Thursday, 22 October 2026

Back to the table


IED in Thailand's far South. (File Photo: Royal Thai Army)

Can a new Malaysian facilitator break the impasse in Thailand’s far south?  With violence escalating and both sides playing by different rules, peace talks are set to resume—but deep mistrust and hardline opposition remain major hurdles.

Don Pathan
www.stratsea.com 

Resumption

Peace talks to resolve the conflict in Thailand’s far south are expected to resume in the coming days, now that Malaysia has appointed a new facilitator for the process.

The person is Lt Gen Datuk Ahmad Norihan Jalal, a retired military intelligence chief whose last post before retirement was director general of the Malaysian Defence Intelligence Organisation (MDIO).

Formal negotiations ground to a halt after a brazen attack in Narathiwat on 22 July 2026, when militants shot dead five paramilitary rangers at close range. Caught on CCTV, the incident jolted the entire security apparatus and forced the Thai government to call off talks that had been scheduled to resume in September.

Bangkok demanded an explanation from Barisan Revolusi Nasional Melayu Patani (BRN), the long-standing separatist movement that controls virtually all the combatants on the ground. Why, Thai officials wanted to know, had violence escalated just as discussions were moving along?

BRN did not answer. Instead, it responded with a spate of coordinated attacks, hitting 51 targets on the evening of 22 August; by the end of the week, the tally had reached 78.

Sources in the movement said combatants had been angered by “arrogant” statements from Gen Chaiyapruek Duangprapat, then the Thai Army’s chief of staff, who vowed to hunt down the perpetrators of the July attack to the ends of the earth, whichever country they were hiding in.

Two months after that overnight blitz, the dust has settled, and there is a feeling on both sides that it is time to get the talks moving again.

Back to the Table

Three long-standing items remain on the agenda—reduction of violence, public consultation (PC) and a political solution to end the conflict. The two sides are expected to pick up where they left off.

The first order of business is the terms of reference (TOR) for a temporary reduction of violence. The hope is that this will give both sides some breathing space, from which a more permanent ceasefire could be discussed. 

It is a big leap of faith: fighters on both sides of the political divide have never much liked the idea of talking to the enemy and tend to push the line.

Nor would it be the first time the two sides have talked ceasefire. Four years ago, a six-week truce was agreed for Ramadhan. The pause held throughout the Islamic holy month and into mid-May 2022, taking in the Buddhist observance of Visakha Bucha.

“BRN combatants have always complied with ceasefires agreed at the negotiating table,” said Asmadee Bueheng, a local writer in Pattani. “But nothing meaningful ever comes out of it. If anything, these ceasefires come across as a public relations exercise by the Thai authorities, with virtually no impact on resolving the conflict.”

Moving Beyond the Talk Shop

Since they began in February 2013, the official negotiations have never moved beyond being a talk shop. This time, team Thailand feels it is time to put substantive issues on the table.

Thanut Suvarnananda, Thailand’s chief negotiator, wants to use those issues to create an atmosphere conducive to peace and peaceful coexistence between the state and the Malay minority. He wants to open a discussion on what form of governance would actually suit the southern border region.

Beyond reducing violence, the ideas Thai officials are weighing include decentralisation – a polite way of saying power-sharing – bilingual education, pardons for some detainees, promotion of Patani Malays’ historical and cultural space and making Bahasa Melayu a working language.

There is also talk of arranging regular meetings, under the PC initiative, between Patani community leaders – Buddhists and Malay Muslims alike – and BRN representatives. 

To broaden the space for critical discussion and thinking, these Thai nationals, once in Malaysia, should also meet the Siamese community in Kelantan and ask how they negotiated their own cultural and political space with the Malaysian state.

A Question of Political Will

Artef Sohko, president of The Patani, a political action group that promotes the right to self-determination for the people of Patani, said, “The Thai government doesn’t need permission from the BRN to push through these progressive ideas. There has to be political will to do this, and an adequate explanation to the rest of the country as to why these initiatives are necessary.”

Easier said than done, indeed. Nothing comes easily in the far south, where generation after generation of separatist militants have resurfaced to take up arms for independence. 

Translating Thanut’s good intentions into policy will require buy-in not only from the conservative camp but also from the Royal Thai Army (RTA), which has never liked the idea of talking to the enemy in the first place.

Unlike his predecessors, Thanut understands full well that counterinsurgency is not a zero-sum game. The very nature of unconventional warfare, such as the separatist insurgency in Patani, creates an asymmetry in how success and failure are measured.

Thailand and BRN are playing by different rules, with different goals. A conventional army measures success in battles won, territory controlled and enemies killed. An insurgency measures it in time survived, popular support gained and government legitimacy eroded.

The problem is that combatants on both sides can be tone-deaf to the politics of the day. When BRN declared a unilateral ceasefire during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Thai Army had the chance to reciprocate but refused because, as one senior military officer in the far south put it, “The law is on our side.” BRN’s combatants proved just as deaf to the progressive ideas under discussion when they answered Thailand’s demand for an explanation with the August blitz.

The Observer Question

Hardliners at home aside, the Thai team will struggle to find common ground with the rebels. BRN says it has no objection to a reduction of violence, or even a ceasefire, but insists that it be monitored by international observers. 

The same goes for the talks themselves: BRN continues to insist that state actors – not just international NGOs – observe the high-level official sessions.

Hardliners in the Thai military, on the other hand, want to hit the reset button and rethink the involvement of all foreign mediators, with the exception of Malaysia as the designated facilitator. 

Yet finding capable and credible CSOs trusted by both Bangkok and BRN to observe the talks, monitor a ceasefire or oversee anything involving rules of engagement will not be easy.

For Artef, it is more than a question of technical expertise. Few people have faith in the process after a long history of letdowns, he said. If the current government can establish that faith, Artef believes, people will come forward to help.

Violence on Autopilot

Meanwhile, BRN combatants, operating on autopilot, are not letting up on violence that has been rising for the past four years. In high-profile coordinated attacks, BRN is not after body counts; they want to inflict serious psychological damage on the Thai security apparatus. 

Just this past weekend, six men – two from security forces and four separatist combatants – were killed in two separate gunfights. 

Incident frequency in 2023-2026 has climbed back to 2017 levels, and attacks appear more lethal and better targeted. 

Including the July-August wave, 2026 is likely to exceed 2024’s incident total and become the most active year since at least 2017. Violence remains below the 2005-2008 peak, but the Thai army is coming to terms with the fact that it cannot win through military means.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of STRAT.O.SPHERE CONSULTING PTE LTD. This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence.

 Republications minimally require: 1) credit to the authors and their institutions; and 2) credit to STRAT.O.SPHERE CONSULTING PTE LTD and a link back to either our home page or the article’s URL.

Author

Tuesday, 6 October 2026

Late to the Party

Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim at the 2025 ASEAN Summit

Min Aung Hliang's visit to Malaysia this week will speed up discussions on returning thousands of displaced Myanmar nationals. Malaysia currently hosts over 200,000 refugees from Myanmar, including about 126,000 Rohingya.

Don Pathan
www.stratsea.com

Window to the World

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is trying to catch up with other ASEAN Member States (AMS) as they shift away from a collective stance on Myanmar and press for what they want under the guise of bilateral relations with the trouble-plagued country.

This domino effect started with the “official” visit to Thailand by the Myanmar junta chief-turned-president Min Aung Hlaing. The general was given the red carpet treatment and the famous Thai hospitality.

Informed sources said Min Aung Hlaing wanted a “state visit”, which would include an audience with His Majesty the King and a state dinner, but decided not to push his luck too hard given the fact that Thailand has agreed to be the window to the world for his war-torn country under the so-called dual-track policy.

Critics like Supalak Ganjanakhundee said a “working visit” would have sufficed, given the fact that Bangkok was not able to pin the Burmese president down on any commitment to the ASEAN Five-Point Consensus (5PC) or Thailand’s bilateral concerns. The latter include the expansion of scam compounds along the common border in areas under the control of pro-Myanmar ethnic armed organisations.

Other issues include drug trafficking, toxic chemicals coming from gold and rare earth mines in Shan State that flow into Thailand, and border intrusion by Myanmar jet fighters and shelling that rattled the villagers along both sides of the border.

Malaysia Joins the Chat

Today, the same criticisms once levelled at Thailand for being too soft on Myanmar are being directed at Malaysia, as critics urge Anwar not to give away too much to Myanmar when there is little sign that the Naypyidaw government is willing to accommodate the ASEAN 5PC.

Anwar only has to look at how Naypyidaw responded to the Philippine Foreign Secretary Theresa Lazaro, the current ASEAN chair’s top diplomat, when she called for the release of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners.

Naypyidaw equated the demands as unwarranted “interference in Myanmar’s judicial process” and added that the general election held late last year – dismissed as a sham by ASEAN and the world – has already delivered a civilian-led presidency. Thus, according to its logic, the 5PC is no longer needed.

While the 5PC remains the official ASEAN roadmap, the regional grouping faces structural challenges and outright pushback from the military regime.

In his podcast posting, Anwar said, “I invited him (Min Aung Hlaing) to say we can be friends, we can trade, we can accept Myanmar, but Myanmar must accept them [Rohingya refugees] back.”

While not to the extent of Singapore, Malaysia has been one of the most vocal critics of Myanmar and repeatedly expressed frustration at its refusal to cease hostilities and take back the Rohingya and other refugees.

“To me, that’s better diplomacy than just shouting angrily at Myanmar. Who’s going to take them? Where do we ‌send ‌them? They don’t even have Myanmar citizenship,” Anwar said, adding that a different approach was needed to resolve the issue.

Anwar’s statement was not directed at the international community only, but the local constituency,where Rohingya and Myanmar refugees are high on the minds of the voters.

Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan said in January 2026 that ASEAN would not endorse Myanmar’s phased election: “We didn’t send observers, and by virtue of that, we don’t certify the election.” This was the bloc’s first flat refusal to recognise the results.

Conundrum

Domestic politics aside, critics could reasonably ask whether rolling out a state-adjacent invitation squares with that position or quietly abandons it.

Malaysia’s balancing act is sharper than Thailand’s because of the Rohingya aspect, a Muslim minority group. Anwar faces pressure both from anti-migrant domestic sentiment – which he leans into rhetorically – and from Malaysia’s international standing as a Rohingya champion.

Lucky for Thailand, the calculus is purely border-security/economic, with no comparable religious-solidarity constituency pulling the other way. Except for the Malay-speaking people in the south, Muslims in Thailand are extremely patriotic and have shown no desire to pressure the government to stick their neck out for the Rohingya, one of the most persecuted Muslim minorities in the world.

Members of the international community equate the all-out offensive to push Rohingya out of Rakhine State as genocide. Myanmar continues to deny them a place in the country, referring to them as Bengali.

Talks of repatriating Rohingya and other refugees back to Myanmar from Malaysia have been around for some months now, but observers said if Anwar could get Min Aung Hlaing to accept that these refugees are Myanmar nationals, they would consider it a breakthrough.

Does Myanmar Care?

Since coming to power, Min Aung Hlaing has been touring Asia to build international recognition and legitimacy for his new government. Regional affairs expert Kavi Chongkittavorn said ASEAN is expected to maintain the 5PC for the time being but added Myanmar has a time frame of its own as to when it believes it can fully participate in official high-level ASEAN meetings.

Kavi said it is very unlikely that Myanmar will make enough measurable progress to get Min Aung Hlaing a seat at the ASEAN Summit in Manila later this year or in Singapore the next. But Myanmar is eyeing the 2028 summit in Thailand.

Given its long, porous border with Myanmar, Bangkok embraced a more flexible approach as it sees itself as carrying more responsibility than other AMS. The two also share common issues, including six million Burmese migrant workers, cross-border trade, energy dependency, scam centres, illegal migration, cross-border shelling and violation of Thailand’s airspace by Myanmar jet fighters.

Thailand has agreed to act as a bridge between Myanmar and ASEAN – and the rest of the world, for that matter – while staying engaged through the bloc’s 5PC.

So far, however, Myanmar has yet to show Thailand that it is willing to give something in return. Some even said Myanmar is indifferent to Thailand’s concerns.

Within two days after Min Aung Hlaing visited Thailand, fighting escalated sharply, with the Myanmar Air Force bombing Karen National Liberation Army (KNLA) positions near Minlapan/Phalu villages directly across from Mae Sot district of Thailand’s Tak province, as ordnance and stray rounds repeatedly crossed into Thai territory, striking homes in the Huay Maha Wong area.

Since the start of the 2021 coup in Myanmar, Thailand has sent at least 70 letters to the Naypidaw government about land and air intrusions, but none of them have been answered.

For now, all eyes are on the Lazaro, who will lead a humanitarian visit to Myanmar in October to assess the overall situation. How the visit plays out and what she reports back to ASEAN could help decide which way member states of this regional bloc will deal with Myanmar.

Don Pathan is a security analyst focusing on conflict in Myanmar/Burma and insurgency in Thailand’s far south.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of STRAT.O.SPHERE CONSULTING PTE LTD. This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence.