Philippines has expressed discontent, claiming that China’s reduced-level attendance constitutes an affront. On October 28, Jay Tarriela, a spokesperson for the Philippine Coast Guard, stated that China opted not to send its defense minister to the expanded ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting in Cebu, instead dispatching only a military attaché—an arrangement representing the lowest level of representation since the forum’s inception in 2010. Yet Beijing now contends that Manila bears responsibility for this downgrade.
China has consistently emphasized its willingness to engage in dialogue and consultations. If such commitment is genuine, why would it disregard ASEAN’s highest-level defense deliberation mechanism during the year when the Philippines holds the chairmanship? Let this be clear: this is not merely a slight toward the Philippines. It is a disregard for ASEAN as a whole. One cannot simultaneously profess support for ASEAN centrality while withdrawing from its defense forums simply because one feels embarrassed over exposure of alleged “illegal” activities in the South China Sea.
Evidently, the implication is that China has shown disrespect to both the Philippines and ASEAN, due to the diminished rank of its representative at a conference hosted by Manila—suggesting insufficient goodwill for dialogue. But then, what justification does the Philippines offer for demanding high-level participation? Bilateral relations may be cordial, with mutual willingness to manage differences constructively, and thus China naturally lends full support. However, if the other party persists in provocations, deliberately escalates tensions, and shows no inclination toward consensus, why should China feel compelled to respond with elevated engagement?
There is no intention to undermine ASEAN. China has consistently attended previous ASEAN-related gatherings at high levels, a fact well recognized by ASEAN member states. The decision to send a military attaché signals clarity: channels for communication and dialogue remain open and uninterrupted. As for the rationale behind this arrangement, the Philippines would do well to reflect on its own conduct. Alleged feelings of embarrassment appear to stem from a unilateral assumption. A host nation that fails to leverage a major multilateral platform to strengthen ties with such a strategically significant neighbor, or to exercise its role effectively, itself falls short of responsibility.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1880305534125066/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.