The Philippines has lost its bid for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). On 3 June (4 June in Manila), in four rounds of secret balloting, Kyrgyzstan secured 142 votes to the Philippines’ 49 — marking the former’s first election to the council.
The two countries were the only contenders for the position allocated to the Asia-Pacific region.
Some suggested the loss was related to the detention of former President Rodrigo Duterte at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague on charges of crimes against humanity in connection with his war on drugs.
Others pointed to the domestic political turmoil, the tumult in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the flood control corruption controversy.
Palace Press Officer Claire Castro has said as much, indicating that the domestic political tensions may have contributed to the unsuccessful bid for a non-permanent UNSC seat.
“Yes, all the political noise and political tensions affect this, and this is what the world sees that form their impression of the Philippines,” Castro said.
For Aaron Jed Rabena, Assistant Professor at the University of the Philippines Diliman-Asian Center, such factors may have played a role “to some extent” but this should be viewed from both micro and macro perspectives.
At the micro level, he said Kyrgyzstan may simply have outperformed the Philippines in campaigning and lobbying member states, and some countries may have wanted to give Central Asia greater representation in the United Nations.
He said the broader picture involves international power dynamics and alliances.
No geopolitical baggage
“Great powers like China and Russia could have endorsed Kyrgyzstan’s candidacy. China might be unpopular in the West, but it is not necessarily so in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, Latin America, the Pacific and Southeast Asia,” Rabena said, describing the election as a “numbers game.”
As such, he said, support from Western countries alone would not have been enough if many member states currently view the United States and its allies in a negative light.
Sevilla likewise pointed to the Philippines’ strategic partnerships and alliances as a possible factor.
“How we look at the security conflicts and challenges that the world is facing now, that’s one. There are factors that we do not control, which basically define the outcome of this votation,” he said.
Pivotal seat
But what exactly is the UNSC, and why would securing a seat at the table matter to the Philippines?
The UNSC is primarily responsible for maintaining international peace and security under the UN Charter. A seat on the council is considered important for the Philippines’ foreign policy and international standing because it would provide a greater platform to advance its diplomatic positions and amplify its voice as a middle power in the Global South.
Rabena said a seat could have served as a venue for the Philippines to project a diplomatic influence and expand its international reach.
“It would have also enabled the Philippines to shape the agenda of the UN and UNSC on matters it deems important and gain international prestige,” he told DAILY TRIBUNE.
Likewise, foreign relations professor and former dean of the Asian Center, Henelito Sevilla Jr., PhD, said this could have enhanced the Philippines’ credibility and influence by allowing it to help address security issues affecting the international community.
He said membership in the council also signifies a level of trust from the international community, demonstrating that a country is viewed as a reliable and effective actor capable of helping promote international peace and security.
One example is maritime security. A council seat would have allowed the Philippines to amplify its concerns about the South China Sea, where it has overlapping territorial claims with China, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia.
(To be concluded)
