Govt’s South bias prolongs the conflict

Afew hours after seven attempted or successful bomb blasts, which hurt four people, in five locations in Bangkok and Nonthaburi on Friday, media reports citing unnamed security officials linked the incidents to retaliation from the insurgency-hit deep South, even though the police investigation is not finished yet.

It seemed the presumed connection was merely based on the fact the latest serial attack strategy and types of bombs were similar to those used in previous bomb attacks in the restive south. But police have not ruled out political motivation and some other possible factors in the attacks.

In his response, army chief Gen Apirat Kongsompong said the attacks were operated by “the same old group” of people who plotted the 2006 serial bomb attacks in the capital and were “backed by one political group”. It’s unclear which group he meant.

But his claim resonated with a conclusion of the previous military government of Gen Surayud Chulanont which linked the 2006 blasts to both southern insurgents and supporters of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra despite a lack of solid evidence.

Prematurely linking the attacks to the insurgency from the deep South, however, has been the typical and biased response of the state whenever bomb attacks occur outside the restive region even in the absence of solid evidence to back up those claims.

This deeply-rooted bias and discrimination against locals in the deep South is one of the major factors that has prolonged the conflict there.

The violence in the region was originated from an ethnic and religious conflict that developed into a Muslim separatist movement in the three provinces of Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala.

Since the conflict broke out in 2004, the situation has worsened due to the state’s security operations dealing with the insurgency. Human rights groups say the authorities have intimidated, mistreated and discriminated against insurgent suspects and ordinary Muslims in the region who have become victims of the conflict.

According to Deep South Watch, 20,342 incidents took place between January 2004 and May 2019. Over 7,000 lives were taken, mainly civilians, and 13,644 people injured.

The state has spent over 300 billion baht to curb the violence since 2004. The majority of the funding has gone to military operations without full disclosure to the public. In 2016, the military government approved over 30 billion baht for security operations and conflict management there. It was the highest budget ever approved for this mission.

Many observers have seen the army as the direct beneficiary of the conflict. Another conspiracy theory has it the state is attempting to magnify an evil image of the insurgents that would give the army legitimacy to continue expensive operations in the south. The army denies this.

Meanwhile, the state has rarely recognised or publicised stories of those victims of the state’s security operations.

The latest case took place last month. An insurgent suspect, Abdullah Esormusor, became unconscious during military detention following his arrest at his house in Pattani. He has suffered brain swelling and has been on life support. His condition prompted his family, who believe in his innocence, to suspect he was tortured during detention. The army denies it and insisted its operation never violated the rights of local people.

Such detention is common and legal in the three provinces, thanks to the government’s use of martial law and the executive decree which has given absolute power to security officers to search properties, arrest and detain people for seven days without the need for court warrants. This “special power” has paved the way for alleged violations of the rights of the victims and has become a source of tension there and sustained the cycle of conflict.

Thammasat University historian Chaowalit Chaowsangrat recently pointed out the state’s failure to recognise victims in the deep South has led society to develop a misperception about the conflict there. The public has viewed it as a battle between the state and insurgents without knowing that innocent people became victims. That has led to the public feeling okay with the state’s typical demonisation and mistreatment of any suspects from the deep South.

In my view, that misperception is reinforced whenever authorities and the media say the “culprits” of any attack have been found when in fact they are still suspects in an unfinished investigation. Such a premature conclusion could affect the neutrality and transparency of authorities’ handling of security cases. It has also reinforced a mistrust of people in the deep South towards the state and made chances of peace in the region very slim.