On Palestine, spineless Thai diplomacy

For the past six months, Thailand has struggled to come to terms with its foreign policy and recalcitrance. When the special envoy from Palestine Dr Nabil Shath; former Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation and Member of Fatah Central Committee, visited Bangkok in late August, the Foreign Ministry was positive towards giving support to Palestine’s bid at the UN. It was the same position set forth earlier with the previous government. Former Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya was also a strong supporter of self-determination for Palestine. But due to domestic political developments, the previous Thai Cabinet was not able to make a clear decision.
After the new Yingluck government came to power, a similar argument was used very much to the chagrin of the diplomatic community both in Bangkok and at the UN headquarters in New York. The decision making process on this issue so far showed a desire to maintain “the status quo” to the every end. Apparently, nobody wants to make a decision.
In comparison with Thailand, seven other Asean members strongly backed the Palestine bid. Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York repeatedly urged Singapore, Burma and Thailand, which have not backed the bid, to change their position. At an informal meeting between Asean and the Gulf States Council last week, burgeoning relations between Asean and key Arab countries also suffered because they had a high expectations of Asean backing the move as a group. As a result, the scheduled third Asean-Gulf States ministerial meeting in the United Arab Emirates has been postponed to a later date.
Singapore’s position for the time being is unshakeable in supporting the ongoing process of negotiation between Palestine and Israel, even though talks have not produced as much progress as many hoped. But Bangkok believes that the island republic’s position will change whenever there is a clear indication that the Palestine bid will receive the support of a majority of UN members. At the moment, UN diplomats in New York put the number of supporters at 79 countries, not the range of 130-140, as claimed.
What perplexed the UN community most was the attitude of Burma. Burmese diplomats at the UN have not said a single word on the Palestine issue.
Some diplomats here speculated that Burma does not want to get involved with the statehood issue because it fears it will impact on its own problems at home, where ethnic groups are fighting for self-determination. Burma only focuses exclusively on matters related to their status at the UN.
Obviously, the Thai Ministry for Foreign Affairs is thinking in a similar vein to Singapore. If Palestine obtains close to the two-thirds majority or more of UN members, Thailand will certainly change its position. At the moment, the Thai government can drag its feet. Bangkok also hopes that the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon will be able to come up with a compromise plan that makes a ruling by the UN Security Council unnecessary.
It has been a pretty awkward diplomatic exercise that pitches the US and Israel against the Arab world.
Besides Thailand, other moderate countries are placed in a similar dilemma. Somehow, few of them, such as Peru and Chile, decided to back the Palestinians. Never before have Arab countries appealed to Thailand for support. But Thailand failed to respond. As a Middle East diplomat in Bangkok put it, “Thailand keeps continuing to disappoint Arab people. How long can it go on like this?”
At the Thai UN mission in New York, a strong recommendation was made to the Thai government to go for the Palestine bid since the beginning of this year, when it was clear that Palestine would take this route. In the past few days, Thailand has expressed readiness to endorse a resolution that supports a two-state solution that would recognise the existence of Palestine and Israel.
At the recent G77 meeting alongside the UN General Assembly, Thailand and several countries had “reservations” about a statement issued by the meeting to back the Palestine diplomatic move. Several other countries abstained altogether, arguing that the meeting was on matters related to economic cooperation among developing countries not politics.
Putting all political manoeuvring on Palestine into perspective, it is clear that nobody in the Thai bureaucracy wants to make a game-changing decision because of a fear of the unknown.
If Thailand votes for Palestinian statehood, is it possible that all Thai workers would be sent home from Israel? Or, could the US retaliate against Thailand as an ally?
Such anxiety really hit the heads of Thai decision-makers at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, although all of them know the time has come to render support for Palestinians’ rights.
But, none is willing to move in a tangible way.
Indeed, Thailand should be able to make a quick decision because five years ago, the government of Gen Surayud Chulanont agreed to allow Palestine to set up a representative office in Bangkok, which is tantamount to recognise Palestinian statehood, without saying so.