Govt must re-think South peace talks

But it is certain that the first two rounds of dialogue have not led to a reduction in the violence in the deep South. On the contrary, the scale of the violence seems to have risen, with incidents occurring on a daily basis – prompting many to wonder whether the government is talking to the right group.
In video clips released by the BRN on YouTube before each dialogue, its leaders raised conditions that everyone knows are unlikely to be accepted. This has led to suspicion about whether it really wants to hold peace talks or whether the government unilaterally sought them.
Now the government is on the defensive. The violence has not subsided, while the BRN-C has upgraded its status to that of an equal dialogue partner. Worse still, it has denied responsibility for the recent violence and blamed it on the government.
National Security Council secretary-general Paradorn Pattanathabutr has often claimed that he uses the dialogues to probe the status of his opponent. But it is not known how much he has found out about the insurgent group so far.
Does Paradorn know how much power the BRN has over insurgent groups in the southern border provinces, or indeed whether it only claims to have power? Has he determined whether it could really give orders to leading insurgents like Sapaeing Baso?
It has been reported that Sapaeing ordered his followers to step up attacks before today’s talks. If that is true, it could mean that the BRN has rejected the dialogue or wants to increase the pressure on the government.
In addition, other insurgent groups may be dissatisfied as they see the government paying attention to just one group. They may have stepped up their attacks to try to draw attention to themselves and upgrade their status.
So far, the government has refused to admit any mistakes in its dialogue strategy. It has tried to link recent attacks to drug gangs and oil smugglers, and claimed that the government is on the right path.
The peace dialogue in itself is a good thing, as holding talks is better than fighting a war, and the two sides will eventually be brought to the negotiating table. But a dialogue should have a clear strategy, and the government should know its dialogue partner well and whether it really has the power to represent the insurgents.
Furthermore, the dialogue should be based on mutual interests and be between partners of equal status - unlike the current situation, where the government has failed to reduce the violence and has been disadvantaged in several respects.
So far, the dialogue has simply proceeded in line with the BRN’s game.
From now on, the government must demand that the BRN prove it is in command by ordering the insurgents to reduce the number of violent attacks.
This condition would also help prove whether the BRN is sincere in holding talks. If it fails to comply, the dialogue should be aborted, as it would be useless for the Thai government to pursue it.
If the BRN fails to reduce the amount of violence, the government would be justified in suspending the dialogue pending proof of the insurgent group’s sincerity.
Both sides must agree that it is time for peace talks that would ultimately benefit both sides. It is not right for the government to unilaterally seek talks while the other side just wants to use them to upgrade its status.
The government must review its stand and decide whether it will continue the talks just to keep face even though the situation has not improved. Maybe it would be best to stop now, and proceed with a clearer direction later.