Russia's invasion of Ukraine has forced countries around the world to make tough economic and diplomatic decisions. But in the latest vote on Wednesday at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on a resolution to condemn Russia's recent annexation bids in eastern Ukraine, Thailand abstained, a move that raises questions about the kingdom's stance.
Thailand was among 35 countries that abstained, along with China, India and a handful of African, Middle Eastern and other Asian countries. In Asean, Laos and Vietnam -- two communist nations that have close bonds with Russia -- also abstained.
In total, 143 nations voted to condemn Russia's annexation of Ukraine's eastern Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions, while five others -- staunch Russia supporters such as North Korea and Belarus -- voted against the UNGA resolution.
The vote on Wednesday to condemn Russia's move was conducted as a pretext for more UN pressure on Moscow to reverse course on its annexation bid.
Explaining the government's stance, the permanent representative of Thailand to the UN said the vote took place in "an extremely volatile and emotionally charged atmosphere, and thus marginalised the chance for crisis diplomacy to bring about a practical and negotiated resolution".
"Condemnation provokes intransigence and therefore greatly reduces the chance for constructive engagement," he said.
The decision to abstain indeed displays the Thai style of "quiet diplomacy" that is almost against any form of condemnation. It is the same stance the Thai government has on Myanmar.
The statement is consistent with views expressed earlier this year by Pornpimol Kanchanalak, the special envoy to Myanmar. The international community, she said, was getting "stuck in cancel rhetoric" when it came to dealing with Myanmar's junta.
"Condemnations, sanctions ... have reached diminishing returns," she said in Singapore in June.
While it remains to be seen whether quiet diplomacy will prevail and whether the UN's condemnation will affect the war, Thailand's decision to abstain goes against the country's long-standing principle of sovereignty.
Thailand has a consistent policy opposing threats and the use of force against the territorial integrity of any state. It needs to be mentioned that on March 27, 2014, Thailand was among the 100 nations that voted against Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea.
The kingdom abstained from voting to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights Council in April, citing the need for exclusivity. However, it did condemn Russia's aggression in Ukraine in March.
Using quiet diplomacy and non-coercion is one thing, but not voicing support for the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states is entirely a different issue. Perhaps, the government's move stemmed from pragmatism.
Thailand is focused on making the Apec meeting next month a success and while trying to have Chinese President Xi Jinping, United States President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin sit at the same table in Bangkok.
The next question now is how will Thailand prove that its quiet diplomacy will lead to an applicable solution? Indeed, the failure of Asean nations to end the Myanmar conflict speaks a lot about the reliability of the "quiet diplomacy" approach.
