EDITORIAL: An inconvenient truth in the deep South opinion

The Thai state's propaganda machine cannot win the battle for hearts and minds

The Nation

Citizens and activists who take a more critical view of the government’s policy and actions in the Malay-speaking South have not only been subjected to harassment by the authorities but also nasty propaganda often referred to as “IO”, or information operations.

The idea of IO is to discredit those perceived by the authorities to be obstructing the effort to win hearts and minds among the local residents, about 90 percent of whom are Muslims of Malay ethnicity.
The authorities believe that if they can win over the locals, they can quell the armed separatist movements by denying them support and legitimacy.
One group now bearing the brunt of the government’s IO machine is the Federation of Patanian Students and Youth, or PerMAS, a network of university and high-school students.
Though the group’s stronghold in the deep South, PerMAS membership stretches throughout Thailand and even into neighbouring countries.
Because of their outspoken stance against the culture of impunity among government security officials, PerMAS has been consistently accused of collaborating with separatist organisations, particularly the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), believed by Thai officials to control vast majority of the insurgents on the ground. Thailand’s IO paints PerMAS as the “political wing” of the BRN, a label that members strongly reject.
Though 11 years have passed since the current wave of insurgency first emerged, regular and cordial dialogue between Thai security officials and PerMAS has not resolved the differences.
Undermining the efforts is the government’s semi-secret IO machine, which continues to churn out propaganda attacking and harassing these activists.
Whether a deliberate strategy or not, this double-faced approach only makes the authorities look bad. If anything, it illustrates a lack of unity of purpose and strategy on the government side.
Intelligence and security officials need to ask themselves whether such propaganda tactics against groups like PerMAS are even necessary. And if they continue to insist that IO is a legitimate approach, they should be more truthful about the information they dish out.
Rallies organised by PerMAS and associated groups like Lempar, Nusantara, Perwani and Wartani draw upwards of 10,000 people. The criticism voiced at such large public events is no doubt uncomfortable for the authorities.
But attacking these groups with distorted information won’t help the situation. For many locals, it only enforces a longstanding lack of trust in state officials.
Positive change won’t be achieved by the state reaching out to them with an olive branch in one hand while holding a whip in the other.
There are far more productive ways to engage these activists.
First, actions speak louder than words. Acting to end the culture of impunity among security forces by clamping down on dubious tactics such as torture and extrajudicial killing would be a crucial step in the right direction. The best way to show local residents that the state cares deeply about their concerns would be to take up their grievances and look into them with an open mind.
The authorities must ask themselves why local residents have diverted their hope and trust towards these youth activists. Is it perhaps that they have good reason to believe no one else will stand up for their rights?
Like it or not, an “us versus them” mentality still prevails in the deep South, where the “Siamese” are more often than not seen as outsiders.
The authorities need to grasp this inconvenient truth. It may not fit neatly into their official explanation of the situation, but if we are to get to the bottom of this longstanding and deadly conflict, we must stop fooling ourselves with our own propaganda.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/An-inconvenient-truth-in-the-deep-South-30271893.html

BRN call for foreign observers at peace talks a key test for Bangkok

Insurgent group says it is willing to negotiate if Thailand follows international norms

Don Pathan
Special to The Nation

For an organisation whose leadership is very secretive, Barisan Revolusi Nasional is drifting into uncharted territory as its "Information Department" reaches out to foreign media to make their case about Thailand's questionable effort to secure peace in its southernmost provinces.

Bomb squad inspecting scene in Narathiwat earlier this month following attack.

Reaching out to foreign media may have come out of a desire to remind the world that BRN's leadership has yet to endorse Thailand's current peace initiative.

Nevertheless, it was a step in a more conventional direction - one that could force the Thai government to rethink its own information strategy, according to a Thai government official working on the conflict in the southernmost provinces.

What was interesting, noted the Thai official and Artef Sohko, a youth activist and member of a political action group, the Academy of Patani Raya for Peace and Development (Lempar), was that the BRN Information Department had reached out to Anthony Davis, a veteran writer who has for decades written on security issues and conflicts around Asia for Jane's Defence Weekly and other major publications.

For years, much of the information about the conflict in Thailand's southernmost provinces had been provided by the state, making any reporting lopsided.

But the Thai government will no longer enjoy a monopoly on the flow of information should groups like the BRN, which controls a vast majority of the insurgents on the ground, begin to seriously exercise their communication strategy.

A BRN source said the leadership in the movement, namely the Dewan Pimpinan Party, or DPP, agreed to the interview because they wanted to set the record straight regarding the peace initiative of Thailand, the Malaysian government and MARA Patani, the recently established umbrella organisation.

Whether this was a one-time thing remains to be seen. Nevertheless, it was enough to get Thais to seriously think about what the future holds in the realm of communication strategy.

Besides the recent interview with Davis, BRN's leadership also issued a four-page statement slamming Thailand for deceiving the world with the initiative but not being willing to make any meaningful concession.

BRN said they are willing to negotiate for peace but the process must be carried out along international norms and the talks must be witnessed by foreign states.

As expected, Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan rejected the demand that foreign governments observe the peace talks.

Bangkok has never liked the idea of foreign mediation for fear of "internationalising" the conflict, which they feel would give too much legitimacy to the separatists.

BRN sources said the DPP would only endorse the peace talks if their negotiators are properly prepared and their political wings receive the needed immunity.

Earlier last month, just 10 days after the August 27 launch of MARA Patani in Kuala Lumpur, the DPP reminded the world about their feeling about the Thai state through a statement read out by Abdulkarim Khalid, a member of the movement's youth wing who's also part of the BRN Information Department.

In the video statement, he criticised the Thai state for being insincere and lacking legitimacy in Malays' historical homeland, which is today's southern border provinces.

It was hard to dismiss Abdulkarim's statement as irrelevant because he was not an unknown entity. The man was at the negotiating table at the previous round of talks launched by the Yingluck government in February 2013.

Abdulkarim was sent to the talks by the DPP under a very strict mandate. He could not negotiate - as the BRN's DPP did not officially endorse the Yingluck initiative - but would observe and report back to the top leaders.

That initiative ended in late 2013 when the designated "BRN liaison", Hasan Taib, threw in the towel and went incommunicado. Street protests in Bangkok also sent the Yingluck government into survival mode until her administration was ousted in May of last year by a military coup.

Seven months after the putsch, the junta decided to pick up where the Yingluck team had left off, but with conditions. Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha demanded that the separatist leaders develop a common platform and implement "a period of peace".

Thai officials said "the period of peace", or ceasefire, was to demonstrate that MARA Patani members had adequate command-and-control over the militants on the ground.

Bangkok did not get their "period of peace" but the separatists did form the MARA Patani, a platform for their common strategy and for dealing with the Thais collectively.

Prayut rejected the idea of granting MARA Patani formal recognition and legal immunity but said talks could continue - in an unofficial capacity.

MARA Patani was a sideshow, or Track 1.5, to the Yingluck official Track 1 initiative that has Malaysia as designated facilitator.

Today, with Hasan and Abdulkarim abandoning the initiative, the sideshow was elevated to a formal Track 1. But being on Track 1 does not guarantee MARA Patani members formal or meaningful recognition as Bangkok does not want to give away too much too soon to the Patani Malay groups.

But if MARA Patani could secure a buy-in from the DPP, Bangkok just might take them more seriously and grant them the recognition they want, security officials said.

For the time being, MARA Patani, Thailand's dialogue panel (negotiators) and the Malaysian facilitators are pinning their hopes on a small group of young BRN members who broke ranks and joined the peace talks.

Two of these individuals - Sukree Hari and Ahmad Chuwo - were paraded to the press in Kuala Lumpur with other MARA Patani representatives. They still called themselves "BRN" but combatants on the ground said, "Who cares?" What matters, in today's context, is who has command-and-control on the ground.

The Thai negotiators, MARA Patani and Kuala Lumpur were hoping that these former teachers from Thamvithya Mulnithi School in Yala could bridge the gap between them and the BRN ruling council.

But the recently released four-page statement, along with Abdulkarim's statement on YouTube, not to mention the interview with Davis, was BRN's way of telling all stakeholders that there is no shortcut to peace.

Thai officials have quietly acknowledged that parading the pair to the media in late August along with the MARA Patani may have been a premature move.

Perhaps all sides should have waited until they are certain that these former teachers have secured the needed endorsement from the BRN's ruling council, he said.

Don Pathan is an independent security consultant and a founding member of the Patani Forum (www.pataniforum.com)

Myanmar's mighty narco armies refuse to surrender the fight

The ceasefire deal being signed today with ethnic rebels will not cover the badlands bordering Thailand

Don Pathan
Special to The Nation

The nationwide ceasefire agreement set to be signed today by the Myanmar government and eight ethnic armed groups has thrown a spotlight on notorious rebel groups who have refused to make peace.

Thai border security officials who monitor insurgency activity in the Myanmar sector of the Golden Triangle say they are not surprised that the United Wa State Army and the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), which is still at war with the Myanmar government, are refusing to sign the peace agreement.

Wa soldiers in Panghsang, UWSA's HQ. Photo by: DON PATHAN

With 20,000-strong combat force plus reserves, the UWSA refuses to be placed in the same category as far smaller armed ethnic groups, who are not in a position to dictate terms to the government.

Moreover, reports that China is meddling in the ceasefire talks suggest the giant communist neighbour wants to maintain its dominant longstanding influence over the Wa, said one officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The UWSA inked a ceasefire deal with the Myanmar government in 1989 but it had virtually no impact on the group's relations with China, its main backer.

Armed Wa rebels served as China's entry point into Myanmar during the days of communist insurgency, when they acted as foot soldiers for the Communist Party of Burma (CPB). The CPB fell apart along ethnic lines in 1989.

The Wa State Army came into being in the aftermath of the CPB's disintegration, with a vow to keep on fighting for another 10 years.

Fearing that the UWSA would forge alliances with neighbouring rebel groups such as the Karen National Union, Myanmar's security tsar, Lt-General Khin Nyunt, moved quickly to secure a ceasefire.

In exchange for agreeing to sign, the UWSA was permitted self-rule in the so-called Special Region 2. Other groups operating in areas adjacent to the UWSA stronghold - the Kokang Chinese and the Mong La group - were given similar semi-autonomous status.

While the ceasefire with these groups halted military confrontations, it also allowed the ethnic armies to grow both militarily and economically. The trade of choice for these groups was, of course, opium.

Barely had the ink on the ceasefire deal dried when clandestine factories brewing high-grade heroin began to pop up in remote areas controlled by the narco-armies.

Government efforts at getting the Wa to kick the habit in 2001 didn't do much good, even with Thailand's help.

In a strange twist of diplomacy, the Thaksin Shinawatra administration was working with Rangoon to set up the Yongkha Development Project in UWSA-controlled territory near the Thai border. It was supposed to be a comprehensive crop-substitution project for Wa villagers who had been forcibly relocated from the China-Myanmar border in the late 1990s.

The Thai government injected Bt20 million into the project with the hope that others in the international community would follow. But the world knew that Thai and US authorities had already convicted half a dozen Wa leaders on charges of heroin trafficking, so no funds were forthcoming.

The USWA declaration that it would end opium cultivation in June 2005 didn't fool anybody. The Wa army was already churning out methamphetamine (yaba), which was flooding into Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries.

Bao Yu-xiang (left) , chairman of the UWSA, with Don Pathan
centre) in Panghsang, Wa's capital on the Sino-Burma border, 2003.

Not only had Thaksin failed to whitewash the UWSA through the development project, his efforts had also angered many in the Thai military, whose Third Army Area troops were engaged in frequent skirmishes with Wa drug caravans along the border.

For China, the UWSA presence along the Thai border was an opportunity to extend its long reach even further. But the Thai military and security agencies were not willing to let bygones be bygones and refused to play along.

Reeling from the flood of drugs into the country, Bangkok was further humiliated when top Wa commander Wei Hsueh-kang escaped after being granted bail on drug trafficking charges by a Thai court. So upset was Washington that it decided to raise the bounty for his capture to US$2 million. Nevertheless, Wei continues to control one of the three UWSA regiments near the Thai border.

Though security tsar Khin Nyunt tried hard to build on the ceasefire with the UWSA, the Wa leaders continue to enjoy strong ties with Chinese authorities in Yunnan.

UWSA-owned casinos on the border with Yunnan province are open 24 hours a day, even though gambling is illegal. Cars with Wa licence plates travel deep inside Yunnan freely, while Wa leaders can be seen walking in and out of banks there with wads of dollars.

Nay Pyi Taw officials visiting UWSA-controlled Special Region 2 often quip that the area seems more like an extension of China than a semi-autonomous region of Myanmar. The preferred choice of currency and cellphone or landline operators add to that impression.

Meanwhile, credible reports that China is selling weapons, including helicopters and surface-to-air missiles, to the UWSA are keeping a spotlight on longstanding relations that Chinese officials would prefer not to talk about.

Myanmar is well aware of the strong ties between Chinese authorities and rebel groups like the Kokang, Kachin and the Wa. But they also feel that these relations should not come at the expense of national security.

To show the Chinese that they mean business, Myanmar troops attacked the Kokang in August 2009, forcing thousands of Chinese citizens to flee back over the border.

Ousted Kokang leaders also took refuge in China and used Wa-controlled territory to regroup.

Thai officials believe Myanmar will refrain from using military means to force the Wa to comply and come under the command of the country's army. Indirect pressure, such as the need to integrate economically with the rest of Myanmar, will be the main factor that pushes the UWSA closer to the state, they say.

Meanwhile the so-called nationwide ceasefire agreement will be signed with only about half of the 15 groups the government has been negotiating with over the past couple of years. For President Thein Sein, who wants to cement a legacy as the leader who ended decades of civil war - in which he himself played a battlefield role - this is not the ideal scenario.

Major rebel powers like the Wa and their allies, the Mong La and the Kokang, will have to be engaged with on their on terms, in separate negotiations.

Don Pathan is an independent security analyst and consultant based in Thailand.

Persecuting the peacemakers: A dismal tale from the South

The systematic harassment of men like Artef Sohko has shut down grass-roots activism and blocked the path to lasting peace in this contested region

Don Pathan
Special to The Nation

Artef Sohko says he is fed up with being constantly harassed by unnamed government or pro-government entities, but he's not sure what he can do about it.

Since 2007, when he became the first ethnic Malay to be elected president of the Student Federation of Thailand, Artef says Thai security agencies have routinely persecuted him because of his outspoken demands for justice and equality for ethnic Malays in the historically contested deep South.

Artef Sohko (right) speaking at the FCCT. 

The year 2007 saw a peak in violence as allegations of rape and torture were made against security forces in the region. Artef and other student leaders felt they had enough and they decided to seize the Pattani Central Mosque in protest.

"There were allegations that a [Paramilitary] Ranger had raped a woman in front of her mother in [Yala's] Yaha district. We also heard about other rape incidents, but the victims and their families were too ashamed to speak out," Artef said.

Senior military commanders agreed to set up a joint working group to look into the allegations. But like every other ad-hoc committee set up by authorities in this region, it slowly slipped from the agenda and out of the minds of government officials.

Meanwhile relations between ethnic Malays and Thai Buddhist communities in the South took a nosedive as innocent bystanders became the targets - often as part of tit-for-tat vendettas between security forces and insurgents.

International watchdogs such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have condemned actions on both sides, but they consistently criticise Thai security forces for a "culture of impunity" and have urged the government to punish wrongdoers. But such requests have fallen on deaf ears and quickly slipped from public consciousness - even in high-profile cases like the beating to death of Imam Yapa Kaseng. A full seven years after the Muslim religious leader's killing, the National Anti-Corruption Commission last week suggested that the accused, Army Sub-Lieutenant Sirikhet Wanitbamrung, face disciplinary and criminal action.

Artef says he has never been tortured, but he describes how a security official once beat a person in front of him as a way of demonstrating his unrestrained power.

"The idea was to demoralise me. He wanted to show what he could do and that there was not a thing that I could do about it," he said.

The persecution also took on a devious, personal angle. An elaborate flowchart was faked-up showing him, his wife and her father linked in a crime syndicate and drug trafficking ring. It was released via the social media, making it difficult to trace without help from the authorities. But given that no Thai government in the last decade has taken legal action against an official in the deep South, Artef said it would be a pipe dream to expect help in this case.

"The attitude of many Thai officials is you are either with us or you are with the insurgents. And if you're with the state, you shouldn't criticise us even when the conduct of an official is wrong or illegal," Artef said.

He is not the only activist to face harassment. Others both in and outside of his network have faced similar trouble, being detained or having their DNA taken on flimsy pretences, or have their residences searched without probable cause or warrant.

Zawawee Zawawee Jujur, a 26-year-old local activist and former member of Media Selantan, a Pattani-based community radio station, says he has been DNA tested three times already. When he refused a fourth test earlier this year, police threatened him at the point of a gun.

The authorities' action is based, Zawawee says, on the assumption that he will eventually commit an illegal act, at which time "they will already be prepared to charge me".

Security officials even visited his village in Narathiwat's Tak Bai district and told the headman there to keep an eye on this "young man who has joined an anti-state organisation".

Artef's outspokenness has won a great deal of support not just from the grass roots in this majority-Malay Muslim region but also from foreign governments, who have often sought his insights into the ongoing conflict and the peace process. He doesn't think very highly of the latter, explaining that the participants lack any real influence over the insurgent combatants.

Thailand's approach to peace has always been very short-sighted, usually seeking quick gains while avoiding asking the central question of how the two sides can coexist peacefully and with mutual respect.

On the public front, Artef is often the key speaker at the Bicara Patani, a political rally that draws crowds of up to 10,000, mostly villagers - which gives an idea of his popularity with local people.

Many of these events are documented by Wartani, a grass-roots media organisation run by local Patani Malay activists closely associated with Artef. Wartani reporters say that they too have been harassed by Thai security officials.

Artef refuses to tar all Thai officials with the same brush, though, explaining that many have a great working relationship with him and the youth network.

Yet many others in authority continue to insist that Artef and his activist colleagues are either part of the separatist movement or inspired by the political wing of its umbrella group, the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) - a claim he vociferously denies. But he does admit that Thai authorities, both security and political, have asked him to act as a go-between with the BRN and other separatist leaders.

"It's a fine line to walk and the best way to go about it is to maintain your integrity. I don't take sides or support any particular [separatist] organisations," Artef said.

When asked if his agenda includes independence for the Malay-speaking region, Artef said: "It's not my decision to make. It's up to all the people of this region. But I do want to see peace and justice for all sides."

Artef says that though he is often followed by plainclothes officials, the authorities can never pin anything on him because he hasn't done any wrong. "Nevertheless, it is still irritating," he adds.

In the aftermath of the May 2014 coup, security officials suggested that he leave the country for about three years, which he did. For everybody's sake, he decided to leave his wife and three-year-old son behind and live in India, where he studied English. "The cost of living was affordable," he said.

The low point came late last week when a hooded man in black broke into the home of his mother-in-law in the middle of the night in Narathiwat's Joh I Rong sub-district and took all the printed documents from the bedroom where his wife and his son normally sleep.

"They didn't take any of the valuable stuff. Perhaps it was an indication of things to come," he said.

Don Pathan is a Yala-based freelance security and development consultant and a founding member of the Patani Forum (www.pataniforum.com).

EDITORIAL: Army needs to act on the fatal beating of Imam Yapa

Our indifference to the plight of the Malays of Patani brings shame on Thai society; we need to face our shared destiny

This past week the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has recommended that the army and criminal prosecutors take legal action against Sub Lt Sirikhet Wanitbamrung over the alleged killing of a Narathiwat imam seven years ago.

Imam Yapa Kaseng was beaten to death in front of his son while he was being kept at a Narathiwat military detention site in March 2008. He was accused of being part of a local militant separatist cell bent on carving out a separate homeland for the Malay Muslims in the southernmost provinces.

According to the autopsy report, Yapa's ribs were fractured and the broken bones punctured his lungs.

Sub Lt Sirikhet was attached to the 39th Special Taskforce Unit in Rueso district in Narathiwat, an area with a high concentration of militant activity.

Yapa's death drew an outcry from the local and international community, especially human right organisations, who accused the government of turning a blind eye to the culture of impunity in this highly contested region, where more than 6,500 have been killed over 10 to 11 years, most of them Malay Muslims.

Even some foreign embassies in Bangkok inquired into this death and urged the Thai government and the Army to uphold its principles of law and order.

Many feared that the killing of Islamic leaders, be it Imam Yapa or others who have been shot dead by government or pro-government death squads, would radicalise the insurgents, who have over the past 11 years pretty much kept their campaign of violence against the state to the Malay-speaking region.

In response to the growing pressure, the Army has promised a thorough investigation into the case. Some observers said the vow from the top brass at the time was to get foreign governments off their back for the time being.

Seven years later, the NACC has got around to making a recommendation as to what legal action should be taken. The fact it took this long to come to this point reflects poorly on Thailand's justice system, which this and previous governments consistently vowed to improve and made accessible to all parties and stakeholders.

But from the look of how the state treats this and other similar cases, such promises appear to be little more than lip service.

The attitude of Thai state agencies have always been "let bygones be bygones". But can the Malays of Patani, or anybody for that matter, move on as one nation with a shared destiny with the rest of the people in Thailand without first addressing the historical wounds between the two sides?

The suggestion to let bygones be bygones is nothing less than wishful thinking on the country's part and the handling of Imam Yapa's case is a testimony of the lack of commitment on the country's part.

Sad to say, most Thai people could not care less about Imam Yapa's case because of their blind support for the government's action in the deep South. We blindly embrace nationalism to the point that we paint the Malays of Patani as an ungrateful minority who can't appreciate the goodness and generosity of the state.

That racist attitude lies at the base of Thailand’s policy of failed assimilation, which Malays in the deep South say comes at the expense of their cultural, historical and religious identity.

Because they do not want to embrace our state-constructed narrative, we become indifferent to their historic grievances and the obvious injustice and illegal action by our officers, in episodes such as the Tak Bai massacre and the fatal beating of Imam Yapa.

Seriously, did any Thai people weep with the Patani Malays when 78 of their sons suffocated to death on the back of military trucks in late 2004? And let's not forget the seven shot dead at the protest site.

Security officials and state agencies tend to see the years of tit-for-tat killings and murders as acceptable. 'They may be Thai citizens but they are not on "our side" - so what's the big deal?' That appears to be the attitude of our officials and society.

The culture of impunity and the systematic violation of human rights are not acceptable because these things have been done in the name of the state. The fact that we indifferent to this reflects poorly on our society.

We have rules, laws and regulations. And if they are going to be selective about how they are imposed, then the government should withdraw from all the international conventions against illegal killings, kidnapping and torture of suspected criminals and insurgents.

The international community and watchdog organisations have a moral obligation to remind Thailand of its commitment to these conventions and protocol.

In some countries, these obligations are legal, which would mean legal and political action must be considered and/or taken up.

Dialogue to Foaster Harmony in the Southern Border Provinces

General Aksra Kerdphol
Head of the Peace Dialogue Panel

In the past 11 years, the Royal Thai Government has tried continuously to resolve the conflict in the southern border provinces though the use of military, police and civilian forces with a large amount of weaponry along with all types of legal measures, military operations, and civic action programs to end violence in the area. However, these various attempts still have not been achieved because perpetrators of violence still have “capability” and still retain their action as “initiator” to carry out operations on every occasion, thus, forcing government officials to be on the defence and result in the loss of life and properties of innocent people.

Therefore, the Peace Dialogue Panel for Southern Border Provinces, consequently, reached out to every group of people who have different opinions from the state, urging them to participate in dialogue. This is based on the belief that violence will not do any good for any side. Apart from this, when violent incidents occur, it results in a necessity of the government to increase a number of troops and weaponry and impose stricter law-enforcement measures, and tougher military operations such closed-area search and more arrests.

This is not a positive outcome for any sides and brings us to a conclusion that dialogue is the best solution for everyone. So far, we have witnessed cooperation from people with different opinions who tried to unite their 6 different groups to participate in an informal full-panel dialogue which up until now has been held for 3 times.

I, as the head of dialogue panel, would like to state that in the past the government side tried to resolve the problem in southern border provinces in a unilateral manner. But now, we see the situation where people with different opinions “cooperate” with us to mutually resolve the problem while the people sector closely monitor, support and take part as witness for this cooperation. This is a positive development for resolving problems in the southern border provinces which is unprecedentedly an important success.

Regrettably, there are still people who still have a conservative mindset and do not have confidence in the dialogue process by misbelieving that this development is an elevation of the group status paving ways towards territorial separation. This is not something which can be easily done nowadays as the people sector always keeps an eye on this. And in the future, I personally believe that not only that Party A and B will talk to each other, but this people sector will join in the dialogue and define a roadmap for sustainable solution to the southern border provinces problem together. However, at the first stage, the dialogue panel needs to build trust and cooperation from the group with different opinions and, consequently, that cooperation will result in the gradual reduction of violence in the area.

For the peace dialogue that the panel currently works on is the dialogue which aims to “reduce intention” to use violence from all groups of people with different opinions and turn to use their current capability in an “peaceful way” instead of opting for violence like in the past. This is contrary from what most people understand that there must be negotiation and agreement on what we can get and what they can get.

This concept, which concerns bargaining for advantages, is out of date and will only cause more and more paranoia from each side rather than trust. This is totally different from what are doing now which emphasizes trust and confidence building to seek “cooperation” to jointly resolve violent problems together. We have tried to point out that if the use of violence persists, there will be no side who has complete victory but only damage to the country, loss of our brothers and sisters, and dark future of our children. Therefore, dialogue to foster cooperation is in fact an important thing determining how we can work together on the issues of safety, development and fair justice for all.

In summary, at present the dialogue panel has already set up a working group to work on each issue for justice process, there will be classification of each offence and determine possible ways for exemption under Thai legal framework so that people with different opinions can choose whatever is right for each group or each individual. For the issue of development and safety zones, working groups have been set up to identify urgent priorities which serve the need of our brother and sisters and identify safety zones in urban community, rural areas, transportation routes, and border areas.

Discussion about which area, village, tambon, district or province will first be a pilot safety zone project depends on the capability and preparedness of the government side and also cooperation from people with different opinions who will need to consider and choose the most appropriate methods together in due course.

The latest progress of dialogue panel is that we can mutually agree with the facilitator and group of people with different opinions from the state (Party B) on the formation of joint technical working group consisting of Party A, Party B, the facilitator, and the people sector will participate in the future in order to work on details together to make sustainable peace and harmony in the southern border provinces.



Thailand's Dialogue Panel (negotiators) 

EDITORIAL: Stumbling at the very outset

Lack of diplomacy marring peace talks between southern umbrella organisation and Thai government

The Nation September 13, 2015

The ongoing peace talks between the Thai government and a recently launched umbrella organisation, MARA Patani, is evolving into a spitting contest as Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha and representatives from the separatist movement take up microphone diplomacy to make their case.

The sad thing about this is that the formal negotiations have not even begun.

About three weeks ago, MARA Patani met at an informal "pre-talk" session with a Thai "Dialogue Panel" led by chief negotiator General Aksara Kherdphol. After the talks, MARA Patani introduced themselves to the media at a press conference represented by leaders from six different organisations.

MARA Patani issued three demands for the pre-talks to become formal negotiations: Recognise MARA Patani as an official entity; grant immunity to all MARA Patani representatives; and designate the peace talks on the national agenda by Parliament.

Ten days later, Abdulkarim Khalid, member of the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN)'s youth wing who had sat in the previous round of talks initiated by the former government of Yingluck Shinawatra, issued a strongly worded statement on YouTube, slamming the Thai state of being cruel and insincere in its policy towards the Malay-speaking region of the southernmost border provinces.

Thai officials and MARA Patani members tried to play down Abdulkarim's statement, saying while he was attacking the state, he did not specifically single out peace talks between the government and umbrella organisations.

Nevertheless, Abdulkarim statement is a testimony to the difficulties that lie ahead for the dialogue process that was about to get off the ground.

But before the initiative could go anywhere, Prayut decided to pour cold water on the three demands.

He said there was no need to make the talks a national agenda because it already exists on the national agenda. But then again, just about every issue in Thailand is a "national agenda" so one wondered how important the conflict in the deep South is for this government.

Prayut shied away from the issue of immunity, probably because he wants to keep this big stick with him in case the peace process doesn't go the way he wants it to. But this is not very surprising because the junta, regardless of the issue at hand, has shown that they have difficulty understanding logic or accountability.

When pressed by reporters about the acceptance of the three points, Prayut shot back and asked if he was to grant MARA Patani these three demands, would the violence end and the conflict be resolved? This is what you call negotiation.

For the record, Prayut is not saying there will be no more talks. He is saying there has to be a new understanding between the two sides before the process can move further.

First thing is the need to establish confidence-building measures (CBMs). This is sensible. But what he didn't say is that just about every administration that comes to power, always goes back to square one with a brand new team of negotiators and its CBMs all over again.

To call it a let down would be an understatement if one looks at it from the perspective of the separatist movements.

Prayut also stated that inclusiveness is still lacking, pointing out that not all separatist movements have joined or agreed with the MARA Patani forum. Khalid's video statement is a testimony of that. And even though he did not single out MARA Patani, his statement undermined the so-called BRN representatives who had joined the umbrella organisation.

Khalid is not a non-entity. He had taken part in the peace talks launched by the Yingluck government.

Kasturi Mahkota, the president of one of the three Patani United Liberation Organisation, blasted Prayut's outburst as "unprofessional", saying official channels of communication should have been used to relay the message, not through the public microphone.

But then again, there has not been any professionalism among the Thai negotiators, whether it's this government or the previous one.

Unfortunately, Bangkok never had a policy regarding the southern conflict. It has an attitude, sometimes confusing it with good intention, but never a meaningful policy that addressed the issue of historical mistrust and grievances of the Malays of Patani and how the state and the Muslims there could overcome these differences.

Like the previous policymakers, the current crop of junta is too full of themselves and don't seem to realise that their inflated ego, as well as their ethno-centric nation-state construct, is costing the lives of their own men, as well as innocent bystanders. More than 6,000 have died from this wave of insurgency violence that has been in full swing since January 2004.

The junta and the future government of Bangkok can talk to the armed separatists all they want - even into the next life, as Prayut said he was willing to do.

But if they don't realise that their state policy of assimilation is the problem, then there is not much hope for peace.