1. Sipsongpanna, China
2. Maesai, Thailand
3. Mong Yawng, Eastern Shan States, Burma

Prosperous in that order, I’d say.

Re: State Ethnic Policies: I’ve never been to Sipsongpanna but given that I am the son-in-law of a Maesai Tai Lu family, I know families that fled to Maesai from Sipsongpanna during the cultural revolution and their friends who now come to visit them from China, and assuming they started off with the same resources, the China side, the ones who remained in China during the cultural revolution have more money and seem to have integrated into their host society better, for better or worse that is. (I’m just describing what I see here, not passing judgement on it) That’s not to say most Tai Lu in Thailand don’t have a very good life, they do, but it hasn’t been so many years since they took down the “Persona Non-Grata” sign at Maesai Immigration and they still haven’t given many people ID cards, even if they’ve been there for 30 years. I don’t know how Yunnan compares in terms of integration.

You may be right, but notice how things change once you cross the (present-day) border from Kengtung and into the Sipsong Panna. Diverse factors come into play here -such as state ethnic policies

It seems that I didn’t make myself clear, and for that I apologize. When I wrote “However, you can’t deny that, nowadays, the model of government these terrorists seek to establish is always a Sharia state” I was not refering to the Southern insurgents, but to pan-Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah.

Nevertheless, there must be a large majority of Muslims in the South of Thailand who desire Sharia law, as the introduction of Islamic law as the first recommendation to come out of the findings of Anand Panyarachun’s National Reconciliation Commission.

As to your first point, I asked why Thaification was more effective in the North than in the South, and you provided an answer, in which now I understand. Despite your sarcastic tone, I appricate the reply.

However, the anti-Americanist rhetorical cheap shot says a lot more about you than it does me.

As noted by this aging pre-postmodernist Kafir (may I recommend Keyes’ Ethnic Change) , I would venture that there was never much to grab one’s attention up in Laos, just a sleepy backwater with a sleepy monarchy and later an unattractive government. Thailand has the “in your face monarchy”, a thriving capitol, and dominates the airwaves. What was there to cause the Lao in Isaan to look over their shoulders towards Laos and, to paraphrase Anderson, imagine themselves part of that community? Methinks that if Laos had become a thriving nation and had maintained the monarchy that you would see an irredentist movement in Isaan. But it could still happen, ya never know. Kulu kalb bijiumu.

Down south there has long been, forever been, an active irredentist movement, as there has always been an attractive Malay alternative to identity. That movement had now been infused with Islamic fundamentalism, but that new religious aspect is not the creator of the separatist movement. It adds a new tantalizing flavor for the Malay participants and a very dangerous dimension for the Thai government.

Tokasan-There is another elephant in the room that nobody has brought up: The mafia.

There is mafia everywhere in Thailand. With or without the Malay issue, there would be smuggling. There is smuggling up north and even some smuggling in the southeast, and there is smuggling into China via Laos. Certainly smugglers down south will take advantage of the unrest and it makes it difficult sometimes to remember that it is only background noise to the separatist issue. Using illegal activities to fund political agendas, drugs for guns etc, is old as the hills. Touching on Southeast Asia alone, one can read about it in McCoy’s Opus, The Politics of Heroin, or research the BCCI, and for you Aussie Kafirs, the related yet still mysterious Nugan-Hand affair.

Chang Rai province has a fairly sizable Muslim population, many of whom are Panthay Muslims from Yunnan, I believe, but some are even Rohingyas from Burma who migrated there for the gem trade, but for the most part recent arrivals, it seems.

Pattani was an independent sultanate that goes very far back in history (like Tai rule over Kengtung). Long histories of being in a place and also being subordinate in a place that one used to call one’s own, are probably associated with “rebellion” or “forceful resistance to being governed”

This has certainly been the case with the Shans in Burma, ethnically Tai people (like central Thais) who used to be much more in control of their own territory than they are now, indirect rule under the British and tributary rule under the British kings.

[Note: I am not offering a partisan excuse or justification, merely a tentative hypothesis based on the historical data.]

Also, where do you see all of these calls for Sharia states? I’ve seen a call for A state, but that was on the news. Sadly I don’t know any terrorists yet. You know ALL the terrorists? Wow.

(Americans and terrorism on here again! I’m terrified! )

Agreed. I mean, what is a Terrorist but a Mafiosi who’s interested in politics? However, you can’t deny that, nowadays, the model of government these terrorists seek to establish is always a Sharia state. You don’t see call for Marxist/Arab Socialist revolution anymore. Kemalism is a uniquely Turkish institution.

What I’m interested in knowing is why Thaification was able to (somewhat) extinguish Issan/Lao irredentist movements but not Southern Islamic/Malay movements? Where does Communist ideology fail and Islamic ideology succeed in this regard?

Whatever your opinion on Islam, you have to admit that in the past decade, the Southern insurgency has taken on a religious dimension that wasn’t as explicit as before. Why? What purpose does Islam serve for the insurgency?

The Republican feels that it is unfair to judge Muslims by a “medieval, scriptural based” viewpoint, and he is correct. However, when discussing the Southern insurgency, we must be cognizant of the fact that the ustazis and their students that form the soldiers of this “new wave” insurgency spend the majority of their day reading the Quran. How does the Quranic exegesis that they have devoted their lives to guide and shape their strategy and actions concerning the insurgency? Until Thai military strategists sit down and ask themselves that question, they will go nowhere in quelling the insurgence.

For my arguments, I didn’t randomly choose violent quotes from the Quran. I chose those specific passages because I feel that in order to understand the insurgency we have to understand how the Quran shapes their worldview. Look up and read verses 8:39, 8:67, 9:5, 9:29, 9:33. Think about how they relate to events in the South. What about this new fad of beheading people? One may argue that the insurgents are merely copying the tactics of al-Qaeda. But where do they find legitimacy for doing so? Perhaps from Quran 47:4?

Until there is a major movement in Islamic jurisprudence to counter the literalist Quranic exegesis that the extremists engage in, no progress can be made in a war that is largely ideological.

But Thailand’s military generals whether before, during or after Thaksin just could not get a handle on the situation.

Damn ineptitude!