Palestinian rights and an anatomy of Thai diplomacy

It is heartening that Thailand has finally recognised the rights of Palestinians to an independent state. Outwardly, this was an act of courage, as it has taken the Thai government a very long time to make this historic decision. But it also serves to demonstrate how inertia in the Thai diplomatic process can be a problem on issues of important concern in global politics. 

When the members of the United Nations were called upon to vote on the Palestinian right to statehood last September at the UN General Assembly, Thailand abstained, much to the chagrin of many in the world community, especially some members of Asean. For decades, Thailand and Asean have strongly supported the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people. However, a new lack of consensus among Asean members has also upset the members of the Gulf Council of Cooperation.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs needs to improve its mechanisms when a decision has to be made on a sensitive issue which could affect the national interest. The question of Palestinian statehood had been on the agenda at the UN for nearly a year before the vote was taken. The recommendation of the previous government and the Thai permanent UN representative was to vote with other UN members in supporting the Palestinians’ rights. Somehow, perhaps not surprisingly, the Thai bureaucracy got in the way. The Cabinet took many additional months to make the decision and finally make its stance known publicly. Thailand became the last country in Asean to back the Palestinians.

If the decision had been made at the UN session last September, the value of Thailand’s support would be much more highly valued. Both Arab and Palestine representatives had lobbied very hard for Thai support last year, but their appeals fell on deaf ears. The reason was simply that nobody in the bureaucracy wanted to be held responsible for a decision that could affect the status of several thousand Thai workers in Israel.

There will be more diplomatic issues in the coming months that will need timely and prudent policy decisions. For instance, Thailand’s decision to join the Proliferation Security Initiative could face a similar delay because of bureaucratic red tape. For the past five years, Thailand has been toiling with the question of the initiative, which is designed to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. 

Again, on this issue, red tape and assessments by the concerned authorities have been late in coming. Thus, no decision has been made for these last five years. The Yingluck government has already pledged to support the United States on this issue in November, and Washington is now waiting for the final decision.

In a globalised world, quick decisions and appropriate diplomatic gestures reveal a nation’s character and moral standards. Thai diplomacy is often described as a slow-motion process of sitting on the fence until the sun sets, then making sure that everybody has had their fair share of opinion space before the relevant authority finally steps in and makes a decision. Such a precautionary outlook has its own advantages. However, when it is being weighed against quick decisions made by other nations on imminent issues, the Thai national interest could be better served with a more effective decision-making process.

One unhealthy trait among Foreign Ministry officials is that they lack the courage to propose policy options and alternatives. They often look to the wind’s direction before making such recommendations. Therefore, Thai diplomacy is very conservative and predictable. 

Neighbouring countries have engineered diplomatic coups time and again, with strategic thinking and a results-based approach. This sluggish agreement on the rights of Palestinians to statehood is indicative of the inertia in the government’s foreign policy decision-making process.