Wan Kadir vs Taheri | 6.10.05
Just saw Amir Taheri on CNN, which reminds me of some unfinished business. Last December, the Neocon’s favorite Muslim concluded in his article about, of all things, the Thai government’s pathetic attempt to quell unrest by air-dropping origami birds (it’s a symbol of peace, you see):
Thaksin’s talk of “war on terror” is both untrue and dangerous. The truth is that the majority of Thai Muslims, including the non-Malays in the north, are treated as second-class citizens. They have been excluded from the kingdom’s recent economic development while a wave of Thai nationalism has tried to overwhelm their cultural identity and religious traditions. Poverty, injustice and oppression are the lot of Thai Muslims. And these are not issues that can be addressed either by metallic bullets or paper cranes.
Untrue and dangerous, indeed, for PM Thaksin has never talked of such a “war”. There have been War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Corruption, and War on Dark Influence, but when it comes to southern violence, he set up a fifth column on the insurgents’ behalf and called it “National Reconciliation Commission”. Just think about it, to fight an insurgency with paper cranes is crazy enough, but to do so while declaring a “war on terror” is too crackpot even by Thai standards.
If logic alone won’t suffice, hear this from the separatist patriarch, Wan Kadir Che Man, speaking in an interview eight months after Taheri’s article:
Q: Following 11 September many separatist groups all over the world have been labelled ‘terrorist’ groups by their respective governments. Sometimes this was done to get added support from the West; sometimes this is done to justify the persecution of legitimate political opponents. How has this affected your activities?
A: In fact I personally do not think that Thaksin’s administration has used the ‘terrorist’ label against us very much so far. This may change later, but for now they tend to condemn us as a local threat and local problem, and the struggle in their eyes at least is merely an insurgency. More often they accuse us of being ‘un-patriotic’ and not nationalist in their sense, but rarely have we been labelled a ‘terrorist’ threat.
The reason why Thaksin has been cautious, I feel, is this: Thailand is still recovering from the 1998 economic crisis and the Thai government is aware of how fragile the economy is. In many parts of the country the local economy is based on tourism and foreign revenue earnings; from both ASEAN tourists as well as Western tourists.
If Thaksin plays the ‘terrorist menace’ card, the immediate impact would be to send the wrong signal that Thailand is a network or safe harbour for militant terrorist groups. This would damage the image of Thailand and possibly drive off foreign tourists whose spending is crucial in reviving the local economy. As much as the Thai security forces want to eradicate us, using whatever means necessary, they are worried about long-lasting negative effects and negative publicity. So their hands are tied in a sense.
The government should appoint this man to the NRC. Besides being a publicity coup, he may help to move the Reconciliator’s group think a bit toward the government’s side.
(Ain’t gonna happen. Chairman Anand Panyarachun has full discretion on NRC appointments, which is why we get people like daddy’s girl Petchdao Tohmeena and conspiracy theorist Paisarn Phromyong.)
Back to Taheri, with such a prominent Terror War hawk (who’s even said that the hijab was “designed to promote gender apartheid”) coming down so strongly against a government fighting Islamic insurgency, what other respectable hawks can resist following his lead and shoring up their moderate, Muslim-friendly street cred by condemning Thaksin as South East Asia’s Islam Karimov? (I’ve actually never heard it, but I can see the writing on the newsroom wall.) The Economist and the Asian Wall Street Journal already look askance Thaksin’s “populism” to begin with, so it all works out quote well.
The antiwar doves, other hand, can always be counted on to root for the little guys, whose militant campaigns somehow never count as “wars”. (Is it because they kill mostly civilians?). Besides, they have their own issues with Thaksin the ruthless capitalist, SOE privatizer and FTA signer.
So what international observers are left rooting for Thailand in its fight against Islamic insurgency? Well, there are always the hardcore hawks who tend to err on the side of Islamophobia. And perhaps Islam Karimov.
PS Just to be clear: Thaksin is no Islam Karimov. He’s more hawkish than Anand Panyarachun, for sure, but that’s like saying Bangkok in December is colder than in April. And quite frankly, given my current deep distrust of Big Media’s coverage of third world countries, I don’t even know if Islam Karimov is Islam Karimov.
« Pornthip Rojanasunand vs. the NRC | Main | Pornthip, Prawese, etc. »
- 1
- JW 7.10.05
“If logic alone won’t suffice, hear this from the separatist patriarch, Wan Kadir Che Man, speaking in an interview eight months after Taheri’s article… The government should appoint this man to the NRC.”
Fortunately, for Thailand, Wan Kadir Che man is seen as having great influence with many of the separatists and he actually has a brain and can think. He wrote his Ph.D thesis which was later published on comparing the Malays of Southern Thailand with the Moros in the Phillipines (Amazon link). It is actually quite a good read, there is also a shorter journal article out there somewhere as well. So I completely agree with your statement that he should be on the NRC because at least he would talk some sense.
You are correct in saying Thaksin has never talked about a war and does not refer to them as terrorists. The general term which is used is of course, โจรใต้ (Southern Bandits). This term has been used by numerous Thai governments since the 1970s and is certainly not as emotive as the Southern Terrorists. Surely, if Thaksin was the lackey of the Americans which some critics label him as, he would be calling them terrorists by now.
“So what international observers are left rooting for Thailand in its fight against Islamic insurgency?”
I haven’t seen that many international commentators come out against Thaksin in his overall handling of the South. In articles I have read their criticism is mainly limited to criticism of specific acts of the government/military as opposed to an overall criticism of government policy. It is because of this lack of criticism from respectable international observers (ie respectable does not included the OIC or other such groups/orgs) that the situation in the Deep South has not yet really become internationalised. This is a point that his critics don’t give Thaksin credit for because if the government’s handling of the situation was that bad surely the situation in the Deep South would be in the world’s spotlight.Having said that Thaksin seems to be stuck in quick sand on the Deep South. He constantly wants to wiggle and move around and to be seen as doing something when this seems to compound the issue, he just seems to fall deeper into the quick sand.
- 2
- Tom Vamvanij 7.10.05
JW:
Thanks for recommending the book, which I didn’t know about and looks quite intriguing. He argues against the Marxist school of thought? Then he should definitely hold a post in Thammasat’s Political Science Faculty in addition to the NRC.
By the way, does anyone know from which American college he graduated?
The general term which is used is of course, โจรใต้(Southern Bandits). This term has been used by numerous Thai governments since the 1970s and is certainly not as emotive as the Southern Terrorists.
Not exactly. The current official term for separatists in the Deep South is usually “disorder causers” (“ผู้ก่อความไม่สงบ”) or simply “perpetrators” (“คนร้าย”) as seen here in the CSD’s Most Wanted list (the list is specifically for the Deep South insurgents — the link text on the Police’s homepage says “คนร้ายสำคัญ 3 จังหวัดชายแดนภาคใต้”). In the past, these used to be referred to as “terrorist bandits” (“โจรก่อการร้าย”) but the term “terrorism” today has taken on a totally new, much more loaded and fearsome, meaning and thus has to be avoided like the plague. At least in the eyes of the tourism-conscious Thai government. Of course, one could take the downplaying game too far even in Thailand, as PM Thaksin found out after his off-handed “petty thieves” (“โจรกระจอก”) comment.
Surely, if Thaksin was the lackey of the Americans which some critics label him as, he would be calling them terrorists by now.
Some anti-American leftist types offer that narrative (see Duncan McCargo). More often, however, I read centrists and hawks (like Taheri) put the “war on terror” into Thaksin’s mouth and claim that he is slyly trying to attach Thailand’s local agenda to the global struggle à la Russia, China and the Philippines. Of course, Thaksin in fact wants precisely the opposite, but who cares?
I haven’t seen that many international commentators come out against Thaksin in his overall handling of the South. In articles I have read their criticism is mainly limited to criticism of specific acts of the government/military as opposed to an overall criticism of government policy.
Not too many observers talk about Thailand because the insurgency has so far been limited to small-scale attacks in a small-scale country. Every time they do so, however, the government’s policy and stance are invariably described as “hard-line” (presumably the government makes an “about-face” every time it rolls out a new, warm, fuzzy, and silly measure).
Having said that Thaksin seems to be stuck in quick sand on the Deep South. He constantly wants to wiggle and move around and to be seen as doing something when this seems to compound the issue, he just seems to fall deeper into the quick sand.
Exactly. The creation of the NRC is biggest plunge in the quicksand, so far.
- 3
- JW 7.10.05
“Exactly. The creation of the NRC is biggest plunge in the quicksand, so far.”
I don’t think the establishing of such organisation is such a mistake as it can help to deflect the heat from Thaksin. One of the problems so far was throughout 2004, you would constantly have Thaksin, Chautron, Chavilit etc seemingly changing Thai government policy on the South each week and then announcing it to the media. It just seemed total confusion. I don’t think this went unnoticed by the insurgents. The government was completely rattled. The NRC could allow the government to develop a more coherent strategy and policy (which I don’t think they have now). The problem with the NRC is not its creation, but the committee members.
You are right about the Southern Bandits, I should have said that this was and still is the term used by the Thai media, not the Thai government. My bad.
- 4
- poststaffer 7.10.05
One thing I do not understand about these thugs. Many have now been captured or surrendered … but why is the state’s intelligence about this group still so poor?
What do they think of the state? What are their aims? Who teaches them, where does the money come from, how well do they think the ‘campaign’ is going?
I think it’s time the media gave us a profile of a separatist (terrorist, bandit, thug, call them what you will).
After that, we should go talk to his Mum and neighbours, to hear about what a good boy he was at school!
I am not waiting for my bunch to do it. That would mean doing real news.
Incidentally, Tom, speaking of television interviews, as we were the other day, I think Thaksin’s interview about the South last night is well worth a look. Too long, but one of those defining political moments, I think.
I liked Thasksin’s point about joblessness down there. Too many school students are studying religion and little if nothing else (how they get away with that is beyond me), then end up jobless and prone to mischief because they have no qualifications worth a damn.
You’ll have to bear with me on the link thing, though. I have downloaded the Opera browser, but haven’t dared open it yet.
I can provide only my usual feeble link to Channel 9’s site, then urge readers to visit the รายการพิเศษ section after that.
http://modernine.mcot.net/
- 5
- Jay 7.10.05
but why is the state’s intelligence about this group still so poor?
One reason is that inflitrating such groups is very difficult.
For the interview with Thaksin, here is the link
What do they think of the state? What are their aims? Who teaches them, where does the money come from, how well do they think the ‘campaign’ is going?
This to me is why solving the problem is so difficult for Thaksin. In Iraq, when you have kidnapping of a westerner, you have a group who comes out and says what they want and who they are.
In Thailand, you hear nothing. You have no idea what they want, is it just greater autonomy, a Pan-Islamic State, or something in between?
I think one reason for providing no information about who is behind any attack and their motives is if they were to do so it would make it more difficult to allow the creation of conspiracy theories that the Thai government is somehow behind some or all of the attacks (your mob at the Post have an article which quotes a source as saying that the separatists have tried to blame the government for attacks).
As Tom as alluded to in a previous post, you now have the situation where NRC committee members are also involved in the perpetuation that the Thai government is behind attacks.
- 6
- poststaffer 7.10.05
Thanks for the link.
Thugs surrender daily, but we seldom hear anything else. Someone is not sharing information, though it may well be the security people.
I would like to see evidence that the media is at least trying to do its job, and is asking the right questions.
I imagine some thugs are just sent home with a warning, so keen is the government not to upset people. In which case, maybe they would like to share their stories with a friendly neighbourhood reporter.