If strategic comparison is to be made between the Thai state and the underground movement that is causing violence in the Deep South, it could be seen that the Thai state has the advantage on all aspects.
The Thai state dominates in term of structure of state power mechanisms in the area, military might, status in the global political arena. In term of policy, the Thai state aims towards peace and development of the quality of life of the people, while the aim of the underground movement is violence.
This is the strategic advantage of the Thai state, to which the underground movement cannot compare. Under this strategic readiness, how could the situation prolong for over 4 years, and the end could not be foreseen?
The issue that should be analyzed is that under this disadvantage and lack in term of strategy, the undergound movement is able to perform tactics and cause a wide variety of incidents and create shock, even though the event is not aimed towards destroying enemy forces to lead towards the military breaking point.
Therefore, what is the present goal of the violence that the underground movement is currentlyu creating?
If violence is used to create fear to control the masses, what is the purpose of the control of the masses?
Today, how effective is the process of peacebuilding under the policy of "politics before military" in order to create understanding and faith in state power by reaching out to the masses in the area? Particularly under this situation of violence, in which people who perform political activity to create understanding among the people are also scared themselves, and while the people in the area are also scared?
Today, terror is above all things. Development of key tools for political activities to restore the faith and confidence in state power could not move forward because of the violence.
There are always new forms of violence in the area, putting the state on the defense side in term of tactics. Is this being done in order to block and destroy strategic means for building peace and transquility by the state? Under such circumstance, how should the state set its tactics to achieve strategic targets?
The peacebuilding strategy of the Thai state is being challenged by violence.
This is the reflection from the past. Various agencies, organizations, and individuals involved with the problem of the Deep South have made a large number of proposals and policy for the main plan in solving the problem, yet the situation is still in the cycle of violence which blocks opportunities for these plans to be fully implemented. Thus it is difficult to evaluate whether previous policies have been appropriate, or whether changes are required.
Strategy is setting the targets of what to do, tactic is the explanation of how to do it.
The answer to the problem of the Deep South at present is not about telling people what to do, because many agencies have their strategy and main plan all prepared, but the question is how much can be done. This is due to the lack of knowledge to create a right approach for implemention at the individual, social structure, and regional levels.
So, the answer that is being sought at this moment is "how" to do these things, under the condition of violence.
Victory in term of ideas, development to express sincerity, dissolve bias, and restore faith in the state, even monitoring the area to maintain peace and order and block opportunities for attacks.
How to do so, and who must be involved in the process, these are the questions that need to be answered.
Share your ideas on the situation in the Deep South
with Muhammad Ayub Pathan at bangyub.multiply.com
or at www.oknation.net/blog/ayub