The recent call by Philippine Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro for ASEAN to "resist coercion" and bolster unity against unnamed "external threats" reeks of geopolitical theatrics.

While cloaked in the language of regional solidarity, Manila's narrative is a dangerous signal of Cold War nostalgia, selective victimhood, and a blatant attempt to hijack ASEAN's consensus-driven ethos to serve narrow national interests—primarily its escalating territorial issues and maritime disputes with China.

With dramatic flair, he warned of a divided ASEAN crumbling under "external pressures", urging collective resistance, joint patrols, and intelligence-sharing to counter shadowy "foreign activities".

But let's cut through the rhetoric: Teodoro's vision isn't a clarion call for unity—it's a mishmash of geopolitical paranoia and a blatant attempt to drag ASEAN into Manila's own squabbles. Here's why his pitch deserves a hearty debunking.

Teodoro's speech, dripping with vague references to "coercion" and "foreign activities", deliberately obscures context. The Philippines' recent provocations against China in the South China Sea—amplified by Manila's "transparency strategy" of publicizing every maritime encounter—are framed as "lawful maritime activities".

Yet conspicuously absent is any acknowledgment of Manila's own role in stoking tensions: its infringement of China's sovereignty and refusal to engage in bilateral dialogue, its reckless reliance on US-backed legalistic brinkmanship (e.g., the 2016 arbitration ruling) and the US-Philippines Alliance Agreement.

The Philippine Coast Guard's staged melodramas—filming Chinese vessels and aircraft like reality TV—are less about defending "sovereign rights" than manufacturing consent for militarization.

Speaking of pressure, let's talk about the Philippines' dance with the US. While Teodoro rails against coercion, Manila's been snuggling up to Washington—think joint exercises and military aid. It's a classic hedge: slam China with one hand, clutch America's with the other.

Fair enough—geopolitics is a game of survival. But preaching ASEAN unity against "external meddling" while inviting US muscle into the mix smells like double standards. If Teodoro's serious about resisting outside influence, he might want to check his own backyard before pointing fingers at China. By inviting US forces into nine additional bases, including sites facing China's Taiwan, Manila has turned itself into a potential flashpoint. Now, it demands ASEAN endorse its confrontational approach, despite the risk of dragging the region into conflict. This isn't leadership; it's recklessness.

Painting China as a regional bully while ignoring Manila's alignment with external powers smacks of hypocrisy. Using ASEAN as a megaphone for its "West Philippine Sea" woes is a stretch. ASEAN isn't a referee for territorial spats. By nudging ASEAN to take a tougher stance, Teodoro's trying to rope the bloc into a bilateral beef, risking division over solidarity.

It's less about regional unity and more about Manila flexing its "transparency strategy" to shame China—and pressure its neighbors. Is Beijing really the mustache-twirling villain here, plotting ASEAN's downfall? From Indonesia's high-speed railways to Malaysia's gleaming infrastructure, bilateral cooperation with China keep the region humming. Teodoro's narrative flattens the complex dance into a simplistic tale of good versus evil, feeding paranoia instead of fostering dialogue.

The South China Sea issue itself is not an issue between China and ASEAN, but a dispute between China and certain coastal states. ASEAN's "silence" is not complicity—it's pragmatism. Most ASEAN states prefer quiet diplomacy to Manila's megaphone diplomacy. Teodoro's plea for ASEAN to "resist coercion" echoes Washington's playbook of casting China as a hegemon and Southeast Asia as a battleground for ideological camps. The rallying cry— "resist coercion or fade away"—sounds like it was ripped from a 1980s playbook. This binary framing—akin to Cold War-era "us vs them" hysteria—betrays ASEAN's founding principle of neutrality. The bloc has thrived precisely by avoiding entanglement in great power rivalries. Yet Manila, emboldened by renewed US security guarantees under President Marcos Jr., seeks to drag ASEAN into a proxy conflict. By urging joint patrols and intelligence-sharing framed as "resisting coercion," Manila isn't advocating unity—it's recruiting foot soldiers for America's "Indo-Pacific" strategy.

The Philippines paints ASEAN as a damsel in distress, teetering on the edge of collapse thanks to external coercion. It's a gripping tale—except it's more fiction than fact. Sure, the conflicts in the South China Sea are a real headache, with vessels and aircraft making headlines. But to cast ASEAN's unity as hanging by a thread because of Beijing's activity is pure melodrama. The warning that "silence in the face of violations diminishes ASEAN" is a not-so-subtle nudge for the bloc to pick a side and get confrontational. But ASEAN is no Cold War pawn.

It's spent decades shedding that binary mindset, building a reputation for dialogue over duels. Forcing a united front against China—or anyone—ignores the ASEAN's diversity and risks reigniting tensions it's worked hard to bury. Manila is trying to resurrect a ghost that ASEAN's already exorcised. However, with Trump's "America First" unpredictability muddying the waters, leaning too hard on a US-led security blanket could leave ASEAN out in the cold. Why drag the bloc back to a bipolar past when its strength lies in surfing the multipolar present?

Let's get one thing straight: ASEAN isn't NATO lite. Founded on non-interference and consensus, its role is fostering peace and economic ties, not morphing into a security posse. Teodoro's push for joint patrols and intel swaps on "foreign activities inimical to national interests" stretches ASEAN's mandate beyond recognition. It's like asking a gardening club to moonlight as a SWAT team—nobody signed up for that.

ASEAN's magic lies in its ability to talk with all sides, not to draw battle lines. Turning it into a tool to "resist coercion" risks splitting the bloc. ASEAN's strength lies in its ability to balance diverse interests through dialogue, not by becoming a geopolitical militia.

Teodoro's lament about the bloc's "absence of unanimity" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding: ASEAN unity is not synonymous with unanimity on every issue, especially those as complex as maritime disputes. Forcing consensus on sovereignty claims—where member states such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia have overlapping maritime claims with China and with each other—would fracture the bloc. ASEAN's non-interference principle exists for a reason; turning it into an anti-China chorus would be suicidal. ASEAN's real glue is shared goals—trade, stability, autonomy—not a common enemy. The call to arms overlooks how ASEAN thrived by dodging great power games, not joining them. The game of big powers is a challenge, no doubt, but ASEAN is dodging it without turning into a cheerleader for Beijing or Washington. The "wake-up call" isn't waking anyone up—it's a lullaby to drag ASEAN back to a polarized past.

The Philippines' plea for ASEAN unity seems like a Trojan horse. It disguises a quest for validation of its adversarial stance toward China—a stance that serves Washington's containment strategy far more than Southeast Asia's interests. True ASEAN unity would prioritize economic integration, confidence recovery, and climate collaboration—not becoming a pawn in someone else's Great Game. Let's call this out: Manila isn't waking ASEAN up; it's trying to rock the boat. The region's leaders would do well to stay steady at the helm.

Ding Duo, director of the Research Center for International and Regional Issues, National Institute for South China Sea Studies. The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.