Gimmicks won't work in the South

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha always appears to leave room for interpretation in what he says in public. His recent visit to Malaysia provided another example. Peace talks with the Malay Muslim separatists in the southernmost border provinces were high on the agenda. 

First, there was Prayut’s statement about inclusiveness. The PM is demanding that all the separatist movements come to the table and negotiate on the same platform.

And he said there has to be a “period of peace” before the talks can begin. This suggests a ceasefire that, if accomplished, would demonstrate the level of command-and-control these separatist groups have over the militants doing the fighting. 

However, the reality is that there is more than one militant group and there is no real unity among them, so demanding a “period of peace” could be asking too much. 

Needless to say, Prayut’s demand has cast doubt on any speedy resumption of the peace process launched on February 28, 2013, by the government of Yingluck Shinawatra. 

The Thai side has said it’s willing to reduce the number of troops in the South if the insurgents stymie their violence for a sustained period. We wonder why Prayut didn’t just demand that all separatist militants go jump off a cliff. If life were that simple, he might just get his wish.

It’s clear that Prayut is trying to demonstrate to the Thai public that he’s the one calling the shots and that he’s not dealing with the separatists from a weak position. That perception tarred the Yingluck government when it was running the peace talks.

But the implication is that Prayut cares more about his image than about the root cause of the conflict. If so, he could also be indifferent to permanent and sustainable peace. Because, if he really meant what he said about peace and inclusiveness, he would have included other stakeholders in the region – the Thai-Chinese Buddhist community, ethnic Malays, civic organisations and others affected by the insurgency.

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak was correct in warning that peace efforts “will take time”. In the meantime Kuala Lumpur must play its role with integrity and not allow Bangkok to take it for another ride on a journey with no concrete destination in mind. 

Malaysia can play its part by offering good guidance to the separatist organisations, many of whom will be needing some capacity-building and training before they get into the nuts and bolts of the issues at the negotiating table. 

During the successful peace process in the southern Philippines, Malaysia worked closely with the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front, because all stakeholders and mediators understood that only capable and competent negotiating partners could move the effort forward. 

But unfortunately, many Thai officials continue to embrace a zero-sum-game mentality, believing the more ignorant the opposition, the better for Thailand. 

The previous wave of armed insurgency in the Malay-speaking South saw Thailand use all sorts of tactics to quell the violence. These included paying off militant commanders, blanket amnesties that came with a small plot of land, and, of course, the bullet. 

But the absence of violence did not bring peace. These short-term measures do absolutely nothing to address the historical root cause of the conflict. If Prayut fails to understand this, then whatever tricks he has up his sleeve to bring peace will not work – at least not in any meaningful or sustainable way.