Thailand's quest for membership of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), Geneva, for the period 2025-2027, is rightly gaining interest among the general public. With a new foreign minister today, it is intriguing to prospect whether there will be more (or less) momentum in the competition towards the winning post -- with elections for the HRC due in New York in October.
There are five seats available for this part of the world in the 47-member HRC; the seats are allocated in accordance with geographical distribution. This country will be competing with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Cyprus, the Marshall Islands and the Republic of Korea. One of them will obviously miss the target.
What is the clue to the clout? Ostensibly, the human rights record of a candidate country is important. Yet, given the convoluted nature of international relations, there is more to it than meets the eye, with different leverages and quid quo pro in the (political) works.
By the way, democracy is not a precondition for membership in the HRC. This body (replacing its predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights), therefore, houses some of the world's less democratic (or non-democratic) countries for the period of each membership -- a three-year term. These countries have learned from experience that it is better to be part of this system than to be outside its spectrum. Manoeuvring within the system is not only an avenue for altruism but also a vista for self-protection.
With a few months left before the vote, what are the pros and cons emanating from Thailand? On the positive side, the fact that there is now an elected civilian government is welcomed. This is despite the fact that the political party with the biggest number of parliamentary seats did not manage to become the government of the day. In retrospect, a major reason why the country failed to win an HRC seat previously (when it applied for HRC membership for the 2015-2017 period) was the coup d'etat which took place in 2014.
Other constructive developments include some good laws, such as the country's gender equality law, which has been lauded by various UN Committees under the seven human rights treaties to which Thailand is a party.
The new national law criminalising torture and enforced disappearances is also seen as a plus in preparation for Thailand's potential membership of the convention against enforced disappearances. This is the eighth out of nine core international human rights treaties to which Thailand will become a party.
Definitely attractive as an innovation is the proposed amendment of the Thai Civil Code, which will entrench marriage as a right for all persons in Thailand, opening the door to same-sex marriages. Longstanding kudos which give Thailand favourable marks include the country's liberal treatment of the HIV/Aids issue, with easy access to assistance, and the 30-baht universal health care scheme, which revolutionised people's access to broad-based health care as part of social protection. In sum, the country does quite well in the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights.
Where the country falters is often on the side of civil and political rights, and these are closely linked with the vicissitudes of democracy in the country as well as superimposition by the various powers that be.
The world is watching, for example, how the country will deal humanely with the nearly 300 children (less than 18 years old) apprehended and or prosecuted during the past three years under the country's national emergency decree, lese majeste, sedition and other criminal law provisions which are at odds with international human rights standards.
Court cases against various political parties and key activists are also "cause celebre" where they result in disenfranchisement of the electorate, as well as intimidation of dissidents. Inevitably, they raise the issue of judicial independence and transparency, impugning the credibility of the system itself.
Poignantly, earlier this year, a leading political leader and his party were found to be in breach of the constitution in their campaign advocacy that the lese majeste provision under the Criminal Code should be reformed; they were ordered to end their activities. They are now faced with the possibility of another case whereby their party might be dissolved, as well as consequential banning imposed on a number of political leaders, constraining future activities on their part.
The country still awaits the bravery of the pillars of the state to invalidate coups and their consequences rather than to accept tacitly the constitutions drafted by those who befriend coup leaders and their cohorts. Those instruments embed various provisions to shield the latter from impunity while conferring vast powers on various coopted mechanisms, which lead to the easy disenfranchisement of civilian political parties and their electorate.
More recently, the advent of new arrivals of refugees from Myanmar is a test case for assessing Thailand's humanitarian response, which may earn praise or critique from the international community. The country already has experience concerning the preferred way. In the past, the country was able to afford at least non-rejection at the frontier, no push-back, temporary refuge and humane treatment for those seeking shelter from dangers, despite lapses occasionally. It should thus follow the arc of wisdom and reject political aberrations which may lead it astray.
Intriguingly, the issue of accountability for crimes of officialdom is emerging again -- for lack of remedies. The public is now being reminded of the Tak Bai incident in southern Thailand, whereby in 2015, scores of Muslim demonstrators were arrested, crammed into trucks by uniformed personnel, and died through suffocation. No one has been found guilty of those deaths, although some compensation has been given to the families of the victims.
A key lesson learned is that often, there are no answers at the national level due to the entrenchment of power groups which shield their own kind from accountability. That is why checks and balances at the international level, such as through the channel of the HRC, might offer an archway to some remedies. Intrinsically, they interlink with the call to amplify civic and political space for a variety of stakeholders in the spirit of human rights, democracy, peace and sustainable development worldwide.