OIC visit continues state of denial over the South

In the end it was little more than a public relations exercise by both sides. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Thai Foreign Ministry got what they wanted out of the recent visit by Ambassador Sayed Kassem El-Masry.
The OIC issued a statement condemning the violence in the South, but did not go as far as saying the Malays of Patani and the insurgents do not have a legitimate grievance.
On the Thai side, the OIC’s visit gives the impression that the country is actually doing something bold and new when in fact dealing with the organisation is nothing new.
It was really unfortunate for the Thai Foreign Ministry that it was placed under the spotlight, when in fact it has always been the military and the folks at Government House who have called the shots as to how the conflict should be dealt with domestically and internationally.
In this respect, the Foreign Ministry has no choice but to stick to the script that reflects Thailand’s state of denial over the nature of the conflict.
Permanent Secretary Sihasak Puangketkaeo can huff and puff and he can point the finger at the insurgents for the violence.
But the fact of the matter is that Thai security officials are being shot and killed on a daily basis. The recent car bombs in the heart of business districts in Hat Yai and Yala suggest that the worst is yet to come.
Given this reality and new threshold in the conflict, it is just sad and awful to see our diplomats and officials treating this conflict as business-as-usual. They seem to be more concerned about projecting Thailand’s image abroad as if the Kingdom is in some beauty contest.
Luckily for the Foreign Ministry, the issue of mediation
didn’t come up much, at least not in the public space. In
late 2010, the OIC was proposing itself as a potential
mediator. OIC secretary-general Prof Dr Ekmeleddin
Ihsanoglu and director of minority affairs Tala A Daous held simultaneous meetings with Patani Malay separatist leaders in Saudi Arabia and Kuala Lumpur, respectively, to work out a plan.
The exiled leaders were urged to unite and form a front,
the United Patani People Council (UPPC), but Bangkok didn’t want it.
When asked about mediation at the press conference marking the end of OIC Ambassador El-Mastry’s visit to the country, Sihasak shot back and asked, “Who do we talk to?”
Perhaps he can start by asking one of his director-generals who accompanied then Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont who, in late 2007, met with a group of Patani Malay separatist leaders in Bahrain.
Perhaps he can ask the former National Security Council (NSC) chief, General Winai Patiyakul, together with the then director of the National Security Centre, General Vaipot Srinual, who met with a group of separatist leaders in Langkawi over several rounds in 2005-2006 – not to mention the fact that former PM Anand Panyarachun came over to receive a set of recommendations.
Sihasak could also ask the NSC, which since 2006 has been conducting a series of secret meetings with the separatist leaders under the facilitation of a foreign NGO.
Or he might ask the Pheu Thai Party’s favourite bureaucrat, Thawee Sodsong, the head of the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre (SBPAC), who was put in charge of preparing a meeting for Thaksin with a group of separatist leaders in mid-March 2012.
The problem with Thailand is that policymakers are not committed to the idea of a peace process because they think they will lose face and political capital. In a way, they seem to care more about their political capital than the lives of the people they put on the line.
But nobody is blaming Sihasak for this predicament. If the Thai government would just come to terms with the fact that the country is faced with a devastating insurgency – and that the best way out of this is to end this denial mentality and acknowledge the conflict for what it is and recognise its ethno-nationalist nature – perhaps we can begin to move the needle. Thai people deserve better.