considerably to the strategic discourse in India.

Subscribe to Newswire | Site Map | IPCS Email
B 7/3 Lower Ground Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029, INDIA.
Tel: 91-11-4100 1900, 4165 2556, 4165 2557, 4165 2558, 4165 2559 Fax: (91-11) 41652560
© Copyright 2014, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
        Web Design by http://www.indiainternets.com