A member of the security forces watches as Thai Muslim men pray during a peace gathering at a hospital from where suspected separatist militants launched an ambush on the offices of the Cho Ai Rong district, southern Thailand, on 15 March 2016. Madaree Tohlala/AFP
Report 291 / Asia

Jihadism in Southern Thailand: A Phantom Menace

Thailand’s Malay-Muslim insurgency appears to some observers a potential seedbed for transnational jihadism, but the separatist fronts do not share ideologies or objectives with ISIS or al-Qaeda. The future is uncertain, and a resolution of the conflict, based on political decentralisation, could help deter prospective jihadist expansion in southernmost Thailand.

  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Download PDF Full Report
  • What’s the issue? Media reports and some observers suggest growing potential for Islamic State (ISIS) activity in Thailand’s southernmost provinces. Crisis Group argues that to date there is no evidence of jihadist inroads, partly because the insurgents are nationalists who aim to create an independent state.
  • Why does it matter? While fears of jihadist activity are not irrational, they are, for now, misplaced. But an endless and expanding conflict could create opportunities for transnational jihadists to exploit.
  • What should be done? There needs to be a negotiated resolution of the conflict between the Thai government and the separatist movement. A decentralised political system could help address the principal grievances in the south while preserving the unitary Thai state.

Executive Summary

The decline of the Islamic State (ISIS) and the advent of ISIS-linked violence in South East Asia evince the possibility of a new era of transnational jihadist terrorism in the region. Recurring albeit unsubstantiated reports about ISIS activity in Thailand have prompted questions about the vulnerability of the country’s Muslim-majority deep south and, in particular, its longstanding Malay-Muslim insurgency to jihadist influence. To date, there is no evidence of jihadists making inroads among the separatist fronts fighting for what they see as liberation of their homeland, Patani. But the conflict and a series of ISIS scares in Thailand are fanning fears of a new terrorist threat. Such fears are not irrational, though are largely misplaced and should not obscure the calamity of the insurgency and the need to end it. Direct talks between insurgent leaders and the government are a priority; a decentralised political system could help address the principal grievances in the south while preserving the unitary Thai state.

Al-Qaeda and ISIS have exploited protracted conflicts across the Muslim world to further their agendas, including in areas that are under the sovereignty of capable states but where central government authority is weak. During the ISIS era, transnational jihadism in South East Asia mostly has been a “bottom-up” phenomenon with pre-existing militant groups (for instance in Indonesia and the Philippines) proclaiming allegiance to ISIS. In these countries, as well as Malaysia and Singapore, individuals and small groups unaffiliated with a militant network have also sought to join ISIS or act in its name.

Yet such patterns of involvement with ISIS or other jihadist groups to date have not manifested themselves in southernmost Thailand. One reason is that Thailand’s Malay-Muslim society is not a sympathetic milieu for transnational jihadism; the country’s Muslim religious leaders, both traditionalists and reformists, overwhelmingly reject the Salafi-jihadist ideology espoused by ISIS and al-Qaeda. To be sure, this diminishes but does not remove the risk of some Malay Muslims turning to jihadism. Motivations for joining jihadist groups vary and frequently are not linked to ideology or religious conviction. Jihadist propaganda could potentially sway some individuals. However, those Malay Muslims motivated by desires for comradeship, identity or devotion to a cause – not to mention grievances against the Thai state – appear more likely to be absorbed by the Patani liberation movement, given its roots in local society, than by transnational jihadist groups.

The Malay-Muslim insurgency is distinguished by its parochialism.

Indeed, the Malay-Muslim insurgency is distinguished by its parochialism. The militant organisation pursues national self-determination over a specific territory, seeking to join, rather than destroy, the international system. Patani-Malay militant leaders are antagonistic to ISIS and similar groups and see their fronts as bulwarks against jihadist influence. They say that allying with ISIS or al-Qaeda, or emulating signature tactics such as suicide bombings and indiscriminate mass-casualty attacks, would cost them a claim to international legitimacy, erode their local support and invite hostile foreign intervention. Malaysia, contending with a domestic ISIS-inspired threat, is not likely to tolerate such an association among the Patani militant leadership in exile there.

This is not a reason for complacency. Continued stalemate, tactical reversals, impatience with, or opposition to the slow-moving peace dialogue process between Bangkok and some separatist fronts – or even broader frustration with the prevailing strategy – could arguably encourage a splinter group to employ extreme violence in a bid to gain leverage. The example, or support, of jihadists might be attractive to militants disaffected with their leaders.

But it is a reason to question some of the more alarmist voices. The Patani liberation movement has a history of factionalism, and the main militant front, the Barisan Revolusi Nasional Melayu Patani (Patani-Malay National Revolutionary Front, BRN), is highly secretive, yet there are no clear indications of acute generational or ideological divisions. Fears of jihadist influence based primarily on the argument that “things can change” must be weighed against evidence that there is no appetite among the leadership of existing militant groups for affiliation with ISIS or like-minded groups.

The priority for the Thai government and Malay-Muslim militants should be to end the conflict that has cost almost 7,000 lives since 2004, not to act on speculation regarding possible jihadist inroads. The longer the conflict continues, the greater the risk of increased polarisation, intensified insurgency that could spread outside the deep south, as well as miscalculations that transnational jihadists could exploit. The exodus of ISIS fighters from the Middle East, the propaganda victory of pro-ISIS fighters in the Philippine city of Marawi, Mindanao, and calls from ISIS and al-Qaeda to avenge the Rohingya who were forced to flee Myanmar represent a potentially volatile convergence for the region.

To address these multiple risks, Bangkok and the Patani-Malay National Revolutionary Front (BRN) should communicate clearly to constituencies in the deep south that they take seriously both broader social aspirations and concerns and the grievances of various insurgent fronts. Doing so will require Bangkok to re-energise the peace dialogue process and the BRN to engage in it, with the objective of devising a political solution for the deep south based on decentralisation. More generally, the government should return rights to free expression and political assembly so that people are able to articulate local preferences and peacefully effect change.

Bangkok/Brussels, 8 November 2017

I. Introduction

There are recurring reports of Islamic State (ISIS) activity and influence in Thailand, particularly in the Malay Muslim-majority southernmost provinces where separatists have waged a renewed insurgency since the early 2000s.[fn]For earlier Crisis Group work, see Asia Reports N°s 270, Southern Thailand: Dialogue in Doubt, 8 July 2015; 241, Thailand: The Evolving Conflict in the South, 11 December 2012; 181, Southern Thailand: Moving Towards Political Solutions?, 8 December 2009; 170, Recruiting Militants in Southern Thailand, 22 June 2009; 140, Southern Thailand: The Problem with Paramilitaries, 23 October 2007; 129, Southern Thailand: The Impact of the Coup, 15 March 2007; 105, Thailand’s Emergency Decree: No Solution, 18 November 2005; 98, Southern Thailand: Insurgency, Not Jihad, 18 May 2005; and Briefings N°s 148, Southern Thailand’s Peace Dialogue: No Traction, 21 September 2016; 113, Stalemate in Southern Thailand, 3 November 2010; 80, Thailand: Political Turmoil and the Southern Insurgency, 28 August 2008.Hide Footnote The rise and decline of ISIS have stimulated concerns about the prospect of a new era of transnational jihadist terrorism in South East Asia, especially Indonesia, Malaysia and the southern Philippines, where ISIS has inspired, directed and funded violence by local affiliates and sympathisers.[fn]Thomas Koruth Samuel, Radicalisation in Southeast Asia: A Selected Case Study of Daesh in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, Southeast Asia Regional Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 2016; Greg Fealy and John Funston, Indonesian and Malaysian Support for the Islamic State (Final Report) (Arlington, VA, 6 January 2016); The Failed Solo Suicide Bombing and Bahrun Naim’s Network, Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, Report No. 30, 29 July 2016.Hide Footnote To date, there is no evidence of any association between Malay-Muslim insurgents and foreign jihadists, but southernmost Thailand appears on the surface to offer conditions favourable for jihadist expansion: a Sunni minority that constitutes a majority in the conflict zone; a Muslim insurgency with a narrative of dispossession at the hands of non-Muslim colonisers; and a protracted conflict with frequent repression and violence by Thai authorities. Thai officials, analysts, and even some in the militant movement have expressed concerns about prospects for jihadist influence.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Veera Urairat, deputy secretary general, National Security Council, Bangkok, 1 March 2017; Thai analyst, Bangkok, March 2017; BRN Information Department, June 2016, February 2017.Hide Footnote

The distinction between “jihad” and “jihadism” is central to this report.[fn]Mark Sedgwick, “Jihadism, Narrow and Wide: The Dangers of Loose Use of an Important Term”, Perspectives on Terrorism, vol. 9, no. 2 (April 2015), pp. 34-41.Hide Footnote Malay-Muslim militants have long framed resistance to the Thai state as a jihad, though their aims are primarily nationalist. Theirs may be characterised as an irredentist or “nation-oriented” jihad, ie a fight against non-Muslims for a particular territory.[fn]Crisis Group Middle East and North Africa Report N°37, Understanding Islamism, 2 March 2005, pp. 14-15; Thomas Hegghammer, “Jihadi-Salafis or Revolutionaries? On Religion and Politics in the Study of Militant Islamism” in Roel Meijer (ed.), Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement (New York, 2009), p. 258.Hide Footnote “Jihadist”, by contrast, is used here to refer to movements such as al-Qaeda, ISIS and their affiliates.[fn]The Arabic root of “jihad” refers to striving in God’s service. Many Muslims find its use in the political violence context imprecise and offensive, reducing a complex religious concept to war-making. In reference to violence, it can encompass insurgency and guerrilla war as well as terrorism. For the vast majority of Muslims, today’s “jihadists” pervert Islam’s tenets. But it is hard to escape the term. Groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIS self-identify as “jihadist”, and while jihad has long been an element of virtually all schools of Islam, a nascent “jihadist” ideology has emerged that is more than a reflection of this; ideologues borrow from other traditions and at times show frustration with Salafi doctrinal rigidity that could constrain fighting tactics. Though big differences exist, “jihadist” groups share some tenets: fighting to return society to a purer Islam; violence against rulers whose policies they deem in conflict with Islamic imperatives as they understand them; and belief in duty to use violence if Muslim rulers abandon those imperatives. This report’s use of “jihadist” is not meant to add legitimacy to this interpretation or detract from efforts to promote alternative interpretations. It uses “terrorism” only to describe non-state actors’ attempt to use violence or intimidation, especially of civilians, to achieve political goals. See Crisis Group Special Report N°1, Exploiting Disorder: al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, 14 March 2016.Hide Footnote Most jihadists espouse Salafi-jihadism, a doctrine that rejects the nation-state as an affront to God’s sovereignty, regards the rulers of states across the Muslim world as apostates and seeks, through revolutionary violence, to establish pure Islamic government in the form of a caliphate.[fn]Shiraz Maher, Salafi-Jihadism: The History of an Idea (London, 2016), p. 11; Joas Wagemakers, “Revisiting Wiktorowicz: Categorising and Defining the Branches of Salafism” in Francesco Cavatorta and Fabio Meron (eds.), Salafism After the Arab Awakening (London, 2017), p. 18.Hide Footnote Malay-Muslim militants are, as a rule, not Salafis, but rather adhere to traditional forms of Sunni Islam of the Shafii school that is dominant in South East Asia.[fn]Salafism is a modernist reform movement founded in the Middle East in the late nineteenth century that invoked the “pious ancestors”, notably the Prophet Mohammed and the first four Caliphs of the original Muslim community in seventh century Arabia to identify pure, fundamental Islamic principles. Since the 1970s, Salafism has been closely identified with severely puritan and backward-looking fundamentalism. Crisis Group Report, Understanding Islamism, op. cit., pp. 10-11. Shafii is one of the four schools of Islamic law. Asked about the difference between Shafii and Hanbali, to which Salafis subscribe, a religious teacher said: “It’s like football teams. We support our team, and even though it’s the same game, we won’t switch to support another team”. Crisis Group interview, imam, Pattani, March 2017.Hide Footnote Malay-Muslims do not often use the term “jihadist” to describe groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda, instead using “terrorists”, “extremists” (ekstremis or pelampau) or the names of particular jihadist groups. Militants refer to themselves as juwae, or fighters, a word that implies the concept of jihad.[fn]Crisis Group correspondence, Hara Shintaro, independent analyst, September 2017.Hide Footnote

ISIS and al-Qaeda have sometimes succeeded in affiliating with nationalist armed groups pursuing local agendas and have exploited conflict for their own ends, even within the peripheries of capable states.[fn]Crisis Group Special Report, Exploiting Disorder, op. cit., p. 28.Hide Footnote This report examines factors that militate against this happening in southernmost Thailand, and assesses the risk of jihadism taking root there.[fn]The conflict largely has been confined to the provinces of Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala, and the four south-eastern districts of Songkhla province: Chana, Na Thawi, Saba Yoi and Thepa. This report refers to this area variously as the “southernmost provinces”, “deep south”, “Patani” and “conflict zone”. Patani, with one “t” is the Malay spelling, used to refer to the region that comprised the historical Patani sultanate. Pattani, with two “t”s is the transliteration of the Thai name for the province. The conflict zone’s population is roughly two million, about 84 per cent Malay Muslim, the remainder mostly Thai or Sino-Thai Buddhists. Population statistics from The Peace Dialogue Panel, The Peace Dialogue Process in Southern Border Provinces, Bangkok, July 2017, p. 31.Hide Footnote It does not examine the situation of Muslims in other regions of Thailand.[fn]Estimates of Thailand’s Muslim population vary widely. The National Statistical Office reports a Muslim population of 4.3 per cent of a 67.2 million total population in 2015. An older official source (c. 2005) reports 12 per cent of 62.5 million. The Pew Research Forum reported 5.8 per cent of the total population in 2009. Report on Population Characteristics: The 2015-2016 Report on Population Change, National Statistical Office (Bangkok, 2016); Royal Thai embassy in Riyadh website, “Muslim in Thailand”. Pew Research Center, Mapping the Global Muslim Population, October 2009, p. 29.Hide Footnote

Jihadism’s diverse forms complicate any assessment of its threat. ISIS, for example, has manifested as an insurgency; a quasi-state administering extensive territory; affiliated militant groups; clandestine terrorist cells; far-flung sympathisers; and an idea used to motivate and rationalise terrorism.[fn]Al-Qaeda is similarly variegated. Crisis Group Special Report, Exploiting Disorder, op. cit.Hide Footnote ISIS could seize territory in Iraq and Syria, and, on a smaller scale, other parts of the Muslim world, largely thanks to its exploitation of war and chaos. But its success in attracting and inspiring followers from Europe and other places that are neither ungoverned nor chaotic rests on very different and locally specific conditions.[fn]Crisis Group Special Report, Exploiting Disorder, op. cit. “Radicalisation” is a problematic concept, but here refers to the turn to participation in jihadism by individuals or groups.[fn]“Radicalisation” has been used in the West since the 2003 invasion of Iraq primarily to address the issue of second or third-generation members of Muslim diasporas in Europe engaging in terrorism. Radicalisation models often assume that religious ideology is a determining factor, and tend to focus on the individual, while neglecting social, historical and political context. Studies of radicalisation often suffer from a methodological defect, examining only cases in which individuals became terrorists, raising questions about the reliability and generalisability of their findings. Alex Schmid, Radicalisation, De-Radicalisation, Counter-Radicalisation: A Conceptual Discussion and Literature Review, The Hague, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, March 2013, pp. 19, 25; Mark Sedgwick, “The Concept of Radicalization as a Source of Confusion”, Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 22, no. 4 (2010), pp. 480-481; Arun Kaundani, A Decade Lost: Rethinking Radicalisation and Extremism, Claystone (2015), pp. 11, 14-15; Tinka Veldhuis and Jørgen Staun, Islamist Radicalisation: A Root Cause Model (The Hague, 2009), pp. 17-20.Hide Footnote This report primarily examines the risk of existing militant groups affiliating with transnational jihadist organisations and, to a lesser extent, prospects for radicalisation.

As jihadism is not presently evident in southernmost Thailand, the report is inevitably partially conjectural. It draws on interviews conducted in Thailand’s deep south and neighbouring countries from mid-2016, with members of BRN and other militant fronts, Muslim religious leaders, academics and professionals, government officials, military and police officers, students, and recent graduates, including several Malay-Muslim women. The interviews reflect a variety of religious, political and social perspectives from the deep south. We also spoke to Bangkok-based diplomats and other analysts.

II. The Spectre of Jihadism in Southern Thailand

A. A Parochial Insurgency

The insurgency in southernmost Thailand is waged primarily by the Barisan Revolusi Nasional Melayu Patani (Patani-Malay National Revolutionary Front, or BRN), a militant front founded in 1960 to seek independence for Patani. Fractured and weak in the 1980s, the BRN began to reorganise in the 1990s, building a clandestine network throughout the southernmost provinces before launching a series of attacks in the early 2000s, marking a new phase in the decades’ long insurgency. BRN commands the overwhelming majority of Malay-Muslim insurgent fighters in Thailand.

The resurgence of violence in the deep south in late 2001 coincided with the advent of the so-called global war on terrorism and raised concerns among terrorism analysts that the region could become a new battleground for al-Qaeda and its Indonesian affiliate Jemaah Islamiyah (JI).[fn]See Crisis Group Asia Reports N°63, Jemaah Islamiyah in South-East Asia: Damaged but Still Dangerous, 26 August 2003, and N°43, Indonesia Backgrounder: How the Jemaah Islamiyah Terrorist Network Operates, 11 December 2002.Hide Footnote Revelations that the 2002 Bali bombing had been planned in Thailand and the capture of Jemaah Islamiyah operative Riduan Isamuddin, aka Hambali, in Ayuthaya province in central Thailand in August 2003 highlighted the country’s role as an unwitting haven for foreign terrorists and intensified speculation about possible ties between Malay-Muslim militants and international jihadist groups.[fn]The 12 October 2012 car bombings at Kuta, Bali, perpetrated by members of Jemaah Islamiyah, killed 202 people and wounded 209. Several JI members who passed through Thailand, including Hambali, Muhklas, Azahari Husin and Noordin Mohammad Top, contacted “Abdul Fatah”, an Islamic school owner in Narathiwat. Fatah refused to participate in proposed JI operations and had no known links to the insurgency. Hambali failed to recruit local Muslims for attacks in Thailand; he said: “They did not agree with the targets”. Crisis Group Reports, Insurgency, Not Jihad, op. cit., pp. 37-38, and Thailand’s Emergency Decree, op. cit., p. 21, footnote 170.Hide Footnote In reality, Malay-Muslim militants, suspicious of foreign operatives, rejected overtures from JI as well as a proposal to attack tourist sites in Thailand.[fn]Crisis Group Report, Insurgency, Not Jihad, op. cit., pp. 37-38; Joseph Chinyong Liow and Don Pathan, Confronting Ghosts: Thailand's Shapeless Southern Insurgency, Lowy Institute Paper 30, 2010, pp. 71-72.Hide Footnote A senior BRN member recalled being approached by three JI members during a sojourn in Indonesia in 2006. He turned down their request to go to Patani and an invitation to meet JI leader Abu Bakar Bashir. He said: “Our field of struggle is different from theirs”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, senior BRN member, February 2017.Hide Footnote

The Malay-Muslim militant movement’s difference with jihadist groups is clear. It is based on a Malay-nationalist narrative of resistance to Thai colonialism and a struggle for self-determination. Militant rhetoric casts the demand for self-rule as one for independence, a clear goal demanding risk-taking and sacrifice. Bangkok has eschewed assimilationist policies since the 1980s, but BRN continues to harness disaffection with the state arising from the latter’s rigid emphasis on Thai national identity, centralised political control and a sense of second-class status among Malay Muslims. Popular support is difficult to gauge, but the insurgents’ ability to sustain operations over thirteen years in the face of countermeasures is telling.[fn]Crisis Group Briefing, No Traction, op. cit., p. 3.Hide Footnote

After the May 2014 coup that brought the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) to power, the military government pledged to continue a dialogue with separatist militants initiated by the previous government in February 2013. The Majlis Syura Patani (Patani Consultative Council, MARA Patani) umbrella body established in 2015 to negotiate with Bangkok brings together representatives of five militant groups.[fn]MARA Patani nominally brings together five groups: BRN, Barisan Islam Pembebesan Patani (Islamic Liberation Front of Patani, BIPP), two factions of the Patani United Liberation Organisation (PULO) – PULO-MKP (Majlis Kepimpinan Pertubuhan, Party Leadership Council) headed by Kasturi Makhota, and PULO-DSPP (Dewan Syura Pimpinan Pertubuhan, Consultative Council Leadership Party) headed by Noor Abdurahman, until his death in late October 2017 – and Gerakan Mujahidin Islam Patani (Patani Islamic Mujahidin Movement, GMIP). A third PULO faction, PULO-4P (Pertubuhan Persatuan Pembebesan Patani, Patani United Liberation Organisation) headed by Samsudin Khan, did not sign the founding agreement and withdrew from MARA Patani in June 2015.Hide Footnote BRN is not part of the dialogue process, although its members hold the top three positions in MARA Patani. BRN has stated that those of its members in MARA are freelancing and do not speak for the organisation. The dialogue remains unofficial, as Thailand has not agreed to Terms of Reference to govern talks. Nor is there much substantive common ground. Bangkok prioritises its national sovereignty and does not entertain any administrative changes to the region. In contrast, MARA Patani maintains sovereignty is its ultimate goal, even if independence is an issue that must be resolved through negotiation.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, BRN Information Department, June 2016, February 2017. Crisis Group Briefing, No Traction, op. cit., pp. 5-6.Hide Footnote

B. ISIS in South East Asia

To date, the model in South East Asia has been one of existing militant groups and extremist networks seeking to align themselves with ISIS.[fn]Joseph Chinyong Liow, “ISIS in the Pacific: Assessing Terrorism in Southeast Asia and the Threat to the Homeland”, testimony before U.S. House of Representatives, 27 April 2016; ISIS in Ambon: Fallout from Communal Conflict, Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, Report No. 28, 13 May 2016; Fealy and Funston, op. cit., pp. 12, 16, 20.Hide Footnote Many militant groups in Indonesia and the Philippines have sworn allegiance to ISIS and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi since 2014.[fn]At least four groups in Mindanao have pledged oaths of allegiance to ISIS: an Abu Sayyaf Group faction led by Isnilon Hapilon; Dawlah Islamiyah Ranao, also known as the Maute group, led by brothers Abdullah and Omar Maute; a faction of the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters; and Ansarul Khalifa Philippines (Supporters of the Caliphate in the Philippines). In Indonesia, a series of mass oaths of allegiance took place throughout the country in July 2014. Marawi, the “East Asia Wilayah” and Indonesia, Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, Report No. 38, 22 July 2017, p. 2; The Evolution of ISIS in Indonesia, Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, Report No. 13, 24 September 2014, pp. 11-12.Hide Footnote Local jihadists have served to “repackage ISIS and make it relevant to local issues”.[fn]Samuel, op. cit., p. 116.Hide Footnote In both countries and Malaysia existing organisations and longstanding networks have inspired, recruited and funded militants to join ISIS in the Middle East and to stage attacks in their home countries. South East Asians who have joined ISIS in Syria and Iraq have supported – mostly rhetorically but in some cases with funds – affiliates and sympathisers in the region.[fn]Roughly 1,000 South East Asians are believed to have joined ISIS in the Middle East, including women and children. More than half came from Indonesia, followed by Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore. Shashi Jayakumar, “The Islamic State Looks East: The Growing Threat in Southeast Asia”, CTC Sentinel, 22 February 2017; Zachary Abuza, “Jihadism back from the dead in Southeast Asia”, East Asia Forum, 19 August 2017.Hide Footnote

ISIS has not recognised a province in South East Asia, but in January 2016 ISIS designated Isnilon Hapilon, leader of an Abu Sayyaf Group splinter, as amir (commander) and urged other groups that had pledged allegiance to ISIS to follow him.[fn]Marawi, the “East Asia Wilayah” and Indonesia, op. cit., p. 2.Hide Footnote In June 2016, an ISIS video featuring an Indonesian, a Malaysian and a Filipino, called on followers to launch attacks in South East Asia and to join fighters in Mindanao.[fn]Phuong Nguyen, “Recalibrating the Islamic State threat in Southeast Asia”, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 7 July 2016.Hide Footnote In November 2016, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi appealed to “soldiers” to initiate attacks outside Iraq and Syria, citing Indonesia, Bangladesh and the Philippines, but not Thailand. Foreign fighters and ISIS funding directly supported the seizure of Marawi in Mindanao by pro-ISIS groups, including Hapilon’s, in May 2017.[fn]Marawi, the “East Asia Wilayah” and Indonesia, op. cit., pp. 8-9.Hide Footnote

With ISIS collapsing in Syria and Iraq, some fighters may try to get to Mindanao.[fn]Senior Philippines security officials confirmed the presence of foreign fighters in Marawi. On 1 June, soldiers reportedly killed eight foreign fighters: two Arabs, two Malaysians, two Indonesians, one Yemeni and one Chechen. On 23 June, the armed forces of the Philippines reported that around 40 foreign fighters were in the country, including Malaysians, Indonesians, Saudis, and Yemenis. “AFP chief: 40 foreign terrorists in PH; more may arrive in coming months”, CNN Philippines, 24 June 2017.Hide Footnote Regional governments are concerned that returning fighters with combat experience and technical expertise will make local militant groups more dangerous.

C. Thailand’s ISIS Scares

Since late 2015, there have been recurring reports about ISIS threats to Thailand and activity in the southernmost provinces. These reports overwhelmingly proved to be without substance. The media record of ISIS scares seems to indicate competing imperatives for Thai officials. On one hand, they wish to minimise terrorist threats in order to project an image of stability. On the other hand, bombings in recent years have led some officials to publicise security threats lest terrorist attacks materialise and their failure to warn of such attacks undermine the image of their agencies.[fn]A bombing at Bangkok’s Erawan Shrine on 17 August 2015 killed twenty people, including fourteen foreigners, and wounded 125. Two ethnic Uighur suspects are standing trial in Bangkok Military Court. On 11-12 August 2016, seventeen coordinated bomb and arson attacks in tourist destinations in seven provinces of the upper south killed four and wounded 35, including twelve foreign tourists.Hide Footnote

On 21 January 2016, Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha told reporters that authorities were investigating reports that three foreigners with ISIS links had visited a religious school in Sungai Kolok district, Narathiwat province, late in 2015. Media reports, citing anonymous security officials, stated that the ISIS-linked individuals met with imams, donated money and asked that students be taught about ISIS. The school owner told army officers that an Indonesian and Malaysian who had visited the school in December 2015 were former students and there was no discussion of ISIS.[fn]“Report ties IS suspects to South”, Bangkok Post; “Govt on the lookout for Islamic State activists in the deep South”, The Nation; “แม่ทัพ 4 รับผู้ต้องสงสัยโยงไอเอสเข้านราฯ นายกฯไม่ปฏิเสธ อ้างเรื่องลับความมั่นคง”, ศูนย์ข่าวอิศรา [“4th Area commander admits IS suspects entered Nara, PM doesn’t deny, cites national security for secrecy”, Isra News Centre], all 22 January 2016.Hide Footnote Prayuth and the 4th Army Region commander, responsible for the southern provinces, also knocked back rumours that ISIS suspects had been arrested in Narathiwat.[fn]The 4th Army Region, headquartered in Nakorn Sri Thammarat, is responsible for the fourteen southern provinces of peninsular Thailand. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Army Regions cover the central region, north east and north, respectively.Hide Footnote A local army commander said that security forces had not detected any ISIS-linked activities.[fn]“Has IS established a foothold in the Deep South?”, Isra News, 24 January 2016.Hide Footnote

On 22 November 2016, Police General Srivara Ransibhramanakul, deputy national police chief, told reporters that a number of Thais, including some in the deep south, had visited Syria and provided financial support to ISIS, and that more than 100,000 Thais had visited ISIS-related websites, citing a report from the Australian Federal Police.[fn]“Pol Gen Srivara says thousands of Thais are supportive of ISIS”, Thai PBS, 22 November 2016.Hide Footnote Officials quickly walked back Srivara’s claims. The following day, a deputy prime minister said there was no evidence of funding flowing from Thais to ISIS, and a police spokesman said an initial enquiry found no links between Thai internet users and ISIS. Srivara explained: “It was [the Australians’] information, not ours”.[fn]“Thai links to IS denied, despite heavy Facebook, online activity”, The Nation, 24 November 2016; “Authorities play down fears of ISIS in Thailand”, Khaosod English, 24 November 2016.Hide Footnote Australian officials said the information in the report had been misconstrued.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, diplomats, Bangkok, January 2017. The number of visits to purported ISIS-related internet content from Thailand was derived from web scraping, an automated data-extraction process; it is not possible to determine from such data the intent of those accessing particular websites.Hide Footnote

In early February 2017, media reports claimed that one of seven people arrested in Malaysia’s Kelantan state, bordering Narathiwat province, was a Thai national suspected of supporting ISIS. The suspects were accused of preparing improvised explosive devices.[fn]The arrests resemble those of suspected Thai Malay-Muslim bomb makers in the same town, Pasir Mas, in December 2009, where Malaysian police raided a rented house expecting to find drugs. Instead, they found a large cache of materials used to manufacture improvised explosive devices. Three Thai nationals, all Muslims from Narathiwat, were arrested and later charged with possession of firearms and ammunition and possession of explosives. Malaysian courts acquitted all three suspects in 2012, citing insufficient evidence. Anthony Davis, “Borderline Support: Malaysia and Indonesia aid Thai insurgency”, Jane’s Intelligence Review, July 2010; Crisis Group Report, The Evolving Conflict, op. cit., p. 22, footnote 155.Hide Footnote Thailand’s army chief said: “Links to ISIS could be at many levels. It might be at the level of receiving ideas through propaganda from social media”.[fn]“Thais said to be among suspected ISIS militants arrested in Malaysia”, Khaosod English, 7 February 2017; “มาเลย์จับคนไทยพันBRNรัฐบาลประสานขอตัวกลับ”, ไทยโพสต์ [“Malaysia arrests Thai linked to BRN, gov’t coordinating extradition request”, Thai Post], 8 February 2017.Hide Footnote Again, the early identification of an ISIS connection turned out to be erroneous. The suspects are all Thai citizens and suspected members of BRN.[fn]Thai security sources said the arrests in Kelantan – what amounts to a BRN safe haven – as well as the attribution of an ISIS connection, were a result of rifts within Malaysian Special Branch Police and an effort to distract local media from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad corruption scandal in which Prime Minister Najib Razak has been embroiled since mid-2015. Crisis Group interviews, police officer, Pattani; army officer, Narathiwat, both March 2017.Hide Footnote

In early May, Malaysian authorities reported that counter-terrorism police earlier had arrested six people with alleged links to ISIS in the states of Johor, Kelantan, Malacca, Pahang and Penang. A seventh suspect, Muhammad Muzaffa Arieff Junaidi from Kelantan, reportedly fled to Thailand on 22 March. Malaysian police said Junaidi was part of a ring that had been smuggling small arms from southern Thailand for roughly a year in preparation for attacks in Malaysia. On 3 May, Prime Minister Prayuth urged reporters not to “play up” the story, which could cause fear and panic.[fn]“Malaysian IS suspect ‘may have fled to far South’”, Bangkok Post, 3 May 2017; “ISIS cell found smuggling weapons into Malaysia”, The Straits Times, 5 May 2017.Hide Footnote Thai authorities said immigration records showed Junaidi left Thailand at the Sungai Kolok checkpoint in Narathiwat on 21 April.[fn]“Malaysian linked to IS left Thailand on April 21”, Benar News, 6 May 2017.Hide Footnote Junaidi turned himself in to Malaysian police on 23 May.[fn]“Busted: ISIS cell smuggling arms into Malaysia”, The Straits Times, 28 May 2017.Hide Footnote The 4th Army Region commander said there was no evidence to prove Malaysian claims that Junaidi had smuggled weapons from Thailand.[fn]“Thai officials deny Malaysian allegations of IS-linked arms smuggling”, Benar News, 30 May 2017.Hide Footnote

Online developments have contributed to perceptions of an ISIS threat to Thailand.

Online developments have contributed to perceptions of an ISIS threat to Thailand. In late November 2015, two ISIS propaganda videos were posted online carrying Thai-language subtitles. That the subtitles were Thai rather than Malay suggests that Malay-Muslims were probably not the primary intended audience. On 28 November, a four-minute video titled “No Respite” from al-Hayat, the ISIS media wing, appeared on the Millah Ibrahim YouTube account, with Thai-language subtitles.[fn]“ISIS spillover unlikely in Thailand, but can’t be ignored, experts say”, Prachatai, 4 December 2015. The Millah Ibrahim website carried the Indonesian-language versions of Dabiq, an ISIS magazine. Fealy and Funston, op. cit., p. 20.Hide Footnote Authorities blocked the video the following day, but it appeared on Pulse of the Islamic World, a Thai-language Facebook page, on 30 November, along with “From Inside Halab,” another video with Thai subtitles.[fn]“Islamic State supporters in Thailand launch online blitz”, Benar News, 2 December 2015.Hide Footnote In April 2016, an image posted to the Pulse of the Islamic World Facebook page showed a black ISIS flag superimposed on a map of southernmost Thailand. This image, of unknown origin, became a point of departure for an analysis suggesting that ISIS could exploit the insurgency.[fn]“Whatever may be the case, the post has, for the first time, raised the real possibility of ISIL’s hijacking the Southern Thai insurgency”. Vikram Rajakumar, “Insurgency in Southern Thailand: What Does ISIL’s Black Flag of Pattani Portend?”, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) Commentary No. 78, 7 April 2016. See also Anthony Davis, “Media-driven panic fueling fears in Southeast Asia”, Bangkok Post, 22 September 2016.Hide Footnote

D. The View from Bangkok

The Thai government’s overriding concern is to protect the economy from the damage that international terrorism could inflict on the tourism industry, which indirectly contributes more than 20 per cent to Gross Domestic Product (GDP).[fn]Tourism’s indirect contribution to Thailand’s GDP, including “effects from investment, the supply chain and induced income impacts”, is expected to reach 21.9 per cent in 2017. Tourism’s direct contribution to GDP was 9.2 per cent in 2016. Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2017: Thailand, World Travel & Tourism Council, March 2017, p. 3.Hide Footnote This means not only preventing attacks, but also publicly downplaying threats and keeping terrorism out of the headlines.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Thai security official, Bangkok, April 2017.Hide Footnote Thailand is not a member of the U.S.-backed coalition to defeat ISIS, in part to avoid becoming an ISIS target.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Thai official, Bangkok, March 2017.Hide Footnote

Thailand’s immediate problem is jihadist operatives’ use of the country for transit, refuge and logistics. An open-door visa policy to encourage tourism and an active market in fraudulent identification documents make Thailand a useful destination.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, diplomat, Bangkok, March 2017; Veera Urairat, deputy secretary general, National Security Council, Bangkok, 1 March 2017. “Probe into terror links in Thailand-based fake passport racket”, The Straits Times, 6 October 2016. U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Terrorism 2016 - Thailand, 19 July 2017.Hide Footnote Analysts have said Thailand’s role as a convenient place for non-state actors to lay low and transact business serves the country’s security interests, reasoning that these groups would not wish to disrupt their access by targeting Thailand.[fn]In the 1980s and 1990s, the Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka), an Indonesian armed insurgency, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a separatist armed group in Sri Lanka, among others, used Thailand as a safe haven and to procure weapons. Anthony Davis and John Cole, “Thailand’s terrorism nexus”, Jane’s Terrorism and Security Monitor, 29 March 2012.Hide Footnote

Fighters from Asia and Australia have transited Thailand on their way to and from Syria, some embarking for Turkey directly from Bangkok, others first proceeding to third countries.[fn]“Thailand watchful of Islamic State movements”, Benar News, 10 June 2015.Hide Footnote ISIS reportedly has rewarded fighters with trips to Thailand for rest and recreation.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, government official and diplomat, both Bangkok, February and April 2017.Hide Footnote Four ethnic Uighurs arrested in Poso, Indonesia, in 2014 as part of the ISIS-linked Santoso Group had fake passports acquired in Thailand.[fn]“กระแสผวา ‘ไอเอส’ ลามหลังอินโดฯจับ ‘อยกูร์’ ใช้พาสปอร์ตปลอมจากไทย” [“Shocking news: IS spreads to Indo, Uighurs arrested with fake passports from Thailand”], Isra News, 18 September 2014.Hide Footnote Operatives with direct links to ISIS members in Indonesia, the Philippines and Turkey reportedly attempted to assist a Uighur who escaped from a detention facility in North East Thailand in September 2016.[fn]Marawi, the “East Asia Wilayah” and Indonesia, Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, Report No. 38, 22 July 2017, pp. 18-19.Hide Footnote Al-Qaeda and ISIS seek to exploit the plight of the Rohingya, which has inflamed Muslim sentiment throughout South East Asia, and have called for retribution against Myanmar.[fn]“Al Qaeda warns Myanmar of ‘punishment’ over Rohingya”, Reuters, 13 September 2017; “Malaysians in Rakhine to fight army: KL top cop”, Straits Times, 20 September 2017. See Crisis Group Asia Report N°283, Myanmar: A New Muslim Insurgency in Rakhine State, 15 December 2016 and Crisis Group Statements, “Myanmar Tips into New Crisis after Rakhine State Attacks”, 27 August 2017 and “The Rakhine State Danger to Myanmar’s Transition”, 8 September 2017.Hide Footnote Given Thailand’s role as a logistics hub and its proximity to Myanmar, jihadist activity in Thailand could increase.

Officials and security officers emphasise that the insurgency in the deep south is unrelated to transnational jihadism.

Officials and security officers emphasise that the insurgency in the deep south is unrelated to transnational jihadism, but they are concerned about ISIS influence in the region and the threat it may pose to Thailand.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, army general, Hat Yai, January; senior police officer, Bangkok, February; Veera Urairat, deputy secretary general, National Security Council, Bangkok, 1 March, all 2017.Hide Footnote A senior government advisor said: “The south has some sort of immunity against radical ideas. The question is, how long can it remain that way?”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Bangkok, January 2017.Hide Footnote Thai officials pay special attention to roughly 7,500 Thai-Muslim students overseas.[fn]“Thai security agency dismisses allegation about Thai Muslim students abroad”, Bernama, 18 June 2016; “Egypt ranks the most favoured destination for Thai Muslim students”, Isra News, 19 June 2015.Hide Footnote Thai embassies in the Muslim world maintain close links with Thai-Muslim student associations seeking, authorities say, to ensure the students’ welfare. There is a program to match them with jobs when they return.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Veera Urairat, deputy secretary general, National Security Council, 1 March; Thai officials, April, both Bangkok, 2017. Thai embassies in Cairo, Istanbul, Islamabad, Jeddah and Jakarta in particular are active in these efforts.Hide Footnote

Rivalry between the police and military, coupled with politicisation of the police force, have hindered the flow of intelligence, a situation not improved by three years of military rule. The military government dedicates resources to monitoring the regime’s domestic political opponents that could otherwise be used for counter-terrorism. Despite this, Western diplomats suggest that Thai counter-terrorism capabilities are good, provided potential threats are brought to the attention of authorities. Thai officials maintain that they would benefit from international assistance, particularly training on countering transnational crime and screening international arrivals. But Thailand has not yet accepted technology offered by the U.S. as part of its Aviation and Border Security Program that would give immigration officers at international airports access to INTERPOL’s foreign terrorist and Stolen and Lost Travel Documents databases.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, diplomats, Western security official, security analyst, Thai officials, March, April, June, July, all Bangkok, 2017.Hide Footnote

Thailand is party to nine of fourteen international conventions related to suppressing terrorism and amended its Criminal Code (Section 135/2) in 2003 to comply with UN Security Council Resolution 1373, which allows for charges on preparatory offences. It has not drafted laws specifically aimed at offences related to foreign terrorist fighters, including financing or facilitating travel or recruitment of foreign fighters, at least in part due to concerns about a possible adverse impact on tourism.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, terrorism analyst, February; diplomats, March, both Bangkok, 2017. Kitti Jayangakula, “A Critique on Thailand’s Law on Terrorism as a Tool to Combat International Terrorist Activities”, EAU Heritage Journal, vol. 4, no. 1 (January-April 2014), p. 6.Hide Footnote


III. Factors Militating against Jihadist Influence

To date, there has been no confirmed case of a Thai citizen joining ISIS.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Veera Urairat, deputy secretary general, National Security Council, Bangkok, 1 March 2017; Western diplomat, Bangkok, 17 August 2017. “Security authorities emphasized there was no confirmed evidence of Thai citizens joining ISIS, and denied any evidence of operational linkages between ethno‑nationalist Malay Muslim insurgent groups in southern Thailand and international terrorist networks”. U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Terrorism 2016 - Thailand, 19 July 2017.Hide Footnote Nor have any Patani-Malay militant groups shown interest in affiliating with ISIS, al-Qaeda or jihadist networks in South East Asia. On the contrary, the militant fronts are anxious to avoid association with such groups. Several factors have hindered the influence of transnational jihadism within Thailand’s Malay-Muslim society and militant fronts.

A. Freedom of Religion

Muslim religious leaders and academics believe that Salafi-jihadist ideology currently has poor prospects in Thailand, in part because the state protects freedom of religion and does not interfere with Muslims’ religious practices – despite support in some quarters for making Buddhism the state religion. As a result, any narrative centred on religious repression of Muslims is, for now, unlikely to find purchase. While the 2016 constitution mandates that the king be a Buddhist, he is also the defender of all faiths.[fn]Section 7, Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, 2016. Section 31 enshrines freedom of religion, and Section 67 enjoins the state to promote and protect Therevada Buddhism.Hide Footnote The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, in which Thailand has had observer status since 1997, has not condemned Thailand’s handling of the insurgency or declared that Malay Muslims in the country are systematically persecuted.[fn]“OIC head praises govt on South”, Bangkok Post, 13 January 2016.Hide Footnote In short, no credible argument exists that the Thai state seeks to suppress the practice of Islam in the southernmost provinces or elsewhere in the country.[fn]Crisis Group interview, member, Pattani Provincial Islamic Committee, Pattani, February 2017. Another interlocutor illustrated growing tolerance for Islam by noting that in the past there were no prayer rooms in the petrol stations between Pattani and Hat Yai, the largest city in the lower south, whereas today they are ubiquitous, even in Buddhist-owned stations. Crisis Group interview, Salafi civil-society activist, Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote

B. Islam in Southernmost Thailand

Islamic practice in Thailand’s Malay-majority region may be classified into three categories: traditionalist, reformist (or modernist) and revivalist.[fn]Christopher M. Joll, “Islamic Diversity in Thailand’s Far South”, paper presented at the International Conference on “Religion, Business and Contestation in Southeast Asia”, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 27-28 June 2012, pp. 2-5.Hide Footnote These categories correspond to the local form of Sunni Islam, Salafism and missionary movements such as Tablighi Jamaat, respectively.[fn]Tablighi Jamaat in Thailand is resolutely apolitical and is not discussed further here. See Ernesto Braam, “Travelling with the Tablighi Jamaat in South Thailand”, International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM) Review, no. 17 (2006); Alexander Horstmann, “The Inculturation of a Transnational Islamic Missionary Movement: Tablighi Jamaat al-Dawa and Muslim Society in Southern Thailand”, Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, vol. 22, no. 1 (2007).Hide Footnote A small number of Shia also live in the region.[fn]There are no official estimates of the Shia population in the southernmost provinces, but Shia constitute less than 1 per cent of Thailand’s Muslim population and most live in the central region. Pew Research Center, Mapping the Global Muslim Population, October 2009, p. 41.Hide Footnote

The distinction between traditionalist and reformist does not always do justice to complexities on the ground as the substance and meaning of these terms has shifted over time.[fn]“Distinguishing between the old and the new was fraught with practical as well as theological difficulties, and in practice many Malay Muslims embraced hybridized beliefs, practices and identities”. Duncan McCargo, Tearing Apart the Land: Islam and Legitimacy in Southern Thailand (Cornell, 2008), p. 25.Hide Footnote Local people employ these categories, however, and they remain useful for analytical purposes.[fn]Crisis Group Report, Recruiting Militants, op. cit., p. 16.Hide Footnote Reformist influence has been so widely felt over the past thirty years that many Malay Muslims identify themselves on a traditionalist-reformist spectrum.[fn]Crisis Group interview, imam, Pattani, March 2017. Marte Nilsen, Negotiating Thainess: Religious and National Identities in Thailand’s Southern Conflict, Lund University, 2012, p. 167; McCargo, Tearing Apart, op. cit., p. 25.Hide Footnote

A. Traditionalist

The great majority of Malay Muslims in Thailand follow what is commonly called traditional or “old school” Islam. As in the rest of South East Asia, Sunni Islam of the Shafii school of jurisprudence is dominant. Old school Islam in Patani incorporates folk beliefs, some pre-Islamic, known as adat, or custom.[fn]Worawit Baru (Ahmad Idris), “Tradition and Cultural Background of the Patani Region”, in Volker Grabowski (ed.), Regions and National Integration in Thailand, 1892-1992 (Wiesbaden, 1995), p. 208.Hide Footnote These practices include making merit for the dead (accruing benefits for oneself and one’s deceased relatives by performing good deeds), maintaining shrines and consulting village shamans, or bomoh. Traditional Islamic practice “was ritualistic, mystic, and for the most part, undertaken as an expression of personal piety”.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, civil-society activists, Pattani, February and April 2017; member, Pattani Provincial Islamic Council, April 2017; Imtiyaz Yusuf, “The Southern Thailand Conflict and the Muslim World”, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, vol. 27, no. 2 (August 2007), p. 325.Hide Footnote

Malay identity is central to the practice of customary Islam in Patani; the ethnic and religious elements are intertwined, if not inextricable. The extent of the identification of ethnicity with religion is expressed in the local term for conversion to Islam, masok nayu, “to be become Malay”.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, civil-society activists, Pattani, February and April 2017; member, Pattani Provincial Islamic Council, April 2017; Imtiyaz Yusuf, “The Southern Thailand Conflict and the Muslim World”, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, vol. 27, no. 2 (August 2007), p. 325.Hide Footnote Certainly, the meaning of “Malayness” is elusive; only in the mid-20th century did “Patani-Malay” begin to describe a political identity.[fn]Patrick Jory, From “Melayu Patani” to “Thai Muslim”: The Spectre of Ethnic Identity in Southern Thailand (Singapore, 2007).Hide Footnote In practice, local Malay Muslims maintain multiple identities conditioned by circumstances: Thai citizen; Malay (Patani Malay: nayu); Muslim; etc.[fn]For studies of Malay identity in southernmost Thailand, see: Soroja Dorairajoo, “‘No Fish in the Sea’: Thai Malay Tactics of Negotiation in a Time of Scarcity”, Ph.D. Harvard University, 2002; Anusorn Unno, “We Love ‘Mr. King’: Exceptional Sovereignty, Submissive Subjectivity, and Mediated Agency in Islamic Southern Thailand”, Ph.D. University of Washington, 2011; Christopher Joll, Muslim Merit-Making in Thailand’s Far-South (Dordrecht, 2012); Michiko Tsuneda, “Navigating Life on the Border: Gender, Migration, and Identity in Malay Muslim Communities in Southern Thailand”, Ph.D. University of Wisconsin - Madison, 2009; Pierre Le Roux, “To Be or Not to Be ...: The Cultural Identity of the Jawi (Thailand)”, Asian Folklore Studies, vol. 57, no. 2 (1998); Nilsen, op. cit.Hide Footnote The amorphousness of Malay identity has not prevented the militant organisations from using it as a core tenet of their ideology. The insurgency has heightened the salience of Patani-Malay Muslim and Thai-Buddhist identities.

Many local Muslim religious leaders, academics, activists and militants see traditionalist Islam and Patani identity as bulwarks against jihadist ideology. A Salafi university lecturer argued that a Patani native would have to spend decades abroad and, in essence, abandon Patani-Malay culture before they could be influenced by the likes of ISIS.[fn]Crisis Group interview, lecturer, Prince of Songkhla University College of Islamic Studies, Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote Some see local Islamic education as another obstacle to jihadist influence; the depth of knowledge and understanding of Islam imparted in local religious schools means that even if students are exposed to jihadist ideas, they will not be swayed.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Malay-Muslim student activist, Pattani, February 2017; imam, Pattani, March 2017.Hide Footnote A senior Patani United Liberation Organisation (PULO) member said that Shafii teachings handed down in local Islamic schools offered an “immune system” to local people: “Their faith is the firewall against extremists’ influence”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, senior PULO-MKP member, March 2017.Hide Footnote

Some Malay Muslims, including militant leaders, perceive ISIS as un-Islamic due to its intolerance and brutality.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Malay-Muslim woman journalist; Salafi academic; Salafi civil-society activist; senior BRN member, all February 2017.Hide Footnote They believe the cruelty with which ISIS has treated prisoners and carried out attacks on civilians transgress Islamic principles and the bounds of jihad, and damages Islam’s image.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Ahmad Omar Chapakia, vice president, Fatoni University; Abdulqahar Awaeputeh, director, Muslim Attorney Centre; Muslim woman civil-society activist; member of Pattani Provincial Islamic Committee; all Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote A religious teacher noted that while prayers in local mosques are regularly extended to mujahidin in Palestine and Afghanistan, and to the Rohingya, “the name of ISIS has never been mentioned”.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, ustaz (religious teacher) and member of the Malay Language Council of Thailand, Pattani, February 2017; former inmate at Pattani Central Prison, Pattani, April 2017.Hide Footnote

B. Reformist

While the majority of rural Malays follow traditional Islam, many well-educated, urban Malay Muslims are adherents of reformist, or “new school”, Islam.[fn]Duncan McCargo, Mapping National Anxieties: Thailands Southern Conflict (Copenhagen, 2012), p. 55.Hide Footnote Salafi reformism in Thailand dates to the 1920s, and succeeding waves of reformism have transformed Islam in the deep south.[fn]An Indonesian exile, Ahmad Wahab, settled in Bangkok in 1926 and founded Thailand’s first Islamic reform association, Ansorisunnah. Raymond Scupin, “The Politics of Islamic Reformism in Thailand”, Asian Survey, vol. 20, no. 12 (1980), p. 1,225.Hide Footnote Reformists constitute a small but influential minority, representing roughly 10 per cent of Muslims in the region.

Many prominent Salafis are associated with Fatoni University, formerly the Yala Islamic College, founded in 1998. They are politically quietist and broadly aligned with the state. The best-known reformist is the university’s founder and rector, Dr. Ismail Lutfi Japakiya.[fn]Crisis Group Report, Insurgency, Not Jihad, op. cit., p. 32; Christopher Joll, “Religion and Conflict in Southern Thailand: Beyond Rounding Up the Usual Suspects”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 32, no. 1 (2010), p. 264.Hide Footnote Lutfi was educated in Saudi Arabia and became the foremost exponent of Salafism in Thailand.[fn]Lutfi holds a doctorate in comparative Islamic jurisprudence from the Islamic University of Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud in Riyadh.Hide Footnote He has publicly shunned the insurgency and cooperated with the Thai state.[fn]Lutfi wrote a rebuttal of a tract, Berjihad di Patani (The Struggle for Patani), found among militants killed in April 2004 that offered religious justifications for violence. He also served as an appointed senator following the September 2006 coup. King Maha Vajiralongkorn, then crown prince, visited the Yala Islamic College in 2004. Liow, “Muslim Identity”, op. cit., p. 1,411.Hide Footnote Salafis tend not to align with the militant movement, which emphasises Malay identity (see Section III. C.1 below).[fn]Crisis Group interviews, former militant; religious teacher, both Pattani, April 2017.Hide Footnote In Salafi forums, participants mainly use Thai rather than Malay. Locals recognise Salafis for their work on education and social and economic development.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, PULO-DSPP member No. 2, March 2017; member, Pattani Provincial Islamic Committee, Pattani, April 2017.Hide Footnote

Salafis seek to cleanse local Islamic practices of parochial and mystical traditions they deem heretical innovations.

Salafis seek to cleanse local Islamic practices of parochial and mystical traditions they deem heretical innovations (bidaa). The reformist project in Patani gained ground in the 1980s and 1990s, reflected, for example, in Arabisation of the religious lexicon and adoption of hijab and even niqab (full-face veil) by some women.[fn]Joll, “Usual Suspects”, op. cit., p. 265.Hide Footnote The spread of reformist, conservative Islamic thought in the region over the past 30 years generated acrimonious debates between Salafis and traditionalist leaders. Traditionalists refer to Salafis as “Wahhabis”, which Salafis regard as pejorative.[fn]Old-school adherents also call reformists ore ngaji mudo (Patani Malay: those following the new teaching) or ore Brao (Patani Malay: people from Brao); Brao, a village near Pattani town, is Lutfi’s ancestral home. Joll, “Islamic Diversity”, op. cit., p. 3.Hide Footnote Conversely, the perceived self-righteousness of reformists did not sit well with many local people.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Thai academic, Bangkok, March 2017.Hide Footnote This led to rifts within communities, and the proliferation of new mosques to serve reformist congregations.[fn]McCargo, Tearing Apart, op. cit., pp. 28-30.Hide Footnote It also led to some uncertainty about religious authority and Malay identity, as reformers disputed the propriety of cultural practices and challenged traditional religious leaders.[fn]Yusuf, “Faces”, op. cit., p. 13; Joll, “Usual Suspects”, op. cit., p. 265.Hide Footnote

Faced with resistance from traditionalists, who saw reformism as a threat to Malay ethnic identity, Salafis began to attenuate their approach, emphasising wasatiyyah, the middle way.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Salafi university lecturer, Pattani, February 2017; Thai analyst, Bangkok, March 2017. Joll, “Islamic Diversity”, op. cit., p. 5; McCargo, Tearing Apart, op. cit., pp. 25-27.Hide Footnote One scholar described a process of “localization of Wahhabism”.[fn]Joseph Chinyong Liow, “Islamic Education in Southern Thailand: Negotiating Islam, Identity, and Modernity”, in Robert Hefner (ed.), Making Modern Muslims: The Politics of Islamic Education in Southeast Asia (Honolulu, 2009), p. 163.Hide Footnote Thus, certain practices once prohibited by Salafis as bidaa, such as veneration of shrines, were later condoned under certain circumstances.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Christopher Joll, research associate, Religious Studies Program, Victoria University of Wellington, Bangkok, 7 April 2017.Hide Footnote For example, although strict Salafis reject mawlid, celebration of the Prophet Mohammed’s birthday, Lutfi has contributed to an annual volume published by the Islamic Center of Thailand that commemorates the occasion.[fn]Liow, “Islamic Education in Southern Thailand”, op. cit., p. 163.Hide Footnote

Some locals, including many Salafis, see ISIS as a creation of the West, particularly the U.S., the product of international machinations that have nothing to do with protecting Islam or enhancing the welfare of Sunni Muslims.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Malay-Muslim woman community activist, Pattani, February 2017; Salafi and civil-society activist, Pattani, February 2017; senior PULO-MKP member, March 2017.Hide Footnote In this regard, some liken ISIS to al-Qaeda, which they also see as a creature that turned on its creator.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, senior BRN member, February; senior PULO-MKP member, March; BIPP leader, March, all 2017. For example, several militants noted that ISIS has never attacked Israel.Hide Footnote A book on ISIS published by Fatoni University advances this argument.[fn]Crisis Group interview, former inmate at Pattani Central Prison, Pattani, April 2017.Hide Footnote A Salafi academic explained, “I find the ISIS ideology is incompatible with the local people’s culture. It doesn’t reflect anything Islamic, but rather the original Arab barbarian culture before the advent of Islam”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Salafi academic, Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote

C. Patani-Malay Militant Organisations

Patani militants eschew jihadism for ideological and practical reasons.[fn]For discussion of reasons why local militant groups choose to affiliate to transnational jihadist movements and why those movements seek or accept such affiliations, see Daniel L. Byman, Breaking the Bonds between Al-Qaida and Its Affiliate Organizations, Brookings Analysis Paper No. 27, August 2012.Hide Footnote The militant groups purport to fight for an independent Islamic, Patani state and have declared their opposition to jihadist ideology. BRN and other Patani militant groups have significant ideological, political and religious differences with ISIS and al-Qaeda. Contrary to ISIS, Patani militants do not reject the existing international system but instead seek a state within it.[fn]Maher, Salafi-Jihadism, op. cit., p. 11.Hide Footnote The main militant fronts were founded in the 1960s, long before al-Qaeda, ISIS or the Abu Sayyaf Group, and their leaders are not inclined to subordinate their struggle to the interests of outsiders.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, army general, Hat Yai, January 2017; BIPP leader, March 2017; Crisis Group correspondence, BRN Information Department, June 2017.Hide Footnote Many militants see the Patani nationalist movement as a bulwark against jihadism.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, BRN Information Department, February 2017; PULO-DSPP member No. 2, March 2017.Hide Footnote

A. Ethnic nationalism

Cultural identity and ethnic nationalism are at the core of militant ideology.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, senior BRN member, February; PULO-DSPP member No. 1, March, both 2017.Hide Footnote BRN and PULO embrace ideologies based on religion, ethnicity and territory, expressed in Malay as agama (religion), bangsa (nation) and tanah air (motherland).[fn]These three concepts are represented by the first three letters of the Arabic alphabet, alif, ba, and ta. PULO added a fourth element, perkemanusiaan (humanitarianism). Crisis Group interview, former inmate at Pattani Central Prison, Pattani, April 2017; Crisis Group Reports, Recruiting Militants, op. cit., pp. 10-17; Evolving Conflict, op. cit., p. 3; Insurgency, Not Jihad, op. cit., p. 8.Hide Footnote The perception that the state does not recognise or respect Malay identity is a grievance widely felt in Patani-Malay society.[fn]“Our ethnicity has never been acknowledged. I have no problem with Thai nationality, but my ethnicity isn’t Thai, it’s Malay. ... Ignoring our ethnicity and restricting use of our language are ... violations of our human rights”. Crisis Group interview, Malay-Muslim woman journalist, Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote

The militants are fighting for what they see as self-determination over a geographically delimited area and restoration of their rights. They are, in their view, anti-colonial fighters. For militant leaders, the identity of the colonisers is incidental. Their fight is not based on antipathy toward a particular religious or ethnic group. Some have articulated the aim of a multi-ethnic state that protects the rights of non-Muslims: “We regard those Buddhists who were born in Patani, who live in Patani and who are ready to accept Islamic governance as our people”.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, senior PULO-MKP member; BIPP leader, both March 2017.Hide Footnote Support for such pluralism does not always extend to the rank-and-file, but it is another indication of fundamental differences with transnational jihadists.[fn]According to a BRN member: “Some of our men just want to attack Siamese. It’s wrong. Our enemy is not the Siamese, because each ethnic group was created by God”. Crisis Group interview, February 2017.Hide Footnote

Militant parochialism can at times verge on Patani chauvinism, such that non-Patani natives, even Malay speakers, are excluded from their ranks.

Militant parochialism can at times verge on Patani chauvinism, such that non-Patani natives, even Malay speakers, are excluded from their ranks. One BRN member, for example, struggled to gain the trust of the organisation, despite having been born in Pattani, because his parents had moved to the region from central Thailand. He spoke Malay, was descended from Patani war captives transported to Bangkok at the end of the 18th century, and his father had founded an Islamic school, but the fact that his family spoke Thai at home meant he was suspect.[fn]Crisis Group interview, BRN member, December 2016.Hide Footnote A religious teacher observed, “The door of BRN is not open to foreign influence”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Muslim religious teacher, Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote

Malay-Muslim militants are engaged in a geographically bounded struggle for territory on the Malay Peninsula that now constitutes Thailand’s southernmost provinces.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, PULO-DSPP member No. 2, March 2017; senior BRN member, February 2017.Hide Footnote BRN indoctrination emphasises Bangkok’s efforts to promote a Thai national identity at the expense of Patani-Malay identity and involves a process of linking historical, nationalist and religious factors to Patani territory.[fn]Sascha Helbardt, Deciphering Southern Thailand’s Violence: Organization and Insurgent Practices of BRN-Coordinate (Singapore, 2015), pp. 120-122.Hide Footnote BRN’s constitution reportedly identifies “the area of struggle [as] the entire region of Malay Muslims under Siamese colonization”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, senior BRN member, February 2017. Some early Patani liberation movements included the west coast province of Satun in their conception of Patani territory. Satun is majority Muslim, but most do not speak Malay. Satun was not part of the historical Patani sultanate, and the insurgency does not extend there. It is not typically considered part of Patani. See Thomas I. Parks, “Maintaining Peace in a Neighbourhood Torn by Separatism: The Case of Satun Province in Southern Thailand”, Small Wars & Insurgencies, vol. 20, no. 1 (2009).
Hide Footnote
Other militant groups also maintain that their fight is for a delimited space that, by right, belongs to the Patani people.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, senior PULO members, March 2017.Hide Footnote Many Malay-Muslims outside the movement share this conception of a struggle defined by history, geography and ethno-nationalist aims.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Malay-Muslim woman doctor; member, Pattani Provincial Islamic Committee; religious teacher, all Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote A religious leader said: “Even if ISIS is trying to infiltrate into this region, and recruit the local people, it must be extremely difficult, because we already have the existing organisations. What the local people need and what ISIS needs are different. The struggles are in different contexts”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, member, Pattani Provincial Islamic Committee, Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote

Militants’ rejection of ISIS is part of a tradition of Patani separatist suspicion of outsiders, stemming in part from a desire to maintain security and avoid entanglements.[fn]Crisis Group interview, senior BRN member, February 2017. Astri Suhrke and Lela Garner Noble, “Muslims in the Philippines and Thailand” in Suhrke and Noble (eds.), Ethnic Conflict in International Relations (New York, 1977), p. 208.Hide Footnote According to a senior PULO member:

There’s no need to steal ideologies from others, and we have no need to resort to radicalism … . Our own problems have never been solved. There’s no reason for us to be involved in others’ struggles. ISIS is fighting for a course different from ours, whereas we are fighting for the good governance of Patani based on justice and humanity.[fn]Crisis Group interview, senior PULO-MKP member, March 2017.Hide Footnote

The militant fronts have not articulated detailed plans for the government of an independent Patani state. This vagueness serves to minimise potential rifts and preserve the putative unity of the Malay-Muslim community.

B. Religion

Islam is a marker of Malay identity and a constituent part of the self-determination struggle. Traditionalist religious leaders and separatists have long employed appeals to Islam and jihad to validate the Patani nationalist struggle.[fn]Crisis Group Reports, Insurgency, Not Jihad, op. cit., pp. 21, 22, and Recruiting Militants, op. cit., pp. 14-15; Astri Suhrke, “The Thai-Muslim Border Provinces: Some National Security Aspects”, in Robert Ho and E. C. Chapman (eds.), Studies of Contemporary Thailand (Canberra, 1973), p. 310; Surin Pitsuwan, Islam and Malay Nationalism: A Case Study of the Malay Muslims of Southern Thailand (Boulder, 1985), pp. 116-117, 246-247; Wan Kadir Che Man, Muslim Separatism: The Moros of the Southern Philippines and the Malays of Southern Thailand (Singapore, 1990), p. 174.Hide Footnote A PULO member, interviewed in 1971, said: “[The people] must be taught Islam first, and when they are strong in Islam we teach the history of our region and the needs for the future”.[fn]Astri Suhrke, “Loyalists and Separatists: The Muslims in Southern Thailand”, Asian Survey, vol. 17, no. 3 (March, 1977), p. 245.Hide Footnote Late-1970s PULO leaflets cited the Quran to assert Muslims’ obligation to fight against kafir (unbeliever) rulers and to designate Muslims who refuse to fight as munafik, or “hypocrites”.[fn]Chaiwat Satha-anand, Islam and Violence: A Case Study of Violent Events in the Four Southern Provinces, Thailand, 1976-1981, USF Monographs in Religion and Public Policy, 1987, pp. 30-35.Hide Footnote

The self-determination struggle is cast as a religious obligation. According to a senior PULO member: “If we run away from this struggle, we shall be asked questions on the Day of Judgement”. He also said that Islam prohibits waging war against another religion and that the fight is for survival of Patani-Malay people.[fn]Crisis Group interview, senior PULO-MKP member, March 2017.Hide Footnote A religious scholar noted that “fighting for Malay nationalism automatically means a struggle for Islam” because Malay ethnicity and Islam are “two sides of one coin”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, member, Pattani Provincial Islamic Committee, Pattani, April 2017.Hide Footnote Contemporary insurgents do not rely on renowned clerics to provide exegesis of the Quran or written theological justifications for jihad. Rather, the impetus comes directly from local religious teachers to their students.[fn]Joseph Chinyong Liow, “Ideology, Religion, and Mobilization in the Southern Thai Conflict”, in Scott Helftsen (ed.), Radical Islamic Ideology in Southeast Asia (West Point, 2010), p. 82.Hide Footnote The aim of the insurgency remains Patani self-determination.[fn]Virginie Andre, “Violent Jihad and Beheadings in the Land of Al Fatoni Darussalam”, Religion, vol. 6 (2015), p. 1,207.Hide Footnote

C. Costs of affiliation or emulation

The Patani militant fronts recognise that affiliation with ISIS or al-Qaeda would be damaging, even self-defeating, and likely cost them popular support at home and legitimacy abroad. This is one reason militants are hostile to the idea of foreign jihadist intervention in southern Thailand.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, BRN Information Department, June 2016, February 2017. “ISIS spillover unlikely in Thailand, but can’t be ignored, experts say”, Prachatai, 4 December 2015.Hide Footnote

A decision to affiliate with global jihadists would invite international efforts against the militants and deprive them of any chance of gaining the recognition and support from the international community necessary to achieve their aim of self-rule.[fn]“If we follow [ISIS’s] way, there’s no hope for us to be supported by the outside world”. Crisis Group interview, PULO-DSPP member No. 1, March 2017.Hide Footnote It would also cost the movement access to its de facto safe haven in northern Malaysia, which is unlikely to tolerate ISIS or al-Qaeda activity within its borders.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Ahmad Omar Chapakia, vice president of Fatoni University, Pattani, February 2017; Liow, “Muslim Identity”, op. cit., p. 1,419; see also Jason Johnson, “Faint ISIS footprint in Thailand’s deep south”, Asia Times, 8 March 2017.Hide Footnote A Malay-Muslim academic noted: “If Malaysia closed its door to the movement, would they still be able to operate as they do now? For this reason, it’s very important for them not to be seen as extremists”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Ahmad Omar Chapakia, vice president of Fatoni University, Pattani, February 2017. See also comments by Chamroon Den-Udom, chairman, Southern Islamic Culture Foundation, in “ISIS’ Malay-language media unlikely to win hearts, minds in deep south”, Khaosod English, 13 July 2016.Hide Footnote

Affiliation with ISIS or al-Qaeda would also lead to a loss of popular support for the movement. Any boost to capabilities would be more than offset by a loss of legitimacy. A civil-society activist said, “When [the militants] are seen as ISIS, they will immediately lose the legitimacy of their struggle”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Muslim woman civil-society activist, Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote

The Malay-Muslim fronts are [...] unlikely to adopt signature tactics of foreign jihadists, such as suicide bombings and attacks aimed at mass casualties.

For similar reasons, the Malay-Muslim fronts are also unlikely to adopt signature tactics of foreign jihadists, such as suicide bombings and attacks aimed at mass casualties. Militants, officials and locals alike assert that indiscriminate mass-casualty attacks would cost the movement popular support and a claim to international legitimacy.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Malay-Muslim lawyer, Pattani, February; Muslim official, Yala, March; Veera Urairat, deputy secretary general, National Security Council, Bangkok, 1 March, all 2017.Hide Footnote BRN representatives said that they would not employ indiscriminate mass-casualty attacks because the group requires cooperation from the local Muslim population.[fn]Crisis Group interview, BRN Information Department, February 2017.Hide Footnote A PULO leader said that their struggle shielded Patani from jihadism, because “as soon as our operations show the smallest indication of influence from ISIS, the superpower will intervene … . [M]ass destruction is not beneficial for our struggle, but rather devastating to it”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, PULO-DSPP member No. 2, March 2017. In 2006, a PULO leader observed: “Once we are on that [terrorist] list, it is all over”. “Interview: Kasturi Mahkota, foreign affairs spokesman, Patani United Liberation Organisation (PULO)”, Jane’s Intelligence Review, 9 September 2006.Hide Footnote

This is not to say that militants are always scrupulous in their targeting or hesitant to kill civilians, including Muslims. While BRN does not issue claims of responsibility for attacks, and thus attribution is difficult, the conflict has been marked by atrocities, including murders of civilians, beheadings (post-mortem), burning of bodies and indiscriminate bombings against official or Buddhist civilian targets.[fn]Crisis Group Report, Recruiting Militants, op. cit., p. 14.Hide Footnote A daytime bomb attack on the Big C hyper-mart in Pattani on 9 May 2017, which wounded 80 people, including Muslim women and children, appeared to demonstrate a greater willingness to risk indiscriminate Muslim civilian casualties. Still, as several Malay-Muslims noted, BRN appears to weigh popular perceptions of insurgent violence in its planning. Popular disapproval and religious edicts have resulted in militants reducing or ceasing controversial forms of violence such as beheadings and attacking Buddhist monks.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Malay-Muslim woman doctor, Pattani, February 2017; member, Pattani Provincial Islamic Committee, Pattani, February 2017; Thai-Muslim government official, Yala, March 2017. Don Pathan, “Thai military and insurgents change tack in southern provinces”, Nikkei Asian Review, 15 August 2016.Hide Footnote

IV. “Hell in South East Asia”? Risks of Jihadist Influence

In spite of the factors militating against jihadist influence expounded above, there is a persistent fear that jihadist ideology could gain currency in the region under certain circumstances. Asked about this possibility, a BRN member quoted Tengku Mahmud Mahyiddin, son of the last Patani sultan, circa 1945: “‘If the Patani issue is not resolved soon, it will become a hell in South East Asia’”. The BRN member continued:

In the past, these words seemed far removed from reality. But today, the situation has changed. External elements are trying to push hard to enter the conflict, and these are elements that no one wants, like terrorist ideologies, global terrorism. What I’m trying to say is that it could be a hell in South East Asia. It’s not impossible that this could happen. BRN is not able to hold off these terrorist elements on its own.[fn]Crisis Group interview, BRN Information Department, June 2016.Hide Footnote

This warning reflects two concerns about jihadism most commonly expressed by local people, militants, Thai officials and foreign observers. First, that young Muslims, particularly those not belonging to the established militant organisations, could be radicalised by online propaganda. Second, that a protracted insurgency could open the door to transnational jihadist extremism, particularly if some militants perceive the current model of insurgency as inadequate.

A. Radicalisation?

Some Malay Muslims in the deep south appear ambivalent about ISIS, likely a function in part of ignorance.[fn]A series of surveys conducted in the deep south returned disturbing but anomalous results. The first, conducted in 2015, asked if respondents knew of ISIS and if they agreed with ISIS treatment of enemy prisoners: 49 per cent were aware of ISIS and 10.9 per cent agreed with its treatment of prisoners. A consortium of fifteen Thai research institutes conducted other surveys. Asked if respondents agreed with ISIS operations, 15.8 per cent agreed or strongly agreed; in July-August 2016, asked if ISIS treatment of prisoners and opponents was appropriate, 19.3 per cent agreed or strongly agreed; 41.9 per cent responded “do not know” and 11 per cent preferred not to answer. The Center for Conflict Studies and Cultural Diversity (CSCD) surveyed 2,014 people in the three southernmost provinces in 2015. A consortium of fifteen Thai research organisations conducted three “Peace Surveys” – February-March 2016, July-August 2016, and April-May 2017 – with sample sizes of 1,560, 1,570 and 1,583, respectively. Respondents were selected from the southernmost provinces and four southeastern districts of Songkhla using stratified random sampling. Crisis Group correspondence, CSCD, April 2017; รายงานผลการสำรวจความคิดเห็นของประชาชนต่อกระบวนการสันติภาพในจังหวัดชายแดนภาคใต้ ครั้งที่ 1 กุมภาพันธ์ มีนาคม 2559 [Report on the Results of the Public Opinion Survey toward the Peace Process in the Southern Border Provinces No. 1, February-March 2016] (Bangkok, 2016), p. 31; “การแถลงข่าวผลการสำรวจความคิดเห็นประชาชนต่อกระบวนการสันติภาพจังหวัดชายแดนภาคใต้/ปาตานี ครั้งที่ 3” [Announcement of Results of the Public Opinion Survey of People toward the Peace Process in the Southern Border Provinces/Patani No. 3], Deep South Watch, 24 September 2017.Hide Footnote Indeed, several interlocutors said that they lacked sufficient knowledge of ISIS.[fn]Crisis Group interview, member, Pattani Provincial Islamic Committee; Malay-Muslim woman journalist; Malay-Muslim woman physician, all Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote A Malay-Muslim activist faulted local intellectuals and academics for failing to discuss ISIS publicly, but she acknowledged that their reticence likely stems from fear: “They might think that just talking about ISIS, they will be regarded as ISIS [by the authorities]”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Muslim woman civil-society activist, Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote Some imams tend to minimise the issue of jihadism; young people with questions about it may not know where to turn for answers.[fn]Crisis Group interview, analyst, Bangkok, March 2017.Hide Footnote A student in Indonesia said that Thai students there have greater access to information about ISIS, all of it negative: “The situation in Patani is more dangerous because information on ISIS is so limited”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Malay-Muslim student, Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote These interlocutors believe that greater public discussion of jihadism would help inform local people and dispel misperceptions.

Thai authorities and some militants caution that young people could fall prey to jihadist ideology propagated via social media. There is particular concern about young Malay Muslims who have come of age amid an apparently unending conflict.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, diplomats, Thai officials, Bangkok, March, April 2017; BRN Information Department, June 2016, February 2017. “‘ไอเอส’ เกิดยาก ไทยไม่ใช่เป้าหมาย” [“‘IS’ unlikely, Thais not the target”], Post Today, 28 May 2017; “Thailand’s Deep South not suitable for ISIS: experts”, Prachatai, 25 January 2016. Unpublished focus-group research, conducted by Virginie Andre of Deakin University in 2015 and 2017, found a degree of “fascination and curiosity” about ISIS among young Thai Muslims throughout Thailand. Crisis Group interview, Virginie Andre, Bangkok, 17 March 2017.Hide Footnote A Malay-Muslim activist observed: “Some people can be motivated only by hearing the word ‘Islam’, and become supportive of all Muslim struggles. This is a risk factor that might open up a way for extremism”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Malay-Muslim student activist, Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote The fear that exposure to online propaganda will result in “radicalisation” among young Muslims is widespread but largely unsupported.[fn]Kate Ferguson, Countering Violent Extremism Through Media and Communications Strategies, Partnership for Conflict, Crime & Security Research, 1 March 2016, pp. 10-11.Hide Footnote Moreover, so few Muslims turn to violence that it is difficult to accurately draw linkages that help identify social groups vulnerable to radicalisation; indeed attempting to do so would likely prove counterproductive, by unfairly stigmatising those groups.[fn]Veldhuis and Staun, op. cit., pp. 64-66.Hide Footnote

There is little to indicate that ISIS has won support or sympathy for its cause in southernmost Thailand through social media.[fn]Tracking jihadist social media is difficult as sites and channels are frequently closed and re-opened. Diplomats report that there are relatively few (fewer than ten) jihadist sites directed at Thai Muslims. Crisis Group interviews, Bangkok, April, August 2017.Hide Footnote In 2014-2015, some Patani-Malay youths posted ISIS symbols, especially its black flag, on their Facebook pages and other social-media platforms. There are no reliable estimates of how widespread this practice was, but local interlocutors noted two qualifying factors. First, the use of ISIS imagery was most widespread following ISIS’s 2014 battlefield victories, and the appeal appears to have been primarily that of proclaiming solidarity with conquering Muslim underdogs. The practice waned as ISIS atrocities gained wider media coverage and might well wane further as ISIS faces defeat in Iraq and Syria. Secondly, the ISIS flag is emblazoned with words familiar to Muslims that are neither radical nor objectionable: “There is no god but Allah”, and “Allah, Mohammed, Messenger”.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Malay-Muslim students, Pattani; member, Malay Language Council of Thailand, Pattani; senior PULO-MKP member, all February and March 2017. Hara Shintaro, “Bin Laden was everywhere”, Prachatai, 22 March 2016.Hide Footnote

Representatives of BRN’s Information Department have expressed concern that young people in the region, especially those affected by the conflict, could be influenced by online jihadist propaganda:

In terms of appeal, ISIS propaganda is very clever in how they portray links between the enemy and suffering. Because every day, young people in Patani witness Siamese oppression. So, this propaganda resonates. The risk for young people outside the Party [BRN] is that they are not mature from a religious or political standpoint, so they may be drawn to it.[fn]BRN Information Department, June 2016.Hide Footnote

BRN believes the problem can be contained, but expressed interest in working with the international community to build bulwarks against jihadism in the region. The BRN representatives were not specific about what they envision, but said that with greater political space for dialogue and international cooperation, BRN would be in a better position to defend Patani from these external influences.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, BRN Information Department, June 2016 and February 2017.Hide Footnote

In the absence of specifics, and with BRN representatives only recently and hesitantly emerging from the shadows, this appeal for international cooperation is open to interpretation. The concern about foreign jihadist influence may be genuine. But it is also possible that BRN sees the international community’s focus on ISIS – and thus its own efforts to highlight the threat – as an opportunity to build advantageous external relations and bolter its argument that, should its demand go unmet, the Thai state might soon be facing a far more ominous foe.

B. Protracted Conflict

The insurgency’s protraction and intractability are dynamics that arguably could spur shifts within the militant movement or create opportunities for foreign jihadists to exploit. This is a catch-all concern, covering, for example, a sense of hopelessness among Malay Muslims, a splintering among militant groups, or a resort by the state to iron-fisted tactics that could provoke an extremist backlash. More broadly, protracted conflict means more weapons, more specialists in violence and hardening of sectarian and ethnic boundaries.

Lack of an inclusive peace dialogue process, or failure to generate momentum in talks, likewise could increase the likelihood that militants resort to more spectacular violence to put pressure on Bangkok. There are indications that inhibitions within the militant movement on attacks outside the four southernmost provinces and causing civilian casualties may be breaking down.[fn]A partial list of attacks outside the deep south includes: a small bomb near Ramkhamhaeng University in Bangkok in May 2013; an undetonated truck bomb in Phuket, discovered in December 2013; a car-bomb explosion in a shopping centre car park in Koh Samui, April 2015; and the 11-12 August 2016 bombings of tourist areas in the upper south.Hide Footnote Some argue that if BRN is marginalised by the peace process – one that it currently shuns but has not rejected in principle – or otherwise driven to desperation, it could turn to outside actors to achieve its aims.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, BRN Information Department, February 2017; Salafi civil-society activist; member of Pattani Provincial Islamic Committee, all Pattani, February 2017; Thai analyst, Bangkok, March 2017. BRN has stated that it is not a party to the MARA-Patani dialogue process. As conditions for dialogue, BRN demands an impartial mediator, third-party observers and a process designed by the negotiating parties. Barisan Revolusi Nasional Melayu (BRN), Press Release, 10 April 2017.Hide Footnote

More plausible, though still unlikely, is the emergence of splinter groups, perhaps along generational lines, that may see advantages in aligning with jihadists. Stasis in the insurgent campaign or dialogue process could strain the militant fronts. A former inmate of Pattani Central Prison said that several imprisoned insurgents expressed a sense of comradeship with ISIS, as fellow Muslim fighters: “But asked if they wanted to join ISIS, they answered that it was impossible because the struggle for their own people and motherland wasn’t over yet: ‘Why should we go to their place, when the struggle in our place isn’t finished?’”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, former inmate at Pattani Central Prison, Pattani, April 2017.Hide Footnote A veteran security analyst noted that any Malay-Muslim splinter groups adopting terrorist tactics are likely to espouse Patani-nationalist, rather than jihadist ideology.[fn]Crisis Group interview, security analyst, Bangkok, February 2017.Hide Footnote

Moves by the state to reintroduce policies perceived as unfair to Muslims would generate feelings of religious persecution.

Another speculative concern is that increased violence or repeated attacks on civilians outside the deep south could fuel anti-Muslim sentiment and militant Buddhist nationalism, creating distrust and enmity between Muslim and Buddhist communities throughout the country.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, army officer, Narathiwat, March 2017; Buddhist community leader, Yala, April 2017. “ISIS spillover unlikely in Thailand, but can’t be ignored, experts say”, Prachatai, 4 December 2015; “Thailand: Buddhists cite violence fears in bid to withhold mosque permit”, Benar News, 7 June 2017; Panu Wongcha-um, “In conflict-hit southern Thailand, Buddhist nationalism is on the rise”, Channelnewsasia.com, 18 June 2017.Hide Footnote In turn, moves by the state to reintroduce policies perceived as unfair to Muslims would generate feelings of religious persecution; several interlocutors mentioned a return of the hijab ban, which was lifted in the 1980s, though such a policy has not been mooted.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Salafi civil-society activist, Pattani, February 2017.Hide Footnote Ill-conceived proposals, such as one to build a Buddhist park in Pattani, risk deepening alienation and perceptions of discrimination among Malay Muslims, sentiments that in other places have sometimes driven increased sympathy for transnational jihadist movements that claim to defend Muslims.[fn]The Pattani provincial government, with support from the Network of Buddhists for the Protection of Buddhism, proposed construction of a large Buddhist park in Muang district. Local Muslims objected and the proposal was scrapped. “Thailand’s Deep South not suitable for ISIS: experts”, Prachatai, 25 January 2016; “Muslim leaders question Buddhist park plan in Pattani”, Bangkok Post, 17 January 2017.

Finally, there is the risk of spillover from ISIS supporters in Malaysia. Southernmost Thailand could serve as a haven for Malaysian jihadists, given the porous border and abundance of weapons in the region. According to Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, ISIS supporters have crossed from Thailand into Malaysia and from Malaysia into Thailand in transit to third countries. Thai Prime Minister Prayuth has acknowledged the need to resolve the problems in the deep south so as to deny violent outside groups an opportunity to intervene in the conflict.[fn]“Cross-border crime, counterterrorism among key issues in Zahid’s visit”, New Straits Times, 4 August 2016; “‘บิ๊กตู่’ปัดไฟใต้เชื่อมโยง‘ไอเอส’”, คมชัดลึก [“‘Big Tu’ denies the southern situation is linked to ‘IS’”, Khom Chad Leuk], 30 May 2017.Hide Footnote

Despite these concerns, southernmost Thailand for now remains an unfriendly environment for groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda. But while the insurgency persists, so too does the risk that splinter groups or others come to see benefits in aligning with transnational jihadists. Ending the conflict should be a priority for both the government and militants; primarily to end the human suffering and disruption it already causes, but also to mitigate against such a threat. Direct talks between Bangkok and BRN and readiness to compromise on both sides are priorities in this respect.

For BRN, this means reconciling with an end state that preserves Thailand’s territorial integrity. For Bangkok, it means recognising that the political status quo is unlikely to lead to an end to violence. A decentralised political order that respects Malay-Muslim identity and affords the opportunity to realise local aspirations while protecting the rights of local Buddhists remains the best hope for a resolution of the conflict. The international community can help by encouraging both sides to talk, providing good offices when appropriate, and assisting militants to build the capacity to engage in constructive dialogue. They must certainly avoid casting the insurgency as a problem of “violent extremism”.[fn]For a longer exploration of the risks of the Countering or Preventing Violent Extremism (C/PVE) agenda more broadly, see Crisis Group Special Report, Exploiting Disorder, op. cit.Hide Footnote Conflict resolution should be the overriding imperative.

V. Conclusion

The insurgency waged by members of a Malay-Muslim minority against the Thai state appears to some observers as a possible opening for transnational jihadists to expand their influence. There undoubtedly are cases in which militants with local agendas see advantages in affiliating with transnational jihadist groups. But, so far at least, in southernmost Thailand local nationalism remains fundamentally at odds with such groups’ methods and aspirations. Thailand lacks a tradition of jihadist movements and networks that, elsewhere in South East Asia, have pledged allegiance to ISIS and al-Qaeda. The leaders of existing militant fronts are antagonistic to these groups and their South East Asian affiliates because they see association with international terrorists as a threat to their goal of Patani self-determination. Adopting tactics associated with jihadist groups would also cost local support and international legitimacy, while inviting international hostility.

All of which means that, for now, jihadist expansion in southernmost Thailand is at most a potentiality. Still, it would be a mistake to dismiss categorically the possibility that jihadists could sway individuals or small groups or even disaffected factions of existing militant groups. There are no clear signs of this happening, and a host of factors militate against it, but motivations for participation in jihadist violence are diverse and often divorced from religious or ideological convictions.

Malay-Muslim militants and the Thai state have a common interest in keeping out ISIS and other jihadist groups. While for now, the conflict has not led to the pervasive disorder that jihadists have exploited elsewhere, it could evolve in ways that generate more promising conditions for jihadist intervention. Stalemate or miscalculation could lead some militants to employ more spectacular violence, which in turn could lead to a rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in Thailand, and a broader sectarian conflict. To avert this, and to fulfil their obligations to the people of southernmost Thailand, Bangkok and the militant fronts should seek compromise and a negotiated end to the conflict.

Bangkok/Brussels, 8 November 2017

Appendix A: Map of Thailand

Map of Thailand International Crisis Group/KO/Sept 2016. Based on UN map no.3853 Rev. 2 (July 2009)
Thai EOD personnel inspect the site of a bomb attack in Thailand's troubled southern province of Pattani, on 5 July 2016. REUTERS/Surapan Boonthamon
Thai EOD personnel inspect the site of a bomb attack in Thailand's troubled southern province of Pattani, on 5 July 2016. REUTERS/Surapan Boonthamon
Briefing 148 / Asia

Southern Thailand’s Peace Dialogue: No Traction

The August bombings in seven of Thailand's tourist towns portend a wider conflict, while the peace dialogue process has lost momentum. To get back on track, fragmented militants must end doubtful hopes of victory through violence, and the government must commit to a comprehensive settlement, including decentralisation and respect for the deep south’s Malay-Muslim identity.

I. Overview

The peace dialogue between Thailand’s military government and some Malay-Muslim separatist leaders in exile has foundered. Coordinated bombings in August on tourist areas outside the customary conflict zone in the deep south bear the hallmarks of the separatists and indicate that the government’s approach of containing the insurgency is not working. The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), which seized power in the 2014 coup, professes to support dialogue to end the insurgency but avoids commitment, and the prime minister has questioned the talks. The main insurgent group has rejected the process, and the number of fighters the umbrella entity set up to negotiate in 2015 controls is unknown. A decentralised political system could help resolve the conflict by giving respect to Malay-Muslim identity and aspirations while preserving the unitary state, but a pernicious stalemate prevails, with both state and militants preferring hostilities to compromise. The August bombings in the upper south should encourage the government to seek talks for a comprehensive settlement.

Map of Thailand. CRISIS GROUP

Since seizing power, the NCPO has been preoccupied with running a politically divided country slipping toward the uncertainties of the approaching end of King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s seven-decade reign. Though the army opposed the dialogue process when it began under Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s government in 2013, the NCPO pledged to restart talks and invited Malaysia to resume facilitation. However, the NCPO appears caught between the imperative of talking to show locals and the international community that it does the right thing and an abiding fear that dialogue will legitimise the separatists and pave the way for international intervention and eventual partition.

In March 2016, after two plenaries and three rounds of technical talks, the NCPO’s dialogue team and the MARA Patani – the Majlis Syura Patani (Patani Consultative Council) umbrella body established in 2015 to negotiate with Bangkok – reached preliminary agreement on an eight-point Terms of Reference (ToR) that would open the way for official talks. But the next month, the army abruptly transferred the secretary for the Thai dialogue team, who had led efforts on the ToR. At a 27 April meeting in Kuala Lumpur, the Thai team declined to sign, saying it needed to review the document, and questioned MARA Patani’s standing to engage in official talks. Despite a further meeting on 2 September, dialogue remains at a preliminary, unofficial stage.

The NCPO’s preferred approach has more to do with convincing militants to surrender than achieving a settlement with leaders in exile. It has suppressed political engagement countrywide, suspending elections and curtailing civil liberties, while seeking to establish a foundation for long-term control after the general election promised for late 2017. Its argument that rebels should give up violence and work for peaceful change rings hollow, since it allows no political activity. With local civil society increasingly stifled, prospects for bringing popular pressure to bear for genuine dialogue are slim.

Serious talks are also hindered by the militants’ disunity and parochialism. While proponents of the dialogue argue that other factions will join once the process gains momentum, many observers doubt MARA Patani currently can speak for a critical mass of fighters. Professed members of the main insurgent group, the Barisan Revolusi Nasional Melayu Patani (Patani-Malay National Revolutionary Front, BRN), hold leading positions in MARA Patani, but do not have the sanction of the group’s leadership. BRN has questioned NCPO sincerity and emphatically rejected talks without foreign observers, a stipulation that stokes the regime’s fears of internationalisation. There are no indications that Islamic State (IS) or proponents of its global jihadist ideology have made inroads with Thailand’s ethno-nationalist Malay militants.

Divisions and capacity constraints pose major challenges but are a less immediate obstacle than lack of determination to negotiate a settlement. The NCPO appears interested primarily in mere semblance of dialogue and opposed to any solution involving devolution of political power. BRN has not advanced a political platform that could serve as a basis for talks. MARA Patani has yet to demonstrate an ability to influence events on the ground. The stalemate is insufficiently painful to induce the parties to seek a negotiated end to the conflict with a sense of urgency. The 11-12 August bombings indicate the militants’ capacity to inflict greater damage on lives, property and the economy, however. The government should recognise this threat and reconsider its approach to dialogue. The militants should recognise that a wider conflict and continued targeting of tourist areas is likely to bring an uncompromising military response from Bangkok and international opprobrium.

II. The Second Dialogue Process

The ethno-nationalist insurgency stems from the region’s 1902 incorporation into Siam.[fn]For earlier Crisis Group work, see Asia Reports N°s 270, Southern Thailand: Dialogue in Doubt, 8 July 2015; 241, Thailand: The Evolving Conflict in the South, 11 December 2012; 181, Southern Thailand: Moving Towards Political Solutions?, 8 December 2009; 170, Recruiting Militants in Southern Thailand, 22 June 2009; 140, Southern Thailand: The Problem with Paramilitaries, 23 October 2007; 129, Southern Thailand: The Impact of the Coup, 15 March 2007; 105, Thailand’s Emergency Decree: No Solution, 18 November 2005; 98, Southern Thailand: Insurgency, Not Jihad, 18 May 2005; and Briefings N°s 113, Stalemate in Southern Thailand, 3 November 2010; 80, Thailand: Political Turmoil and the Southern Insurgency, 28 August 2008.Hide Footnote  Beginning in the 1960s, but dormant for most of the 1990s, when BRN, the major militant group, was building a clandestine network in the southernmost provinces, it re-emerged with new vigour in 2004. Since then, more than 6,670 have been killed and 12,231 wounded; some 6,000 children have lost a parent and 3,000 women been widowed.[fn]Casualty figures are for January 2004-June 2016 and from Deep South Watch’s Incident Database. Some violence is from common criminality, not insurgency, but determination is often hard. “Children, women, bear toll of violence in Thailand’s Deep South”, Benar News, 4 January 2016. The provinces involved are Narathiwat, Pattani, Songkhla and Yala, which are referred to in this briefing alternatively as the “southernmost provinces” or the “deep south”. The conflict zone includes four south-eastern districts of Songkhla – Chana, Na Thawi, Saba Yoi and Thepa – and the three other provinces. The conflict zone’s population is roughly 1.8 million, about 80 per cent Malay Muslim, the remainder mostly Thai or Sino-Thai Buddhists. “Pattani” with two “t’s” is a transliteration of the province name. “Patani” refers to the pre-annexation sultanate, corresponding roughly to the conflict zone.Hide Footnote

BRN and other Malay nationalist movements cast their struggle as one of self-determination and liberation from Thai rule. BRN recruitment appeals emphasise the discrepancy between an idealised, prosperous and pious past with what they portray as present degradation and injustice resulting from Thai subjugation.[fn]อาทิตย์ เทียนศิริ, “การปลูกฝังความคิดทางการเมืองของผู้ก่อความไม่สงบในสามจังหวัดชายแดนภาคใต้: ศึกษาเฉพาะกรณีจังหวัดนราธิวาส” [Arthit Teansiri, “Political Indoctrination of Delinquents in the Three Southern Border Provinces: A Case Study of Narathiwat Province”], MA thesis, Sukhothaithammatirat University (2008); Sascha Helbardt, Deciphering Southern Thailand’s Violence (Singapore, 2015), pp. 115-118.Hide Footnote  Support is hard to measure, but the insurgents’ ability to sustain operations over twelve years in the face of determined countermeasures is telling. While Bangkok has eschewed overtly assimilationist policies since the 1980s, BRN continues to harness disaffection arising from the rigid emphasis on Thai identity at the expense of Malay identity. Its aims are above all local and nationalist. It has spurned foreign jihadist efforts to establish links, and there is no evidence of such presence in the deep south.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, MARA Patani member Abu Hafez Al-Hakim, Kota Bharu (Malaysia), senior army officer, March 2016; intelligence officer, April 2016; PULO member, BRN member, June 2016. Crisis Group Report, Insurgency, op. cit., pp. 1, 32, 37-38.Hide Footnote

A. Legacy of the Kuala Lumpur Process

The dialogue process the NCPO military government initiated is a legacy of the Yingluck Shinawatra government (2011-2104). On 28 February 2013, in Kuala Lumpur, its representatives, identified as Party A, and BRN, then recognised as Party B, signed a “General Consensus on Peace Dialogue Process”, inaugurating the first official talks between Bangkok and Malay-Muslim separatists. Malaysia facilitated via Datuk Seri Ahmad Zamzamin Hashim, ex-director general of the prime minister’s department.[fn]Crisis Group Report, Dialogue in Doubt, op. cit., p. 8.Hide Footnote  This dialogue collapsed after three plenaries amid disarray on both sides and political turmoil in Bangkok that preceded the May 2014 coup. But it was also a breakthrough: Bangkok’s first public acknowledgement of the need to negotiate an end to the conflict with “those with different views and ideologies from the state who use violence”.[fn]“National Security Policy for Development and Administration of the Southern Border Provinces, 2012-2014”, Office of the National Security Council. This policy remains in effect pending National Legislative Assembly approval of a new one. The army has held secret, unofficial talks with separatist groups since the 1970s, usually as intelligence exercises or to induce surrenders. In 2006, an international NGO received approval to facilitate dialogue with militants, but the process was undermined by disunity on both sides.Hide Footnote

Another outcome of this process was that BRN issued five conditions for continuing talks: Malaysia must mediate, not just facilitate; the Thai state must recognise the talks as between it and Patani Malays, represented solely by BRN; the Association of South East Asian Nations, the Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) must observe; the state must release all insurgent suspects and revoke all arrest warrants; and it must recognise BRN as an independence, rather than separatist movement.[fn]Crisis Group Report, Dialogue in Doubt, op. cit., pp. 6-7. After the Yingluck government determined in October 2013 that the conditions did not conflict with the constitution and could be discussed with the BRN, it faced seven months of anti-government protests in Bangkok. See also Duncan McCargo, “Southern Thailand: From Conflict to Negotiations?”, The Lowy Institute, April 2014.Hide Footnote

In spite of the army’s well-advertised opposition to the Kuala Lumpur process, the NCPO, headed by General and Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, publicly committed to a second dialogue process.[fn]The NCPO reportedly recognised that locals supported peace dialogue, so retained it as policy to bolster its popularity. Crisis Group interview, senior police officer, Bangkok, April 2016.Hide Footnote  On 26 November 2014, Prayuth issued Prime Minister’s Order 230/2557 establishing a three-level dialogue mechanism: at the policy level, the Steering Committee for Peace Dialogue, chaired by him; a peace dialogue delegation, headed by General Aksara Kerdpol; and at the local level, an interagency coordination working group, headed by the commander of the 4th Army Region, Ltieutenant General Wiwat Pathompak.[fn]The Steering Committee also includes the army chief, justice ministry permanent secretary, and directors of the National Intelligence Agency, National Security Council and Southern Border Provinces Administration Centre (SBPAC). The 4th Army Region, headquartered in Nakorn Sri Thammarat, is responsible for the fourteen southern provinces of peninsular Thailand. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Army Regions cover the centre, north east and north.Hide Footnote  The order authorises the dialogue panel to hold official talks with “those who think differently”.[fn]“คำสั่งสำนักนายกรัฐมนตรีที่ 230/2557 เรื่อง การจัดตั้งกลไก ขับเคลื่อนกระบวนการพูดคุย เพื่อ สันติสุขจังหวัดชายแดนภาคใต้” [Prime Minister’s Office Order 230/2014, “Establishment of a Mechanism for Peace Dialogue for the Southern Border Provinces”].Hide Footnote  The NCPO set out three phases of dialogue: confidence building, an agreement, and a roadmap for its implementation.

B. Re-starting Preliminary Talks

The second dialogue process started in Prayuth’s 1 December 2014 meeting with Prime Minister Najib Razak, when he asked that Malaysia again facilitate. In March 2015, militant-group representatives established the MARA Patani for united participation in talks with Bangkok. It nominally brings together five groups: BRN, Barisan Islam Pembebesan Patani (Islamic Liberation Front of Patani, BIPP), two factions of the Patani United Liberation Organisation (PULO), and Gerakan Mujahidin Islam Patani (Patani Islamic Mujahidin Movement, GMIP).[fn]The PULO factions in MARA Patani are PULO-MKP (Majlis Kepimpinan Pertubuhan, Party Leadership Council) headed by Kasturi Makhota, and PULO-DSPP (Dewan Syura Pimpinan Pertubuhan, Consultative Council Leadership Party) headed by Noor Abdurahman. A third, PULO-4P (Pertubuhan Persatuan Pembebesan Patani, Patani United Liberation Organisation) headed by Samsudin Khan, did not sign the founding agreement and withdrew in June 2015. Little is known about GMIP, which appears not to have conducted operations since the early 2000s. A recent survey of 1,559 people in the region found that 55.1 per cent of respondents had heard of PULO and 48 per cent of BRN, but only 6.5 per cent of BIPP. “งานแถลงข่าว รายงานผลการสำรวจความคิดเห็นของประชาชนต่อกระบวนการสันติภาพในจังหวัดชายแดนภาคใต้ ครั้งที่ 1” [“Peace Survey, Results 1st Survey on Opinions of the People on the Peace Dialogue Process in the Southern Border Provinces”], press release, Centre for Study of Conflict and Cultural Diversity, May 2016, p. 7. A consortium of fifteen Thai research organisations did the survey.Hide Footnote  MARA’s leaders are senior figures with long ties to the separatist movement who have been in exile, often for decades and mostly in Malaysia.

The top positions are held by professed BRN members – Awang Jabat is chairman, Shukri Hari delegation chief and Ahmad Chuwo a steering committee member. However, that group’s senior leaders have not endorsed their participation. Movement sources say these MARA delegates were senior BRN figures but were suspended after violating its code of secrecy to participate in the dialogue. They may keep unofficial links to BRN and followers in the region, but their participation in MARA is freelance.[fn]Awang Jabat was present at the signing of the General Consensus in February 2013 but was then dropped from the BRN delegation. Shukri Hari and Ahmad Chuwo taught at the Thammawitaya Mulinithi School in Yala. Shukri fled Thailand in 2007 after being indicted for a security offence and receiving bail. Secrecy is a defining BRN characteristic: experience persuaded its leaders that public exposure and security are incompatible. Crisis Group interviews (all 2016), BRN member, PULO member, June; MARA Patani member, Kota Bharu, March; intelligence officer, Bangkok, April; BRN sympathiser, May. See also Crisis Group Report, Dialogue in Doubt, op. cit., p. 21.Hide Footnote  The other MARA groups are not known to command significant numbers of fighters. Supporters have played this down, arguing that as the process shows progress, BRN will eventually join.[fn]A Thai military source estimated that BRN controls more than 90 per cent of fighters. Don Pathan, “Decades-long identity crisis fuels insurgency in Thailand”, Thailand News Today (online), 9 July 2016. Crisis Group interviews, PULO member, BRN member, June 2016; BIPP and MARA Patani member Abu Hafez Al-Hakim, Kota Bharu, March 2016. Major General Nakrob Bunbuathong, deputy commander, 5th Operations Co-Ordination Centre, Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) and secretary, Thai peace dialogue delegation, comments at Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand (FCCT), 2016; Dato’ Sri Ahmad Zamzamin Hashim, facilitator, Joint Working Group (JWG)-Peace Dialogue Process on Southern Thailand, “Facilitating the Peace Dialogue: Challenges and Next Steps”, unpublished remarks delivered at third Pa(t)tani Peace Media Day, Pattani, 28 February 2016.Hide Footnote

The sides convened for a low-key introduction on 8 April 2015 in Kuala Lumpur. At the first “unofficial meeting” of the Joint Working Group (JWG)-Peace Dialogue Process on 8 June, Aksara, the Thai delegation head, proposed creating safety zones in which the militants would cease attacks. MARA said these could only be discussed after an agreement to begin official talks.

At the second JWG meeting, 25 August, each side tabled three proposals. MARA Patani demanded, as preconditions for an official process, that the government acknowledge it as Party B, rather than merely “those who have different views from the state”; the legislature endorse the process, thus making it part of the “national agenda”, to ensure continuity; and MARA members receive immunity from prosecution to facilitate visits to Thailand.[fn]Abu Hafez Al-Hakim, “Voice outside the fence: 1 year of peace dialogue – where are we?”, Prachatai, 1 December 2015.Hide Footnote  The Thai delegation proposed to identify priority areas for development to improve life quality; mutually determine safety zones; and ensure equal access to the judicial process. These are standard formulations of NCPO policy for resolving the region’s problems, but, a Malay-Muslim noted, development, security and justice are existing governmental responsibilities, so not appropriate peace dialogue topics.[fn]See สํานักงานสภาความมั่นคงแห่งชาติ, แผนปฏิบัติการ การแก้ไขปัญหาและพัฒนาจังหวัดชายแดนภาคใต้ ประจาปีงบประมาณ พ.ศ. 2559 [Office of the National Security Council, “Implementation Plan for Resolving Problems of the Southern Border Provinces”, Fiscal Year 2016, January 2016], p. 2. Crisis Group interview, Muslim religious leader, Pattani, April 2016.Hide Footnote  The facilitator circulated a draft ToR, intended to set guidelines for official talks.

On 27 August, MARA Patani met the press in Kuala Lumpur. Abu Hafez Al-Hakim of BIPP said sovereignty remained the ultimate goal, but MARA was “considering other options”, and the independence issue would be determined by negotiations. He conveyed MARA’s intention to be a platform for all Patani liberation movements and civil society organisations, including Buddhist and women’s groups.[fn]Thaweeporn Kunmetha, “Thailand’s Deep South insurgents officially meets media first time”, Prachatai, 27 August 2015.Hide Footnote  MARA, as well as non-MARA BRN representatives, have said that Patani independence would benefit all those native to the region, including Chinese and Thais, and that an independent Patani would protect freedom of religion.[fn]Crisis Group interview, BRN member, June 2015. Abu Hafez Al-Hakim, comments quoted in Thaweeporn Kunmetha, “Pattani with two t’s or one? The politics of naming”, Prachatai, 20 September 2015.Hide Footnote

C. BRN Opts Out

With MARA’s unprecedented press conference and the exchange of proposals, the dialogue appeared at last to be making modest progress, but insurgent unity did not last.

With MARA’s unprecedented press conference and the exchange of proposals, the dialogue appeared at last to be making modest progress, but insurgent unity did not last. BRN broke its silence with a 7 September 2015 video declaring its intention to continue fighting for Patani independence. Its message was unequivocal rejection of the process, but not of dialogue in principle. Abdul Karim Khalib, speaking as a representative of its information department, noted the suspension of political rights under the military government and asserted that “establishment of a democratic government that respects the will of the people is the way out of the conflict” in the deep south.[fn]Abdul Karim Khalib, a BRN youth wing leader, is considered a hardliner. He joined BRN’s delegation in talks with Yingluck’s government in 2013 after signing of the General Consensus.Hide Footnote  He also accused the “Siamese colonisers” of lacking sincerity and mentioned the challenge posed to Thailand by imminent royal succession.[fn]Crisis Group email correspondence, Pattani-based analyst, 9 June 2016. A Thai translation of the Abdul Karim Khalib video omitted reference to succession and softened the original Malay language’s tone. “เปิดคำแปลฉบับเต็มคลิป BRN กับความเห็นของฝ่ายรัฐ” [“Full translation of BRN clip with viewpoint of the state”], Isara News, 8 September 2015.Hide Footnote

In a rare interview on 11 October 2015, another information department representative criticised discontinuity with the 2013 dialogue process and declared “BRN is categorically not involved”, and “the way in which this process has been set up is flatly rejected”.[fn]Anthony Davis, “Southern Thai insurgents stake out peace terms”, Nikkei Asian Review, 11 October 2015.Hide Footnote  Its statement the next day referred to the five conditions submitted under the previous dialogue and reaffirmed willingness to participate in peace talks if there was “engagement of a mediator and observers from other states”. Echoing Abdul Karim, it cited UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960) on decolonisation as a basis for Patani self-determination and rejected “a peace process used as a form of political subterfuge in order to deceive and undermine the strategy of the Patani-Malay people’s advancement”.[fn]Statement, BRN Information Department, 12 October 2015. “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”, UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960). “[F]rom a legal perspective, a ‘people’ [in Resolution 1514] is generally understood as the collective inhabitants of a colonial territorial unit; minority groups are not intrinsically covered by it”. Jay Lamey, “Peace in Patani? The Prospect of a Settlement in Southern Thailand”, in Stability: International Journal of Security & Development, vol. 2, (2013), p. 5.Hide Footnote

A few days after the video, Prayuth said he had not accepted MARA’s conditions, would not be pressured, and dialogue was already a national priority, codified in national security strategies for resolving the conflict. Recognising MARA as Party B, he added, was not needed; trust had to be built first.[fn]“‘บิ๊กตู่’ยังไม่รับ3ข้อ’มาราปาตานี” [“‘Big Tu’ [Prayuth] doesn’t accept MARA’s 3 conditions”, Matichon, 11 September 2015]. “นายกฯไม่รับขอเรียกร้อง’มาราปาตานี’”, [“PM rejects MARA Patani’s demands”], Krungthep Thurakit, 11 September 2015.Hide Footnote

D. Technical Team Meetings

In October 2015, MARA received a more detailed response to its proposals that reportedly linked its three conditions to each of Thailand’s proposals in a manner that a member called “vague and not up to our expectation”.[fn]In the Thai proposal, acknowledgment of MARA Patani is tied to reduced violence, the national agenda issue to development, and immunity for members of the Party B panel to access to alternative judicial procedures. Al-Hakim, “Voice”, op. cit., Prachatai, 1 December 2015.Hide Footnote  MARA did not respond, preferring to wait for the next JWG meeting. In view of substantive disagreements, the sides decided to hold separate technical talks on the sticking points of the draft ToR.[fn]Major General Nakrob Bunbuathong, comments at FCCT, op. cit.Hide Footnote  Unsourced Thai-language media later reported that the meetings produced agreement on safety zones in Narathiwat’s Bacho and Cho Airong districts. From the Thai perspective, this would help establish which groups were able to control fighters.[fn]“คณะทำงานชุดเล็ก ‘รัฐ-มาราฯ’ ชงนำร่องหมู่บ้านหยุดยิง 2 อำเภอนราฯ” [“State-MARA technical teams decide on ceasefire villages in 2 Nara districts”], Isra News Service, 19 November 2015; “นำร่องหยุดยิง2อำเภอนราฯ พิสูจน์’มารา ปาตานี’ตัวจริง?” [“Does a ceasefire in 2 Nara districts prove MARA Patani is for real?”], Khom Chad Leuk, 20 November 2015.Hide Footnote  However, on 22 November, MARA Patani’s Shukri Hari described reports that the meeting addressed safety zones as “untrue and baseless”, and a deliberate effort to undermine the dialogue. MARA, he said, would not discuss safety zones until the dialogue was official.[fn]“Patani Consultative Council (MARA Patani) Disclaimer”, Deep South Watch (online), 22 November 2015.Hide Footnote

On 10 January 2016, MARA Patani met in Kuala Lumpur with the OIC secretary general, Iyad Ameen Madani, at, according to Abu Hafez, the OIC’s initiative.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Abu Hafez Al-Hakim, Kota Bharu, 25 March 2016.Hide Footnote  Several civil society representatives from the deep south also attended.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, ibid; imam, Pattani, March 2016. “Interview: What is being discussed by OIC, Patani independence group in KL?”, Prachatai, 13 January 2016.Hide Footnote  Madani went on to Bangkok, meeting on 12 January with Prayuth, who said Madani praised Thai efforts and sincerity in solving the problems of the southernmost provinces; however, the OIC meeting rankled Thai officials. A retired army officer speculated that Malaysia organised it to help MARA gain OIC observer status as part of a strategy to achieve “special administration”, or autonomy, like Mindanao’s Moro National Liberation Front in the Philippines, an OIC observer since 1977.[fn]“การมาของ ‘โอไอซี’ ว่าด้วยหัวข้อ ‘ไอเอส’ ”, ไทยโพสต์ [“OIC visits, speaks about IS”], Thai Post, 15 January 2016. Thailand is one of five OIC observers since 1998. “สถานการณ์ใต้-การรุกคืบของ’มาราปาตานี’ซึ่งจะส่งผลลบต่อการ’พูดคุยสันติสุข’” [“South situation: MARA Patani’s advance will have negative impact on ‘peace dialogue’”], Naew Na, 26 January 2016. “สันติสุข-ปรองดองกับข้อเสนอดับไฟใต้” [“Peace-reconciliation with proposals to end southern conflict”], Thai Post, 17 January 2016.Hide Footnote  

The technical teams met again on 25-27 January to address the conflict parties’ names; geographical scope of the conflict area; promotion of justice; and facilitation and logistics.[fn]“หัวหน้าคณะพูดคุยเพื่อสันติสุขจังหวัดชายแดนภาคใต้บอกกระบวนการพูดคุยคืบหน้าด้วยดี” [“Head of South peace dialogue panel says talks proceeding well”], Benar News, 2 February 2016.Hide Footnote  In February, Major General Nakrob Bunbuathong, the Thai delegation secretary, said a ToR document was 95 per cent set. Recognition of MARA Patani was resolved by a footnote that Thailand would refer to Party B, though Party B refers to itself as “MARA Patani”.[fn]“We could not accept the name because although BRN is in the room [with MARA], there’s that video saying BRN disagrees. And there’s still violence. It shows they don’t control all their people”. Major General Nakrob Bunbuathong, comments at FCCT, op. cit.Hide Footnote  Immunity for MARA members and arrangements for travel to Thailand remained open, but Nakrob said he expected ToR agreement in June. MARA was similarly optimistic.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, MARA Patani members, Kota Bharu, March 2016.Hide Footnote

On 28 February, a Pattani university hosted a Peace Media Day to mark the third anniversary of the General Consensus on Peace Dialogue at which Nakrob spoke for the Thai delegation and Malaysian facilitator Zamzamin Hashim and MARA Patani’s Awang Jabat sent video statements. Zamzamin acknowledged the high mutual mistrust: MARA, he said, had concerns about NCPO sincerity and its interim government status; Thais had misgivings about whether Awang Jabat had a mandate from BRN’s leadership, though he is “the best available BRN leader that had agreed to come out in public to initiate the process”. Awang Jabat said, “MARA Patani is not confident of the Thai government’s commitment to seek fair, holistic and sustainable solution to the conflict”. After three rounds of technical meetings over five months, the sides agreed to an eight-section ToR on 23 March, covering guidelines for talks, including identification of dialogue parties, formation of a Technical Working Group and security for Party B.[fn]Dato’ Sri Ahmad Zamzamin Hashim, “Facilitating the Peace Dialogue”, op. cit. Awang Jabat, “The Patani Peace Process 3rd Anniversary Speech”, 28 February 2016. Abu Hafez Al-Hakim, “Dissecting the T-O-R”, Prachatai, 19 May 2016.Hide Footnote

III. BRN Weighs In

A. Spike in Violence

In February, after several years of declining violence, militants stepped up operations.

In February, after several years of declining violence, militants stepped up operations. Over the course of the insurgency, violence has regularly risen and fallen, conditioned by insurgent strategy and resources and state countermeasures. Improvised explosive device (IED) and shooting attacks left 44 dead between 10 February and 1 June. On 27 February, a 100kg bomb exploded in a stolen car in front of a roadside restaurant next to a police post in Pattani’s Muang district, injuring seven police officers and five civilians. The site was just metres from a main security checkpoint leading into Pattani town, near to the university where the Peace Media Day was to be held the next day and the hotel where many participants were staying. This suggested the bomb was a BRN statement of opposition to the dialogue process.[fn]“Thai deep south: 7 killed in 2 days of violence”, Benar News, 1 June 2016. Crisis Group email correspondence, analyst close to BRN’s political wing, 28 February 2016; interview, diplomat, Bangkok, March 2016.Hide Footnote

In a bold 13 March raid in Cho Airong district, Narathiwat, some 50 militants seized a hospital for more than an hour, detained staff and fired almost 2,000 rounds at a ranger base. Seven rangers and one militant were wounded; rangers did not return fire on the hospital. Diversionary attacks took place in the district the same day. It was the largest militant operation since February 2013, when sixteen militants were killed attacking a marine base in Bacho district. A military officer said a “hard-core” BRN faction sought to commemorate the BRN’s 56th anniversary and signal opposition to the dialogue process. Several sources said the intent was to embarrass the security forces, if not entice them to fire on the hospital. It was also widely viewed as a repudiation of the military’s unilateral designation of Cho Airong as one of two prospective safety zones.[fn]“BRN linked to attacks in Cho Airong”; “Latest attacks show BRN’s new strategy”, both Bangkok Post, 15, 29 March 2016. “The only dignity [the rangers] salvaged was not firing on the hospital”. Crisis Group interview, Kasturi Makhota, president, PULO, Kota Bharu, 26 March 2016. “They wanted us to fire on the hospital, to create another incident like Tak Bai or Kreu Se”. Crisis Group interview, senior army officer, Hat Yai, 29 March 2016. “The safety zone … was a unilateral proposal …. Considering the area is the [militants’] stronghold, the retaliation is understandable”. Abu Hafez Al-Hakim, quoted in “MARA Patani says peace dialogue not affected by Sunday attacks, willing to adopt laws of war”, Prachatai, 16 March 2013.Hide Footnote

Thai authorities, local human rights and international organisations and MARA Patani all condemned the raid.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, MARA Patani members, Kota Bharu, March 2016. “UN condemns Thai insurgents for seizing hospital during attack”, The Nation, 16 March 2016. “Thailand: Insurgents Seize Hospital in South”, Human Rights Watch, 13 March 2016.Hide Footnote  The attack on a health facility highlighted belligerent obligations under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which applies to non-state as well as state armed groups. Reproof fell on militants, but attention was also drawn to the military’s practice of stationing forces in or near public buildings, including schools and health facilities.[fn]Crisis Group interview, BRN member, June 2016. Don Pathan, “Outrage over hospital raid reveals military hypocrisy”, The Nation, editorial, 18 March 2016; also, Benjamin Zawacki, “Politically Inconvenient, Legally Correct: A Non-international Armed Conflict in Southern Thailand”, Journal of Conflict & Security Law (2012), pp. 1-29.Hide Footnote

B. Pondok Jihad

A decision to seize the land of a small pondok (traditional Islamic boarding school) in Yaring, Pattani, gave militants a cause and helped drive another wedge between the state and ordinary Malay Muslims. Authorities closed Pondok Jihad, the Jihad Witaya school, in 2005 on suspicion its grounds were used to train militant fighters. The Anti-Money Laundering Office filed a case against the school in 2013. On 14 December 2015, the court ordered confiscation of its 14 rai (2.24 hectares).[fn]Don Pathan, “Southern insurgency: Islamic schools next in firing line?”, The Nation, 29 December 2015. Hara Shintaro, “An extraordinary event of ordinary people: The story of the fund raising event for Pondok Jihad”, Prachatai, 19 April 2016. Villagers donated the land, which was not common property (wakaf), but owned by the five children of the school’s founder, Baheng Che-asae, to establish the school in 1968. In practice, the owners and villagers regarded the land as common property, however.Hide Footnote

The verdict echoed Bangkok’s efforts in the early 1960s to control Islamic schools that helped spur armed resistance to the state and disturbed many locals, who regard pondok as repositories of Malay identity. Recognising popular blowback from the ruling, Thai officials attempted to persuade Balyan Waemano, son of the school’s former administrator, and his family to appeal and offered to allow them to rent the land. The family, in consultation with villagers, decided not to seek legal redress, but to accept the court’s authority and vacate the property. In so doing, it sought an end to the case and formally demonstrated due regard for the judiciary. But it also ensured that the land seizure would be a cause célèbre.[fn]Crisis Group Report, Recruiting Militants, op. cit., pp. 2-4; Hara Shinatro, “An extraordinary event of ordinary people: Part 2”, Prachatai, 10 May 2016; Otto F. von Feigenblatt, et al., “Weapons of Mass Assimilation: A Critical Analysis of the Use of Education in Thailand”, Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, vol. 1, no. 2 (2010), pp. 292-311. Crisis Group interviews, Balyan Waemano, analyst, Pattani, February 2016.Hide Footnote

The authorities contributed to this by prevailing on religious leaders and the Pattani Provincial Islamic Council to issue a statement urging the family to heed the advice to appeal and complaining that local civil society organisations were causing confusion.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, member, Pattani Provincial Islamic Council, director, Malay-Muslim NGO, Yala, April 2016. Provincial Islamic Councils are state-sanctioned elected bodies that oversee mosque committees and application of Islamic family and inheritance laws. They are embedded in a state-sponsored administrative hierarchy under the National Islamic Council and royally-appointed chularajamontri (national Islamic leader and Islamic-affairs adviser to the king). Crisis Group Report, Evolving Conflict, op. cit., p. 6, fn. 47.Hide Footnote  This coordination with the military tarnished the Council and associated religious leaders in the eyes of many Malay Muslims. The school’s history added a political dimension. Dolloh Waemano became headmaster after the founder, his father-in-law, was murdered in 1979. Dolloh, whom authorities believe is a senior BRN leader, fled Thailand in 2005, before the shutdown. In June 2005, his son, Ridwan Waemano, was killed in his Pattani apartment, with two other men, in what many locals consider an extrajudicial killing.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, intelligence officer, Bangkok, April 2016; Malay-Muslim activists, local leaders, Pattani and Yala, February, March 2016. Images mocking the Pattani Provincial Islamic Council circulated on social media; one was captioned: “We are cattle led by the nose!”Hide Footnote  

On 19 March 2016, Pondok Jihad supporters organised an event to raise funds for the owner’s family, featuring traditional local food and a panel discussion. Such fundraisers are common in the region, but the school’s purported links to BRN charged it with political significance. Roughly 50,000 people attended, donating 3.9 million baht ($110,740).[fn]To depress turnout, the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) ordered prayer ceremonies to coincide with the event, including one at Cho Airong Hospital, telling village headmen to have hundreds of people in front of every district office in the region. Crisis Group interview, humanitarian worker, Pattani, March 2016.Hide Footnote  It was the largest gathering of Malay Muslims since the 1975 Pattani protests that precipitated a new era of Patani-Malay activism. Many liken the Pondok Jihad issue to earlier state blunders that excited public contempt and played into BRN’s hands, such as the Kreu Se mosque massacre and the Tak Bai incident, both in 2004.[fn]Sparked by the extrajudicial killing of five Muslim youths in Bacho district, Narathiwat, 45 days of protests joined by 70,000 Malay-Muslims and covertly organised by PULO began in December 1975. Security forces killed 32 in the Krue Se mosque, Muang, Pattani, after militants took it over on 28 April 2004. Seven Malay Muslims were shot dead at a demonstration in Tak Bai, Narathiwat, and 78 detainees suffocated while being transported to a military base in Pattani on 25 October 2004. Crisis Group Report, Insurgency, op. cit., pp. 9-10, 22-24, 27-30. Crisis Group interviews, Abu Hafez Al-Hakim, Kota Bharu; army officer, Bangkok, March, April 2016.Hide Footnote

IV. Bangkok Balks

Faced with an uptick in attacks and widespread disaffection, the military tightened its grip on the deep south. The Pondok Jihad case convinced the army it had allowed a dangerous degree of political space there. The government was reportedly increasingly worried about BRN’s long-term strategy, purportedly based on indoctrination of tens of thousands of youths in Islamic schools who might, in a decade or two, form a broad base of support and pool of recruits.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Malay-Muslim analyst, Pattani, 31 March 2016; army officers, Narathiwat, civil society activist, Yala, March 2016. The relative liberty afforded civil society in the southernmost provinces post-coup contrasted with the repression in the rest of Thailand.Hide Footnote  

Tightened military control took various forms. The army barred the Federation of Patani Students and Youth (PerMAS) from staging an event on public participation in the peace process, scheduled for 13 February 2016. A spokesman explained it was prohibited because it concerned self-determination, meaning independence: “[PerMAS] is trying to internationalise the issue. Using the words ‘right to self-determination’ is against the law”. On 12 April, 4th Army Region Commander Lieutenant General Wiwat Pathompak, warned he would begin summoning for discussions those who “spread misinformation”, especially on Facebook. This was already the practice in other army regions since the coup.[fn]“โฆษก กอ.รมน.4 ชี้ right to self determination ความหมายคือเอกราช ผิดกฎหมาย ห้าม PerMAS จัดเวที” [“ISOC 4 spokesman says ‘right to self determination’ means independence, illegal, cancels PerMAS event”], Wartani.com, 13 February 2016. “กอ.รมน.ชี้ 3 ปัจจัยเร่งสถานการณ์แรงขึ้น ขอประชาชนช่วยบีบทุกกลุ่มเข้าร่วมพูดคุย” [“ISOC points out 3 factors behind violence, asks the people to help compel all groups to join talks”], Deep South Journalism School, 14 April 2016.Hide Footnote  Release of two reports by human rights groups detailing allegations of torture and other mistreatment of detainees by security forces in the deep south elicited another combative army response.[fn]Three groups released a 59-page report in January 2016 documenting 54 cases of alleged torture by security forces between 2014 and 2015. Another published a report in February citing 33 cases of alleged torture and ill treatment of insurgent suspects in 2015. “Torture and ill treatment in The Deep South Documented in 2014-2015”, Duay Jai Group, Patani Human Rights Network, Cross Cultural Foundation (CrCF), January 2016; “รายงานสถานการณ์การละเมิดสิทธิมนุษยชนจากการบังคับใช้กฎหมายพิเศษในพื้นที่จังหวัดชายแดนภาคใต้” [“Report on Human Rights Abuses from Use of Special Laws in the Southern Border Provinces”], Muslim Attorney Centre, 2 February 2016. The army denies torture, but a court ordered the ISOC to compensate two Malay-Muslim men security forces beat in 2009. “Court orders govt to compensate Muslim Malay torture victims”, Prachatai, 19 May 2016.Hide Footnote  On 17 May 2016, the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) Region 4 filed criminal complaints against three authors of one report, accusing them of defamation and violation of the Computer Crimes Act.[fn]ISOC filed complaints against Pornpen Khongkachonkiet, CrCF director, Somchai Homla-or, Law Reform Commission member and Anchana Heemmina, Duay Jai Group president. “Military say Deep South rights advocates sued ‘to defend country’s honour’”, Prachatai, 14 June 2016. The Computer Crimes Act (2007), which criminalises “bringing false computer information into the system”, is used to curb online dissent and regularly in conjunction with the lèse-majesté law. The judiciary construes “false computer information” as online speech in addition to technical crimes such as hacking. “Thailand Country Report”, Freedom House, 2015.Hide Footnote

On 4 April, Prime Minister Prayuth completed subordination to the military of the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre (SBPAC), a special agency established in 1980 charged with coordinating civilian development and administration in the five southernmost provinces.[fn]Prayuth used the interim constitution’s Article 44 to suspend several articles of the 2010 Southern Border Provinces Administration Act, mostly concerning SBPAC’s advisory council. The council’s 49 members were elected in nine professional groups. Prayuth ordered the creation of an Advisory Committee for Administration and Development of the Southern Border Provinces, with 60 members, 45 appointed by ISOC and SBPAC, ten by the five governors (each appointing two), and five appointed by the prime minister. “จับตาการเปลี่ยนแปลงครั้งสำคัญจาก ‘บอร์ดดับไฟใต้’ ไปเป็น ‘บอดดับไฟใต้’” [“Watching important changes, ‘blinding’ the ‘board to end South violence’”], ASTV Manager Online, 9 April 2016. “ยุบสภาที่ปรึกษาตั้ง’บอร์ด’ดับไฟใต้ หรือลดอำนาจประชาชน” [“Dissolve advisory council, set up ‘board’ to quell southern fire, or decrease people’s power”], Thai Post, 16 April 2016. SBPAC’s status vis-à-vis the military has been a recurring preoccupation of the bureaucracy from the start. Crisis Group Reports, Stalemate, pp. 10-11; Evolving Conflict, pp. 15-18; Dialogue in Doubt, p. 4, fn. 17, all op. cit.
Hide Footnote
 The new regulations diminish its status, concentrating its budget with ISOC’s military officials. The move was presented as a way to increase efficiency, but the effect is that many local people are losing the confidence SBPAC had gained under its previous director.[fn]The former director, Police Colonel Thawee Sodsong, won praise for tirelessness, accessibility and informal manner, which contrasted with that of most civil servants. Crisis Group interviews, Malay-Muslim provincial official, civil society activist, Yala, March, May 2016.Hide Footnote

Through March and early April 2016, members of the Thai and MARA delegations were upbeat on the dialogue’s prospects. That changed on 20 April, when the army chief transferred Nakrob from his ISOC position and thus his post as secretary of the Thai delegation. NCPO officials insisted the move was routine, with no bearing on the dialogue but its abruptness, a week before a scheduled JWG meeting, appeared to signal something more, particularly given Nakrob’s energetic efforts to finalise the ToR and build public support for the process.[fn]Rumours circulated that Nakrob was forced out of the dialogue team because he was too sympathetic to dissidents, talked too freely to the media and had a conflict with the army chief’s younger brother. Crisis Group interview, army officer, Bangkok, April 2016. “ปรับทีมเจรจาไฟใต้” [“Changes to South dialogue team”], Post Today, 22 April 2016.Hide Footnote

It was at that next JWG meeting that Aksara declined to sign the ToR, saying Prime Minister Prayuth had not approved it. Foreign affairs and justice ministry officials reportedly persuaded the NCPO to reverse course out of fear the ToR would boost MARA’s international status and trap Bangkok into concessions. Explaining the refusal to sign, Aksara also questioned MARA’s standing to conduct negotiations.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, army officer, diplomat, Bangkok, April, May 2016. Rungrawee Chalermsripinyorat, “Regime’s stance hurts South peace talks”, Bangkok Post, 9 May 2016. “Thailand: Officials give mixed signals on Deep South talks”, Benar News, 29 April 2016. Aksara said MARA Patani does “not have a clear status while we … have an order from the prime minister’s office [to negotiate]”. “‘อักษรา’ยันเดินหน้าถกสันติสุขใต้” [“‘Aksara’ affirms south peace talks to continue”], Krungthep Thurakit, 30 April 2016.
Hide Footnote
 Questioned by reporters, Prayuth expressed annoyance with the dialogue, saying he had to contend with it as an inheritance from the old government. It had to be held abroad because the law and constitution prohibit negotiations with “lawbreakers”, he said; recognising Party B by name would encourage others to make similar demands, embroiling the state in difficulties.[fn]“บิ๊กตู่ไม่หนุนเจรจาดับไฟใต้ ชี้แก้ปัญหาไม่ได้ อัดรบ.เก่าจะทำเลยต้องตามเช็ด” [“Big Tu’ [Prayuth] opposes talks to end south violence [which] can’t solve the problem, must clean up after previous gov’t”, Khao Sod, 29 April 2016.Hide Footnote

Abu Hafez conveyed MARA’s disappointment but said the delay would give Bangkok “ample time to reconsider and reverse that decision” and reminded Prayuth that he had requested Malaysia’s help to resume the process. MARA’s Shukri Hari expressed concern about Prayuth’s subsequent comments, which, he said indicated “that the peace talks are only a false promise despite the fact that we are in the process of confidence building”. Thai officials insist the process will continue. Aksara said the ToR would be reviewed by the National Security Council and other agencies, amended and submitted to the prime minister for approval.[fn]Crisis Group email correspondence, Abu Hafez Al-Hakim, 28 April 2016. “Thailand to unilaterally review TOR of Deep South peace talks”, Prachatai, 9 May 2016. “สมช.นัดทีมคุยสันติสุขฯปรับบันทึกข้อตกลงกลุ่มเห็นต่าง” [“NSC meets dialogue team to change the ToR with dissidents”], Daily News, 7 May 2016.Hide Footnote  The sides reportedly exchanged letters stating their willingness to continue through facilitator Zamzamin on 1 June during his visit to Bangkok.

V. Bombs of August

On 7 August, voters approved a draft constitution prepared by the NCPO’s handpicked committee, with 61 per cent voting in favour and 59 per cent turnout.[fn]The referendum process was flawed. The NCPO prohibited open debate on the draft, and the appointed national assembly passed a law in April 2016 that made campaigning for a “no” vote punishable by up to ten years in prison.Hide Footnote  The three Malay-Muslim majority southern provinces, however, voted 60 per cent “no”. The draft codifies semi-democracy, including an appointed senate, the possibility of an unelected prime minister, and a continuing role for the NCPO after the next general election. That Section 67 enjoins the state to propagate Buddhist principles does not sit well with many Malay Muslims. The deep south experienced a wave of bombings, at least 50 in the first ten days of August, and graffiti condemning the draft appeared across the three provinces.[fn]Anders Engvall, “Bombs, facts, and myths in southern Thailand”, New Mandala blog, 13 August 2016.Hide Footnote

On 11-12 August, coinciding with Mothers’ Day and Queen Sirikit’s birthday, seventeen coordinated bombing and arson attacks in tourist destinations in seven provinces of the upper south killed four and wounded 35. Targets included Phuket, Phang-nga, and Hua Hin, which suffered four bombings and two fatalities. NCPO officials were quick to blame domestic political foes ostensibly upset at the referendum, and to dismiss the possibility Malay-Muslim militants were involved. Consistent with BRN operations, there was no claim of responsibility, but the attacks bore its hallmarks.[fn]An anonymous BRN commander reportedly claimed responsibility for the 11-12 August attacks and subsequent bombings in the deep south, including one in Narathiwat on 6 September that killed a young Malay-Muslim girl and her father. Many observers are sceptical of the claim, which did not originate from BRN’s information department. “Thai deep south: bomb kills three, including small girl”, Benar News, 6 September 2016. Crisis Group interviews, diplomats, analyst, Bangkok, September 2016.Hide Footnote  Investigators considered the devices and tactics, including coordination over wide areas and blasts in sequence to hit responders to the initial bombing, the same as those employed in the deep south. Arrest warrants were issued for suspects associated with the insurgency.[fn]“Thai leader links attacks on tourist sites to constitution change”, The New York Times, 12 August 2016; “Reds denounce attempts to blame them for serial bombings”, The Nation, 15 August 2016. Anthony Davis, “Thailand bombings mark major shift in southern separatist strategy”, Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Monitor, 18 August 2016; “Prawit: KL offers help to hunt for bombers”, The Nation, 30 August 2016; “Thai police arrest first suspect in connection with tourist-town bombs”, Reuters, 5 September 2016.Hide Footnote

But the scale of the August attacks, geographic reach and choice of targets mark a clear shift, and apparent decision to expand the conflict.

These attacks were not the first by militants outside their customary operations area of the four southernmost provinces. In addition to periodic attacks on Hat Yai in Songkhla province, the largest city and commercial centre of the south, militants deployed a truck bomb to Phuket, which did not explode and was discovered in December 2013. A car bomb on Samui Island in April 2015 wounded seven.[fn]Crisis Group Report, Dialogue in Doubt, op. cit., pp. 18-19.Hide Footnote  But the scale of the August attacks, geographic reach and choice of targets mark a clear shift, and apparent decision to expand the conflict.

Speculation about the timing of the August attacks has centred on BRN’s displeasure with Bangkok’s approach to dialogue. Proximity to the referendum and the bombings that preceded it suggest a political message to the NCPO. An experienced analyst said, “it was a signal to warn the government that [dialogue] is a big issue for them … and the government will pay more attention from now on”.[fn]Srisompob Jitpiromsri, quoted in, “Bombings won’t stall peace talks, army says”, Khao Sod English, 17 August 2016.Hide Footnote  Diminishing returns from twelve years of insurgent operations in the deep south may also have factored into the unprecedented scale and choice of targets beyond the traditional area of the insurgency.

In the wake of the Mothers’ Day attacks, the dialogue process began to move again. A technical meeting took place on 16 August, and on 23 August, Prayuth told reporters a plenary meeting could take place on 2 September.[fn]“Thai deep south: government, rebels to meet next month”, Benar News, 23 August 2016.Hide Footnote  That night, a car bomb – the fourth of 2016 – exploded in front of a hotel and nightclub in Pattani, killing one person and wounding more than 30.

The dialogue teams met on 2 September in Kuala Lumpur. The day before, women from 23 deep south civil society organisations marched in Pattani calling for safety zones, a longstanding NCPO precondition for official talks. The Thai delegation tabled a proposal from one such group, Women’s Agenda for Peace, on a safety-zone concept, which MARA said it would evaluate. The sides reportedly reached preliminary consensus on a revised ToR, but nothing was signed, and the meeting ended with agreement to continue the unofficial dialogue.[fn]“Thai govt, Deep South insurgents reach agreements crucial for official peace talks”, Prachatai, 2 September 2016; “South ‘safety zones’ on table”, Bangkok Post, 3 September 2016; “Progress in South peace talks”, The Nation, 3 September 2016.Hide Footnote

VI. Intractability and Other Obstacles to Dialogue

The protagonists still seem inclined to preserve the status quo rather than opt for the uncertainties of compromise.

The conflict has characteristics of a “soft, stable, self-serving stalemate”, which is “generally bearable to both parties, both in the absolute and relative to any likely solution on the table at the moment”. The protagonists still seem inclined to preserve the status quo rather than opt for the uncertainties of compromise.[fn]“The predominance of [soft, stable, self-serving] stalemates instead of ripe moments in intractable conflicts means that there is no pressure on the parties to come to a resolution of the conflict on their own or even listen to mediators. At most, there may be motivation to manage the conflict, that is, to reduce the conflict to a less costly level without touching on the basic issues and underlying causes …. But reducing the cost also reduces the pressure for a settlement and so further contributes to intractability”. William I. Zartman, “Analyzing Intractability”, in Chester A. Crocker, Fen Osler Hampson and Pamela Aall (eds.), Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of Intractable Conflict (Washington DC, 2005), pp. 52, 53.Hide Footnote  This is evident in the military’s tacit aversion to substantive dialogue and political change and BRN’s explicit opposition to the current talks. MARA’s uncertain influence over fighters and civil society’s limited role complicate matters.[fn]“Civil society” here refers to NGOs and non-profits that may receive state support, including academics, media and religious leaders. Kayanee Chor Boonpunth, Mark G. Rolls, “The Role of Civil Society in Peacebuilding in Southern Thailand”, Journal of Public Affairs (2016).Hide Footnote

The NCPO and army are guided by two imperatives in their approach to dialogue. The first is that the conflict is and must remain domestic. They harbour an abiding fear it will be internationalised, leading to foreign intervention and, eventually, partition.[fn]“International organisations want to say it’s armed conflict; they want to internationalise it”. Crisis Group interview, senior army officer, Narathiwat, May 2016. “We do not want to make it an international security issue because it’s our internal security issue”. General Aksara Kerdpol, quoted in “Hospital siege shows disunity among Deep South separatists: authorities”, Prachatai, 7 April 2016 (translation from Thai, Prachachat Business, 19 March 2016).Hide Footnote  The second is that it must be resolved without political reform or devolution of power, which many officials regard as a potential precursor to national fragmentation.[fn]“Deep down, Thai officials and political leaders fear that granting some form of regional autonomy could lead to the unraveling of the modern Thai state, as other ethnic minority groups in the North (Lanna) and Northeast (Isan/Lao) might demand parallel recognition and treatment”. Duncan McCargo, “Autonomy for the South: Thinking the Unthinkable?”, Pacific Affairs, vol. 83, no. 2 (June 2010), p. 267.Hide Footnote  Proposals for “special administration”, such as a regional governing council or popularly elected provincial governors, were widely discussed in the region prior to the 2014 coup but today are again taboo.[fn]Crisis Group Reports, Moving Towards Political Solutions?, pp. 17-18, Evolving Conflict, pp. 19-20, both op. cit. See also Srisompob Jitpiromsri and Duncan McCargo, “A Ministry for the South: New Governance Proposals for Thailand’s Southern Region”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 30, no. 3 (2008); and McCargo, “Autonomy for the South”, op. cit.Hide Footnote  Asked if autonomy was needed, Aksara replied: “What year is this? Is there anyone still talking about this?… We passed beyond the old context”. The government needs to relinquish the wish to resolve the conflict without devolution. A recent regional survey found 61 per cent of respondents considered new administrative arrangements appropriate to local conditions necessary to end the insurgency.[fn]Aksara, quoted in “Hospital siege”, op. cit. “When they talk about self-determination, I ask, ‘what’s wrong with the existing system, with sub-district and provincial administrative councils?’”. Major General Nakrob, comments at FCCT, op. cit.. “Don’t ask about governance … in terms of development the [central] government can provide everything”. Prime minister, quoted in “Thai junta chief plays down autonomy for rebellious south”, Agence France-Presse, 22 April 2016.”Peace Survey”, op. cit., p. 10.Hide Footnote

Thus, many regard dialogue with MARA as little more than the NCPO’s “flagship public relations project”. Some military officers share the view it is primarily about improving the regime’s image.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Malay-Muslim analyst, Pattani, March 2016; senior army officers, Hat Yai, March, Bangkok, April 2016. “เปิดปมปัญหายืดเยื้อ ‘โต๊ะเจรจาดับไฟใต้” [“Untangling the protracted problem of ‘southern peace talks’”], Khom Chad Leuk, 17 June 2015.Hide Footnote  Many officials understand dialogue as a means to persuade militants to lay down arms and accept an amnesty or plea bargain rather than a process aimed at achieving an agreement with militant leaders.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Malay-Muslim provincial official, Yala, army officer, Narathiwat, May; Muslim religious leader, Pattani, April; all 2016. “กอ.รมน.ชี้ 3 ปัจจัยเร่งสถานการณ์แรงขึ้น ขอประชาชนช่วยบีบทุกกลุ่มเข้าร่วมพูดคุย” [“ISOC points out 3 factors behind violence, asks the people to urge all groups to join talks”], Deep South Journalism School, 14 April 2016.Hide Footnote  This is the army’s traditional approach to talks with militants, currently embodied in the “Bring the People Home Project”.[fn]An ISOC spokesman reported that 4,089 people had joined the project since its 2012 launch, 2,093 of them in 2016 up to 25 June. “กดบึ้ม’รถทหาร’พลีชีพ1เจ็บอีก3 หลังพบชาวบ้านระแงะถล่มฐานจนท.’ตากใบ’โชคดีบอมบ์22กก.ด้าน” [“Army vehicle bombed, 1 dead, 3 wounded after meeting Rangae villagers, luckily 22kg bomb in Tak Bai misfires”], Matichon, 30 June 2016. Some army officers privately discount the amnesty program, and BRN is reportedly untroubled by it. Crisis Group interviews, army officer, April; BRN member, June 2016. Prayuth repeatedly said the way out of the conflict was for militants to surrender under Article 21 of the Internal Security Act, which provides a form of plea bargain. “แฉพวกปั่นหัวสร้างเหตุรุนแรง” [“Revealing the instigators of violence”], Thai Post (online), 9 April 2016. “PM refuses to recognise any separatist South group”, The Nation, 30 April 2016. See Crisis Group Reports, Stalemate in Southern Thailand, pp. 8-9; Evolving Conflict, p. 11; and Briefing, Political Turmoil, p. 13, all op. cit.Hide Footnote  The aim is to reach out via family or civil society organisations to sway insurgents to give up violence. “The idea”, an army officer said, “is to coax them out to talk; that’s real dialogue”.[fn]Crisis Group interview, army officer, Narathiwat, May 2016. The SBPAC director, Panu Uthairat, said in reference to dialogue: “We have to ask first, are you Thai? Do you love Thailand? We don’t speak to foreigners who wish to separate themselves. If you are Thai, then dialogue is a process of building understanding. You don’t have the right to set out conditions for me …. What do you misunderstand? … It’s my duty to listen … and solve [their problems]”. “‘ภาณุ อุทัยรัตน์’คอนเฟิร์ม 2 ปีปัญหาชายแดนใต้ดีขึ้น” [“‘Panu Uthairat’ confirms South improves over past two years”], Matichon Weekly, 1 July 2016.Hide Footnote  

The NCPO’s lack of a democratic mandate and restrictions on civil liberties are another problem. Those who oppose the NCPO or the political status quo do not enjoy the right to call for political change without fear of reprisal, not only in the deep south, but also nationwide. This renders hollow army arguments that militants should abandon armed conflict to pursue peaceful change. The NCPO has promised a 2017 general election, but the draft constitution provides for a five-year transition during which the military regime retains broad powers. Protracted military tutelage bodes ill for decentralisation prospects.

A related issue is the diminishing space for civil society to engage on political issues. For various reasons, locals are less interested in the current dialogue than they were in the previous process.[fn]Crisis Group interview, civil society activist, Yala, 3 March 2016. Thaweeporn Kunmetha, “Peace talks get cold shoulder from villagers: local Deep South media”, Prachatai, 4 January 2016. According to a recent survey of 1,559 people in the region, 33 per cent had no opinion on whether the dialogue process would bring peace; 20.6 per cent were confident it would, and 23.1 per cent believed it would not. “Peace Survey”, press release, op. cit., p. 8.Hide Footnote  The army is on one side, a separatist diaspora leadership on the other, and they are excluded.[fn]Crisis Group interview, Malay-Muslim analyst, Pattani, March 2016.Hide Footnote  Zamzamin’s encouragement of them to get involved with MARA Patani, even elect representatives to its central committee “to synchronise your demands and aspirations with those of the Armed Groups”, misapprehends conditions in Thailand: authorities would not permit collaboration with armed rebels. After more than a decade of conflict, many in civil society who work on peace issues are exhausted, and their groups lack space and resources to push for greater popular engagement with dialogue.[fn]Hara Shintaro, “Rhetoric and reality about the Patani Peace Process”, Prachatai, 8 March 2016. Crisis Group interview, Malay-Muslim civil society activist, Yala, March 2016.Hide Footnote  

Another critical impediment is BRN’s refusal to participate. A process that does not include its armed wing will not deliver a lasting resolution. It questions Bangkok’s seriousness and has reiterated in public statements its demand for international organisations to observe the talks. A lack of technical capacity and a detailed, long-term political platform also inhibit it. “In terms of personnel, preparation, platform, BRN is not ready”, a sympathiser said. This must change. BRN should subordinate military operations to pursuit of viable political ends and observe its obligations under IHL, including an end to targeting civilians. Many militants have misgivings about Malaysia’s facilitation. A PULO member said the dialogue has failed twice, and new personnel and procedures in facilitation, such as including third-party observers and advisers, could help rebuild confidence.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, BRN member, June 2016; sympathiser, May 2016; PULO member, June 2016.Hide Footnote  

Though MARA has some support in the southernmost provinces, it also faces indifference and antagonism. Many locals know little about it. Only 21.8 per cent of respondents to a recent survey in the region reported having heard of MARA Patani.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, imam, analyst, Pattani, March, April 2016; civil society activist, local elected official, Yala, March 2016. “Peace Survey”, op. cit., p. 7.Hide Footnote  This is one reason it emphasises proposals for immunity and safe passage, without which it cannot build links to its ostensible constituents. Some locals consider MARA a creature of Malaysia, lacking the local support BRN has cultivated over two decades. A prominent Muslim human rights activist said MARA must prove itself, and that people need more than a binary choice between it and the government.[fn]Crisis Group interviews, Malay-Muslim politician, Malay-Muslim religious leader, Pattani, March, April 2016. An ex-PerMAS leader, Suhaimee Dulasa, critiqued MARA’s and Malaysia’s roles in the dialogue on Facebook, 6 March 2016. “ทิ้งหมัดเข้ามุม: ต้องยุติความรุนแรงก่อน” [“Up against a wall: Must stop the violence first”], Khao Sod, 7 September 2015.Hide Footnote  The extent to which MARA might eventually represent BRN’s militant wing, as well as separatists in exile, remains an open question. Popular support will ultimately be determined by its ability to deliver a deal, which requires buy-in from BRN and local people.

Given NCPO aversion to participatory politics and fear of internationalising the insurgency, near-term scope for breaking the stalemate is narrow. But the Mothers’ Day attacks illustrate the risks of attempting to preserve the status quo while engaging in a pro forma dialogue that leaves out the main insurgent group. The attacks should also encourage the NCPO and any successor government to develop avenues of exchange with BRN’s leaders so as to start official peace talks. The alternative could be further, more damaging attacks outside the customary conflict zone as BRN seeks leverage. BRN should facilitate and reciprocate overtures from Bangkok. It should also be prepared to implement a ceasefire or safety zones to satisfy the government’s preconditions for talks. MARA Patani should be candid about the extent of its influence inside Thailand and encourage a broader dialogue with BRN. The NCPO should also restore rights to freedom of expression and assembly. A lasting resolution to the conflict is unlikely without sustained public participation.

VII. Conclusion

The protracted conflict is more than twelve years old, with no signs of abating. The dialogue process is beset by deep mutual mistrust that a year of preliminary talks has done little to dispel. The failure to sign a ToR agreement and comments by Thai officials questioning MARA Patani’s status cast doubt on NCPO willingness to engage in an official dialogue. The assumption that the dialogue’s momentum will sway BRN to join is improbable at best. The belligerents need to take seriously their obligation to those they claim to represent to find a peaceful resolution, based on a political order that accords with local aspirations.

The August bomb attacks in the upper south raise the spectre of a wider conflict, with more attacks in tourist areas. That should prompt the NCPO to reconsider its approach of containing the insurgency and seeking militant capitulation rather than a comprehensive political solution. In view of the military government’s antipathy to decentralisation and determination to keep control after the promised 2017 election, however, there is little scope for a breakthrough. An earnest attempt to decentralise power, the best hope for resolution of the conflict, is unlikely to materialise under the current government.

Bangkok/Brussels, 21 September 2016