No-killing zones proposed to tackle unrest

Govt approach wrong, says Muslim academic

ANJIRA ASSAVANONDA

Sickened by the ceaseless killing in the South, a renowned political scientist has proposed combating the violence by setting up ``no-killing and no-weapons zones''.

Chaiwat Satha-Anand of Thammasat University's political science faculty, and vice president of the Strategic Non-violence Committee, said the government has it all wrong in using violence, money and public relations to solve the problems in the three southernmost provinces.

``I feel that the relationship between the people and the state is in deep trouble,'' he said. ``What is even worse is the relationship between the different peoples, the Buddhists and the Muslims.''

Mr Chaiwat, who is a Muslim , said no-killing zones would show society that ``violence can be separated out more than we tend to think.''

``Violence prevents people from seeing other alternatives and is weakening civil society in the South,'' said Mr Chaiwat.

The process could start by identifying those areas where there had been no violence, declaring them no-killing zones and then gradually expanding them into areas where there have been deaths, to eventually create a more peaceful society.

However, he wanted the initiative to come from bottom-up, from ordinary people, villagers or townspeople _ instead of the government's top-down policy.

``For example, it could be initiated by local Muslim leaders, possibly with support from local Buddhists, using the Ramadan period as the starting point. It can begin with known areas where there is no killing, if there are any,'' he said.

Mr Chaiwat said he got the concept from Prof Glenn Paige, the president of the Centre for Global Nonviolence and author of the book Non-killing Global Political Science, who happened to be in Thailand for a few days.

He had explained to him that, ``if people don't kill each other, there'll be no weapons designed to kill people''.

To spread his idea, Mr Paige started by asking people if a non-killing society was possible. ``That's the question we should also ask, to get people thinking about it,'' he said.

He emphasised the two factors needed to eliminate the killing. The first was to stress the ethics of non-killing, making it part of the people's everyday culture. The second was getting everybody to participate, both killers and non-killers.

Mr Chaiwat conceded it was a difficult concept to implement, given that the government has encouraged people to use guns and weapons to protect themselves.

``But I hope there will be some communities, even small ones, where there has been no killing and where the people agree with my idea. They could make the concept practical and if it succeeds then the authorities will eventually support it,'' he said.