สำนักราชบัณฑิตยสภา

The Journal of the Royal Institute of Thailand Volume II - 2010 Towards A Culture of Peace in Thai Society 12 Parameters of Conflict Parameters and patterns of causes for and conduct of conflict: The greater the physical, objective or emotional distance; the more uneven the power relationship, the more divisive the factors, such as race/ethnic origin and religion and, specifically, a combination of both, or the greater the linguistic, educational or income disparities between the potential opponents, the greater the divide will be and the greater the likelihood of an outbreak of conflict will be. The end result will also result in the greater difficulty in resolving a conflict. All this seems yet more pronounced when these additional conditions are present; the more distant from the country’s centre, the closer to an international border, the longer the history of antagonism prevailing or violence and/or the more intense the extraction of natural resources from the territory of the weaker side. Moreover, the less responsive to local complaints and protestations, the harsher the response on the part of the authorities and the more unprovoked coercion and use of (undue) force, as well as the more superior and better armed its forces are directly leads to the escalation of the cycle of violence, revenge and vengeance. Classic cases of this scenario are Sri Lanka and Northern Ireland; the more the conflict tended to escalate the longer it would keep running. Thailand then with its freshly escalating domestic confrontation and strife by no means stands alone; a great many conflicts erupted all over the world in the midst of a general upsurge in ethnic and religious-based strife and conflict since the end of the Cold War, such as in Southern Europe. In Asia these tended to involve Muslim minorities opposing their respective central governments, Russia is another example (Chechnya and Caucasus) as is China. These conflicts tended to drag on unresolved in spite of major crack-downs. Limited Reaction Once conflict in the South was out in the open, the Thai system of governance and administration which is not designed for reacting in a timely fashion when this means compromise, has proven rather inept in extinguishing the fire while still at low flame. Hence, the recent flashpoint in the South and potential other friction points, i.e. the hill tribes and the urban slum dwellers, or rural peoples with their various grievances and complaints, seem beyond the scope of routine governance or traditional responses. Also, those in authority appear not to have regained the initiative in the South but are merely responding and reacting to moves from the other side.