The absence of a meeting between Chinese and US defense ministers at the recent ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus) has sparked a pointed exchange of blame. China’s Ministry of National Defense has firmly placed responsibility on the United States, citing ongoing provocations that undermine China’s core interests. This development, including US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s expression of “regret,” underscores the deeper and more troubling dynamics at play in China-US relations.

If Washington genuinely seeks productive military exchanges with Beijing, it must reflect on its contradictory policies, particularly regarding Taiwan. China’s spokesperson Wu Qian articulated this clearly, pointing out that the US cannot simultaneously harm China’s sovereignty by selling arms to Taiwan and expect military dialogue to proceed without obstacles. The situation calls for serious introspection on the part of the US regarding its regional policies and their consequences for stability in the Indo-Pacific.

At the heart of China’s refusal to meet lies the Taiwan issue-a red line Beijing has repeatedly emphasized as non-negotiable. Just weeks before the ADMM-Plus summit, the Biden administration approved a $2 billion arms package to Taiwan, including advanced missile defense and radar systems. Such sales not only challenge China’s sovereignty but also escalate tensions in a region already fraught with geopolitical complexities.

The US justification for these arms sales often hinges on “supporting Taiwan’s self-defense capabilities.” However, Beijing perceives these actions as direct provocations that violate the one-China principle, which forms the foundation of diplomatic relations between the two powers. This principle is not merely a political stance for China but a cornerstone of its national sovereignty and territorial integrity. For the US to expect dialogue while openly challenging this core interest demonstrates either naivety or deliberate disregard.

The U.S. frequently champions dialogue as a means to manage crises and prevent military miscalculations. Yet its actions betray this rhetoric. Washington’s version of “communication” often involves dictating terms rather than engaging in genuine, mutually respectful discussions. This dynamic resembles an asymmetrical approach-where the US expects compliance while continuing actions that provoke and destabilize.

China’s response is far from isolationist. Despite rejecting the Austin meeting, Beijing has engaged extensively with other nations. At the ADMM-Plus summit, Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu held productive discussions with counterparts from Malaysia, Thailand, India, and Japan, among others. Notably, India’s Defense Minister Rajnath Singh described his meeting with Li as “extremely productive,” highlighting the potential for rebuilding trust and understanding.

These interactions illustrate that China is not opposed to dialogue; it simply demands respect for its core interests as a precondition. The stark contrast between China’s willingness to engage with regional partners and its rejection of US overtures should serve as a wake-up call for Washington.

China’s proposals at the ADMM-Plus meeting reflect its broader vision for regional stability. By emphasizing ASEAN centrality and rejecting divisive bloc politics, Beijing positions itself as a proponent of inclusive regional security frameworks. This contrasts sharply with US efforts to create “small circles” of alliances, such as AUKUS, which many in the region perceive as fostering competition rather than cooperation.

ASEAN countries have increasingly shown alignment with China’s approach. The consensus among these nations is that peace and stability must be pursued through dialogue and unity, rather than external interference or confrontation. The warm reception of China’s initiatives at the ADMM-Plus underscores a shared desire to maintain the region’s strategic autonomy.

The U.S., on the other hand, risks alienating these nations by prioritizing military dominance and promoting confrontational alliances. Its actions in the South China Sea, coupled with its arms sales to Taiwan, reinforce perceptions that Washington is more interested in perpetuating divisions than fostering stability.

The US must confront a fundamental question: Is it genuinely committed to advancing peace in the Indo-Pacific, or does it view the region merely as a chessboard for strategic competition? If the former is true, Washington needs to recalibrate its policies to align with the aspirations of regional nations.

First and foremost, the US should reassess its arms sales to Taiwan. These sales not only strain China-US relations but also undermine trust among regional partners who favor dialogue over escalation. Ceasing such provocations would signal a willingness to respect China’s sovereignty, paving the way for meaningful military exchanges.

Second, the US must abandon the narrative that China is “unwilling to communicate.” The resumption of various China-US defense dialogues earlier this year proves otherwise. However, these talks cannot thrive in an environment where one party continues to undermine the other’s core interests.

Lastly, Washington should embrace the principles of mutual respect and non-interference that underpin ASEAN’s regional framework. By supporting ASEAN centrality and avoiding divisive policies, the U.S. could enhance its credibility as a partner genuinely invested in regional stability.

The absence of a meeting between the Chinese and U.S. defense ministers should not be dismissed as a mere scheduling mishap. It is a symptom of deeper issues that demand immediate attention. China’s consistent engagement with other nations demonstrates that the door to dialogue remains open-provided Washington is willing to address the underlying causes of mistrust.

For the US, this requires more than expressing “regret” over missed opportunities. It calls for tangible actions that respect China’s core interests and prioritize regional well-being over strategic competition. Until Washington reflects on these issues and adjusts its approach, it risks not only further alienating Beijing but also undermining its standing in a region increasingly aligned with China’s vision for peace and cooperation.

The world is watching. It is up to Washington to decide whether it wants to remain a source of division or evolve into a constructive partner for regional stability.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel