Insular Attitude Will Not End Political Conflict In Thailand's South

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Insular attitude will not end the southern conflict

By The Nation

The government should be more receptive to the idea of a third-party mediator in the troubled region

In spite of giving the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) the cold shoulder on the idea of having the 56-member state body take a mediation role in the conflict in the deep South, there were, nevertheless, some positive elements in Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya's recent statement on the issue.

Kasit said the government was optimistic about meetings between members of the long-standing separatist groups and the OIC's top officials, and expressed hope the dialogue would contribute toward bringing peace and order to the deep South. But, he added, the conflict in Thailand's three southernmost provinces is essentially a domestic matter. Outsiders can offer help but they cannot be the referees.

One positive gesture was Kasit's reference to the exiled Malay separatist leaders of Patani as "Thai citizens who know the Thai language." Kasit got half it half-right. While most of these exiled leaders are technically Thai citizens, few can speak good enough Thai to buy fresh vegetables in the market.

In some respects the Malays of Patani are more "Thai" than many other Thai citizens. They were living on their land generations before the grandparents of many of our policy-makers and business elite obtained their Thai citizenship. This country is, after all, a melting pot of many peoples who embrace the concept of "Thainess" and who assimilate into our society.

But we often lose sight of what we really are. This idea of "Thainess" has its limitations. Former prime minister Anand Panyarachun understood this point very well. During his first day chairing the National Reconciliation Commission, set up to help find solutions to the on going political rift, Anand asked openly if "anybody in this room is 100 per cent Thai".

"I'm the son of a jek," Anand went on to say, using an impolite term in reference to ethnic Chinese to make his point. Members of the NRC said they were moved by Anand's statement.

But what happens when this "Thainess" does not appeal to a certain group of people whom the state attempts to foist it upon - namely the Malays of Patani? How have we branded them, or rebranded them? Do we bother to ask what are the reasons for their opposition to this categorisation? Do we take their grievances seriously? Or do we just view them as ungrateful people who not only have been taught a "distorted history" and embrace the "wrong Islam" but are unable to find it in their hearts to appreciate the good things the Thai state has given them.

It is strange how we have failed to recognise the extent of our arrogance. Here is a nominally Buddhist country telling a Muslim population in the deep South that they are embracing the wrong kind of religious teaching when they refuse to embrace our nation-state and its constructed identity. The historical narratives of central Thailand - the default identity of the country - are full of half-baked heroes and heroines that the Malays of Patani could not care less about.

In the past, successive governments have rejected the possibility when confronted publicly about the idea of talking to the enemy. They have also rejected the idea of a third-party mediator playing a role in conflict resolution. Kasit, on the other hand, appears to be giving consideration to outsiders playing some possible role, as long as they don't become central mediators in this ongoing conflict. Let's hope it wasn't just a spontaneous reaction because there is a great deal we can learn from others.

With 4,200 deaths in the deep South since January 2004, perhaps it's time for our policy-makers, especially those in the security circle, to open up to new ideas. After all, whatever approach the government and security apparatus have taken so far in the South has failed to deliver the desired outcome. Let's hope their bruised egos are not more important than the lives of the men they dispatch to the deep South to keep law and order.

Kasit made it clear that the conflict in southern Thailand is not the international community's business. And yet, Thailand is a signatory to various conventions under which the state vows to protect its citizens. Given the extent of the alleged abuses and violations carried out by security personnel in the restive region, maybe this government should have the integrity to tear up all these documents. The government needs to understand that all interested parties can play a role in resolving this issue, and that it takes more than just a signature to become a responsible member of the international community.

-- The Nation 2010-11-03

[rreddin]

This problem is a political problem that can only be solved by a political solution acceptable to all sides to the dispute. That goal is far from being achieved. The resolution of this dispute may go far wider than the Thai government and the subjects of the former Sultanate of Patini.

On all sides, bruised egos need to be put asside and attitudes need to change before meaningful progress can be made. The separatists must be willing to engage in dialogue, something the seem reluctant to do. The Thai authorities need to recognize that this is not an internal matter as it also has implications for Malaysia. Malaysia needs to be engaged in preventing the bombers using that country as a refuge.

It is completely understandable that the Thai government does not want to be seen as being bombed to the negotiating table. That means an acceptable intermediary must be found through whom discreet discussions can be held. A leading and moderate member of the OIC seems an obvious candidate, particularly if the Thai government has only a few low level official links with that country. There might be price for Thailand to pay for this, a price which at the present it finds too difficult to pay. As I said, on all sides, bruised egos need to be put asside and attitudes need to change before meaningful progress can be made.

edited to correct typo

Edited November 3, 2010 by rreddin