By Lin Kaicheng and Wang Rui

Recently, the Philippines failed in its bid for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council. In the final round of voting, none of the other ASEAN member states cast their votes in favor of the Philippines. Despite serving as this year's rotating chair of ASEAN, the Philippines found itself isolated by its regional partners. This outcome reflects the cost of losing the trust of fellow ASEAN members and stems from growing contradictions between Manila's diplomatic approach in recent years and the consensus-based principles that underpin regional cooperation. The Philippines' electoral setback once again demonstrates a simple reality: to earn the trust of the international community, a country must first earn the trust of its neighbors.

Abandoning strategic balance and tying regional interests to external agendas

A core principle underpinning ASEAN's survival and development has long been the pursuit of consensus, strategic balance among major powers, and the avoidance of introducing external powers into regional affairs. Each ASEAN rotating chair is expected to play the role of a coordinator and consensus builder. In recent years, however, the administration of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has significantly expanded military and security cooperation with the US. The Philippines has not only granted the US military access to additional facilities, but also resumed joint patrols in the South China Sea and repeatedly conducted joint military exercises with the US, Japan, and Australia in adjacent waters. Meanwhile, it has promoted the expansion of "mini-lateral" security arrangements involving the US, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines, putting pressure on, and potentially undermining, the ASEAN-centered regional security architecture.

In addition, the Philippines has continued to hype up South China Sea-related issues in international forums such as the UN, the G7, and the Shangri-La Dialogue, seeking to draw more extra-regional actors into regional affairs. Such actions run counter to ASEAN's long-standing principle of centrality, which holds that regional issues should primarily be addressed by countries within the region. Following the election defeat, even Philippine media outlets acknowledged that the country's increasingly close security alliance with the US had become a liability. The Philippines has been viewed by many as an extension of US influence, raising questions about its suitability as a representative of broader regional interests. From this perspective, support for the Philippine candidacy by other ASEAN members could have been seen as tacit endorsement of a policy that brings external powers more deeply into regional affairs, a course that many believe runs counter to ASEAN's long-standing approach of maintaining strategic balance among major powers.

Attempting to appropriate ASEAN's voice for its own purposes

Prior to the election, the Philippines invested considerable diplomatic resources in lobbying for support. At multilateral venues, including the UN General Assembly, Marcos personally promoted the Philippine candidacy, portraying the country as a bridge between developing nations and middle-income economies. Philippine Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo likewise highlighted the country's contributions in areas such as peacekeeping, international law, and climate diplomacy, seeking to project an image of the Philippines as a committed multilateral stakeholder. The Philippines also presented its candidacy as a means of "giving ASEAN a stronger voice," arguing that its election would enhance ASEAN's influence within the UN system.

However, other ASEAN member states had already seen through Manila's intentions. In their view, even if the Philippines had secured a seat on the UN Security Council, its positions and actions might not necessarily reflect ASEAN's collective interests. Instead, there were concerns that its role could become intertwined with the bilateral agenda between the Philippines and the US. Such concerns are not without foundation. The Marcos administration has adopted a more assertive approach in the South China Sea, a course that has not only heightened tensions with China but also threatened the interests of other claimant states, including Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Against this backdrop, some regional governments are reluctant to endorse a candidate they believe could struggle to represent ASEAN's broader consensus. Singapore and Thailand are even less willing to be tied to the US chariot by the Philippines. At a critical stage when China and ASEAN are advancing consultations on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC), most member states prefer to manage differences through dialogue rather than escalate tensions.

The Philippines' resounding defeat demonstrates a simple truth on the international stage: only by acting in good faith can a country build trust and secure long-term support. Ultimately, a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council is not a diplomatic credential exchanged among allies, but a responsibility earned through gaining the trust of one's neighbors and, in turn, the trust of the wider international community. Prestige, personal favors, and political bargaining will ultimately fade away in a secret-ballot vote. What remains is the international community's genuine assessment of whether a country honors its commitments and acts with due regard for the broader interests of the international community.

(The authors are from the School of Marxism, Jinan University.)

Editor's note: Originally published on china.com.cn, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.