Bangkok merely paying lip service to deep South autonomy

[webfact]

Bangkok merely paying lip service to deep South autonomy

By The Nation

 

 

Government’s refusal to recognise legitimate separate ethnic identity of southern Malays is main obstacle to peace 
 

During his recent visit to Thailand, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed suggested Thai authorities should offer the ethnic Malays of the southernmost provinces some form of autonomy to undermine separatist ideology.

 

General Udomchai Thamsarorat, Bangkok’s recently appointed chief negotiator for peace talks in the far South, was quick to remind the public that Thailand has the final say in the matter.

 

However, Udomchai granted that the issue could be broached at the next round of talks, to get a better understanding of the idea.

 

Udomchai said the government would like to hear what the rebels think about Thailand’s so-called decentralisation policy and what kind of administrative challenges they foresee.

 

The talk of autonomy is nothing new, but like everything, the devil is in the details. Thailand has never wanted to go down this route. 

 

The administration of Abhisit Vejjajiva rejected similar suggestions from the Malaysian PM at the time, Najib Razak, that autonomy be granted to the Malays in the far South.

 

The two leaders agreed that the word “decentralisation” was more appropriate for the region.

 

But this ignores the facts on the ground. Armed insurgency surfaced in the South because local Malays protested a rigid Thai policy of assimilation they said came at the expense of their religious-ethnic identity.

 

Crudely put, the state tried to turn the Malays into something they are not, a move that was rejected with violence.

 

At the core of the deep South conflict is a lack of respect for the local Patani identity and historical narrative. For many of us, especially our leaders and policymakers, giving the Malays this respect is too much to ask.

 

We would rather send young men to this historically contested region to fight against an enemy they can’t see, in a war they don’t understand.

 

Bangkok can pay endless lip service with words like “autonomy” and “decentralisation”, but no progress will be made until it acknowledges  that its policy of assimilation has been a failure.

 

It is time to think outside of the box. Too many lives have been lost in the southern violence – about 7,000 so far – and the end is still nowhere in sight.

 

When the current wave of insurgency surfaced over 14 years ago, Bangkok thought development was the solution. The government poured money into the region, although not much of it trickled down to the grassroots level.

 

When that didn’t work, authorities tried to co-opt the local elite into economic and security projects. That didn’t work either. 

 

The Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), the group that controls virtually all of the insurgent militants, was not interested in making compromises or in come to the negotiating table.

 

The BRN may not control geographical territory in the region, but one can’t deny that it has succeeded in capturing the mental space – the hearts and minds of the local grassroots community.

 

The insurgency is essentially an ethno-nationalist conflict, not a religious one. But because the combatants are Muslims, Thai authorities think they can nudge the clerics to issue a fatwah, an Islamic religious ruling, to get the BRN to halt their separatist campaign. If only it were that simple.

 

What happens when these clerics say the BRN has legitimacy to take up arms against the Thai state, to liberate their historical homeland? What do Thai authorities do then?

 

But if any clerics did issue a fatwah, declaring separatist militants are violating Islamic principles, what do the authorities think would happen to them? Do they even care?

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30361206

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-12-27

[simple1]

Thai authorities would have to update the Constitution to enable some form of autonomy for the deep South. Autonomy has previously been on the table, but the military rejected as contrary to their oath:

 

"For Nation, Religions, King and People"

 

Below is a paper developed by a senior member of the Thai military which also follows the thinking of the OP, but in more detail.

 

http://www.defence.gov.au/ADC/Publications/Shedden/2012/SheddenPapers12_120306_ConflictinThailand_Nurakkate.pdf

[impulse]

I always wonder how much of the insurgency is about history, identity and autonomy, and how much is about stopping the dipweeds from Bangkok who come with fraudulent land documents and displace the locals from land they've legally owned for generations.

 

 

[YetAnother]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

General Udomchai Thamsarorat, Bangkok’s recently appointed chief negotiator for peace talks in the far South, was quick to remind the public that Thailand has the final say in the matter.

about the level of intelligence one might expect coming from a military general; no mystery why the south of thailand is still such a mess

[cwong]

 
What happens when these clerics say the BRN has legitimacy to take up arms against the Thai state, to liberate their historical homeland? What do Thai authorities do then?
 
But if any clerics did issue a fatwah, declaring separatist militants are violating Islamic principles, what do the authorities think would happen to them? Do they even care?
 
Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30361206
  -- [emoji2398] Copyright The Nation 2018-12-27

Do like the indonesian did, captures the cleric! Assimilate the cleric, jail the troublemakers! Or make him disappear (like soeharto did) easy!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nice Boyd]

Build a Wall, Like The Trumpanzee 

[judax]

give the disputed land to Malaysia as they are the once who infiltrated Thailand with their so called religion. But than draw a new border making it clear that from here on is and will always buddist land. Philippines and Mayamar has the same problem of infiltration.

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

the devil is in the details

The Thai military is not a "detail."

It behaves like a sovereign in its own right.

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Thailand has the final say in the matter

"Thailand" as in the current junta government.

As distinguished from "Thailand" under an elected democratic government.

[Srikcir]

48 minutes ago, judax said:

give the disputed land to Malaysia as they are the once who infiltrated Thailand with their so called religion. But than draw a new border making it clear that from here on is and will always buddist land. Philippines and Mayamar has the same problem of infiltration.

Muslims of the Kingdom of Pattani did not "infiltrate" the Kingdom of Thailand.

Just the reverse.

Please read the history.

[marko kok prong]

Thailand has been very lucky so far with this,now it would not take much for a group like Isis or Al quaida to infiltrate and radiclise some of the insurgents things could then turn very nasty,look at the southern Philippines.

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

Thai authorities would have to update the Constitution to enable some form of autonomy for the deep South. Autonomy has previously been on the table, but the military rejected as contrary to their oath:

 

"For Nation, Religions, King and People"

 

Below is a paper developed by a senior member of the Thai military which also follows the thinking of the OP, but in more detail.

 

http://www.defence.gov.au/ADC/Publications/Shedden/2012/SheddenPapers12_120306_ConflictinThailand_Nurakkate.pdf

The referenced paper might be prejudiced towards emphasis to create an anti-insurgent reaction that the insurgents only desire illegal and unconstitutional succession from the Kingdom of Thailand which would become a redline for the Thai military and every Thai constitution created to date.

Since at least (if not earlier) 2013 it has been autonomy and semi-autonomy as the primary topic for peace talks. The latter clearly falls within the bounds of the Thai constitution while preserving existing economic and security benefits for the Kingdom of Thailand. Yet, even with the idea of autonomy or semi-autonomy is a Rubicon that the Thai military will not cross:

"the junta itself has yet to demonstrate any willingness to make major concessions on autonomy to the southern provinces — for instance, by making room for such compromises in the new charter."

A New Phase in Thailand's Age-Old Insurgency (Sep 1, 2016)

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/new-phase-thailands-age-old-insurgency

The resolution of the insurgency must be led by non-military, nonpartisan Thai official representatives.

In fact since PM and junta leader Prayut has declared himself both soldier and partisan (pro-military party) unelected politician, his leadership in any peace talks with the insurgents is inappropriate and almost detrimental to the peace and security of Thailand.

 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, judax said:

Philippines and Mayamar has the same problem of infiltration.

Perhaps not the best reference to support your opinion.

 

With regard to the Muslim insurgency in the Island of Mindanao in the Philippines ongoing since the 1970's (please read the history as the insurgency was not a problem of infiltration), Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in 2018 signed a law which grants expanded autonomy for the mainly Catholic nation’s Muslim south, a key step to ending one of Asia’s longest and deadliest conflicts.

• The insurgency would give up its quest for an independent homeland and lay down weapons of its 30,000 fighters in return for self-rule in the south.

http://www.omanobserver.om/duterte-signs-law-for-self-rule-to-mindanao/

 

The Philippines' resolution of the thirty-year Muslim insurgency supported by two successive elected presidents might serve as a template for Thailand's own southern Muslim insurgency. I'm sure Malaysia would support a similar resolution. It might even be productive to enjoin Philippines' expertise in any Thailand peace talks between the insurgents and Malaysia.

[Stocky]

10 hours ago, simple1 said:

Thai authorities would have to update the Constitution to enable some form of autonomy for the deep South. Autonomy has previously been on the table, but the military rejected as contrary to their oath:

 

"For Nation, Religions, King and People"

 

Below is a paper developed by a senior member of the Thai military which also follows the thinking of the OP, but in more detail.

 

http://www.defence.gov.au/ADC/Publications/Shedden/2012/SheddenPapers12_120306_ConflictinThailand_Nurakkate.pdf

There was an attempt early on in the uprising, the National Reconciliation Commission report in 2006 was widely accepted both by Thaksin's government and by the people in the south, but was rejected by the Privy Council. The main stumbling block was the recommendation that the local language Jawi (Bahasa Thai) be accepted as 'a working language in the region' the Privy Council asserted that "The country is Thai and the language is Thai" ~ end of discussions. 

 

The opinion piece is correct in saying "no progress will be made until it (the Government) acknowledges that its policy of assimilation has been a failure".  To progress there needs to be an acceptance that the Patani States have a different history, ethnic, religious and cultural background, including its own language.

 

.

[yellowboat]

15 hours ago, webfact said:

The government poured money into the region, although not much of it trickled down to the grassroots level.

Does it ever?  The grand hooha asked that journalists not to print anything that speaks to his inability to lead Thailand, as it might hurt the country financially.  For whom?  The wealthy one would guess as they are the only ones that matter as they almost own the country outright. 

 

15 hours ago, webfact said:

When that didn’t work, authorities tried to co-opt the local elite into economic and security projects. That didn’t work either. 

Love those rich people.  Sure the BRN is not as enamored by wealth as much as those in Bangkok. 

 

9 hours ago, Srikcir said:

The Thai military is not a "detail."

It behaves like a sovereign in its own right.

It is not abundantly clear to whom they listen.