Even here we still cannot fell safety” and he asked a question “Peace has not happened. How could it happen?” As a PWDs person, he demanded basic rights in his life, not special rights. “In the southern border provinces, how many schools are there where PWDs people can learn?” He also mentioned, “Therefore it’s not strange that PWDs people’s quality of life has never developed, left behind and neglected. Accordingly PWDs people remain as a vulnerable group.”Roning Doloh, a former defendant in a security case told about his experience. “I was detained by security officers 3-4 times. They still visit my house. So personally I believe there will be no peace as long as security officers behave like this.” He said he was like “a patient in an ICU of a hospital. How can I go home, eat meals and build peace?” and stressed that “Today villagers are still scared, because security officers come to visit at any time.”Somsak Thiamngern, who had lost his younger brother from a violent incident said, “after 20 years the situation in the south is still not safe.” He mentioned about changes in the region that, “In the past we could ride motorbikes through paddy fields, but now we can’t do so anymore.” His younger brother died in a bombing in a night market in Pattani, and his two children were left as orphans. A representative of victims in the Tak Bai Incident demanded justice because the 20 years’ statute of limitations of the incident that happened in 2004 would expire in only 8 month. “Remedies delivered so far has been good but it could not be compared with life of people who had to die.” He also mentioned that the concerns of the victims’ family because they are visited by local police offices and told to sign on certain documents. These voices reflects various different perspectives on peace and needs of victims of the conflict, whether they are PWDs people, former defendants of security cases, those who have lost their family members or those who have been affected by violent incidents in the past. 249
Empty balance: Equality in the context of pluralism“Muslims who are a minority group in the country need respect, while Thai Buddhists who are a minority group in the region also feel that they do not receive justice.” Equalities in differences is one of an important agenda picked up in this forum. Lek from the association of Buddhists in Yala Province told the changes in the region. “In the past we lived with Muslims like brothers. It was peace and calm. But those who have different opinions from the state caused disunity.”He demanded equalities for Thai Buddhists in the region. “Do we Buddhists receive equality? In hospitals in Yala, in the past there were kitchens for Buddhists, but when there were Muslim kitchens, Buddhist kitchens are gone.”He also pointed that “It is true that in the past there were two hundred thousand of Buddhists here, but there are only one hundred thousand, and the number of Buddhist shops are declining too.”Chaturon summarised this issue that assimilation of Malay culture is a problem that is still happening. “Use of Malay, promotion of Malay culture and Malay clothes” are still facing obstacles. For instance, the local authorities can organise the Melayu Day event but when students are trying to organise activities about Malay clothes they would be interrupted. This is “disorderly” and “cultural assimilation still remain as a problem and should be studied to identify whether assimilation policies of the state against any ethnic group is correct or otherwise.” At the same time, discrepancy in education was also picked up by Phaisal Asae, the chairman of the private school’s association in Yala province. He said that there are almost two thousand hundred students in private Islamic schools all over the country, but there 250
are only two education supervisors, while the number of schools under the Office of the Basic Education Commission is 2040. Equalities in differences are important challenges in building peace in the region where there are religious and cultural diversities, including respect for identities of Malay Muslims who are the majority in the region, and justice for Thai Buddhists who are minorities in the region. Spaces to express hopes: Starting point of a new edition of history “I hope this committee make a new history in solving problems in the southern provinces”, said Wan Muhamad Noor Matha at the end of the forum, that reflect hopes to this committee. He also stressed that “The participants in today’s forum are different from those forums in the past, because forums of committees in the past were mostly organized by government agencies, especially SBPAC or ISOC. The participants are therefore those who work with them which surely did not cover the whole people.” He also stressed that “People are owners of power, owners of democracy. Therefore we must listen to people’s voice. You have done the proper thing because if government officers gather information from the people, they cannot know the realities.” Abdulsukor Samoh from the people’s group for peace asked a question. “When will a real peace negotiation happen, with the highest leaders of both the Thai state and the movement having strong intention to be engaged in the peace process?” He also pointed out that in other countries such as Aceh, Mindanao and the Northern Ireland, there leaders have real intentions to build peace. 251
Mansor Salaeh expressed his opinion that civil society wanted a swift peace negotiation and recommended to use “local wisdom as the main source for negotiation” especially with Malaysia which has relations like families with people in the region. A represent from the Southern Border Provinces Justice Center demanded that there should be reform of the justice system and the special laws such as Martial Law and Emergency Decree and the Internal Security Act.The forum for listening to ideas is not just for listening, but a starting point of a new hope in peace building from genuine voices of people, not just from the negotiation between the state and the movement. There is still one important question. Is peace building by people can be a reality? And can people from different religions, ethnicities and experiences work together to draw a picture of future in a peaceful way or not? 252
“If the peace process do not touch upon the ground, it won’t be sustainable. It will be vulnerable too.” – A summary from the public consultation forum in the southern border provinces. Echoing sounds of guns and floating smokes from bombings have become stereotyped pictures of the southern border provinces for more than two decades. Another side of the conflict is a story known to only a few people – voices of communities that long for peace, voices of people who want to see changes and voices of efforts to build bridges to connect differences. Violent incidents reported in news are just a tip of an iceberg. Under the surface there are structural discrepancy, injustice and cultural conflict which have been rooted for centuries. Solutions with weapons or suppresions will never lead to a sustainable peace. Why is the peace dialogue between the Thai government and the movement important? Why voices of vulnerable communities or peripheral people have been neglected? Voices from the southern border provinces: A pathway to a sustainable peace 253
Landscape of the conflict and orientations in peace buildingWhile sounds of guns does not subdue and trust is something to be built by every side, the peace dialogue on the negotiation table looks like only a long journey with no goal. But this i the only route that leads to sustainable peace and co-existence in the middle of diversities in the southern border provinces. Now this area is a conflict area, but at the same time it’s an area for hopes, where people are building peace from the grass root level with their own hands. Violent factors in the southern border provinces that lead to problem solutions without using violenceThe report of a meeting for developing skills in public consultations and supports for the peace dialogue at local level in the southern border provinces on 31 August 2023 at Southern View Hotel, Pattani, presents in-depth perspectives from collaborations of three organisations: Center for Conflict Studies and Cultural Diversity, Institute for Peace Studies, Prince of Songkla University (academic organisations), civil society organisation, Kampung Takwa (working at the grass root level) and MRG (a foreign organisation working with minorities), by receiving funding supports from the European Union (EU). 254
Root causes of violence and orientations for building peace Violence in the southern border provinces has three levels that are connected with each other, physical violence which can be seen (shooting, bombing), structural violence (disparity, poverty, injustice) and cultural violence ( thoughts, beliefs, education, communication conducive for use of violence). All these three levels are connected with each other. Therefore just solving physical violence is not enough, but there should be solutions to disparity, injustice and cultural dimensions too. The project implemented in the region aims at building peace through inclusivity, and its main objectives are full protection of rights of vulnerable people and peripheral groups in the southern border provinces, whether they are women, children, PWDs people or sexual minorities. The conflict has created barriers among people in society. Those who have been most affected by this cannot access to their rights. Thus this project prioritize working with the Kampung Takwa group, PWDs people and women’s group by using mechanisms at the bottom of the society. The project was designed to empower people at lower echelons, similar to building a road where the basic level must be strengthened. 255
For this reason, this project highlights dialogues at community level, and there are measures to build trust so that communities are confident that peace have meaning to the communities. After that we will discuss whether this agenda is important for everyone or not. Indeed, if the peace process does not touch upon the group, it will not be sustainable, and it will be vulnerable. Development and Evolution of the negotiation through 5 important eras The peace dialogue in the southern border provinces have important development consecutively. 1. The first dialogue in 2013 started between BRN (Barisan Revolusi Nasional) and the Thai government led by Yingluk Shinawatra, held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia with a signing of the General Consensus. BRN then presented its five demands, namely: • Acknowledgement of BRN as a representative. • Malaysia should be a moderator of the negotiation. • OIC should join the process as the observer. • Acknowledgement of Patani Malay community’s rights. • Unconditional release of prisoners of security cases. However, the Thai government did not agree with these demands, and the process was halted. 2. The second round 2015-2019 The process was modified and the group that joined the second round is called “MARA Patani” formed by representative of several groups, including BRN, PULO, GMIP and BIPP. Their important proposals are as follows: • The peace negotiation must be a national agenda. • There should be legal protection for those who take part in the dialogue. • Acknowledgement of MARA Patani as a negotiation partner. 256
3. In 2020 a new round of talk between the Thai government and BRN was started on 20 January with four agreement, namely: • The dialogue is the result of jthe joint agreements in accordance with the TOR (Terms of Reference). • Both side adhere to the frame of the dialogue and TOR as the basic principles. • Confirmation of Malaysia’s status as a facilitator. • The dialogue will be joined by international experts.4. In 2022 (after Covid-19), the dialogue was resumed again on 11-12 June with three agendas discussed as follows: • Reduction of violence. • Public consultation in the region. • Seeking political solutions according to intentions and needs of people. 5. August 2022 the fifth dialogue was held by highlighting the evaluation of “the Ramadan Peace Initiative” which succeeded in reducing violence during the month of Ramadan. It also discussed a proposal from Thai Buddhists to have a ceasefire during the Buddhist Lent. Both sides were determined to extend collaborations in more systematic and sustainable way. Role and proposals of civil society in the peace process In the forum titled “The peace dialogue and challenges for public consultations”, panellists from civil society shared their different experiences and perspectives. Waeromlee Waebula, president of the Kampung Takwa Association, stressed the importance of the dialogue, because if there was no dialogue, in the end people might use violence 257
and weapons. Dialogues of quality must accept opinions of the people. “If the contents do not come from people, the dialogue will not last long.” The challenge is that it is difficult to listen to opinions in villages that are not strong. In such villages, people lack collaboration but have fear, suspicion and they lack knowledge too. Abdulkarim Isma-a, president of the Civil Society Council in the Southern Border Provinces, proposed his perspective that an important principle in working is faith, not leaving anyone, helping morality and adhering to justice. He stressed that people are the centre, and operation without violence should lead to sustainability compared to use of violence. Muhammadaladi Dengni, president of the Civil Society Assembly for Peace explained challenges of the peace dialogue that “In fact the dialogue proceed very slowly because communities or people are weak” and “Actually we are weak. So far civil society has not talked about how to design the peace process.” He stressed importance of communications about the negotiation process so that people can know about it, and creation of public space so that people can express their own thoughts. Mutual trust still remain as a big obstacle, as was expressed by one of the participants, “At one time I talked face to face with a security official to make a map for arresting insurgents, but in the end the paper we had drawn the map for the officer ended up in the hands of suspects.” Such situations cause people not dare to express their ideas or give information. 258
Reflection from the communities showed that “security officers are trying to defend themselves, and the movement came to stage violent incidents. So we cannot take care of the officers” and “As for the peace dialogue in communities, they just need peaceful life, with good living, and the circumstances where they can earn living. They don’t care if there are soldiers or not.”This indicates that many villagers highlighted basic needs in daily life rather than macro-political agendas.A case study: Working experience for peace in communities In the afternoon, there was a forum titled “Workshop Meeting: Empowerment for public consultations with communities for peace in the southern border provinces/Patani” with panellists from various organisations. Soraya Jamjuree (Civic Women) shared her experience in working with a women’s group through Peace Agenda of Women (PAOW) which is a network of 23 women’s organisations, with a common agenda of “safety” in public spaces frequented by women such as markets, streets, schools and places of worship. The working process started with intensive training for women leaders before organising forums listening to opinions of women in red zones, areas of Thai Buddhists and multicultural area. Finally they gathers three main proposals. 1. Safe public spaces. 2. Support for both sides so that they are engaged in the peace dialogue, with agendas from victims to be jointly discussed. 3. Safety of women working for human rights. 259
Waeisma-ae NaeSae (Adam) from People College presented his perspective that 70 percent of BRN did not agree with use of weapons, and needs political solutions. But they had to fight with those who still preferred use of weapon rather than political ways. At present BRN did not wish for a victory over the Thai state, but they wanted to work together for seeking solutions. They also want spaces for dialogue with people before deciding their demands to the Thai state. Case study of Duai Jai Group: Public listening and human rights Anchana Heemmina from Duai Jai Group explained the working process starting from in-depth listening. “Our first step was to listen to stories about their problems, followed by listening to their families’ stories, close neighbours and communities about why communities do not trust or help each other, and finally to the agendas about problems happening in all the communities.” From the results of the listening it was found that the main problem was human rights violations in the southern border provinces through enforcement of the special laws which affect people in general, including children of two month to 18 years old whose DNA samples were taken. Even DNA samples of women whose husbands are on the run were taken too. 260
“About one hundred security offices come to houses of women for searching. If they deny their access, they might hit by the gun.” The Duai Jai Group started this listening activity since 2010, from direct victims of torture, because torture has been conducted in secret places, and some people could not tell their stories because they had been traumatized or intimidated. When they were trusted by the community, they extended the target group to the entire villages. “Two years ago, we conducted the listening activities in 10 villages, starting from communities where there were cases of torture, and we found that in that village there were around ten cases.” Apart from problems of torture, they also found other problems such as their places for earning living overlapped with national parks, or some villages being stigmatized following that youths finishing education from some Islamic private schools. Following continuous works, the Duai Jai Group also campaigned for the anti-torture and enforced disappearance law which took 14 years. “If there is no human rights principles, there will be no peace in this region, because human rights principles are tangible rights for everyone. But if our rights, our families rights or our communities rights are violated, there will be no peace.”Anchana stressed that everyone must take part in consultations, because this problems is “not owned by anyone, but everyone must be the owner” and the agenda of human rights should be taken at the beginning of talk. 261
Dialogue and real listening: Voices from communities to changes Thammasat Sotthibandhu explained that there was a common ground for everyone about avoiding use of violence, although the methods to achieve peace might be different. “When we talk about dialogues, we tend to think about talking, but an important component of dialogue is to listen to them sincerely.” She took an example from working in communities for solving drug problems before conducting other problems, because the communities could not go over this problem unless it was solved. This indicates importance of listening to real needs of the communities. “Public consultation is quality of people’s relations in daily life because if they do not meet up, there could be no public consultation.” She asked a question, “How much can we have dialogues with a variety of groups of people” because talking with those who have different opinions might lead to more challenges and lessons. Voices from communities and circles for exchanges During the exchanges there were various ideas from the participants. Waeromlee supported information from Waeisma-ae Naesae (Adam) that about 70 percent of BRN members wanted to negotiate which indicated internal conflict of the group which resembles diversities in the Thai side. He also stressed that the orientations of the works so far made some progresses and was correct, but there should be more learning and evaluation of directions all the time. The third participant (Amir) shared his experience in Chiang Rai by mentioning cultural diversities that did not cause any conflict or demands for independence. He reflected that an important skill in building understanding, and he learnt that what the local people needed were to “eat delicious food, sleep well, that’s all.” This was different from the southern border provinces where “there were circumstances where people cannot eat delicious food and sleep well because there are suspicions.”262
A representative from the Cho Ai Rong community (number 9) related realities in the region that the problems in the region are various, including drugs, stealing, and young gangsters, but villagers could not fully rely on state officers. “state officers also bring body guards, and the movement also stage violent incidents against us. We cannot take care of the officers, and when there are violent cases at nights, officers come to the cites in the next morning because they also do not want to take any risk.”“For peace dialogues in communities, we do not only need peace, good living or earning livings, but we are concerned if soldiers will stay here anymore.”When asked about what to be done so that the dialogue table listen to people’s voice, a representative of a community answered that villagers did not want to speak or propose their ideas because they were not sure if their proposals will be listened to. Each party has not fully collaborated yet. As a consequence, it has become “very challenging tasks”. Summaries and steps forward From the exchanges in the forum, there are some important proposals to push the peace process forward. 1. To build communities’ strength – through setting up a community council that include community leaders to solve problems together. 2. To adhere to human rights principles as a frame for works – so that everyone is equally protected. 3. To create safe spaces for the dialogue – by using neutral teams that are trusted by every sector. 4. To develop mechanisms to reach out and listen to every group – especially vulnerable and peripheral groups that are neglected.5. To enhance participation of every sector – including officials, civil society actors, religious groups and local communities. 6. To highlight basic needs of people – safety, good life, opportunities in earning living. 263
Proposals for building safe spaces for the dialogue Soraya Jamjuree poposed to set up a working group of various backgrounds including civil society actors, academics and members of the National Human Rights Committee in order to obtain acknowledgement from both sides, and using social media as a tool to listen to people’s voices. However, representatives from communities disagreed with use of social media because villagers did not trust it. “Villagers trust is zero because when stories are shared they feel unsafe. At one time I talked with an officer face to face for making a map of arrest of insurgents, but finally the piece of paper on which we drew the map ended up in the hand of a suspect. Therefore, today we do not trust anyone.”Anchana Heemmina proposed methods to work in areas where the level of trust is law by being neutral, starting from talks with village headmen, followed by building groups of youths in which they can speak without being heard by adults. In these groups community can set their own agendas, and youths can make counter-proposals. This is a starting point for reflecting voices of villagers safely. Waeisma-ae Naesae (Adam) stressed the importance of collaboration for starting dialogue before both parties start their dialogue officially, in order to show that dialogues are possible and would be able to reduce use of weapon of both sides too. 264
Hopes and orientations in the future Thammasat Sotthibandhu summarized that one of the challenges was to connect divided sectors. “How we can connect these divided sectors? This is not just talking to a group, but we must connect people” in order to respond to people’s need in order that “they are safe, sleep well and eat delicious food.” Soraya Jamjuree agreed with the representative of communities that majority of villagers were still interested in livelihood as the main agenda, not so much interested in the peace dialogue. But their voices reflecting their problems should be brought to the delegates to connect peace and their life in the region. Waeromlee Waebula, in his closing remark for the forum, stressed importance of public consultation and collaboration of all sectors. “Public consultation is certainly important for people…if we can gather every sector of society to sit together and discuss, the problems in the southern border provinces can be solved.”This is a hope in the middle of challenges. With collaboration and dialogues from the public, the society can go over the conflict and build sustainable peace in the end. Voices from communities: Realities that must be seen 265
Summary: A path to comprehensive and sustainable peace The southern border province might be a conflict area, but at the same time it is a place of hope where people are building peace from the grass root level with their own hands. Voices from the area said, “If every side retreat and let people lead, the peace process will surely go forward”toward sustainable peace building. “Every conflict should end at a negation table. There is no conflict end at a conflict.” But why has the peace process not achieved its goal? This must be because “We have already known how the standards of the state or the army are. We should not forget that this country should be there for people.” People’s voice should be the indicator for successes of the peace. We have seen examples from the efforts of campaigning for legislation of the peace law which shows that peace building is not something far from us, but it should be connected with people’s life in the region. Building of peace or buildings should start with setting stable basics. Likewise, a peace process will not be sustainable if there is no participation of people from the bottom, especially vulnerable people who have been neglected, whether they are women, PWDs people, youths, victims of violent incidents, as well as various ethnicity and religions. Finally, building comprehensive peace is not just a goal, but a process that require continuous implementations in daily life, through learning, understanding and acknowledgement of diversities so that peace can happen has a meaning and is genuinely sustainable for everyone in the region, as is said that “If we have knowledge we can solve problems easily and in a short time.” This reflects importance of giving knowledge to communities for empowering them in solving problems, by abiding to human rights principles and acknowledgement of local identities. 266
Conclusion In the situations in the southern border provinces, peace will not happen if it is done in a top-down way and is not deeply rooted in voices of people in the middle of the conflict for 20 years. The peace process gradually emerged through dialogues between the government and those who have different opinions. An important turning point is 2013 when an official dialogue was start with some progresses, such as decrease in the statistics of violence and drafting of JCPP. However, the process lacks continuity, transparency and real participation of people. It also faces limitations from politics at high levels, such as changing of governments, enforcement of the special laws, and the lack of political will. At the same time there was a new hope through drafting of the peace law and promotion of JCPP with goals of reduction of violence, opening up public spaces and political solutions. This project reflects perspectives from conducting activities of project in building peace space for people.Female researchers attended trainings for concepts and research skills in various fields including 1) concepts of intersectionality, 2) qualitative and quantitative researches, 3) principles in group discussions, and 4) ethics in researches. They conducted researches that showed problems of the conflict and violence in the southern border provinces of Thailand which is a complicated agenda and affect peripheral groups and vulnerable groups in society. This research project highlighted surveys on perspectives of vulnerable groups toward peace. The vulnerable groups in this research include widows, guardians of orphans, PWDs people, elderly people, homeless people, coastal fishermen, youths, sexual minorities, religious minorities, and torture victims. According to the survey researches, it was found that the meaning of peace according to their perspectives have many dimensions such as social justice, access to resources, and social acknowledgement. Security of dwelling place is the most important factor that affect quality of life for vulnerable groups, followed by access to public service such as food and clean water. Apart from that, qualitative research 267
showed that different social dimensions became problems and obstacles. Vulnerable people experienced discriminations and disdains from society, which affect their feelings about their values in themselves. They also feel unsafe when they express their political opinions or joining public assembly. For ensuring justice and creating peace in communities, there were proposals from vulnerable groups including setting up independent fact finding committee with participation of people, remedy for those who are affected by violence, and dialogues between groups with different opinions to seek solutions together. However, the level of acceptance for giving rights to women to be social and political leaders is still low. Moreover, from the group conversations, the research group presented policy proposals to help vulnerable groups, such as empowering them in terms of knowledge and skills so that they can increase their abilities in relying on themselves, opening spaces for vulnerable groups to express their opinions safely, and enhancing understanding and acceptance of diversities in society. In addition, it was proposed that there should be Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for community leaders to insure that there would be concrete implementations of supports for vulnerable groups. Apart from the researches, the female researchers played important roles in interviewing vulnerable groups in the southern border provinces. According to their observation from the fieldworks, vulnerable groups were afraid of expressing their opinions. Some women were hesitant to state their standing points. In case of PWDs people, the researchers found that elderly PWDs people were usually not given sufficient care, which is different from PWDs children who are taken care of by their parents. Situations of widows reflects injustice and consequences of the conflict. For instance, some husbands of widows had been shot dead but they were not acknowledged as victims of violent incidents. As a consequence they did not receive remedy money. At the same time, in some places women have more important roles than men in providing helps and listening to problems of villagers. 268
Apart from this, the project also presented 5 important researches about vulnerable people from lecturers of Prince of Songkla University, namely 1) gender, vulnerable groups, and disaster: Experiences from Ache, Indonesia, and the southern border provinces that compare the situations in Indonesia and the three southern border provinces, 2) effects of Covid-19 to children in the southern border provinces, 3) Problems of migrant workers in the fishing industry in Pattani and Songkhla, 3) Mechanisms to stop domestic violence in Pattani, 4) Poverty problems over generations and its inherited effects, and experiences and methods to help PWDs people in Malaysia from OKU (Orang Kurang Upaya) Center of Universiti Sains Malaysia by taking care of rehabilitations, educations and vocational training since birth. Therefore, understanding different dimensions of vulnerable groups in the southern border provinces is important for peace building, and there must be structural developments that respond to problems of poverty and disparity, by resorting to collaborations of every sector, including the state, community leaders and various organisations in order to build stable economic and social security, starting from development of strong mechanisms in communities to assist each other so that different agencies can come to support. Systematic and sustainable developments can reduce disparity and help communities in the southern border provinces to be safe and strong. This is an important base for building peace. PWDs people is a group of vulnerable people in this project and they are invited to join to express their problems and orientations for developments along with peace building. Understanding perspectives of working for PWDs people starting from assistances by outside agencies is that Rachanakharin Child Development Center, Chiang Mai Province, and international organisations in providing assistance for equipment and proper use of equipment fitting with PWDs people’s body. This indicates needs of PWDs people about equipment for helping PWDs people in the southern border provinces that are not yet sufficient and suitable. Therefore, working for PWDs people is not just providing assistances, 269
but PWDs people and related networks should have dialogues and exchanges specifically for making a long term plan. For this reason, this project provided spaces for many types of PWDs people in provinces of Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat and Songkhla for developing various strategic proposals that are in accordance with their needs in four aspects: 1) PWDs people should have occupations, incomes and happiness. 2) PWDs live a good life happily in a sustainable way with equality. 3) PWDs people have social participation. These guidelines should lead to making of holistic strategies for PWDs people, including empowerment and creating their participations for better quality of life for them, with respect and dignity, so that networks of PWDs people have more power. Therefore, in order to build trust between communities where there were myths that both parties are conflicting at various levels that affect local society and economy, civil society and people have roles in building spaces for dialogue about policy proposals and connecting various sectors, including listening to voices of vulnerable groups. The peace process should connected to their actual life, not just symbols. These voices lead to joint proposals, such as cancellation of the special laws, setting up mechanisms for people’s participation, conditional amnesties, decentralisation, and learning lessons from other conflict areas in the world. Even though most people still see the peace process as a “failure”, and there is “no progress” but there is still hope that there will be changes, especially when the process is free from domination of the state and open spaces for people from every group to play role as “co-designer of the future” of the southern border provinces. 270