Bangkok needs to make concessions for peace talks to work

In the end everybody got something out of the visit by the head of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a 57-member world organisation that offered to help Thailand resolve its differences with the Patani Malay Muslim armed separatist groups.
The government in Bangkok came across as an open-minded entity because of the kind words from OIC Secretary-General Iyad Ameen Madani about how Bangkok and the separatist movements are committed to peaceful and political solution.
However, there was a big “No thank you” from Thailand to the OIC offer to facilitate the peace talks.
MARA Patani, the umbrella organisation of six longstanding separatist movements, held an informal meeting with the OIC chief during his stop over in Malaysia.
As an organisation desperate for recognition and legitimacy, the meeting was greatly welcome in spite of the fact that it disappointed the folks in Bangkok.
Part of the reason for declining the OIC offer has to do with the conviction among Thai policy makers that the OIC is not an honest broker. But then again, who is?
Thailand, it seems, has yet to let go of its zero-sum mentality when it comes to resolving any conflict.
Nevertheless, the OIC chief went on the record to praise the current peace dialogue initiative facilitated by the Malaysian government.
But, nearly three years after Yingluck Shinawatra launched the dialogue process with the separatists, the initiative is still struggling to gain traction and legitimacy.
MARA Patani was launched in August 2015 but Bangkok has yet to give the umbrella group the respect and recognition it has been seeking. And so for the time being, the two sides are at a deadlock.
The recent visit by the OIC was supposed to inject some fresh air into the peace initiative. But only time will tell as to what kind of impact the visit will have.
OIC chief Madani made a good point about inclusivity, saying it should not be a prerequisite, as inclusiveness will come over time. He must have understood that not all groups, especially core leaders of the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN), were on board with the Kuala Lumpur-facili?tated initiative. And until the move shows that it can generate specific deliverables, BRN is likely to continue to stay away from the negotiating table.
Recognising that the conflict is ethno-nationalist in nature, Madani stressed the need to cherish diversity and permit it to enrich, not weak?en, national unity.
The bottom line is that the Bangkok government is going to make some serious concession. This includes permitting outsiders, such as the OIC or other international organisations, to play a role.
Without any meaningful concession, Thailand can forget about moving the dialogue with MARA Patani beyond a talk shop and to a formal peace process.
More importantly, Bangkok can forget about seeing the core leaders of the BRN endorsing any peace process if it can’t let go of this zero-sum game mentality.
Thailand was granted status by the OIC as a Permanent Observer in 1998 and ever since Bangkok has been using this position to prevent any Patani Malay separatist movement from gaining too much diplomatic ground.
But Bangkok should know that it cannot have it both ways: willing to talk peace with the separatists but not willing to accept them as legitimate political players.
For a group like the BRN, which controls the vast majority of insurgents on the ground, peace can come about through negotiation. But negotiation requires recognition.
There is no excuse for Bangkok to be insecure about its relationship with the OIC or any other foreign actors wanting to work with separatist movements from the Patani region.
It has been 12 years and more than 6,500 deaths – something has to give.
Thailand often cited the desire to keep the conflict internal and not allow it to become internationalised. What Bangkok is really saying is that it’s not in the mood to explain to the world its legitimacy in the Malays’ historic homeland.