[Here is a short opinion piece sent to New Mandala by Marc Askew of the University of Melbourne. Marc is currently in Pattani.]
Last week’s press hoo ha about the recently released Human Rights Watch report on the southern violence (No One is Safe) says very little that is new, but much about how the press creates a scoop out of a non-scoop. Touted as a weighty “104 page report” (BP 29 Aug, Matichon claims it is 106 pages – it is actually 98 pages, but what’s the difference to journos?), most of it is in fact comprised of quotations from a limited number of interviews, the latest dated June 2007, but mostly from 2006.
The solemn judgments in the report about the centrality of the BRN-Coordinate as the insurgents’ organizational umbrella , their Islamic-centered separatist ideology, and their intentions to continue attacks on civilian Buddhist “infidels” and Muslim Malay “traitors” in the region has long been clear in the hundreds of propaganda leaflets that the insurgents continue to distribute throughout the villages of the region.
Further, the report gives credence to the insurgent’s “seven stage plan”, revealed in documents found by security forces in Masae Useng’s house in 2003. Former Region 4 army commander Kitti Rattanachaya has been emphasizing the importance of this documentation since 2004, but academic “specialists” remained skeptical. Military intelligence reports, as well as interrogation testimony of captured suspects since late 2004 were revealing pretty much all of what this Human Rights Watch document reports, but of course, statements of the military could be easily dismissed by armchair academics.
So what IS new about this report? Well, for the first time we have a clear admission from an organization that prides itself on sleuthing out “state terrorism” that the insurgents are bent on unremitting fanatic terrorism, including intimidation and slaughter of civilians for their own ends. Until now, human rights groups have been generally reticent in commenting on insurgent’s beheadings, execution of Thai Buddhists, teacher killings and school burnings. It simply didn’t fit the good-guy/bad guy world of innocent victims and state oppressors that they want to inhabit.
What is not new are Human Rights Watch’s fatuous “Key Recommendations” which any Islamic terrorist organization would laugh at. For example: 1) “Separatist groups should cease all attacks on civilians whatever their religion or ethnicity, the civilian population, and civilian objects, including schools, places of worship, and public health centers; 2) “Separatist groups should cease all attacks that do not discriminate between combatants and civilians”; and 4) “Separatist groups should agree to abide by international humanitarian law.”
Interesting that they should now be acknowledged as “separatists” when two years ago it was state forces that were being labelled as the key culprits, and in mid- 2006 the Thai academics and peace advocates of the National Reconciliation Commission refused to accept that separatists (in the new Islamic guise) were the primary instigators of violence. How the worm has now turned! The Human Rights Watch’s glorious recommendations may do very well as an idealistic freshman term paper at a liberal US college, British or Australian university, but no self-respecting terrorist is going to worry about them.
When are people going to accept that there is a new style of full-scale “total war” going on here in Thailand’s south? The insurgents (if they can be so named) are fighting an Islamic people’s war, notwithstanding the fact that most Malay Muslims in the south are not terribly interested in this cause, though they are all affected.
Mark Askew
Senior Fellow
Anthropology Program
University of Melbourne
19 responses so far ↓
1 Awzar Thi // Aug 31, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Under international law, states–not other parties to conflicts–carry obligations. Although we can impress upon groups violently opposed to the state (by whatever name or names they are known) that they ought to comply with human rights standards, there is no basis under established conventions to call upon them to do so as a legal requirement: they can laugh at any set of recommendations, no matter how good or bad they might be.
One reason for this is that state officers too have special obligations that apply only to them: a killing committed by a policeman falls into a special category not applicable to one committed by an insurgent. The police officer takes an oath–and has a duty under the law–to protect, not kill. The same cannot be said of an insurgent; his responsibilities are no more or less than the ordinary citizen.
Of course, states also ignore and neglect their obligations under worldwide treaties, but the fact that they are bound by law serves as the starting point for the defence of human rights. This is the reason for the state-centric human rights critiques in Thailand and elsewhere in Asia, as well as around the world; not reticence, or imagined good guys versus bad guys, but awareness that various methods can be used to influence state policy, behaviour and institutions that simply don’t work–or work with much less effect, in part for the reasons briefly outlined above–on other parties.
As the government of Thailand cannot be brought to acknowledge and prosecute extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances and torture committed by its own personnel, how can demands for the same be placed upon others–to whom the same obligations and special categories anyhow don’t apply–with any expectation that they might be taken seriously?
Thus by their very nature such reports as the one by HRW described here can only amount to extended news features; and good human rights groups make reports in order to advocate more effectively, they don’t merely report.
As to the remarks on recommendations:
Pat prescriptions don’t correct abuse
Thanks for the contribution.
2 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Aug 31, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Prof. Askew speaks truth to power; howver, it is shame it has to come from a historian and enthographer who specializes in urbanization as opposed to a scholar of Islamic Studies…you know, the academic discipline that is supposed to realize these truths, study them, and then, disseminate them.
Instead, we get the mendacious propagandizing of Roy, Levine,
Khalidi, Cole, and the rest of their ilk at the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), who instead of pursuing real scholarship, whore themselves out to Saudi funding so that, by their “work,” anything that could be considered disturbing about Islam is quickly thrown down the memory hole.
3 serf // Aug 31, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Interesting! It is worth noting that a 1,oo1 such reports on Burma/Myanmar have acheived absolutely nothing. They may even have made the Burmese Junta worse.
If Marc, is reading this: What do your hosts in Pattani think about this?
4 jonfernquest // Sep 1, 2007 at 12:04 am
Thanks. Very useful.
5 Deacon Miller // Sep 1, 2007 at 4:26 am
Well put. You are exactly right. I wish that I had more faith in the military’s ability to deal effectively with this crisis.
6 Bangkok Pundit // Sep 1, 2007 at 6:11 am
Marc: In this Spiegel article you are quoted as saying:
Marc Askew has been coming to southern Thailand for years. A professor of political science in the Australian city of Melbourne, Askew blames one man for the slaughter: Thaksin Shinawatra.
…
In 2002, Thaksin prematurely declared the south pacified and sent in police to keep order in the region. This was the catalyst that triggered the violence, says Askew. By sending in the police, Thaksin lifted the cease-fire that had been in place between Muslim groups like the Pattani United Liberation Organization and the government in Bangkok.
I note that the article was written in German and has now been translated into English so please advise if the article doesn’t convey the correct meaning of what you stated to the journalist. May I ask how sending in the police was the catalyst? Why when Thaksin then sent in the military after the Jan 4, 2004 attack that this didn’t pacify the situation (i.e since we then had the military and police working together)? How this suddenly caused the insurgents to turn from killing mainly police and military in rural areas to killing civilians in rural and urban areas? I am interested in which cease-fire you are referring to. Was this a breach of some term in the cease-fire?
7 Kulap // Sep 1, 2007 at 9:37 am
A Human Rights Watch report isn’t an academic paper. Nor is it intended to keep undergraduates busy. It’s going to be read in several languages by many tens of thousands of people the world over. Also by many more people than have read the local propaganda pamphlets.
A report like this also isn’t intended as “new” news in the sense that the daily reports of Thai news organs are. It should be more of a summary of what’s been going on by nonpartisan outside observers. There’s a different, wider readership that just doesn’t keep up with Thailand or Southeast Asian news on a day-to-day basis. Some of them will be in foreign governments. They are going to feel more obliged to discuss the South with Thai officials.
Even if the separatist goals have long been crystal clear to you, an HRW stamp does give it credibility to people far away. More people are aware of HRW than of the names of a few specialist academics. Honestly, loads of Thais in more northern parts of Thailand are pretty confused by what’s going on. Surely most Thais are a long way from accepting the possibility of a separate state in the South. I’m also unclear from reading this if HRW two years ago was blaming most of the violence on the state. HRW and NRC aren’t the same people or are they?
I agree the recommendations are amusing in a way, but I suppose they’re always supposed to be put in positive terms. Militants reading them wouldn’t be able to take much consolation.
8 Historicus // Sep 1, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I haven’t yet read the HRW report, but given the history of the southern conflict ss separatism and nationalism it would be odd not to see the current war in this manner. So when can we expect to be able to read Dr Askew’s research-based account of what’s really happening in the south? Or where is it currently available?
9 david w // Sep 1, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I’m a bit confused by the Spiegel quote of Dr. Askew. I thought it was rather widely accepted by now that the uptick in violence began before 2004 (usually 2001 is chosen as a ’starting’ date) and that the planning for this violence by a new generations of separatists / insurgents was in the planning stages for years prior to this. How then can the blame for the southern violence be placed so definitively at the feet of Thaksin?
Regarding the whoring of Islamic Studies, I suggest that Thai studies scholars read far and wide in the relevant academic and critical scholarship on Islam and the politicization of Islamic studies before they start reproducing simplistic tales about Islam, violence, democracy, etc. Clearly Islam has some explanatory value in what is happening in the South. Clearly however, more is going on than some civilizational conflict. We know for instance from the HRW report (and others) that lots of devout southern Thai Malay Muslims do not agree with the ideologies or strategies of the new generation of insurgents, even if they nonetheless are not sparkling liberal constitutionalists of a Western stripe. There are complexities here, as in the rest of the world of Muslim politics and political Islam, beyond simple dichotomies.
10 Matt Wheeler // Sep 1, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I don’t understand Prof. Askew’s objection to this HRW report. Given Prof. Askew’s evident disdain for armchair academics and terrorism deniers, one would think that he would welcome a report that puts the victims of terrorism at the center of the story and is clear and exact about the identity and aims of those responsible for terrorist violence. Certainly, the recommendations are not likely to effect changes in militant behavior. Then again, four years of fitful suppressive measures by the police, army and marines haven’t had much effect on their behavior, either, so what are we going to demand of a human-rights report?
The substance of the report, meanwhile, would appear to favor Prof. Askew’s own assertion that “there is a new style of full-scale ‘total war’ going on here in Thailand’s south”. To that extent, the report should be helpful in correcting a skeptical discourse that Prof. Askew finds dismaying.
I think Prof. Askew minimizes the significance of the interviews with BRN-C militants. I am not aware of any other reports or studies that make use of interviews with militants not in custody. (I’d be grateful if other readers could direct me to any.) These interviews are significant precisely because they can’t be dismissed as military or government reporting, and because these militants are presumably still active. The reticence of BRN-C to proclaim the aims of their violence (in a form other than leaflets and graffiti, which can be produced by anyone for any number of reasons) has made it easier for some skeptics to avoid acknowledging the nature of the conflict.
Prof. Askew wants people to accept the fact that “Islamic people’s war” is underway in the deep South. Given that the HRW report is based in part on interviews with active militants that make this point quite forcefully, and otherwise emphasizes the human cost of the violence, it’s not clear why he is so anxious to discount it.
11 Frustrated // Sep 2, 2007 at 9:02 am
I agree with #2 comments that “anything that could be considered disturbing about Islam is quickly thrown down the memory hole.” And I feel that #1 comments is further evidence of this. Sure the state’s role in this conflict is not following human rights obligations but does this mean you cannot identify the presence of an abherrant Islamic ideology or Al Quaeda presence causing much violence. Where Awzar Thi is your discussion of this ?
12 Awzar Thi // Sep 3, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Frustrated: Thanks for your remarks. I made no comments about Islamic ideology or otherwise because the subject of my observations was not the conflict in the south but the HRW report. The question is, what can this report achieve? The answer is nothing: first, because it is addresses the actions of persons who cannot be held accountable or subjected to pressure for change through methods available to HRW or any other rights group, and secondly, because it fails to offer any sort of really useful in-depth analysis through which suggestions can be made for changes to institutions designed to address the conflict in the south. This is manifest in the facile recommendations described in the original post.
It is also for this reason that, as Serf points out, ” 1,oo1 such reports on Burma/Myanmar have achieved absolutely nothing”.
Human rights advocates must begin from a place where it is possible to achieve something through their efforts. Otherwise, what is the point?
13 Ex-Ajarn // Sep 3, 2007 at 3:50 pm
It is obvious the military dictatorship has no plans on dealing with the violence. Instead of protecting the citizens of the country, the soldiers are playing at politics and working to get their fingers in the pies created by private Thai companies.
Sonthi and his gang have apparently decided to let the Buddhists in the South to their fate. Without a change in policy, the extremists will achieve their goals of driving out all Buddhists from the areas of terror and Thailand’s claim to the area will obviously be weakened.
Direct military confrontation with the extremists surely isn’t a perfect strategy, but the current strategy and appeasement and apathy has resulted in the deaths of far more civilians than the previous strategy of confrontation (but the military is much safer working in government house in Bangkok rather than where they are needed in the South).
These reports are a waste of paper; the extremists will not change a strategy that is working just because some papers gets shuffled in Western countries.
On the other, if there was as much outrage within the Thai and international community over the beheadings and torture as there has been over Thaksin playing fast and loose with the tax laws, there might be enough pressure to force a change in policy.
14 Frustrated // Sep 3, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Awzar
I agree that the report doesn’t provide much direction for the future – its recommendations are useless but it does identify the Islamic presence in the beheadings, killings of teachers etc. This needs to be confronted by the mainstream Islamic community and perhaps then progress can be made. Unfortunately you are still avoiding this issue in your post.
15 nganadeeleg // Sep 3, 2007 at 7:33 pm
If true, these reports of ‘training’ are disturbing:
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news.php?id=282538
Yala-based Centre for Muslim Lawyers coordinator Adilan Al Ishak said the arrests and subsequent forced-training were creating chaos among affected families while resentment from the local community towards the government was rising.
“This is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the people,” he said.
Adilan said the military operation aimed at winning the south started in Bannang Satar district on June 18 and so far, more than 500 people had been arrested in four provinces.
“First, they were held for seven days under the martial law and another 30 days under the emergency law. But instead of charging them in court or releasing the villagers, the authorities are sending them for training which is against the law and a violation of human rights,” he said.
Adilan said that from accounts given by detained villages, the detainees were given only two choices, either go for job training or risk being charged in court for involvement in the ongoing violence.
He said that though family members were allowed to see the detainees, many could not afford to go as the training centres are located in other provinces.
“But why is the military sending the villagers to undergo handicraft skill or vehicle repair training when they have steady jobs? We are not even sure now if they will be released after four months,” he said.
A social worker, Lamai Manalearn, said a 74-year-old man and a 17-year-old boy were arrested from a village in Nongchik, Patani.
“This was the first time people from the village were arrested. The old man told me he was asked to sign a paper before he can be released but instead of going home, he was sent for job training in Surat Thani,” she said.
Thai army spokesman Colonel Akara Tiproj, however, denied that the villagers were being forced to attend the job training, saying instead that it was for enhancing their labour skill and proper teaching of religion.
“We didn’t force them but explained the need for them to attend the training. But we have released several under-age detainees as we don’t want to be criticised by human rights groups,” he said.
16 Srithanonchai // Sep 5, 2007 at 6:03 pm
For those who want to read more:
Askew, Marc. 2007. Conspiracy, Politics, and a Disorderly Border: The Struggle to Comprehend Insurgency in Thailand’s Deep South. Washington: East-West Center. (Policy Studies 29 – Southeast Asia) xi+100 pp.
Askew, Marc. 2007. “Thailand’s Recalcitrant Southern Borderland: Insurgency, Conspiracies and the Disorderly State.” Asian Security 3 (2):99-120.
17 Marc Askew // Sep 11, 2007 at 7:41 pm
To Bangkok Pundit and others Regarding Der Spiegel misquotes of Askew
Thanks to Bangkok Pundit for bringing the Der Spiegel passage to my attention – I have not encountered this piece, fortunately. In response to your query as to whether it represents my views – actually no – it is a complete mash of whatever I said to one Der Spiegel journalist in Pattani in June/July last. I have never laid the blame for the outburst of violence in the south to Thaksin, except to highlight that he laid a few of the immediate conditions. Strangely, this misrepresentation comes after I gave this journalist a copy of my monograph (Conspiracy, Politics and a Disorderly Border) where I question simplistic analyses like this.
18 bangkokpundit // Sep 11, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Srithanonchai: Thanks. I don’t know why for the life of me I didn’t do a Google Scholar search. Have you now been able to find a free PDF download?
Marc: That is journalists for you. Thank you for your reply. Having skimmed through the abstract of Asian Security paper I find it interesting.
19 Srithanonchai // Sep 11, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Bangkokpundit: No, I haven’t found any free pdf download so far. In fact, East-West Center policy papers used be free on their web site. But after they teamed up with ISEAS, one will have to pay the latter $S10 for the right to download the piece.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.