Lessons learned from the UN campaign

Despite its 70-year membership in the United Nations, Thailand clearly has room to make improvements. Denied a seat on the UN Security Council last week for lack of support among voting member-countries, the Kingdom can only learn from the experience.

Firstly, it must be more consistent in the way it conducts diplomacy at the UN. 

The Thai delegation in New York put forward a sound campaign for the seat on the Security Council, but started too late in its push for such a coveted position, less than a year earlier. Due to the political uncertainty at home both before and after the 2014 coup and differences in priorities among previous governments, the campaign was never given the attention it required. 

Thailand formally announced its candidacy for the seat in 2007, at about the same time that Kazakhstan declared the same ambition. But voting members might have perceived a lack of consistency in the subsequent Thai campaign, stemming from its domestic disarray.

Second, Thailand was able to muster solid support among developed Western nations and developing countries where more liberal ideas on governance and rights issues prevail. These countries backed Thailand’s bid for the seat despite widespread disappointment over its record on human rights in recent years. Other voting countries, however, were not convinced by the military regime’s claims of progress in this area.

It thus becomes imperative for Thailand to improve its global image in terms of honouring fundamental public rights, both to convince the doubters and to prevent its existing support from dwindling. 

Having said that, it should be understood that – for better or worse – votes at the UN on key policies almost always adhere to the individual interests of each nation, even if such stances might prove detrimental to the greater good of the world. A great deal of horse-trading takes place within the General Assembly as member countries negotiate support for their positions, and concerns about rights can easily be set aside for deals to be struck. The preservation and promotion of rights, seen as a cornerstone of UN intentions, in fact needn’t be a decisive factor.

Third, Thailand has had considerable success in building relations with less-developed countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the South Pacific. Its appeal for them derives from strong and sustainable economic-development programmes. They receive monetary aid from the Thailand International Cooperation Agency. 

Shoring up Thailand’s esteem in this regard was the UN’s adoption last year of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, which could serve as a bridge for further developmental cooperation between Thailand and these countries.

Finally and somewhat ironically, in “defeat” at the UN, Thailand has gained more friends and respect among its fellow members. In the course of its campaign for the Security Council seat, its diplomats learned much about the emerging issues of concern to specific countries, from climate change and gender equality to peacekeeping and nuclear disarmament and in turn made sure that Thailand adopted pro-active approaches to such challenges.

The experience of pushing for and failing to win the seat will only help Thailand in executing its foreign policy more effectively. One current ambition is to serve as the central hub of the Asean Economic Community inaugurated at the end of last year. To achieve that goal, the Kingdom needs to do more, including revamping archaic laws and other regulations that impede the free flow of goods, investment and people. And of course it must honour human rights, most particularly the freedom of expression.

Home to more than two dozen UN-related agency offices, Thailand is the world body’s regional face. As such, it must continue to work with diligently with the UN in all spheres.