Peace dialogue mired in mutual stubbornness

Talks between the government and representatives of several long-established Patani Malay separatist groups have hit another brick wall after demands for formal recognition and immunity from prosecution were rejected outright.
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha said recently that members of MARA Patani, the militants’ umbrella group that sits at the negotiation table, are suspected of illegal activities, so his government is not about to recognise it. He has thus, foolishly, dismissed the group’s legitimacy because he sees the conflict in the far South as a purely criminal undertaking. General Prayut evidently believes that characterising the ongoing violence – which has claimed more than 6,500 lives since January 2004 – as political in nature would lend legitimacy to the insurgency.
Like every prime minister before him, Prayut prefers to ignore the root cause of the conflict, outwardly confident that the separatist militants can be halted through might alone. Taking the opportunity to castigate the elected government he ousted in a coup, he implied that his regime finds the peace initiative begun by Yingluck Shinawatra distasteful, but is now forced to carry it forward.
It is true that the military was not involved in planning the Yingluck government’s initiative launched on February 28, 2013, but the junta did decide on its own, once it seized power, to continue the dialogue. That decision brings with it the obligation to abide by commitments already made by the state.
The negotiating team is allowed to talk to MARA Patani only within strict confines. The umbrella group is not to be given any leeway to enhance the separatist movement’s legitimacy or international standing. It cannot meet representatives of foreign governments or international bodies like the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
The talks limped along for months before arriving at a moment of truth a few weeks ago, when terms of reference were tabled for future talks. The government side balked at signing the document, for reasons that remain unclear, but insisted that the dialogue with MARA Patani would continue. The message seemed to be that the militants could attend all the negotiation sessions they wanted, but shouldn’t expect anything more than a complimentary lunch.
What Bangkok is offering, besides lunch, is an insulting form of amnesty. If the insurrectionists wish to live in peace, free of harassment and prejudicial treatment by the authorities, they have to abandon all hope of an independent homeland, admit they have made a grievous mistake in challenging state power, and accept a distorted rendering of Siamese-Malay history. 
Bow to the government’s bidding, they are told, and the military will ask the courts to be lenient in allocating punishment for their treasonous uprising. The state is firm in its “take it or leave it” attitude and will brook no counter-proposals. It is little surprise that MARA Patani and the groups it represents have found the process humiliating.
In the government’s view, the Patani Malays are already defeated and have no choice but to live with the fact. The Patani Malay perspective – backed up by the death and mayhem that’s rumbled on constantly for a dozen years – is that defeat is unlikely, if not impossible, now or ever.
Passion glowers in rebel hearts, fuelled by proud history and culture. The militants have shown they can inflict pain and damage on the Siamese-Thai state and, with their ambushes, roadside bombings and target killings, they will continue to remind the government that its “occupation” of the southernmost provinces will always come at a high price.
Between these two alarmingly contrasting viewpoints is a gulf that ought to be filled with compromise. Since the government appears to be holding most of the cards, it is the government that should demonstrate some leniency first.