Northern Thailand is a
hauntingly beautiful mountainous region, rich in tourism, agriculture and
biodiversity. One draw for visitors is
their curiosity in experiencing the culture of remote hill tribe
communities. This does bring interest in
the tribes’ lives and some wealth to the area, however attention to their
precarious political, social, cultural and economic situation is superficial,
tour operators can lack transparency and communities are often made into a
spectacle. The real issues affecting the
hill tribe communities, such as statelessness, often fail to be
highlighted. Whilst recently travelling
in northern Thailand I wished to visit hill tribe communities to discuss
first-hand their opinions about and experiences of statelessness. Thus, this
blog piece is a collection of my own reflections after spending time with a
Lahu community close to Mae Hong Son.
The Lahu are just one
of the approximately twenty
ethnic groups classed as hill tribes in northern Thailand. Many originate
from Burma, Laos and China and are also spread across these countries. As of January 2012 an estimated 500,000
people in Thailand still lacked citizenship despite efforts by the Government,
NGO’s and the UN to help hill tribe and rural communities to attain
nationality. See
an earlier Statelessness Programme blog post for more background on this
population. Consequently, the hill
tribe communities can experience, inter
alia, difficulties accessing health care and education, human trafficking,
restrictions on movement and forced relocation.
In the case of the stateless hill tribe communities social exclusion
from wider Thai society is heightened by the fact they live in remote forest
areas, are nomadic and survive by subsistence farming which is dependent on the
environment in which they live.
Preservation of their
traditional way of life whilst utilising certain positive aspects of living in developed
Thailand is a big challenge for the Lahu.
Included in the dilemma of adjusting to modern life is the acquisition
of Thai nationality, participatory citizenship and whether these are necessary
or not. Whilst nationality for all is commonly seen as desirable, is
included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is often reiterated
as the “right to have rights”, my experience with the Lahu lead me to play
devil’s advocate and to question whether nationality is always relevant? The catalyst for this was the responses given
by Lahu persons when asked about nationality and statelessness.
Thai law does not
preclude ethnic minorities from attaining citizenship, however a number of
loopholes and impracticalities in gaining nationality results in statelessness
for those who, for example, are not registered at birth, cannot prove where
they come from or cannot afford administrative fees. This makes the task of gaining nationality
arduous for the hill tribe communities who may see money and time invested in
obtaining nationality better spent on improving living conditions, farming
techniques and cultural preservation.
Whilst citizenship is often the key to obtaining the vote, land ownership,
education and healthcare, those who are nomadic subsistence farmers may rarely
come into contact with a society where administrative authorities, schools or hospitals
exist, instead using the support network of their communities to provide these
functions. Furthermore, when hill tribe people do come
into contact with the authorities, discrimination may result in skepticism
about intentions and cause avoidance in seeking assistance. For example, cases of forcible eviction
(where the authorities seek out the hill tribes) can create distrust.
When talking, some
Lahu people were not aware of or did not understand statelessness or
nationality. Instead they discussed
their status and social inclusion only in relation to the communities in which
they live. For them lack of identity as
a result of statelessness was not an imminent worry as they focused solely on
their multifaceted roles within the hill tribe, for example as Chief, hunter or
wife. This could demonstrate that hill
tribe society compensates for or mitigates loss of legal rights due to de
jure statelessness and creates a situation where hill tribe persons do not
recognise their own statelessness. It also highlights the very Western concept
of nationality, which may be undesirable to some hill tribe people who fear
that gaining nationality may be a tacit form of accepting a new identity, their
indoctrination into Thai society and cultural erosion.
The Lahu people I met
did talk about the imbalance of power between their communities and the
Government, one example being the restrictions imposed on their traditional
farming techniques. In an ideal world
one could envisage a system where indigenous groups have an autonomous status
in society whilst individuals retain both a recognised membership of their
communities and the nationality of the state in which they live. Both formal bonds would be equal so as to
prevent a hierarchy between national citizenship and community membership. This way the hill tribes could seek to
maintain their identity whilst benefiting from rights which derive from Thai
nationality. However in reality it is
unlikely that the Thai state is willing and complicated administrative
logistics would have to be overcome in order to allow such a system.
For now it is
submitted that nationality may not be relevant at a local community level for
the hill tribes, however gaining Thai citizenship will rectify statelessness
whilst making a step towards remedying some of its symptoms, as well as gaining
a stronger platform from which the hill tribes can advocate their human rights
and protect their traditional way of life.
For this to be positive the communities should be educated about
nationality in a way which they understand and is relevant to their lives, such
as how they can seek to elect politicians who are favourable to minority rights. In return the Thai Government, NGO’s and the
UN should focus on training officials in easing access to nationality and
social services for the communities, including mutual capacity building
programmes where both hill tribes and others discuss and learn about how
citizenship of the Thai state could be used to preserve culture and traditional
ways of life. Moreover more should be
done to raise awareness among tourists to northern Thailand about the human
rights issues affecting the hill tribes; this way visitors can act as a social
watchdog.
Ultimately hill tribe
communities, like the Lahu, need an educated choice regarding Thai citizenship,
to have some individual and community control over the process of
naturalisation and to be reassured that gaining it will not necessarily be to
the detriment of their traditional way of life.
After all if Thai nationality was gained by all hill tribe persons it
would not necessarily matter if the benefits it conferred lay dormant, so long
as hill tribe persons had the opportunity to take
advantage of privileges stemming from nationality should they wish to do so.
Claire
Balding, LL.M in Public International Law (Nottingham), Intern at the United
Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials
The small Lahu community discussed were visited in
their remote village from 2 to 4 February 2013 in the Mae Hong Son region of
Thailand.
