Processes of human smuggling in the local context 47!

One of the significant debates about irregular migration concerns on the nature of the human smuggling operation. On the one hand, the conventional belief about human smuggling is that it is always related to criminal networks or organizations. As a result, human smuggling is often portrayed as a life-threatening process which is operated by well-structured criminal organisations. For instance, Kyle and Liang (2001) argued that smuggling organisations essentially need a well-organized structure to manage agents or brokers at different stages of the smuggling process. In their study about the case of migration from China and Spain to the United States, they argue that:

it [organized human smuggling] is a trade positively correlated with greater border controls, which reduce an individual migrant’s ability to “enter without inspection” without professional financial and logistical assistance (Kyle and Liang, 2001, p. 3)

Due to the expensive and illegal nature of human smuggling, it is always considered in association with transnational networks of criminal organizations (Pastore et al., 2006). On the other hand, there is a body of literature that highlights human

smuggling operations that are run by individuals or groups at different stages of the operation (Pastore et al, 2006; Içduygu, 2004; Bilgner et al., 2006). For instance, Bilgner (2006) and his colleagues, through their study in Australia find that smuggling operations are not monopolized. Similarly, Leimpt (2007) finds that a number of individuals and agencies are unintentionally involved in the human smuggling process. Thus these findings clearly contradict the notion of the highly- organized, criminal nature of smuggling operations.

To further investigate this, I interviewed the ex-transporter who was also the first pioneer of Nan Kham to go to work in Thailand. When I asked him how he started his business, he replied:

People knew that I saved money from Thailand when I came back to the village. They were inspired by my effort and started asking about possible ways to go. They said they would like to send their children too. I had no reason to stop them because there is no way to earn that much in the village. I just told them that if the kids worked hard, they could save good money by working there (personal communication, April 22, 2014)

U San was the first person from the village to go work in Thailand. He left Myanmar with his wife in 1995. They worked hard, saved money and stayed in Bangkok for a decade, with only occasional visits back home through illegal migration routes. Even before he started his own transportation business in 2010 he had been helping other villagers who wanted to go to Thailand by providing information about migration routes, and sometimes, taking them to the border without any fees. He said he was simply helping people. He reflected about his role in this smuggling operation:

I bought a 4WD in 2010. People contacted me to send their family members to the border. Most migrants I transported had already made contact with their relatives or friends living in Thailand. I just needed to drop them at the border and they went on using their own contacts. But for other migrants, I introduced my friends (brokers) who would help them to reach their destination such as Chiang Mai or Bangkok. (personal communication, April 22, 2014)

U San’s job was to take migrants to the border and from there the migrants continued their journey by themselves. It is clear that he never considered himself a smuggler, but only as a transporter, for he did not receive any other fees apart from the transportation charge of 70,000 Kyats21 (70 US dollars) per person. This type of smuggling operation is common across the region. There were many transportation services, at that time, similar to U San’s.

The narrative of the transporter was consistent with the experience of the return migrants I interviewed. It has been found that they managed their own journey following the advice of friends or relatives who had been on the trip before. I interviewed U Myo, a return migrant whose aunt was his helper. He went to a border town on a trading truck and contacted local smugglers there to take him to Chiang Mai, Thailand. U Myo said there was no contract between those smugglers and the migrants because both would be in jail if caught22. He said:

..they [smugglers] will be hurt three times more than us [migrants]. Say, if I am arrested, we will be put in jail and be deported. For them, as well as going to jail, their money and motorbike will be taken too. (personal communication, June 11, 2014)

His response indicates that there are no strings attached for getting service from the local smuggler. This highlights the equal status between the smugglers and the migrants. There was no bond or guarantee between them because they realized they were bearing equal risks in this process.

In accordance with my interviews and observational data, the findings of this study suggest that individuals, who were simply trying to make a living, ran human smuggling operations. This resonates with Molland (2012)’s findings through his study on irregular migration of Lao sex workers. In his study, he finds that the sex workers became recruiters facilitating irregular migration in cross-border migration

21 _{The transportation to the border area is much more expensive than travelling to other cities} because the drivers have to bribe officials at the checkpoints.

22 _{This can be in many scenarios; they can get caught while crossing the border or while} transiting from city to city or through random checks by Thai police in the city.

from Laos to Thailand. Similarly, Lindquist (2012) finds that prominent informal brokers who facilitate migration come from different backgrounds ranging from teachers to government staff. This indicates the importance of an existing relationship between brokers and the village communities. Hence, the findings from this study about the human smuggling operations were significantly different from the portrayal of human smuggling in other parts of the world as highly-organized or well-structured mechanisms (Kyle & Liang, 2001).

In addition, the findings confirm the conclusion made by Pastore et al. (2006) and Içduygu & Toktas (2002) that human smuggling operations are coordinated by different individuals or groups in different stages of the smuggling process, and that these operations are not necessarily associated with criminal networks or organizations. Likewise, the responses of the return migrants in this case study suggest that there was no indication of being controlled by a smuggler during their irregular migration passage. Instead, migrants managed their own journey on the advice of return migrants and relatives, or friends already working in Thailand. In many cases, new migrants would accompany them when they went back after a short visit to the village.

According to this information, the migrants who give consent to be smuggled across the border fit into the category of “service types”23 suggested by Liempt (2012). Evidently, the migrants U San transported already had an idea of how to continue their journey starting from the border area. Thus, his line of work was just to transport the migrants to the place they wanted to go. Therefore, his role in this migration fits into ‘local initiating smuggler’ or ‘local transiting smuggler’, as suggested by Icduygu & Toktas (2002). In addition, the results of the analysis show that the smuggling operation from Nan Kham to Thailand is often based on the reputation of the smuggler, instead of the deceptive and exploitative nature of the smuggling operation which has influenced the literature on irregular migration.

23 _{In his study about the inside perspective into human smuggling in the Netherlands, Liempt} identified three types of smuggling: service, directive and negotiative type. In the service type, migrants decide where to migrate, whereas in the directive type, migrants follow the idea of the smugglers. And in the negotiative type, migrants consider the opportunities at the destination place and the trustworthiness of the smugglers. These types are also found in combination with one another.