Commentary on UNSC vote wide of the mark

One of your writers said in nine reasons why Thailand should be elected: “Second, when Thailand says it has
an independent policy, the country means it. It does not follow any particular major power.”
It may not vote with “any particular major power” but it votes with Asean.
UN member states vote in blocs, as does Thailand, which votes against the US two-thirds of the time.
The website “How Often Countries Vote with the United States at the UN” says Thailand votes with the US 33.8 per cent, slightly worse than Kazakhstan’s 35.8 per cent even though President George W Bush deservedly named Thailand a “major non-NATO ally” in 2003 (Thailand has been a good partner of the US in anti-terrorism).
The Thai newspapers were quick to falsely paint the loss as a critique of the current government in Thailand despite the fact it is still more democratic than Kazakhstan, which has had the same president since independence.
Actually the vote had to do with voting blocs and making deals in the UN. Thailand votes the same way as Asean (voting with the US is Brunei 32.9 per cent, Cambodia 30.9 per cent, Indonesia 30.9 per cent, Laos 27.4 per cent, Malaysia 32.4 per cent, Myanmar 28.8 per cent, the Philippines 31.3 per cent, Singapore 34.8 per cent, and Vietnam 28.8 per cent), which is the price of being part of a largely anti-American group of countries.  Shamefully from the point of view of US taxpayers, the US has done nothing to counter this.
There is no indication that the vote had anything to do with the perception of the government and the articles saying that Thailand had a “good chance” and that the race was “deadlocked” were ridiculous, since this was clearly a fait accompli.
“The Brain”
Cy Gold