この文献の参照には次のURLをご利用ください : https://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/00055682
史学研究 305 号
2020-03-31 発行
Lost Territory?: The Cession of Thailand’s Southern Dependencies to Britain (1899-1909)
「失われた」領土？ : 二〇世紀初頭タイのイギリスへの南部領土譲与
ションラオーン ピヤダー
Abstract
There is a long-standing notion in Thai historiography that Thailand (historically known as Siam) lost large parts of her territory to France and Britain as an attempt to avoid military confrontation. But what was the cause of this loss of territory? And more importantly, was it really a loss, or a “surrender” of territory?
This paper examines the historical underpinnings of Thailand’s cession of her Malay provinces and dependencies to Britain in the early twentieth century, namely Kedah and its adjacent areas, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu. At the same time, it looks at the diplomatic negotiation regarding boundary and territorial concession between the Siamese and British governments, which led to the demarcation of the Siam and British Malaya boundary. This paper argues that Siam’s ceded territory was not just the three dependencies, but also included the resource-rich watershed of the Perak River and the strategic Island of Langkawi. More importantly, the southern territory was not something Siam ‘had to’ lose, but ‘happened to’ lose as a result of ad hoc negotiations between a small group of representatives from the Siamese and British government.
This paper examines the historical underpinnings of Thailand’s cession of her Malay provinces and dependencies to Britain in the early twentieth century, namely Kedah and its adjacent areas, Perlis, Kelantan and Trengganu. At the same time, it looks at the diplomatic negotiation regarding boundary and territorial concession between the Siamese and British governments, which led to the demarcation of the Siam and British Malaya boundary. This paper argues that Siam’s ceded territory was not just the three dependencies, but also included the resource-rich watershed of the Perak River and the strategic Island of Langkawi. More importantly, the southern territory was not something Siam ‘had to’ lose, but ‘happened to’ lose as a result of ad hoc negotiations between a small group of representatives from the Siamese and British government.
About This Article
531 KB
Other Article
PP. 68 - 93