ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the human dimension in Thai–Lao relations that has been studied in the field of government, geography, sociology, and anthropology. It argues that although these disciplines do not label themselves as International Relations, the topic they focus on is the movement of people from one state to another. This chapter brings in the arguments often used by critical political geographers to understand how space and time are conceptualised in International Relations theory. It further argues that International Relations can be enriched by the incorporation of critical perspectives from other political geographers as briefly introduced in Chapter 1. These perspectives included the re-conceptualisation of geopolitics during the Cold War that focused on the geopolitical rhetoric by the United States (Ó Tuathail & Agnew, 1998) when it is applied to the state intellectuals of Thailand and Lao PDR. The analysis of the geopolitical legacy in the post-Cold War period that analysed the colonial legacy of ocularcentric territorial borders (Dalby, 1998), the anthropological approach of cultural analysis of borderlands and transnational nature of peoples on the ground (Donnan & Wilson, 1999), and anti-geopolitics that stated that the voices of the peoples could be used to analyse the 68 years of the Thai–Lao relations. In addition, in line with Said (1977) and Chakrabarty (2008), this chapter analyses the European imaginative geography and temporality that were introduced during the time of colonisation. Back then, the elites of Siam had to modernise the country to survive the threats from the French Indochina (Winichakul, 1994). As claimed by mainstream Thai historians, Laos was perceived as the vassal state to Bangkok that was lost to France. Meanwhile, according to the view of the Laos, it was argued that Laos was torn into two parts. One became part of the French Indochina, the other became what is called Isan or the Northeast of Thailand today. This chapter discusses how the concept of space and time was introduced to what has become the present Thai and Lao state. Then it analyses the ways in which the Thai–Lao transnational people were conceptualised with state-centrism. It looks at how anthropology, sociology sheds light on the Thai–Lao relations with different angles. Indeed, as the human dimension is revealed, space and time conceptualisation from the perspective of the peoples will be heard more.
