Thailand, BRN Rebels Open New Chapter in Southern Peace Process

Commentary by Don Pathan
BenarNews

Bangkok

The Thai government, after nearly 15 years of trying, has finally succeeded in getting the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) southern rebel group to the negotiations table.

Thai negotiators and members of the foreign affairs committee of BRN, the long-standing Patani Malay armed separatist movement that controls virtually all of the insurgents in the field, met in Kuala Lumpur last month to officially announce the start of direct peace talks.

Unlike past peace initiatives in Thailand’s Deep South, this meeting was mandated by BRN’s Dewan Pimpinan Parti (DPP), the movement’s secretive ruling council of elders who function more like spiritual leaders than military commanders.

Anas Abdulrahman (also known as Hipni Mareh), a former teacher at the Thammawitaya Mulinithi School in Yala province, led the BRN delegates at the Kuala Lumpur meeting. That was the same school where the late Sapae-ing Baso – the man whom Thai officials believed to be the insurgent group’s spiritual leader – served as principal before he fled in 2004 to escape arrest.

Hipni was arrested then along with seven other religious teachers. All were granted bail in 2007 as part of the then-military-government’s efforts to win hearts and minds. Hipni jumped bail, slipped across the border into Malaysia, and only made his first general public appearance at a press conference that followed the meeting in Kuala Lumpur in late January.

But in spite of DPP’s endorsement, a meaningful peace process is still a long way away.

BRN’s chain of command is fluid and its command-and-control untested. The movement’s mystique – its talk of independence and equating that to a moral duty – has helped keep hope alive to a certain extent.

The loyalty of its fighters lies mainly with their respective field commanders, not the movement. Such an arrangement is a recipe for a breakup if there are disagreements over major changes in policy or strategy.

Critical phase

Indeed, the next few weeks will be crucial as BRN leaders try to create an understanding with their field commanders about the latest decision, arguably the most important one since the decades-old insurgency in Thailand’s far south reignited 16 years ago.

Artef Sohko, the chairman of The Patani, a local political action group promoting the right to self-determination for the mainly Muslim and Malay-speaking southern border region, said BRN should have come up with a new narrative before taking part at last month’s meeting.

For more than a decade, the BRN has equated the notion of independence for the Patani people to a moral obligation.

“It doesn’t look like this is still the case now. And how would they explain [that] to the combatants on the ground?” Artef said.

At the press conference that marked the close of the first official meeting, Hipni painted a rosy picture of how the two sides – Thailand and the BRN – had always committed to peace and that they had been conducting a series of back-channel talks over the years while the official track of negotiations came to a standstill.

But the recent past tells a very different story.

Hipni conveniently overlooked the series of major violent incidents, including some deadly ones that BRN operatives had carried out to derail the various peace efforts and counter Thailand’s effort to get the group’s hardline leaders to the table. This was as recent as the Aug. 2, 2019, bombings that rocked Bangkok as Thailand hosted a meeting foreign ministers from ASEAN states and other countries.

According to sources on both sides of the political divide, the bombings were a stern warning to Thais and Malaysian facilitators to stop harassing the DPP to come to the table.

A similar message was conveyed in January 2019 when militants in Narathiwat province killed two Buddhist monks at a temple and four custodians of a public school, as well as a retired teacher in nearby Songkhla province.

Shinawatra peace initiative

BRN has never taken the idea of face-to-face talks with the Thais lightly.

Such a harsh stance was demonstrated as far back as March 30, 2012, when three car bombs exploded at the same time on a street in Yala province.

Tripple car bomb in the heart of Yala on March 31, 2012, a deadly warning to the Yingluck Government. 

A bomb also went off in the basement parking lot at a shopping mall in Hat Yai, a commercial hub of the Deep South that sits just north of the conflict-affected areas. Altogether, 13 died and about 200 were wounded on that dreadful day.

The incident came two weeks after 16 exiled Patani separatist leaders met with deposed and fugitive former Thai leader Thaksin Shinawatra, the brother of then-Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra.

BRN felt insulted by Thaksin’s excuses; he had blamed his heavy-handed counter-insurgency strategy as prime minister on the Thai army, accusing it of feeding him distorted information. He urged all sides to let bygones be bygones and move on with a peace process.

Besides the deadly message from the BRN – not to mention that there was no buy-in from the Thai army – Yingluck pushed through her brother’s initiative by launching a peace process in February 2013, with Malaysia designated as the official facilitator.

Representatives from the rebel side included self-proclaimed BRN members, like Hassan Bin Toyib, who the Thai security apparatus wrongly assumed was a BRN insider who had come to the table with the DPP’s full blessing.

BRN’s ruling council did send a couple of people to the talks. They included Adam Muhammed Nur, its then foreign affairs chief, and Abdul Karim Khalid, a leading member of the youth wing. The two were there to derail the process.

The Thai army didn’t care if Yingluck’s peace initiative succeeded or failed; after all, it wasn’t part of the talks’ inception and planning. Neither was the BRN, for that matter.

The following year, in May 2014, the army ousted Yingluck’s government in a bloodless coup. The generals then thought long and hard about what to do with her peace initiative. Not wanting to be seen as a bunch of non-peace loving military brass, the junta set up a multi-agency Peace Dialogue Panel with the National Security Council being the engine.

The military government’s peace initiative was to be “inclusive,” which was something different from Yingluck’s dealings with the BRN – at least in name.

But the new approach proved counterproductive. It provided BRN with an excuse to reject Bangkok’s peace process on the grounds that none of the participants, particularly those sitting on MARA Patani, an umbrella group representing various rebel factions in the talks, had much influence over militants in the field.

For the time being, the status quo is likely to continue between the two sides. The BRN combatants will carry on with their campaign of violence.

Bangkok, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to be prepared to make any meaningful concessions, even though discussions among policy people are touching on important issues, such as making more room for the Patani Malay people’s cultural space and historical narrative.

Don Pathan is a Thailand-based security analyst. The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and not of BenarNews.

Thailand Takes Rare Step by Charging 2 Troops with Murder in Deep South

Commentary by Don Pathan
BenarNews
Yala, Thailand

Authorities in Thailand’s Deep South undertook a rare move by charging two troops with murder in the killings of three unarmed woodcutters, and conceding that soldiers mistook the civilians for insurgents hiding out atop a mountain in Narathiwat province.

It’s not very often that the Thai army admits to committing mistakes with deadly consequences in its counter-insurgency operations in the far south. But in the wake of the Dec. 16 killings, the military came out with a different kind of message.

When extrajudicial killings took place in the past under questionable circumstances, authorities would opt to buy more time and tell the public the case was under investigation.

Past practices also showed that militants from the National Revolutionary Front (BRN), the main southern separatist rebel group National Revolutionary Front (BRN), would retaliate – and often ferociously – when they deemed that “ground rules” in the conflict had been violated.

The BRN would go beyond the usual roadside bombings often followed by a brief gunfight with government forces, by carrying out coordinated and organized attacks as a form of retaliation.

Like in all insurgencies, violence is a form of communicative action.

In the context of Thailand’s Deep South, the communication over the past 15 years has been between militant separatists under the leadership of BRN and the Thai security forces, made up of police, soldiers and paramilitaries.

As the BRN sees it, armed civilians including village chiefs and defense volunteers – all of whom fall under the Ministry of Interior’s chain of command – are legitimate targets when they cross a red line by becoming part of the government’s security apparatus, and/or spying for the state.

The killings of 15 mostly armed village officials in Yala province during a twin attack by suspected insurgents on two security posts in early November was a case in point.

But Dec. 16 incident on a mountain top in Narathiwat that resulted in the deaths of three young men begged the question: why has the BRN so far not retaliated this time around?

“The mood on the ground calls for retaliation but it appears that the BRN is showing restraint. The Thai army, on the other hand, is reciprocating the BRN’s restraint by taking a moral high ground on this incident,” said Asmadee Bueheng, the communications director from The Patani, a political action group that closely monitors the conflict and advocates for the right to self-determination for local Malay Muslims.

Artef Sohko, a prominent political activist in the region who chairs The Patani, said: “The villagers have made some progress with the authorities, and the BRN may not want to carry out retaliation for fear that it could jeopardize whatever agreement the state agencies and the relatives have achieved.”

At first, the initial report from the military unit to the regional commander, Lt. Gen. Pornsak Poolsawat, said the soldiers came across a group of loggers in a restricted area and instructed them to identify themselves and be subjected to a search.

Around the same time, three to four gunshots were heard in the immediate area and the woodcutters ran.

Some of the woodcutters who fled the scene but survived the shooting are keeping quiet and not talking to reporters. It was not clear if they had reached a deal with the authorities, or they worried for their own safety or did not want to complicate the matter while the two sides negotiate a settlement.

Asmadee said authorities could have clung to their narrative because they were no witnesses, except for loggers who fled the scene and lived.

But they didn’t.

Instead, Thai Army Chief Gen. Apirat Kongsompong expressed regrets over the deaths of the three young men and vowed to take legal and disciplinary actions. He suggested that the security forces needed to improve their understanding of the rules of engagement.

Moreover, Lt. Gen. Pornsak no longer lends credence to the initial report about a possible gunfight at the scene of the deadly shootings on the mountain.

Observers said the army chief was trying to win the hearts and minds of the local people who had overwhelmingly voted for the opposition parties at the last General Election, in March 2019. Compared with other regions, Thailand’s Malay-speaking South had the highest voter turnout.

In some ways, faith in Thailand’s parliamentary politics was somewhat restored. But the fact that a majority of locals voted for the opposition who had campaigned on an anti-military platform means the current administration is resting on shaky ground.

Expressing regret and vowing to take legal action against soldiers who allegedly took part in killing the loggers will not be a game-changer for the conflict in the far south. But, nevertheless, it is the correct path to take if Thailand is to succeed in winning hearts and minds of the local Malays.

Don Pathan is a Thailand-based security analyst. The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and not of BenarNews.

https://www.benarnews.org/english/commentaries/far-south-view/Pathan-civilians-killed-12302019162612.html

https://www.benarnews.org/thai/commentary/TH-pathan-deepsouth-12302019143415.html (Thai)

Thai Negotiator Looks to Involve All Rebel Groups in Southern Peace Talks

Commentary by Don Pathan
BenarNews
Bangkok

Thailand’s new chief negotiator in peace talks with Deep South rebels expressed his determination to end the long-running separatist conflict in the border region as he introduced himself and his team to the international community last week.

Wanlop Rugsanaoh did not name Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), the Patani Malay insurgent group that controls virtually all of the combatants on the rebel side. But his team intended to talk to all the armed separatist groups, especially those that could influence the situation in the field, the retired army general and former National Security Council chief said during a press conference Friday in Bangkok.

Left to Right: HRW's Sunai Phasuk, Gen. Wanlop Rugsanaoh, Gen. Chinawat Mandate, and Don Pathan

Engaging in a peace process with the southern rebels was part of a national agenda, Wanlop told reporters. The tone of his remarks contrasted with recent comments by the Thai army chief, Gen. Apirat Kongsompong, and other government officials on how Bangkok should handle the conflict in the far south.

The negotiator spoke about the importance of human dignity, compromise and respecting differences as he outlined his approach to the new job, while Apirat had talked tough by suggesting that the southern rebels must be crushed by any necessary means.

The current wave of insurgency-related violence in Thailand’s southernmost border provinces, whose population is mainly Muslim and Malay-speaking, erupted in early 2004 and has claimed more than 7,000 lives.

Peace initiatives have since come and gone but nothing seems to work because the most important separatist group of all, the BRN, has refused to join the talks.

“We can first learn from the past roles and lessons on why the talks failed. The best way is to meet the right man so that we fix the trouble correctly,” said Thanakorn Buaras, head of the National Intelligence Agency, one of four panelists who appeared at Friday’s press conference at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand.

That said, peace initiatives in the Deep South over the past 15 years have been a trial-and-error process.

From the Langkawi Process to the Berlin initiative, the Thai government and the Patani Malay rebels have come face to face in various cities in Southeast Asia and Europe.

Many of these discussions have been kept off the public’s radar screen. And to play it safe, people involved with these peace initiatives often bill them as “pre-talks.”

Peace initiatives gone by

One reason that none of the peace initiatives have gained traction is that the Thai side is not willing to make any concessions.

Of course, there was a launch of talks in February 2013 by the government of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, when Bangkok gave Kuala Lumpur a mandate to “facilitate” the efforts.

The Yingluck initiative generated a great deal of excitement. It marked the first time a Thai government had stated publicly that it would talk to the rebels and resolve the conflict through political means.

But it didn’t take long to realize that Yingluck’s initiative was something between a hoax and a big leap of faith. First of all, the entire inception process was carried out without the knowledge of the Thai military or the participation of the BRN. In short, it was doomed to fail from the start.

A coup toppled Yingluck in May 2014, after which a military government reluctantly resumed the talks. Gen. Aksara Kerdpol, retired army chief of staff, was appointed as the chief Thai negotiator and Malaysia resumed its role as official facilitator.

Kuala Lumpur helped put together an umbrella organization made up of longstanding separatist movements, some of which surfaced during the previous wave of insurgency in the 1960s but went under in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The Patani's Hakim Pongtikor and Gen. Wanlop at the FCCT.

As with Yingluck’s initiative, MARA Patani lacked the participation of BRN leaders who controlled the group’s fighters. The BRN didn’t see it as a credible process.

In late 2018, Aksara was replaced by Gen. Udomchai Thamsarorat, another retired general who spent much of his professional career in the Fourth Army Area, the command that oversees the Deep South.

One of his first orders of business was to drop Aksara’s Safety Zone pilot project. He knew MARA Patani could not deliver on its ceasefire component, because they didn’t control the insurgents, and BRN, the group that did, was not about to support something that would enhance the legitimacy of another group without getting anything in return.

Udomchai, from the start, reached out to as many people as he could, including members of the international community, to seek advice on how to advance the talks.

Udomchai’s decision to request help from a foreign NGO to reach out to the BRN’s ruling council irked some officials in the Malaysian facilitation secretariat because they had not been consulted and, therefore, this was seen as a violation of protocol.

The Thai government likes to point out that the number of violent incidents in the Deep South has dropped dramatically, compared to a peak in 2007.

But the BRN has demonstrated that they can crank up the violence in the Deep South at any time. This was the case with the killings of two Buddhist monks and five public school employees in January this year. More recently, twin attacks in early November killed 15 people, mostly village defense volunteers and police, in Lam Phaya, a sub-district of Yala province.

The ground rule in Thailand’s far south is that the local officials are to be left alone if they do not cross the line to become part of the government’s security apparatus. It was not clear what line, if any, the 15 victims in Lam Phaya had crossed.

Don Pathan is a Thailand-based security analyst. The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and not of BenarNews.

https://www.benarnews.org/english/commentaries/far-south-view/Don-Pathan-peace-talks-12032019095130.html?fbclid=IwAR2oIcg_n8bgY97gCLdiXxwDF38Zc400OMCVUuT6_tgc3xNQId4UJwYnxik

Future Forward’s Inroads in Thai Deep South Alarm Military, BRN

Commentary by Don Pathan
BenarNews
Bangkok

ShareCommentEmailFuture Forward Party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit (center), poses for a photo with people at a market in the Deep South province of Narathiwat, Sept. 13, 2019. (AFP)

Six months after the general election, Thailand is still trying to come to terms with the shock and awe brought upon the pro-military political establishment by democratic forces.

Among these was the newcomer Future Forward Party (FFP), which struck a nerve with the armed forces by calling for a constitutional amendment and military reform.

FFP also said the army should pull out of the Deep South, where a 15-year-old separatist insurgency has claimed more than 7,000 lives, according to figures provided by researchers from Prince of Songkhla University – Pattani Campus.

In so doing – and in demanding accountability for questionable counter-insurgency tactics and alleged torture of suspected insurgents – FFP succeeded in connecting with Malay Muslims in the Deep South.

Turnout at the recent election jolted the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), the one long-standing separatist group controlling virtually all combatants on the ground.

According to sources in the movement, in the period leading up to the March 2019 vote, there was discussions among local cell leaders about boycotting it.

But the idea did not evolve into a full-fledged campaign like the August 2016 drive by BRN calling on locals to vote “no” on the referendum on the Constitution drafted by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), as the junta called itself.

The referendum passed by a slim margin nationally, but the Muslim-majority Deep South strongly rejected it.

Some voters destroyed the ballot by scribbling on it. Villagers were even urged to write “Merdeka,” or “independence” on their ballot – but many feared that making such a bold statement could come back to haunt them.

Indeed, although 15 years have passed since this second wave of insurgency surfaced in the Deep South, frank and honest discussion about how the local population truly feels about self-determination is still a thing of the future. Voting “no” or destroying the ballot was the locals’ way of expressing their disagreement with the state.

A different story

But the 2019 general election tells a different story. The fact that the Muslim-majority Deep South had the highest voter turnout in the country irked the BRN.

The FFP did not win any of 13 parliamentary seats in the Deep South but earned almost three times the 30,000 votes they were expecting.

FFP’s leader, Thanathorn Jungroongruangkit, made at least four visits to the region during the campaign, generating excitement. Village boys in sarongs flocked to get a glimpse of him.

Others lined up for selfies with the leader of this start-up party that, in the view of many, helped restore faith in Thailand’s parliamentarian politics among Malay Muslims in the region.

It was a faith that pretty much disappeared following the October 2004 Tak Bai incident, when 78 demonstrators suffocated after being stacked on the back of military transport trucks.

Upset at the refusal of the Wadah faction – local Muslim parliamentarians – to speak out against the then-government, of which they were a key coalition partner, local Malays would not vote for them in the Parliament.

At the last general election, the Wadah rebranded itself, formed a party of its own and promoted greater Malay cultural space in the context of multiculturalism.

But for young voters in the region, it was FFP’s relentless assault on the military that attracted their support. Never mind that FFP was courting LGBTs and calling for gender equality – issues that don’t resonate with the conservative Deep South. Malay Muslims in the region still saw common ground.

BRN members were dumbstruck by the high voter turnout, and forced to go back to the drawing board and to contemplate what it meant for them as a “liberating force.”

Meanwhile, post-election, local politicians from various parties came together to form an ad-hoc caucus to advance the grievances of the local Muslim population.

‘Hybrid warfare’

Thailand’s powerful army chief, Gen. Apirat Kongsompong, is also frustrated at the outcome of the general election.

Unlike the BRN, Apirat took his message straight to the new wave of young politicians and the people who support them. During a recent gathering that was more like a one-man political rally, Apirat said Thailand was facing “hybrid warfare” orchestrated by “ill-intentioned politicians.”

Apirat did not mention by name the FFP leader, but the public and participants at the army conference hall understood that the message was directed at Thanathorn.

Apirat also went on at great length about the Patani conflict, saying he had lost friends and colleagues in the fight, as he hit back at Army critics.

He pointed to the spate of bomb attacks in Bangkok on Aug. 2 that was allegedly carried out by young men from the Malay-speaking Deep South. He did not blame the BRN, but suggested the masterminds were the same “ill-intentioned” people.

Most Thai security officials believe the culprits behind the attacks were BRN members and that it was the movement’s way of sending a stern warning to Bangkok to stop pressuring their leaders to come to the negotiating table.

Don Pathan is a Thailand-based security and development consultant. The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and not of BenarNews.
_______________

https://www.benarnews.org/english/commentaries/far-south-view/party-inroads-10172019141435.html

https://www.benarnews.org/thai/commentary/TH-Pathan-politics-DeepSouth-10172019182439.html

Pompeo to ASEAN: The U.S. Is Committed

By Don Pathan

U.S. secretary of state Mike Pompeo came to the 52nd annual ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Bangkok with one message in mind: that America is committed to engagement with the region, and with Thailand, a treaty ally, in particular.

Speaking to a packed house at the Siam Society on August 1, in the heart of Bangkok, Pompeo said the United States cherishes its 200-year relationship with Thailand, although America has sometimes appeared to forget the importance of these bilateral ties, and others, “who don’t have our mutual best interests at heart,” have attempted to exploit the situation when the relationship seemed to cool.

U.S. secretary of state Michael R. Pompeo delivers a speech,”The U.S. in Asia: Economic Engagement for Good,” in Bangkok, Thailand, on August 2, 2019. Photo: Ron Przysucha / U.S. State Department.

Though Pompeo did not mention China by name, Beijing was on many people’s minds during the week-long meeting. In the last five years, under the military government of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha, Thailand has turned to China for military hardware, including submarines and armored personnel carriers. But Kavi Chongkittavorn, a senior fellow at the Institute of Security and International Studies, a Thai think tank, says Thailand was merely looking after itself. “In reality, Thailand is for Thailand,” Kavi said.

Moreover, if the past five years saw a boost in Thai-Chinese defense ties, a retrenchment may be imminent. According to recent reports, the United States has just approved the sale of 60 Stryker armored personnel carriers to Thailand. Although this is just a fraction of what Thailand spent on Chinese military hardware, said Kavi, it makes Thailand the first non-U.S. user of the wheeled infantry vehicles.

While the United States condemned Thailand’s 2014 military coup and halted U.S. military aid to the Prayut government, Washington has been seeking warmer ties with Bangkok since as far back as February 2016, when President Barack Obama met Prayut on the side of an ASEAN summit in California. Prayut also visited President Donald Trump in the Oval Office in October 2017. General elections in March returned Prayut as the country’s prime minister, and in his speech Pompeo commended “our Thai friends for returning to the democratic fold.”

Pompeo held a brief side meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Both played down the rift between the two countries, with Wang describing the meeting as “deep communication” that “helped to increase our mutual understanding,” while Pompeo stated, “when it advances U.S. interests, we are ready to cooperate with China.”

Although Pompeo did not call on Thailand or other Southeast Asian nations to pick sides, insisting that U.S. engagement in the region is not a “zero-sum game,” he urged Australia, where he travelled from Bangkok, to stand up to what he considered to be China’s unfair trade practices and its militarization of the South China Sea.

Photo: Ron Przysucha / U.S. State Department.

Southeast Asia’s growing prosperity was not preordained, he said; it came about because of political freedom and free trade, and he reminded the audience that key shipping lanes in the Indo-Pacific region are protected by American sailors. “We want a free and open Indo-Pacific that’s marked by the core tenets of the rule of law, of openness, of transparency, of good governance, of respect for sovereignty of each and every nation, true partnerships,” Pompeo said.

Speaking at the Siam Society, Pompeo stressed the compatibility between American principles and Asian prosperity and pointed to the “solid partnership” with Thailand as a win-win proposition. He cited a working-class Thai couple who in 2006 transformed their small chicken farm into an enterprise that generates $78,000 monthly after they partnered with Cargill, an American company that has been in Thailand since 1968.

“[Cargill] worked with the family to improve productivity, to improve efficiency, to help them with management techniques. That partnership with America worked out pretty darn well,” Pompeo said. “And when they’re ready to grow further, they know they have a solid partner in that great American business.”

The formula is simple, said Pompeo: “property rights, the rule of law, lower taxes, an overall lighter touch from government regulation.” Governments in the region may have been instrumental in creating “national champion” companies, he argued, but state-led growth can only go so far, “because in the end, human flourishing only really blossoms when governments step back.”

That formula, said Pompeo, has created homegrown giants like Samsung, Honda, Taiwan Semiconductor, Mahindra & Mahindra, and many others. “And the United States was there. It was there with you all the way, and it will be, helping you grow and forging ever-closer ties. We built APEC, we built ASEAN and the Lower Mekong Initiative, and we did so with you, alongside of you,” Pompeo said.

“Importantly, too, we invested in your human capital. Our educational programs and universities have nurtured thousands of Asian leaders for decades, from local leaders to heads of state,” he added.

Pompeo said more than 4,200 American companies operate within ASEAN, investing over a trillion dollars in the region. “There is no other country anywhere that even comes close.”

But for former Thai ambassador Kobsak Chutikul, the specific details of U.S. investments in Thailand and the region did not bring greater clarity on America’s Indo-Pacific strategy. “Is it to be a new web of economic and trading arrangements, a defense-oriented alliance system, or a loose network of like-minded partners to counter the rise of China? And does the situation call for a Cold War clarity and new architecture?” Kobsak asked.

Kobsak said there was widespread uneasiness in the region, as reflected in the series of bilateral meetings on the sidelines in Bangkok between ministers who were trying to address new and ongoing bilateral disputes. “Deep down, people in the region quietly admire President Trump for standing up forcefully to China. But at the same time, they are not sure about the strength of American commitment to other countries that might choose to openly stand with the U.S.”

Pompeo’s visit to Bangkok came on the day that President Trump announced a new 10 percent tariff on an additional $300 billion worth of Chinese imports, adding to the existing 25 percent tariff on $250 billion of imports already in effect.

U.S. secretary of state Michael R. Pompeo meets with Thai foreign minister Don Pramudwinai at the Centara Grand in Bangkok, Thailand on August 1, 2019. Photo: Ron Przysucha / U.S. State Department.

During the question-and-answer session with Bloomberg’s Haslinda Amin, Pompeo urged China to return to an earlier agreement that he believes could provide the basis for a settlement between the two sides. “We want fairness, evenness, reciprocity. These are core concepts. They’re what I spoke about. And when that happens, Asia will thrive, Southeast Asia will thrive, the United States global trading system will thrive,” Pompeo said. “But it cannot be the case that a nation uses protectionism to protect its own goods and uses predatory tactics to deny others’ economies the chances to grow,” he added.

Pompeo praised China for its role in trying to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program and dismissed suggestions that Washington has not been tough enough on Pyongyang. He expressed “regret” that his North Korean counterpart did not attend the annual ASEAN meetings in Bangkok, but he said he was optimistic at the possibility of fresh discussions in the future.

Participants at the Siam Society event included members of the diplomatic community and business leaders. Most noticeable was a group of alumni from the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative, a U.S.-funded project that promotes civic engagement and education for youth from the region.

Don Pathan is senior program officer for regional security cooperation for The Asia Foundation in Thailand. He can be reached at don.pathan@asiafoundation.org. The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author, not those of The Asia Foundation.

https://asiafoundation.org/2019/08/14/pompeo-to-asean-the-u-s-is-committed/

South talks to start again

PM EXPECTED TO MAKE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS A TOP PRIORITY

By DON PATHAN

SPECIAL TO THE NATION

THE PEACE process in the Muslim-majority deep South is poised to resume after a long pause for the March general election, not to mention a couple of stumbles by the two negotiating parties – the state Peace Dialogue Panel and MARA Patani, an umbrella organisation of six long-standing Patani Malay separatist movements.

Bangkok wants to keep the talks in confidence-building mode, while MARA Patani wants to shift gear, institutionalise the process and ink whatever achievements and agreements the two sides have made. Peace talks came to a halt as Thailand prepared for the general election.

Now, with General Prayut Chan-o-cha re-appointed as prime minister, the conflict in the deep South is expected to be among the government’s top priorities. The current debate among security circles is whether General Udomchai Thamsarorat, Thailand’s chief negotiator, will continue to head the Peace Dialogue Panel now that he has become a senator.

Some believe it should not matter as chief negotiator is an unpaid position and the panel is ad hoc in nature with representatives from various agencies and ministries. Udomchai was appointed to the peace panel in October last year, replacing General Aksara Kherdpol. He immediately reached out to members of the international community and local civil-society organisations (CSOs).

He expressed hope that they could act as an interlocutor between the Thai government and Patani-Malay separatist movements, namely the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), the one long-standing separatist group that controls virtually all the militants but has refused to take part in peace talks. These efforts by Udomchai to explore avenues outside the formal Track 1 process had irked MARA Patani whose chief negotiator, Shukri Hari, in February issued a statement calling on the Thai government to replace him.

Just a month ago, Shukri resigned from his position citing health reasons. Malaysia’s facilitator Abdul Rahim Noor, during a recent visit to the far South, told Thai reporters that the talks would be back on track in about two weeks. But it is not clear what kind of agenda they will pursue.

Udomchai had already removed from the table the pilot project for a Safety Zone plus ceasefire component, in favour of direct engagement with the BRN. The BRN has issued several demands over the years, including the release of all those locked up on insurgency-related charges, the participation of international mediators and observers for the talks, as well as gaining Parliament’s stamp to make the talks a national agenda.

Observers note there are difficulties – political as well as legal – for the Thai government to meet any of these demands. But discussions on how to move the peace initiative forward have always been daunting for the government.

Furthermore, getting the BRN to negotiate is made difficult by the movement’s unbending commitment to southern independence. In other words, the BRN can’t be seen as making any concessions or compromises.

But that doesn’t mean negotiations or dialogue between the two sides is a lost cause.  It does mean, though, that Malaysia has to be more creative in facilitating contact, coming up with ideas that can move the peace initiative forward.

Bangkok meanwhile may have to come up with unilateral initiatives that will have a positive impact on the mindset and attitude of BRN leaders. 

The need to think outside the box was perhaps the reason behind the recent visit to the conflict-ridden area by Malaysia’s facilitator, Rahim Noor, who met with military and religious leaders, as well as academics, to exchange views and thoughts on the conflict.

Furthermore, there have been talks among Thai security planners about incentives for combatants to surrender in exchange for some form of amnesty. How this will play out in real terms remains to be seen.
---------------------------
Don Pathan is a former Regional Desk editor at The Nation and currently the senior programme officer at the Asia Foundation working on regional security cooperation.

A new and brutal wave of insurgency looms in the deep South

By Don Pathan
Special to The Nation

YALA, Thailand

Efforts to introduce humanitarian principles to separatist combatants in Thailand’s Malay-speaking far South have hit trouble, with the younger generation of fighters questioning the merit of these ideas.

According to political activists behind the efforts, a growing number of young separatist fighters appear more interested in humiliating Thailand’s security apparatus and believe that attacking non-military targets is an effective way to do so. 

They also vowed that insurgents would continue to hit “legitimate” military targets, but with greater intensity to inflict higher psychological impact.  The vast majority of separatist combatants understand the need to embrace norms of civility in the conflict but the few hardliners who promote brutality appear to be gaining traction, the activists said.

The combatants in the southernmost provinces operate under the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), but the movement’s control over them is extremely fluid and untested.  Decisions on attacks and targets are made at the cell level with information shared on a need-to-know basis. Simultaneous attacks, of course, require the participation of more than one cell, but these are rare.

Loose ground rules dictate that religious figures, women, and children are not to be targeted. But nothing is written in stone and there exists no negotiated text between the security forces and the rebels. Perceived violations of the loose rules have provoked vicious responses from the insurgents’ side.

Early this year, a string of “soft” targets were hit, spurring talk that insurgents had adopted a “new normal” of attacking non-military targets – including civilians. January saw four school guards shot dead, a retired teacher hanged outside his Songkhla home and his vehicle used for car bomb, and two Buddhist monks killed in a shooting in Narathiwat.

Youth activists believe the absence of meaningful dialogue between the government and stakeholders, including the BRN, is partly to blame for the rise in brutality. If the two sides could communicate, they might at least agree on the rules of engagement, the activists said. Instead, the Thai government was too busy trying to occupy the moral high ground, ignoring issues such as international humanitarian law (IHL), that could help bring some degree of civility and predictability to the conflict. 

In fact, some senior military officers in the far South believe the introduction of IHL would legitimise the separatist conflict. With that legitimacy, members of the international community could interfere in what Thailand considered internal affairs, several military officers said. Besides meaningful communication between Bangkok and the BRN leadership, there is more that could be done to help the movement’s leaders understand international norms and humanitarian principles. 

BRN operatives said their leaders are afraid to surface because they feel the atmosphere is not conducive for negotiation. They cite the ongoing political crisis, the lack of unity and continuity on the Thai side of negotiations and the absence of legal and political protections that would offer a “safe space” for rebels. The BRN believes the international community can offer them this safety, but Bangkok has never been interested in permitting outside participation, much less mediation. 

There is also longstanding bitterness among the BRN leaders. In a statement released on March 13 to commemorate the movement’s founding 60 years ago, BRN said their historic homeland of Patani had been “abandoned by the world” and the “suffering” of its people has been ignored. Historical background A full-fledged armed insurgency in the far South surfaced in the early 1960s before dying down in the 1980s. A new generation of fighters surfaced in late 2001 but the conflict intensified after more than 350 military-grade weapons were stolen in a raid on an Army camp on January 4, 2004.  While the separatist insurgency has always been fuelled by ethno-nationalist motives, radical ideas creep in every now and then.

A decade ago, there was the talk among separatist militants of expanding the range of “legitimate targets” and also denying Islamic burials to Muslims who found themselves targeted.  This period, in 2006-07, saw a rise in brutality with the bodies of Thai soldiers beheaded and castrated and corpses set on fire. It also saw 140 arson attacks on public schools, many burnt to the ground. But the brutal excesses practically ended the following year after local activists and clerics spoke out against the vicious tactics, citing Islamic law and principles as a guide for rules of engagement. Separatist militants admitted it was the thought of losing public support that put a stop to the brutality. 

Today, however, the restless young generation of fighters are less likely to heed the advice of ordinary villagers and grassroots leaders. There is a dangerous sense of frustration with the unchanging status quo among the combatants, who see no disadvantage in committing acts of violence that aggravate the situation. 

Longstanding traditions and restrictions that helped shape the unofficial rules of engagement in this conflict may now be making way for more brutal tactics. – Special to The Nation, YalaDon Pathan is a Thailand-based security and development consultant for international organisations, and a founding member of the Patani Forum (www.pataniforum.com), a civil society organisation dedicated to a critical discussion on the conflict in Thailand’s far South. 

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30367579