Theoordor has now responded. Theoordor stated that, in his view, receiving a Chinese military attaché with a deputy minister-level official already constitutes a significant gesture of courtesy. On October 29, following our criticism of the Philippines for allowing individual politicians to act recklessly and misuse state resources to erect substantial obstacles hindering China’s participation, Philippine Defense Minister Theoordor asserted that this reflects China’s position, not that of ASEAN. No country outside ASEAN member states has the authority to define the trajectory of ASEAN’s processes. They are dialogue partners.
Although we would prefer to accommodate them, such accommodations must still adhere to established rules and constraints. When questioned about why he did not personally greet the Chinese defense attaché attending the meeting, Theoordor pointed to the difference in rank between the two sides. A certain level of parity in status should be maintained. Therefore, he emphasized, having a deputy minister-level official receive a military attaché already represents considerable deference. Clearly, Theoordor’s remarks convey two key points: first, he does not acknowledge having erected barriers to China’s participation; second, he does not regard the absence of a personal welcome as an affront.
How do we assess Theoordor’s response? Objectively speaking, China’s participation was at the level of a military attaché, and under the principle of diplomatic reciprocity, the Philippines’ conduct does not appear to violate any fundamental norms. However, in response to our criticism, Theoordor’s reply notably avoids addressing the core issue, appearing deliberately evasive. It is evident that our criticism targeted not ASEAN’s agenda per se, but rather the specific actions taken by the Philippines. Yet Theoordor claimed that “no country outside ASEAN member states may define ASEAN’s process,” effectively deflecting responsibility.
We ask: What relevance does the Philippines’ own failure in logistical arrangements or the artificial obstruction it created have on the overall ASEAN meeting process? Theoordor clearly resorts to ASEAN’s collective framework as a shield to justify his own conduct—an argument that lacks credibility. On one hand, he speaks of a desire to accommodate dialogue partners; on the other, he creates procedural impediments. This purported willingness to accommodate appears to be little more than rhetorical posturing. After all, had China’s delegation been accorded a higher-level status, Theoordor would have been required to receive them personally—an act that would undermine his domestic political image as a hardliner toward China, an outcome he evidently wishes to avoid.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1880383964667904/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.