Comparing Aceh and Thailand’s Southern Border Provinces (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Tragedy of Conflict Irresolution: Peace Dialogue in Southernmost Thailand under Military Rule
Asian International Studies Review
This study examines the continuing failure of conflict resolution efforts in the case of Thailand's Deep South or "Patani." The introduction of an official peace-dialogue process in February 2013 raised hopes that the insurgency in southernmost Thailand might move toward a peaceful resolution. But under two different Thai governments, dialogue between Bangkok and Malay-Muslim militants has foundered. Factors inhibiting successful confidence-building and negotiations include the militants' disunity and parochialism and the Thai junta's reluctance to countenance international mediation or devolution of political power. Following Lederach (1997), the study at hand contends that where efforts at conflict resolution occur only at the elite level with no corresponding efforts at the middle and grassroots level, then dialogue is liable to fail, become one-sided or simply lapse into a public relations stunt. Moreover, drawing on interviews with officials and militants, it argues that the structure of the process, including the role of Malaysia as facilitator, must be adjusted for talks to progress. The study also examines political will as a determining factor; although capacity constraints and technical problems pose challenges to a fruitful peace dialogue, they are a less immediate obstacle than the conflict parties' lack of determination to negotiate a settlement.
Contemporary Southeast Asia, 2017
Armed conflict between states in Southeast Asia has been relatively rare, especially since 1979. The most recent exception to this pattern was a border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand that turned violent in 2008 and remained militarized for more than three years. Existing studies of this long-standing conflict have concentrated on explaining the upsurge in violence between 2008 and 2011, but have tended to ignore that fighting was quickly contained each time clashes occurred. This article provides a different perspective and asks how the dispute was managed short of large-scale armed violence. To answer this question, the author adopts an agency-focused perspective that emphasizes the role of critical actors who worked to de-escalate the conflict. Based on field research conducted in Cambodia and Thailand, as well as consulting primary and secondary sources, the author adopts a historical narrative that revisits critical periods from the 1950s onwards and argues that relevant actors in both Cambodia and Thailand had long-standing incentives to avoid escalating the conflict. Two elements were critical: first, crucial actors including Cambodian and Thai bureaucrats, diplomats and members of the security and intelligence services developed an understanding of the problems inherent in defining their land border; and second, the establishment of personal contacts, even in the context of antagonistic relations. Together, these factors created possibilities for Cambodia and Thailand to cooperate in managing conflict and increased the willingness of both sides to exercise self-restraint.
Negotiating the Future of Patani: Negotiating Peace in the Malay Provinces of Thailand
On February 28, 2013, for the first time in Thailand's history, the Government of Thailand announced publicly that it aimed to settle the conflict in the three southernmost provinces of Thailand – otherwise known as the deep South – through official talks with separatist leaders. In the previous annual report, Negotiating a Peaceful Coexistence between the Malays of Patani and the Thai State, the Patani Forum looked at the various attempts to generate peace talks between the Thai government and various separatist movements from 2005 to 2012. We explained why none of these initiatives, which were secretive in nature, succeeded in generating meaningful traction. Two months after this report was released, the Thai government made the February 28 announcement. While the process has faltered, as will be outlined below, the significance of Bangkok acknowledging the political nature of the separatist movement cannot be overstated. In this annual Special Report, the Patani Forum examines the significance and impact of the February 28, 2013 announcement. In the Introduction, we provide a brief overview of previous talks between separatists and Thai authorities and discuss what makes the February 28 announcement different from previous iterations of talks. In Section I, we look at insurgency activity leading up to the announcement and explore why, a year later, the peace process has come to a virtual standstill. We begin this examination with the so-called Mayo Operation of July 2012, which was caught on CCTV, and end with the Bacho Operation in February 2013, the same month the official peace talks were announced. In Section II, we focus on the peace process itself, discussing key meetings and exploring their connection to insurgent activity on the ground. We also discuss the
Reconciliation in Conflict-Affected Communities
In the book, The Moral Imagination: the Art and Soul of Building Peace, John Paul Lederach poses a question, "How do we transcend the cycles of violence that bewitch our human community while still living in them?" (Lederach 2005, p. 5). In Lederach's view, to achieve an effective peace, peacebuilders have to reach the root of conflict and deal with it in creative ways. In another of his books, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (Lederach 1997), he stated that building sustainable peace requires 'meeting spaces' that allow conflicting parties at various levels to exchange/share their feelings, experiences of conflicts and eventually to share their envisioned future together. The conflict in the southern-most provinces of Thailand exists between the Malay Muslim insurgency groups fighting for their right to self-determination and the Thai state. This struggle has not received much international media attention, partly because the Thai authorities have tried hard to keep it a 'domestic' issue and prevent the international community from getting involved in conflict resolution. This is a common phenomenon when conflicts that take place at the margins of relatively strong states are often not internationalised, such as in the cases of conflict in India, Indonesia and Malaysia (Parks et al. 2013). Similarly, Thailand falls into this category. Although this conflict has not been internationalised, the majority of Thai people also do not have an adequate understanding about this ongoing clash. Due to the strong nationalistic ideology of the Thai state, the existing diversity of ethnic groups in the country have been omitted from the narratives associated with national
SOUTHERN THAILAND SEPARATISM: AN ANALYSIS ON THE CURRENT PEACE DIALOGUE
This paper examines the prospect of the current peace process to bring an end to the conflict in southern Thailand, which comprises the provinces of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat, and portions of Songkhla where separatist groups commonly perpetrate violence. The research will focus on the government’s side in terms of its involvement in the peace dialogue, its counterinsurgency measures in the southernmost provinces and will include a look at the general political landscape of Thailand.
The beginnings of conflict transformation in south Thailand
Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 2021
2020 was the year that saw the beginnings of conflict transformation in southern Thailand and the beginning of a process that should eventually lead to some form of resolution to a separatist conflict that has claimed more than 7,000 lives since 2004. 2020 began with the 'Geneva Call Declaration', which was followed by two meetings between insurgent representatives and the Thai military, in both January and March. Most importantly, 2020 saw the lengthiest cessation of hostilities that has taken place between the two sides since 2004: the covid19 ceasefire. This article assesses the importance of these developments and puts forward the argument that 2020 has been the most significant year for conflict resolution efforts in the south since the conflict began in 2004; although there are many factors in place that may obstruct efforts at securing a lasting resolution to this conflict in the near future. Additionally, this essay provides background to the arguments put forward by examining processes and events since 2014 that have paved the way for the aforementioned developments of 2020.
Mediating Civil Conflicts in Southeast Asia: Lessons from Aceh and Mindanao
Journal of ASEAN Studies, 2020
Southeast Asia has been a hotbed of intractable civil conflicts motivated by several issues such as ethnicity, ideology, and historical injustice, among others. Despite the intractability, there have been instances when third-party assistance through mediation has been vital in achieving peace agreements in the region. Using the cases of the third-party mediation of the conflicts in Aceh, Indonesia and Mindanao, Philippines, this research identified the kinds of mediation and qualities of mediators that led to the achievement of peace agreements in these two cases. This research mainly focused on path dependence, critical junctures, and periodization approaches in the comparative analysis of Aceh and Mindanao third-party mediation through a qualitative examination that involved comparative process tracing (CPT), a two-step methodological approach that combines theory, chronology, and comparison. The results showed that the mediators instrumental to the Aceh and Mindanao peace agreements allayed the commitment issues of the negotiations and ensured the trust and confidence of the conflict parties. Thus, mediators should create relations of trust among parties and a mediation environment where the commitment fears are relieved through the promise of third-party monitoring.
Conflict in Southern Thailand: Beyond the Common Approaches
Southern Thailand has historically been one of the main sources of violence in Southeast Asia. However, research on the causes of conflict often focuses on whether it is ethnic or religious in nature or whether it was an imported conflict. This text, which aims to be a first approach for future research, proposes from Galtung's theory that the conflict is multidimensional and combines all types of violence: direct, structural and cultural. In addition, it discusses the reasons why the parties to the conflict do not reach an agreement based on the understanding of the territory as a geostrategic point and how this is combined with cultural repertoires to justify oppression and armed action.