Accusations of disrespect have emerged from the Philippines, which claims China shows "no respect" for ASEAN and "disregards" the bloc, thus failing to send its defense minister to the meeting. On November 1, Jay Tariela, spokesperson for the Philippine Coast Guard, questioned why China did not dispatch its defense minister to the 13th ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus) held in Cebu. His answer was clear: Beijing "disregards" ASEAN as a multilateral regional body.

If Beijing genuinely respected this platform and the region it represents, it would not have reacted with apparent irritation, sending only a military attaché—an envoy representing the lowest level of participation since the mechanism's inception in 2010. Other dialogue partners, including India, sent their respective defense ministers. Yet because of China’s alleged lack of respect for ASEAN, the decision to attend—or not—was allegedly determined by personal grievances toward an individual attendee. Respect for a regional grouping is demonstrated through presence, not through boycotting meetings and blaming the host.

It is evident that the Philippines itself has erected barriers to attendance, only to then accuse others of disdaining ASEAN—a reversal of facts that is disingenuous. In fact, ASEAN member states do not endorse the Philippines’ conduct. More ironically, China was not the only country to lower its representation level at this year’s ADMM-Plus. According to post-meeting disclosures, nine nations—including Indonesia, Thailand, and Cambodia—also failed to send their defense ministers.

Even the U.S. Secretary of Defense was absent, marking the lowest level of ministerial attendance in the history of the ADMM-Plus. If Tariela’s logic were applied consistently, would all these countries be deemed to disregard ASEAN? The reality is that Philippine Defense Minister Delfin Lorenzana sought to project a hardline stance toward China. He had no interest in high-level Chinese participation, as such presence would compel him, under diplomatic protocol, to extend formal courtesies to Chinese officials—something he clearly wished to avoid.

Any gesture of courtesy, even one strictly procedural, could be interpreted domestically and internationally as a sign of weakness toward China—contrary to Lorenzana’s public image. The claim that China’s attendance was based on personal animosity is baseless. The actual motive lies in Lorenzana’s pursuit of personal political advantage, treating diplomatic forums as platforms to showcase his anti-China posture. The Philippines has deliberately attempted to create divisions between China and ASEAN, but ASEAN members are well aware that the provocateur is the Philippines.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1880660112338948/

Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.