Thailand's dramatic and damaging shift in position towards Russia's aggression in Ukraine raises myriad questions with few answers -- none holding any water.
Government officials who have spouted explanations, led by Foreign Minister Don Pramudwinai, sound convoluted and vacuous. Their personal foreign policy decisions and appeasement of Russia have undermined Thailand's international standing and abused the country's sovereignty. Accountability and responsibility for this disgraceful outcome are imperative.
First principles come first. Russia's unilateral invasion of Ukraine on Feb 24 was a blatant violation of the United Nations Charter and international law governing state sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Whatever that can be said and legitimised of Russian concerns and grievances about the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Union changed irrevocably on that day.
On this fundamental and inalienable basis, the UN General Assembly voted on March 2 by a 73% majority to condemn Russia's aggression and demand an immediate withdrawal.
As weeks turned into months of grinding warfare, Russia recently annexed four regions in eastern Ukraine. The UNGA passed another resolution condemning Russia's territorial takeover of parts of Ukraine with a similar majority opinion.
In both cases, just under 20% among the 193 UN members abstained, while just five countries opposed, naturally led by Russia. Thailand supported the first resolution, hedging it by not mentioning Russia by name in the accompanying position statement.
But on the Oct 12 resolution to condemn Russia's annexation, Thailand abstained. Among Asean members, Thailand's costly abstention has placed it as the third country in the "abstention camp", next to Laos and Vietnam. Even autocratic Cambodia has voted not just in favour but also co-sponsored both resolutions.
The spin from senior officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs began with the Thai ambassador at the UN who cited "an extremely volatile and emotionally charged atmosphere and situation" that "marginalises the chance for crisis diplomacy to bring about a peaceful and practical negotiated resolution to the conflict that may push the world towards the brink of nuclear war and global economic collapse".
Such justification is a cop-out. It is tantamount to saying Russia's invasion of Ukraine has caused so much havoc as to preclude a negotiated settlement, and therefore not deploring the war is the way to reach peace. It kowtows to and rewards the aggressor.
This logic suggests that all that Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to do now is to keep escalating and threatening to deploy nuclear weapons before weaker states throw in the towel to let him have his way.
In contradiction, the same ambassador said Thailand has not abandoned the principles of the UN Charter and international law. In view of its track record of having to rely on the UN body, friends and allies in its hour of need -- such as when Vietnam invaded Cambodia in late December 1978 and threatened to bulldoze its way onto Thai soil -- Thailand cannot have it both ways.
If we abide by the UN Charter and international law, Russia's aggression must be opposed. There can be diplomatic finesse, such as the first resolution to condemn without referencing Russia by name. But abstention makes Thailand a bad guy in the global community on which it needs to rely for its international life and well-being. A sympathetic view would take into account that the Thai envoy in New York had no choice but to toe the regime's line.
There can be no excuse when it comes to the foreign minister, however. In similar hogwash that conflates and fudges the call for dialogue and negotiation with a naked military invasion and war atrocities, Foreign Minister Don actually commented on Thai PBS, a local media channel, that Thailand's abstention was a way for the country's position on the Russia-Ukraine war to be noticed by the international community.
According to the minister, Thailand's voice would have been drowned out and diluted had it voted with the majority. Indeed, the minister thinks that changing position was a way of standing out.
Since when does this country take decisions and undertake actions on the basis of gaining global attention?
Foreign policy is based on a cold calculus of hard national interests and trade-offs in a world with imperfect international order and constantly creeping conditions of anarchy and self-help. This is why the UN Charter must remain sacrosanct. Thailand should not side with Russia by not condemning its takeover of a smaller neighbour's territories just to be noticed by the world. This is a preposterous position.
Or is there more to it than that? Some have suggested that, as host of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, the Thai appeasement was designed to entice President Putin to show up for the leaders' meeting at the 21-member regional economic forum.
But Mr Putin's attendance would be problematic for the host as other leaders may boycott due to sanctions against Russia's invasion. It is also doubtful whether Mr Putin can advisably leave Moscow to attend Apec -- or the East Asia Summit in Cambodia and the G20 in Indonesia, for that matter-- while the Russia-Ukraine war continues to intensify and domestic pressure against it mounts.
Or is there something else? It is a fact that the foreign minister took a quiet trip to Moscow from Sept 5–6 without much reporting. What was he doing there and who went with him?
The public deserve to know. Getting to the bottom of these questions may well explain why Thailand has shifted its position on Russia's aggression. Ultimately, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha is responsible for the final answers to Thailand's latest foreign policy blunder.
When Thailand engaged in free-trade negotiations years ago, it used to be said by accountability-promoting groups that Thailand's sovereignty is not for sale. It should be pointed out now that this country's sovereignty is also not open for personal abuse.