Thailand 'in secret talks with Muslim separatist group'

By Sebastien Berger, South East Asia Correspondent

(Filed: 29/08/2005)

The Thai government is in secret talks with separatists in the Muslim-majority south in an effort to end an insurgency that has claimed hundreds of lives, a rebel source claimed yesterday.

 

A spokesman for the Pattani United Liberation Organisation, or Pulo, said the talks had taken place over four days in Lausanne, Switzerland, ending at the weekend.

"The Thais do not want people to know about this," he said.

"Our struggle is for our own people, to get back what is rightfully ours. Pattani belongs to the Malays, just like Malaysia."

Thailand is Buddhist, but its four southern-most provinces were part of an independent sultanate populated by ethnic Malays until it was formally annexed a century ago.

A low-level insurgency has waxed and waned over the decades, but erupted in January last year and more than 800 people have been killed since then.

Until now, Thai authorities have adopted a tough approach, with occasional velvet touches. Eighty people arrested at a demonstration last autumn suffocated to death while being transported to an army camp for interrogation, and a former Thai prime minister has said that an emergency powers decree introduced recently was seen in the south as a ''licence to kill". None of the Bangkok government's draconian measures have stemmed the killing, despite repeated assurances that the ringleaders would be arrested ''soon".

So far the violence has been almost entirely confined to the south, but if the Thai prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, continues to be "stubborn", Pulo said it is prepared to mount attacks in Bangkok or tourist destinations such as Phuket or Pattaya.

"Thaksin is my enemy. If he carries on like he is now, it is going to get worse," the Pulo spokesman said.

"I would like to tell Thaksin that we want back what belongs to us."

But he said the group would not espouse suicide bombings and had no connection with al-Qa'eda or its south-east Asian offshoot Jemaah Islamiyah.

He is the first Pulo representative to speak publicly since the insurgency exploded. He claimed that tens of thousands of people were "involved in the struggle" by contributing to it financially, while the insurgents themselves were "prepared to die".

His comments indicate that the insurgency is territorially, rather than religiously, driven, suggesting that a political solution could be possible. Independence, though, would be inconceivable in Bangkok, and Thai authorities have also ruled out regional autonomy.

A Thai government spokesman yesterday denied that talks had taken place.

if the above story is true , then thaksin has authorised negotiations with pulo to reach a deal and put a stop to the murders and bombings which have plagued the south and been a thorn in the side of the thaksin and previous administrations.

tony blair negotiated with the ira , and brought an end to the violence there , although the ira are still an organisation that wield considerable power.

but victims of ira terrorism go unplacated , convicted murderers are freed from jail and ira leaders are now members of parliament.

who wins ? the population at large , now free from random terrorist acts or the terrorists themselves , now out of jail and part of the process of government itself , but still free to carry out subversive acts under another moniker.

or are the government of the day , who are seen to have cured an intractable problem , seen as winners.

is it selling out

is it hypocrisy

or is it pragmatic politics.

my view is that it is selling out , and that negotiating with lawbreakers is tantamount to supporting terrorism

I think this question was debated to death before.

Terrorism always work, government have more to lose and usually can't fight a guerilla style war. Their only solution is to "stop" it before it becomes widespread. You accomplish this by giving the insurgents what they want. Some call it appeasment.

Thaksin is starting to get a clue that he will not win this. But again if I was the insurgents in the South, I wouldn't trust Thaksin with an agreement.

Terrorism – a definition: Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives

Terrorism always work

Even the most totalitarian states have been unable to declare a victory over terrorism but nevertheless fighting a war on terrorism is like fighting against crime. Should we cease to fight and combat crime just because we can never win?

You accomplish this by giving the insurgents what they want. Some call it appeasement

It is called appeasement because it is an error: democratically, morally and, in a military sense, strategically. Appeasement is a road taken by those afraid of facing up to the fact of life that sometimes it is necessary to take terrible decisions in order to preserve, what the appeasers rationalise by calling outmoded, the concept of “good” as compared to “evil”.

On a simple level, appeasers are the sort of people who could never decide to put a pet down who was suffering, or who would not allow the surgeon’s knife to cut out a cancer for fear it would also cut living flesh.

But terrorism cannot be solved, fought or eradicated by sparing the surgeon’s knife and simply negotiating with the perpetrators. No more than cancer can be cured by talking to it.

Because by doing so you are acquiescing to fundamental premises, I would argue, that are of equal importance to those declared when accepting the immorality of taking innocent lives as a legitimate political act:

“Terrorism is based on two major pillars: One is injustice, and the other is a certainty of attitude, the notion that their version of the story is the correct one. This way of thinking - this self-certainty - is based on not being educated.”

-- Shirin Ebadi from Iran (The Nobel Peace Prize 2003).

To allow the tyranny of the uneducated to win is to signal the end of civilisation.

Isn't it also true in a way that the US colonists in 1776 were terrorists in their way - throwing tea into Boston Harbour, & declaring independence.

-The French Resistance in WW2 were terrorists.

-Israelis after WW2

-Mahatma Gandhi and 'non-violent resistance'

-Myanmar tribes challenging SLORC

-Pathet Lao- whose 14 yr old kids are literally being raped and chopped up by Lao Army.

all were challenging a Government that would take no notice of them in polite debate.

Perhaps people become terrorists out of desperation, simply because they aren't allowed to express themselves in a more conventional way. Or, if they do, they are ignored.

Thomas merely stating that they all have to be crushed-crushed-crushed. or swatted away like flies, is preposterous and other-worldly and shows un-nuanced thinking.

...Whatever they are, they're not cowards, it takes balls to fly a jet into a skyscraper.

How can this story be true??

It's not being covered by TNA....

nor television channels 3,5,7,9, 11. Not even on ITV...

blah blah

same same but different 

Blah Blah

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

here we go again

Same weak arguments. TM, you are not looking at terrorism in the eye. Your approach is "deviant" which is typical of someone in denial. As long as you will try explain something from your "wrapped" perspective, you will not put forward strong arguments.

We have heard those arguments before over and over from your like. They are just "in denial" arguments. If you fail to undertstand something as complex as terrorism, how do you expect to "resolve" it ? understand your ennemy instead of trying to explain how things should work in your "wrapped" world. Terrorists live in their reality, you don't even live in yours

Interestingly, you made a connection with crime. You can't stop crime but you can prevent it or resolve it by "prevention". We all see what happens to crime when a violent society like the US believes in more repression. It makes things worse. Police violence and extreme repression will feed crime unless you are ready to accept a "figid" society where we would be all tagged and restricted from moving around.

You and your likes are enablers, not resolvers.

Appeasers are appeasers for one reason only: they know that the best way to FEED terrorism is to fight it violently with the illusion that it will stop one day. It doesn't stop that's the problem. Somehow, in your wildest dream, you think it will. Wake up, it's not happening.

Isn't it also true in a way that the US colonists in 1776 were terrorists in their way - throwing tea into Boston Harbour, & declaring independence.

-The French Resistance in WW2 were terrorists.

-Israelis after WW2

-Mahatma Gandhi and 'non-violent resistance'

-Myanmar tribes challenging SLORC

-Pathet Lao-  whose 14 yr old kids are literally being raped and chopped up by Lao Army.

all were challenging a Government that would take no notice of them in polite debate.

Perhaps people become terrorists out of desperation, simply because they aren't allowed to express themselves in a more conventional way. Or, if they do, they are ignored.

Thomas merely stating that they all have to be crushed-crushed-crushed. or swatted away like flies, is preposterous and other-worldly and shows un-nuanced thinking.

...Whatever they are, they're not cowards, it takes balls to fly a jet into a skyscraper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My arguments exactly.

We are all potential terrorists. But arguments are not enough in this debate. Let's try an example.

TM, what would you do if your country was invaded by the Chinese (or worse by the French) and that families from the ennemy moved in ? what would you do ? would you be a "ennemy appeaser" by collaborating and therefore become a "collaborator" of the ennemy (basically what 90% of the French did during WW2) ? or would you become one of the freedom fighters (aka Terrorists) and target civilians because you are outnumbered in military terms ?

Isn't it also true in a way that the US colonists in 1776 were terrorists in their way - throwing tea into Boston Harbour, & declaring independence.

Had we been alive at the time - what point of view would we have had? Whose army would we have been in? Only hindsight and a hundred or so years of hero worship has developed a more "nuanced" view.

-The French Resistance in WW2 were terrorists.

Do you really accept a definition of terrorists that includes resistance to the military occupation of one's country by one of the most totalitarian regimes of the time - a regime whose policy was "lebensraum" and "the final solution"?

-Israelis after WW2

the Irgun and the Stern gang were terrorists, but marginalised by the mainstream political movement for independence led by David Ben Gurian.

-Mahatma Gandhi and 'non-violent resistance'

this doesn't fall into my definition of terrorism

-Myanmar tribes challenging SLORC

this is where the nuances come.

These are dependant on a clear definition of the much maligned "god" and "evil". It is impossible to take positions without a clear or developing sense of these values. Fortunately for us farang, this is only an intellectual dilemma.

-Pathet Lao-  whose 14 yr old kids are literally being raped and chopped up by Lao Army.

Same as above.

all were challenging a Government that would take no notice of them in polite debate

Perhaps people become terrorists out of desperation, simply because they aren't allowed to express themselves in a more conventional way. Or, if they do, they are ignored.

I don't deny this. But this argument could be applied to every thief, bank robber or murderer. Every dissatisfied anti-social act has this sort of justification. It must not be used to disguise the fact that terrorism is not only wrong, in the sense it is unlawful, but is also evil in the sense that the main victims are innocents.

Any causal arguments can be used for the temporation of justice to those found guilty, not to reduce the effort and will of those who seek the guilty ones.

Thomas merely stating that they all have to be crushed-crushed-crushed. or swatted away like flies, is preposterous and other-worldly and shows un-nuanced thinking.

These are the difficult decisions society has to make. To even marginally successfully fight an opponent who is ruthless, unpredictable and indiscriminate cannot be achieved by policies that mix (to quote Ho Chi Min) "the rotten carrot with the broken stick". One man's nuance could be a another terrorist's hiding place. The choices are difficult but the decisions have to be made. Do you think the terrorist will ever think, "Oh, it must be pretty tough running a democracy - listening to all those demands, allocating all those resources, trying to be fair - I think I'll wait with my bomb till a more convenient time"?

...Whatever they are, they're not cowards, it takes balls to fly a jet into a skyscraper.

No it doesn't. You have a misguided view as to what makes a hero. I've known too many of these so-called dead heroes in my time to clearly see they are no more than fool-hardy idiots caught up in the spur of the moment, arrogantly assuming their cause justifies both their own death and the deaths of others. Whether using a jet air liner or a "Saturday night special" - the cujones on these criminals shrunk years ago.

Men with real balls get up every morning and go to work, often not in a job of their liking, to earn money for their family. They save to buy a car and a house, giving all they can to their children to ensure a natural development and education; stand proud at their offsprings’ graduations; cry at their daughter's and son's weddings; rock their grandchildren gently to sleep as they think, not in a self-satisfied way, that despite all the trial and tribulations of their own life and this world, at least they tried to do the right thing.

Govt denies talks with PULO

Published on Aug 29 , 2005

The government on Monday denied news reports that it had entered secret talks with the southern separatist Pattani United Liberation Organization (PULO) in Lausanne, Switzerland.

"To my knowledge, and according to the authorities I've talked to, there were no government officials holding talks with any organization in Switzerland," said Suraphong Suebwonglee, spokesman for the prime minister's office.

An international news agency, citing an unnamed PULO spokesman, reported over the weekend that the government had entered secret talkswith PULO members living in exile in Lausanne between August 24 to 27 last week.

"We have never contacted or negotiated with PULO," said Suraphong, noting that the government did not recognize the rebel organisation.

Men with real balls get up every morning and go to work, often not in a job of their liking, to earn money for their family. They save to buy a car and a house, giving all they can to their children to ensure a natural development and education; stand proud at their offsprings’ graduations; cry at their daughter's and son's weddings; rock their grandchildren gently to sleep as they think, not in a self-satisfied way, that despite all the trial and tribulations of their own life and this world, at least they tried to do the right thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the Sky is blue, what's your point ?

Well Thailand is fertile ground for these Jihadders.

Thats why Thaksins strategy of bribing the countryfolk is a smart one,albeit more words than action.

Terrorism always thrives where the have nots are the greater majority.

What have they to lose??

The Muslims use Arab money,just look at all the Arab banks in INDO and Malaysia.

Most poor and uneducated people will follow whoever puts food on the table.

Men with real balls get up every morning and go to work, often not in a job of their liking, to earn money for their family. They save to buy a car and a house, giving all they can to their children to ensure a natural development and education; stand proud at their offsprings’ graduations; cry at their daughter's and son's weddings; rock their grandchildren gently to sleep as they think, not in a self-satisfied way, that despite all the trial and tribulations of their own life and this world, at least they tried to do the right thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And the Sky is blue, what's your point ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like Thomas' answers above.

He's a Historian and correctly points out that with the passing of time certain acts can get re-evaluated and contextualized.

A couple more examples for his feedback.

-Spartacus and the Slaves uprising.

-Kurds rising against Saddam.

I think one day people might re-evaluate & say

'Yala Pattani and Narathiwat' should never have been Thai soil anyway and they were right to aim for self-determination when Bangkok simply ignored them. They had no democratic means within which they would get a sincere hearing'

I like Thomas' answers above.

He's a Historian and correctly points out that with the passing of time certain acts can get re-evaluated and contextualized.

A couple more examples for his feedback.

-Spartacus and the Slaves uprising.

-Kurds rising against Saddam.

I think one day people might re-evaluate & say

'Yala Pattani and Narathiwat' should never have been Thai soil anyway and they were right to aim for self-determination when Bangkok simply ignored them. They had no democratic means within which they would get a sincere hearing'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They were all terrorists I tell you

Do you really accept a definition of terrorists that includes resistance to the military occupation of one's country by one of the most totalitarian regimes of the time - a regime whose policy was "lebensraum" and "the final solution"?

Lebesraum didn't apply to France, (the Sudetenland and Polish areas wasn't it )

'Final Solution' came a few years later than the Germans marching into Paris.

But the French Resistance was already resisting. At the time, they didn't know about how bad the Nazi would become. (It was perhaps just a good guess)

As far as the Vichy Government were concerned they could have labelled Jean Moulin as their equivalent of a terrorist. To us he seems a hero.

Not saying Zarqawi will ever be regarded as a hero, but you just never know, so its hard to deal in absolutes.

Do you really accept a definition of terrorists that includes resistance to the military occupation of one's country by one of the most totalitarian regimes of the time - a regime whose policy was "lebensraum" and "the final solution"?

Lebesraum didn't apply to France, (the Sudetenland and Polish areas wasn't it )

'Final Solution' came a few years later than the Germans marching into Paris.

But the French Resistance was already resisting. At the time, they didn't know about how bad the Nazi would become. (It was perhaps just a good guess)

As far as the Vichy Government were concerned they could have labelled Jean Moulin as their equivalent of a terrorist. To us he seems a hero.

Not saying Zarqawi will ever be regarded as a hero, but you just never know, so its hard to deal in absolutes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A point I forgot this morning - blame having only three hours sleep or the colour of the sky:

There is considerable moral and military difference between actions directed solely at occupying military forces - no matter how erroneously the term occupying may be defined - than those purposely carried out against innocents with the intention of creating terror.

It is essential for the survival of some vestige of democracy that we draw a line in the sand on what is acceptable in order to become part of the legitimate political process. Just as you have drawn a line with respect to other human relationships and the P. word.

To me the two words are synonymous in their total disregard for the rights of the innocent.

no matter how erroneously the term occupying may be defined - than those purposely carried out against innocents with the intention of creating terror.

That is quite a good point.

(albeit belated)

It would probably be good if we all could agree on some aspect of the definition of terrorism. I dislike using words like "unlawful acts"...or "legitimate political process" etc. because so often it is the legitamacy of the law and of the politics that is being protested by the terrorism...so I'd like to propose that terrorism be defined simply as violent acts whether physical or mental whose purpose is to create terror in the civilian population. Seems like everyone would agree that these types of acts are indeed terrorism...only many people would want to include other acts of this type, that type, or the other type....and it is these "add ons" that people seem to be unable to agree on. If we could agree to use my proposed defintion then we have a nugget of agreement upon which to build a discussion.

For example: The WWII French resistance movement when fighting against soldieres whether German or Vichie would not be committing terrorism because they were not acting toward civilians....if they killed civilian administrators of the Vichie gov't then they were acting as terrorists.

Does this work? It would be nice to get some cohesion on this discussion because now it seems like its pretty scattered....at least to me.

I think this question was debated to death before.

Terrorism always work, government have more to lose and usually can't fight a guerilla style war. Their only solution is to "stop" it before it becomes widespread. You accomplish this by giving the insurgents what they want. Some call it appeasment.

Thaksin is starting to get a clue that he will not win this. But again if I was the insurgents in the South, I wouldn't trust Thaksin with an agreement.

Two words not uncommon to editorial pages are “resolve” and “sacrifice,” especially as they relate to war.

The word – “insurgent” – on the altar of precise language. No longer will we refer to suicide bombers or anyone else in Iraq who targets and kills children and other innocent civilians as “insurgents.”

The notion that these murderers in any way are nobly rising up against a sitting government in a principled fight for freedom has become, on its face, absurd. If they ever held a moral high ground, they sacrificed it weeks ago, when they turned their focus from U.S. troops to Iraqi men, women and now children going about their daily lives.

They drove that point home with chilling clarity lasr week in a poor Shiite neighborhood. As children crowded around U.S. soldiers handing out candy and toys in a gesture of good will, a bomb-laden SUV rolled up and exploded.

These children were not collateral damage. They were targets.

The SUV driver was no insurgent. He was a terrorist.

People who set off bombs on London trains are not insurgents. We would never think of calling them anything other than what they are – terrorists.

Train bombers in Madrid? Terrorists.

You don't talk to terrorists...period

What about bombing innocent civilians ? is that terrorism ?

The bombing of Baghdad knowing that you will hit civilians in the process, to "shock and awe" Iraqis into terror, is that an act of terrorism ?

I think all acts of wars are acts of terrorism, because innocent civilians will always be targets (intentionaly or not). It seems for some, the intentions is what make the difference. I don't think it really matters because at the end, all those acts create terror.

TM is a state terrorism and war apologizer, which is fine if you consider that governments or state will always be on the good side of the battle. However, he fails to understand that at the end, the definition of terrorism is a value judgment, nothing more. You choose your camp and fit the definition around it.

  You choose your camp and fit the definition around it.

Well, once a Frog, always a Frog...

You don't talk to terrorists...period

Fair enough, but...

A Government (like the Thai one) should be able to deal somewhat with the grievances of its minorities. If the Thai Government - comprised of Northern and Central Thai MPs, just say 'Get bent Southerners, we're not listening, no no no no no, you'll do as we say whether you like it or not'.....then folk are going to have less respect for democratic channels.

...England had this problem with William Wallace, a Scotsman who wanted freedom for his lot. We cut his head off.

Also

Its extremely difficult to crush guerilla movements or terrorist bands by conventional force or even sheer weight of numbers. Its asymmetric combat.

Its extremely difficult to crush guerilla movements or terrorist bands by conventional force or even sheer weight of numbers. Its asymmetric combat.

Well, y'all pulled it off in Malaya.

Too bad that seems to be the only success story in recent years.

  You choose your camp and fit the definition around it.

Well, once a Frog, always a Frog...

Shhhh, don't tell the princess.

well...any answers?

1) How do you fight/crush terrorists if they won't tackle you face-to-face on the battlefield and your intelligence services haven't infilitrated them?

2) Should Governments (Like Thailand's) negotiate at a far earlier stage with groups - in a more serious way, - rather than allow them to feel neglected - which may propel them into even more extreme positions where they might resort to violence?

Saying 'well you're a terrorist now, so i'm definitely not going to talk to you', when you never took much notice of them even before they became terrorists, seems paradoxical.

well...any answers?

1) How do you fight/crush terrorists if they won't tackle  you face-to-face on the battlefield and your intelligence services haven't infilitrated them?

2) Should Governments (Like Thailand's) negotiate at a far earlier stage with groups - in a more serious way, - rather than allow them to feel neglected -  which may propel them into even more extreme positions where they might resort to violence?

Saying 'well you're a terrorist now, so i'm definitely not going to talk to you', when you never took much notice of them even before they became terrorists, seems paradoxical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gosh - is this an appreciation of the complexity of government, administration and the development of strategy?

There is considerable moral and military difference between actions directed solely at occupying military forces - no matter how erroneously the term occupying may be defined - than those purposely carried out against innocents with the intention of creating terror.

With the above statement TM, do you now think the Iraqis fighting US forces are terrorists? Do you think they are justified fighting a military occupier?

There is considerable moral and military difference between actions directed solely at occupying military forces - no matter how erroneously the term occupying may be defined - than those purposely carried out against innocents with the intention of creating terror.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With the above statement TM, do you now think the Iraqis fighting US forces are terrorists? Do you think they are justified fighting a military occupier?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Boon Mee answers this point quite clearly in his posting #18 in this thread.

็

Coalition Forces mis-target and accidentally bombard civilians

For people subject to relentless Sunni propaganda or watching Al Jazeera, they come to believe that US troops are terrorists.

The fiend who bombed the kids wasn't trying to kill little ones, he was going for the GIs.

So i'm not yet won over by Boon Mee's appraisal.

Gosh - is this an appreciation of the complexity of government, administration and the development of strategy?

Yesterday I had some respect for your analysis. Today i'm jolted back to reality.

็The fiend who bombed the kids wasn't trying to kill little ones, he was going for the GIs.

So, in other words, the little kids were just collateral damage?

I agree, there's no definition that allows someone blowing up kids to be called a freedom fighter.

I do think his primary target was the GI.