Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. addresses the UN General Assembly chamber in March (Lev Radin via Getty Images)

“America’s deputy sheriff” loses the UN Security Council bid

The Philippines ran a careful campaign for a Security Council seat – but its alignment with Washington undermined the neutrality it was selling.

Richard Javad Heydarian

5 June 20264 min read

This week, two of America’s closest allies suffered a surprise setback at the world’s largest intergovernmental organisation.

Germany, the world’s third largest economy, lost in its latest bid to rejoin the United Nations Security Council for a two-year term as a non-permanent member.

In response, the German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, who personally pressed his country’s case to some 80 ministers or ambassadors, publicly blamed Russia (Opens in new window)and attributed “bitter defeat” to the country’s unwavering support for both Ukraine and Israel amid ongoing conflicts. In recent years, the European country (Opens in new window), especially under the Merz administration, has come under heavy criticism (Opens in new window) across the world for its supposed incoherence, if not double standards.

Just as dramatic, however, was the Philippines’ failure (Opens in new window) to secure the sole Asia-Pacific Group seat on the Security Council. The tiny Central Asian state of Kyrgyzstan (142 votes) trounced the Philippines (49 votes) after four rounds of secret balloting at the global body.

Philippine Foreign Secretary Maria Theresa Lazaro, who was also highly invested in the bid, tried to put a brave face on the setback by declaring that her country “respects the decision of the member states of the United Nations and extends its congratulations to the Kyrgyz Republic.”

Clearly Manila’s tough and vocal stance on the South China Sea disputes against Beijing played a role in its defeat to Bishkek, which has very warm relations with both China and Russia.

Both the Philippines and Germany had served on Security Council on several previous occasions. This was the first failed bid for Manila. And it was particularly humiliating, given the country’s concerted effort to regain its voice in one of the world’s most important decision-making bodies.

No less than Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr had personally pitched (Opens in new window) for his country’s bid to win temporary membership by vowing to become a voice of geopolitical neutrality and a “voice for principled peace”. Ahead of the failed bid, the Filipino leader expressed immense optimism by highlighting his country’s “advantage” as a rising middle power and a “very strong record of partnership with the UN over the years”.

The Philippines not only leveraged its current position as the chairman of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) this year, but also placed former foreign affairs secretary and veteran diplomat Enrique Manalo in charge of its UN mission. The Southeast Asian nation also adopted a broadly non-aligned position on key UN issues by, inter alia, supporting a two-state solution (Opens in new window) in Palestine; calling for peaceful resolution (Opens in new window) of the Iran War while directly engaging with Tehran (Opens in new window) to secure safety of its people and energy sources in the Persian Gulf; and even restarting major energy deals (Opens in new window) with Russia in recent months. At the recently-concluded Shangri-La Dialogue, the usually hawkish Philippine Defence Secretary Gilberto C. Teodoro openly positioned his country as a constructive coalition-builder (Opens in new window) committed to a rules-based international order.

Some experts attributed (Opens in new window) Manila’s failure to Bishkek’s success, namely the latter’s non-aligned foreign policy, robust national branding as the voice of Central Asia, and the growing importance of the broader Eurasian region amid ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine. Philippine analysts such as Justin Baquisal, (Opens in new window) meanwhile, attributed the outcome (Opens in new window) to the UN assembly’s tendency to vote for “less controversial” states, who are “seen by great powers and the hedgers in the Global South as safe bets”.

The delegation of Kyrgyzstan celebrates being elected as non-permanent members of the Security Council for the term 2027-28 (Eskinder Debebe/UN Photo)

In contrast to Germany, Manila didn’t point fingers at any party, but clearly its tough and vocal stance on the South China Sea disputes against Beijing played a role in its defeat to Bishkek, which has very warm relations (Opens in new window) with both China and Russia. Interestingly, the number of votes for the Philippines’ bid mirrors the (Opens in new window) (relatively limited) number of states that supported the Southeast Asian nation’s arbitration award victory against China over the maritime disputes in 2016.

Similarly to Berlin, Manila has lost ground among Global South countries due to its expansive defence cooperation with the Trump administration, which happens to be extremely unpopular at the UN these days. Last month, Manila conducted its largest-ever joint military exercises (Opens in new window) with Western allies, while Marcos Jr openly declared that his country won’t be neutral (Opens in new window) in the event of Chinese invasion of neighbouring Taiwan.

If anything, Manila has doubled down on its alignment with the West by joining the US-led Pax Silica (Opens in new window) initiative, which aims to create a “China free” alternative global supply chain for critical minerals and semiconductors. Israel, which has warm relations with the Marcos administration, has signalled interest (Opens in new window) in expanding high-tech investments in the Philippines under the new initiative. No wonder then, the Philippines is often dismissed as “America’s deputy sheriff in Southeast Asia” by more neutral as well as Beijing-friendly regional states. This is particularly regrettable since, as veteran Philippine diplomat Jose de Vega told me (Opens in new window), Manila is actually a “linchpin state”, given its deep linkages to both the West and Global South nations and, crucially, its multi-aligned history (Opens in new window) at the UN.