ot bad for a country that only entered the race on April 24 as part of the Asian group. Thailand's UN team had 16 days to lobby, working all kinds of trade-offs to win such sizeable support.

The Foreign Ministry put a brave face on the result, explaining that being elected did not reflect the actual human-rights situation inside the country. Countries such as China, Pakistan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia immediately came to mind. Deputy permanent secretary for Foreign Affairs Sihasak Phuangketkeow defended Thailand's decision to enter the race, even though it was a bit late in applying, by stressing that the effort highlighted the importance placed on human-rights issues and standards. That much was clear.

But the bad news was that the effort was in vain as Thailand fell three votes short of being among the 13 Asian countries elected to the panel. The last seat went to Sri Lanka, which garnered 123 votes. It is interesting to note that the two countries will be pitching against each other again later this year for a successor to the outgoing UN chief Kofi Annan.

There are at least three points that must be made clear concerning Thailand's defeat. First, Thai diplomacy is in deep trouble because it failed to muster adequate support. During the transitional period, the Foreign Ministry was out of the loop on domestic and key foreign policy issues. It became indecisive on whether to join the race or not. That helps explain why many more countries with far worse human-rights records got elected, since they started lobbying and making deals much earlier. Of course, as the Foreign Ministry said, the vote result had nothing to do with the elected members' standards of human rights. However, it does reflect their diplomatic finesse and standing, including the leverage accorded them by other UN states.

Now, senior ministry officials are quite nervous about Thailand's bid for the top UN post. The failure to make the Human Rights Council is a wake-up call for a country that used to be proud of the diplomatic tradition that helped it escape colonisation by Western powers. The voting patterns visible at the election of the rights council showed the current state of mind and perception of UN members, and more specifically their attitude towards Thailand.

The reason Thailand failed on this front was due largely to the double standards of caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. During his numerous overseas trips, he often bragged about freedom of expression and political liberty in Thailand while the country was in fact under oppressive policies. At a summit in Kuala Lumpur last year, he told international media that the Thai press was the most free in the world, when in fact it was struggling against increasing government control and Thaksin's own prejudice against the media. At home, he said the same thing while defamation lawsuits against his critics increased and quite a few commutiny radios were shut down.

Some key Asian countries were elected to the rights council even though they do not accord freedom to the press or respect human rights and openness. But they have one virtue in common - they do not boast about their respect for human rights and press freedom at home or abroad. They keep their mouths tightly shut, whereas Thaksin was silly enough to keep describing a situation that was opposite to the reality at home.

Second, Thailand's human-rights record has in fact deteriorated in the past five years under Thaksin. All the blame should be placed on Thaksin, as he initiated the anti-drug campaign in February 2003 that sparked an international outcry over the widespread extrajudicial killings. Contrary to the toll of 2,500 victims that is often cited by the government and media, the real number was three times higher because the campaign did not stop in April as everybody believed but went on until a year later. The second phase of the campaign began at the end of 2003 and continued until the first quarter of 2004.

Human-rights violations also occurred in the handling of the insurgency in southern Thailand, including the killing of Muslim lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit in 2004 and the deaths of some 80 protesters at Tak Bai last October. A culture of impunity also has proliferated throughout.

Finally, Thailand's human-rights pledges were not as comprehensive as they should have been. Both Indonesia and the Philippines committed to 11 international bills of rights while Thailand was ready to pledge to only five, although this is not bad when compared to Malaysia with three and China with none. The government pledged to ban torture two years ago but failed to deliver.

When Thailand joined the now-defunct UN Commission on Human Rights in 2000 in Geneva, it wanted to promote its human rights standard to the world and raise its own standard. Thailand did not have to defend its human-rights record at the UN, unlike other members, as it had good international standing.

Now Thailand has lost its place to Indonesia as the international community's favourite Southeast Asian country. Indonesia, which came in second with 165 votes after India's 173, was hailed as a new icon for developing countries. The votes reveal Jakarta's growing confidence in its international profile and global network and support. Last week, Indonesia hosted the Developing Eight (D8) meeting in Jakarta and then offered to mediate in the Iran nuclear crisis. Last December, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono appointed former foreign minister Ali Alatas as a special envoy on Burma - a new diplomatic undertaking in Asean.

When a new Thai government is established in the near future, the question of how to remedy the current situation and improve Thailand's reputation and promotion of human rights will rank high on its agenda.

Kavi Chongkittavorn