Southern peace talks really on the rails?

For many Thais, it is unjustified for the government to hold talks with MARA Patani, an umbrella organisation of a group of Malay separatist organisations in the Muslim-majority southernmost border provinces.
They find it unjustifiable because there is no cessation in violence on the ground and they believe the other side has not shown any ability to halt the senseless violence on the ground.
Even on the day talks between Thai negotiators and MARA Patani leaders recommenced in Kuala Lumpur on Friday, ordnance officials defused a vicious bomb hidden in a milk-delivery pickup truck in Narathiwat.
Perhaps it is wishful thinking on the part of Thais to expect the violence to cease just because representatives of the two sides are talking. After all, the violence is political in nature. It has gone on for more than 12 years and taken about 7,000 lives. Most of the victims have been Malay Muslims. Some were killed by Thai security forces in gunfights and others were cases of extra-judicial executions. Even if it was intended as collateral damage, the loss of any life is a tragedy.
Because of the collective and cumulative suffering over the past few years, the burden is on MARA Patani to come clean, be transparent and honest. People’s lives are at stake and figures show that the Patani Malays stand to suffer the most in this ongoing conflict.
The critical question for MARA Patani is one of legitimacy. Who gave them the mandate to negotiate as representatives of the Malays of Patani?
Is it because they control the insurgents on the ground and use the violence as a bargaining chip to negotiate with the Thai government?
Many have had doubts about their clout with the militants. But today, more than a year since this organisation surfaced publicly, even fewer people are convinced that they have the ability to control the insurgents on the ground.
Perhaps it is Bangkok’s fault for wanting to talk to only people with guns, thus forcing entities like MARA Patani to embrace the idea that violence is the only way to get Thailand to respond to its demands.
It has been more than a year now since the two sides have been engaged in negotiations but there is nothing so far to prove MARA Patani’s ability to control the militants.
This begs the question: Why is Bangkok is still pursuing this course of action. Perhaps the government is still hopeful that MARA Patani can actually influence the course of events. Perhaps the Thai government just does not know who else to talk to. And so, they continue with a peace process that they often discredit.
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha told reporters last week that he could not give in to MARA Patani’s demand to be officially recognised because they are associated with “criminals”. By “criminals”, he meant the combatants on the ground. It was the justification he provided when he decided to reject the Terms of Reference that would have served as the guidelines for the two sides to continue their talk.
But his logic is also confusing. If MARA Patani is not associated with “criminals”, what purpose does talking to them serve?
The problem here is that almost everybody is lying to the public. Nobody expects the stakeholders at the negotiating table to tell the whole truth. But they shouldn’t be lying about their intention and ability.
If Bangkok thinks MARA Patani can contribute to the peace process, it should say so and provide justification. Does Bangkok think MARA Patani controls the insurgents on the ground or perhaps believes they can bring the real perpetrators of the violence to the table?
The onus is not only on MARA Patani to demonstrate its standing as a negotiator; but also on the Thai leaders who have to justify why they need to talk to this group if it cannot contribute to peace in this region.