BURNING ISSUE
Peace may be achieved if South handed to southerners
Avudh Panananda
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Speculation about the South insurgency is neither here nor there, says Army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha.
newsjs
He has been continuously voicing concern about the ensuing confusion and undue media attention every time leading figures start faulting each other for every violent incident.

Reports from the strife-torn region over the past nine years show that regardless of whether an attack or counterattack is given a negative or positive spin, peace is still an elusive goal in the southernmost provinces.

If government leaders and critics try to test a new counterinsurgency idea every time a bomb goes off, then people living in the South will not just be prey to insurgency but will become victims of confusing attempts to quell violence as well.

Prayuth was very perceptive when he pointed out that speculative talks were irrelevant to ensuring peace and ending strife.

The insurgency has persisted since 2004 and the successive governments, under Thaksin Shinawatra, Surayud Chulanont, Samak Sundaravej, Somchai Wongsawat, Abhisit Vejjajiva and Yingluck, have appeared befuddled about how to resolve the situation.

The best brains on counterinsurgency, politicians of all stripes, community leaders, Islamic scholars, academics from various disciplines and prominent figures from all sectors of society have had their say on what should be done in order to bring about peace.

The country appears to be overloaded with ideas, but lacks the resolve to choose and bring ideas to fruition.

In 2004 there were 1,154 violent incidents; 2,078 attacks in 2005; 1,934 in 2006; 2,475 in 2007; 1,370 in 2008; 1,348 in 2009; 1,165 in 2010; 1,085 in 2011; and 1,450 in 2012.

In these nine years, only 250 identified combatants were killed compared to 750 policemen and soldiers.

Hence, even if the insurgency comes to a standstill, it will take about three centuries to wipe out the 9,822 combatant and non-combatant forces.

The authorities and the insurgents should think carefully about the merits and demerits of holding the country hostage to this long-drawn-out violence.

The crux of the problem is a demand for independence.

Though the insurgency movement is far from achieving enough credibility to lead a sovereign state of Pattani, it could continue the senseless killing of people and inflicting damages for an indefinite period.

And there is nothing the government can do about it as long as locals continue sympathising with the insurgents.

Britain's suppression of the Malaya insurgency was one of the few success stories in the last century. In this case, one of the most critical factors for countering the movement was people's rejection of the insurgents. The Malays turned their back on the movement led by Chinese descendants.

Unfortunately, in the South, the insurgents are inseparable from local residents and a number of their leaders are ex-officials of local governments who have opted to part ways with the central government.

Yet, the authorities are proud that over the past nine years, they have been able to cut down the number of red-zone villages from 319 to 176, which means that all but 176 villages are open to the authorities.

However, this so-called success proves nothing really because insurgents have access to all areas, including the heavily fortified government installations, while the authorities are not welcomed at 176 villages.

Peace will remain elusive until the central government and insurgents can work out a solution on political empowerment.

Independence may not be realistic at this juncture, but local residents should be allowed to administer their own affairs, including security measures.


-- The Nation 2013-02-22

Give them independence then wait until the provinces north of those given it, also demand the same. Don't do today what you can put off until tomorrow is the Thai way so let them get on with it because I'm only a guest in this country.

Then what happens when they want to extend thier borders give them more of the country?

The crux of the problem is a demand for independence.

It is obvious the guy that wrote this article, is as clueless as the Government.

No, it won't take three centuries to wipe them out because, by then, four-fold of their dependants will still be doing the same thing.

The insurgency is not a one-off conflict simply aimed at a creating a state where everybody lives happily ever after - they want the lot.

Look beyond tomorrow General .... way, way past it.

Edited February 22, 201313 yr by Songhua

This is not going to win any journalism prizes.... unless they have one for stating the obvious.

which means that all but 176 villages are open to the authorities.

There are 176 villages that are essentially off limits to the government? What a state of affairs that is.

Give them an inch, they will try to take a mile me thinks. These figures I find to be quite concerning.

In these nine years, only 250 identified combatants were killed compared to 750 policemen and soldiers.

The Islamic separatists will not be satisfied with a part of the south - they want the lot! And what about the people down there who are not Muslim and are not in favour of the separation. What are they supposed to do? Move north? The deafening silence from Malaysia is interesting given that much of the support comes from there. Perhaps the Thai Government should adopt the Malaysian solution to those that 'don't fit the bill'. i.e. a system of aparthied where quota systems exist for the Bumi Putras for health care, education and political representation. Could you imagine the hue and cry coming from the Malaysians if the Thai Government did that. Thin end of the wedge!

None of the Thai Governments, past and present, have anything at all to be proud over this disputed region. 750 personnel killed is a tragedy ! A further ~5000 is a carnage!

They have all showed a complete lack of understanding of the situation and a complete lack of will to achieve a result. It plainly is just too hard for them.

Give them an inch, they will try to take a mile me thinks. These figures I find to be quite concerning.

In these nine years, only 250 identified combatants were killed compared to 750 policemen and soldiers.

Omits to mention that far more Muslims are being murdered in the Deep South, than Buddhists. This is rarely discussed as to why, I assume due to business/political disputes, drug and smuggling gang related activities.

"from Jan 4, 2004 until Jan 31, 2011 there were 4,186 deaths of which 1,737 were Buddhists and 2,331 were Muslims"

Indeed. The world ignored the sectarian strife and a genocide ensued.

The same for the Darfur in Somalia. A lovely refugee crisis to go along with the genocide.

And now there is Mali. And what do we have? Wholesale slaughter of non combatants by militants.

What does this genius proposing a separate state propose Thailand do with the refugees that will result?

Well there is a point to giving all regions more financial autonomy. All financial roads lead to Bangkok, the relative revenues generated in the regions to what is put back doesn't match.

The crux of the problem is a demand for independence.

It is obvious the guy that wrote this article, is as clueless as the Government.

I apologize for my ignorance on this matter too.

"demand for independence" from whom/what?

Aren't they Thai citizens?

Give them an inch, they will try to take a mile me thinks. These figures I find to be quite concerning.

In these nine years, only 250 identified combatants were killed compared to 750 policemen and soldiers.

Omits to mention that far more Muslims are being murdered in the Deep South, than Buddhists. This is rarely discussed as to why, I assume due to business/political disputes, drug and smuggling gang related activities.

"from Jan 4, 2004 until Jan 31, 2011 there were 4,186 deaths of which 1,737 were Buddhists and 2,331 were Muslims"

What is unusual with the numbers? I would expect that in a predominately muslim area more muslims would be dying when roadside bombs and shopping centers are targeted. Take Pattani province. It is 88% muslim. With the numbers you provide, if anything, it is the Buddhists that are dying in disproportionate numbers.

The areas where there is the most violence have muslim majorities.

The crux of the problem is a demand for independence.

It is obvious the guy that wrote this article, is as clueless as the Government.

I apologize for my ignorance on this matter too.

"demand for independence" from whom/what?

Aren't they Thai citizens?

Poorly written article, as far as I am aware their has never been a demand for independence, but for autonomy, which is vastly different. Polls a few years back stated 80% identified them selves as Thai nationals

Give them an inch, they will try to take a mile me thinks. These figures I find to be quite concerning.

In these nine years, only 250 identified combatants were killed compared to 750 policemen and soldiers.

Omits to mention that far more Muslims are being murdered in the Deep South, than Buddhists. This is rarely discussed as to why, I assume due to business/political disputes, drug and smuggling gang related activities.

"from Jan 4, 2004 until Jan 31, 2011 there were 4,186 deaths of which 1,737 were Buddhists and 2,331 were Muslims"

What is unusual with the numbers? I would expect that in a predominately muslim area more muslims would be dying when roadside bombs and shopping centers are targeted. Take Pattani province. It is 88% muslim. With the numbers you provide, if anything, it is the Buddhists that are dying in disproportionate numbers.

The areas where there is the most violence have muslim majorities.

Actual numbers of civilians killed by IEDs and shopping center bombings is relatively minimal. The large majority of the killings is with firearms

Edited February 22, 201313 yr by simple1

Give them an inch, they will try to take a mile me thinks. These figures I find to be quite concerning.

In these nine years, only 250 identified combatants were killed compared to 750 policemen and soldiers.

Omits to mention that far more Muslims are being murdered in the Deep South, than Buddhists. This is rarely discussed as to why, I assume due to business/political disputes, drug and smuggling gang related activities.

"from Jan 4, 2004 until Jan 31, 2011 there were 4,186 deaths of which 1,737 were Buddhists and 2,331 were Muslims"

What is unusual with the numbers? I would expect that in a predominately muslim area more muslims would be dying when roadside bombs and shopping centers are targeted. Take Pattani province. It is 88% muslim. With the numbers you provide, if anything, it is the Buddhists that are dying in disproportionate numbers.

The areas where there is the most violence have muslim majorities.

Actual numbers of civilians killed by IEDs and shopping center bombings is relatively minimal. The large majority of the killings is with firearms

So it comes down to that the terrorists aren't really fussy about who they kill, though there is a preference for buddhists. As "collateral damage" muslims are ensured entry in to paradise when killed in the struggle to expand the faith, it is mai pen rai or insha'allah if you prefer.

Yea great idea give them the south.

Then give the north east to the issan people.

And the north to those from Chaing Rai.

Soon all the govt will have to worry about is bkk.

And no I dont have any answers but look what happened when the muslims got Pakistan away from India, thats right millions dead.

The violence in the South is a much more complicated issue than most people know. There is not one body of insurgents fighting the Bangkok government. There are many small splinter groups, each with their own agenda.

Some are Islamic militants, some want Bangkok out of their backyards, most are ethnic Malays and do not identify with the rest of Thailand.

Others are just out to cause mayhem. A lot of the violence is fighting between rival criminal organizations, but is called insurgent terrorism.

People seem to forget that the 3 southern provinces were annexed in 1902. The Thai are seen as invaders of their land.

The locals were never Thai. Almost all the ethnic Thai there now are immigrants.

Autonomy or independence will not happen. There is one major blockage to that. Oil and gas. A large part of Thailand's off shore fields are off the coast of Songkhla.

Any rumours of the Muslims wanting to take over the rest of Thailand is nonsense and islamophobic drivel. They just want to be left alone.

They could have a Falklands style referendum as to who they wish to be ruled by....... Thailand, Malaysia or themselves. That might at least clarify the issue.

The crux of the problem is a demand for independence.

It is obvious the guy that wrote this article, is as clueless as the Government.

Sounds like a Chalermism. It seems to me the separatists will only accept peace on their terms which will not suit the Thai Buddhists so on it goes and the government will blunder about in the dark as they do with everything else

The crux of the problem is a demand for independence.

It is obvious the guy that wrote this article, is as clueless as the Government.

I apologize for my ignorance on this matter too.

"demand for independence" from whom/what?

Aren't they Thai citizens?

They are Thai citizens, but the majority are ethnically Malay

Edited February 22, 201313 yr by Mosha

In all of this, why do we never hear what would mean a peaceful settlement direct from an insurgent leader. I would have hoped that at some stage a reporter from at least one reputable paper could get within the insurgent group and bring to light a core values and core principle of what the insurgents would call ultimate justice for there cause. I for one suspect all the insurgent leaders believe they would like to see a utopian business environment where they control all the Oil from Brunei to Burma and turn the southern three provinces into the richest Sultanate on earth, or am I just reading too much into the picture :-)

"... if South Handed to Southerners."

As the South then creeps ever further North, ... and spill overs generate fresh separatist claims, the whole thing again, .. and again, .. and again.

There will be no 'peace' (if that's want they really want to call it) until Islam has consumed the entire country. That is their agenda.

Muslims just want to be left alone???? I can only speak for the UK here. If they want to be left alone, why do they expect us to change our ways to suit them? Then they complain if we celebrate Christmas and have Nativity plays in our schools. Maybe not in our life times, but they will eventually become the majority in Britain, and with voting powers will soon be ruling the country, already Mohammed is the most common christian name in Britain. It will be under Islamic law with a Muslim prime minister and cabinet. A lot of the women go around with only their eyes visible, which gives them the opportunity to commit crimes, it has already been done, it doesn't matter which country you live in, or which religion you follow, there are always a minority of criminals among them.

If anybody wants to go and live in another country, they must respect that countrys rules and culture and not expect that country to change anything about their way of life to suit them. Yes, Muslims want to be left alone, to do what they want, and when they don't get their own way that's when the trouble starts.

What a bloody cop out. I agree with much of what he started to say but am in disbelief that the closing argument of a senior millitary officer should be to let the inmates run the institution. That is a close to subversion than anyone in uniform would want to get.

Muslims just want to be left alone???? I can only speak for the UK here. If they want to be left alone, why do they expect us to change our ways to suit them? Then they complain if we celebrate Christmas and have Nativity plays in our schools. Maybe not in our life times, but they will eventually become the majority in Britain, and with voting powers will soon be ruling the country, already Mohammed is the most common christian name in Britain. It will be under Islamic law with a Muslim prime minister and cabinet. A lot of the women go around with only their eyes visible, which gives them the opportunity to commit crimes, it has already been done, it doesn't matter which country you live in, or which religion you follow, there are always a minority of criminals among them.

If anybody wants to go and live in another country, they must respect that countrys rules and culture and not expect that country to change anything about their way of life to suit them. Yes, Muslims want to be left alone, to do what they want, and when they don't get their own way that's when the trouble starts.

Most muslims want to be left alone. The problem is the radical ones (those that actually effect the lives of non believers) want to rule the world.

Whilst the silent majority remain silent.

Muslims just want to be left alone???? I can only speak for the UK here. If they want to be left alone, why do they expect us to change our ways to suit them? Then they complain if we celebrate Christmas and have Nativity plays in our schools. Maybe not in our life times, but they will eventually become the majority in Britain, and with voting powers will soon be ruling the country, already Mohammed is the most common christian name in Britain. It will be under Islamic law with a Muslim prime minister and cabinet. A lot of the women go around with only their eyes visible, which gives them the opportunity to commit crimes, it has already been done, it doesn't matter which country you live in, or which religion you follow, there are always a minority of criminals among them.

If anybody wants to go and live in another country, they must respect that countrys rules and culture and not expect that country to change anything about their way of life to suit them. Yes, Muslims want to be left alone, to do what they want, and when they don't get their own way that's when the trouble starts.

Most muslims want to be left alone. The problem is the radical ones (those that actually effect the lives of non believers) want to rule the world.

Whilst the silent majority remain silent.

Silence implies consent

Muslims just want to be left alone???? I can only speak for the UK here. If they want to be left alone, why do they expect us to change our ways to suit them? Then they complain if we celebrate Christmas and have Nativity plays in our schools. Maybe not in our life times, but they will eventually become the majority in Britain, and with voting powers will soon be ruling the country, already Mohammed is the most common christian name in Britain. It will be under Islamic law with a Muslim prime minister and cabinet. A lot of the women go around with only their eyes visible, which gives them the opportunity to commit crimes, it has already been done, it doesn't matter which country you live in, or which religion you follow, there are always a minority of criminals among them.

If anybody wants to go and live in another country, they must respect that countrys rules and culture and not expect that country to change anything about their way of life to suit them. Yes, Muslims want to be left alone, to do what they want, and when they don't get their own way that's when the trouble starts.

Most muslims want to be left alone. The problem is the radical ones (those that actually effect the lives of non believers) want to rule the world.

Whilst the silent majority remain silent.

Silence implies consent

Yes, silence implies consent, there was a lot of silence after the Twin Towers and London bombings.