Just over a year ago, and while still with Amnesty International, I wrote a report on unlawful attacks by the insurgents in southern Thailand. The legal conclusion was that they are committing war crimes, which in turn depends on the southern violence being designated an internal armed conflict (as opposed to banditry, a law enforcement problem, an “insurgency”, or other ambiguous term). There was not space in the report, however, to substantiate that designation in as much detail as I would have liked.
In view of that, and more importantly, the recent up-tick in the number and intensity of attacks in the South and the attention they’ve received in Bangkok, readers may be interested in this recently published article. It was written in April and so is modestly factually “behind”, but it otherwise establishes the South as an internal armed conflict. It is unfortunate that after nine years that is what has developed in the deep south, but it is clear now that the law of war applies there. If you are interested in my full analysis it is available here.
Benjamin Zawacki is a former Thailand researcher for Amnesty International
When are attacks by the insurgents in southern Thailand lawful?
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
Armchair Leftists can justify the insurgency all they want from their lounge-rooms by blaming it all on society, tell that to the children being gunned down, the poor rubber workers or the petrol attendant that was blasted out of her sandals. Regardless of political or religious philosophy these are cold blooded murders committed by sociopaths.
Quality comment or not?
6 
3
It does make taxonomic sense, that the Southern insurgency is an internal conflict. It doesn’t explain much, but it is a precise enough designation, and if we think of it that way, we can maybe make ourselves pay attention to the weird painfulness of the whole thing.
One tires of thinking about the South. It just goes on and on. I am out of date and don’t know what I don’t know, but I am starting to look at news again.
Here is something that may help with a little continuity and context for people who are new to this or who, like me, have just not kept up for a couple of years. I don’t present this as authoritative or ideologically on point, but it is researched and rather recent. (http://www.cfr.org/thailand/thailands-secessionist-muslim-insurgency-escalates/p29321)
And I notice that Isara News (http://www.isranews.org/south-news.html) has a stack of articles of fairly recent vintage.
And here is Bangkok Pundit responding to a recent innovation in the violence: http://asiancorrespondent.com/91036/friday-trading-under-threat-from-insurgents-in-thailands-deep-south/.
For ancient history, I think my old blog of cut-and-paste news stories is still extant at http://www.souththailand.org, but the last post was in 2010. I still send somebody $8 a month for the privilege of not deleting it.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
For a new article, see
Studies in Conflict & Terrorism
Volume 35, Issue 11, 2012, pages 779-809
Becoming Patani Warriors: Individuals and the Insurgent Collective in Southern Thailand
Marc Askew & Sascha Helbardt
Focusing on the case of Thailand’s ongoing insurgency in its southern Malay Muslim majority region, this article examines the circumstances surrounding individual’s choices to engage in violent revolt and their conformity and non-conformity with the norms and disciplines of the movement in which they operate. Insurgent-driven violence in Thailand’s southern border provinces has attracted considerable attention, but little has been published about the people who become “Patani Warriors” (juwae). Based on the authors’ direct encounters with current and former insurgents and study of Thai official documentation and captured insurgent propaganda material, this article presents the most detailed information currently available on southern Thailand’s shadowy fighters. We argue that there is no single type of Malay Muslim insurgent: this variegated reality defies the normative ideals projected in insurgent’s indoctrination material while it also poses a challenge for the Thai authorities to define in simple terms those who oppose the state.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Benjamin Zawacki has his detractors, I know, but this strikes me as a very useful and detailed article. What I would like to know is what leverage acceptance of the insurgency as a Non International Armed Conflict (NIAC) has for involving the International Criminal Court (ICC), use of which is very much in the news at the moment.
Zawacki in his analysis reports that “designation of the situation as a NIAC involves applying international humanitarian law (IHL) on top of already applicable international human rights law.”
But it appears that only part of IHL is applicable to a NIAC.
The question before us then is, given acceptance of the insurgency as a NIAC, which of the relevant parts of IHL are being contravened in order for the ICC to gain jurisdiction.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0