Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has launched an internal probe into the leak of a classified diplomatic note sent by China concerning oil exploration activities in the South China Sea. The move follows an article published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer on August 29, which detailed the contents of the confidential communication. The Malaysian government expressed grave concern over the breach, as the document constitutes an official communication channel between Beijing and Kuala Lumpur.

Background

In February 2024, China sent a classified diplomatic note to Malaysia, expressing concerns over Malaysia’s oil and gas exploration activities in the South China Sea. This note was leaked by the Philippine Daily Inquirer on August 29, 2024, drawing attention to ongoing regional tensions. The focus of China’s concern was Malaysia’s exploration near the Luconia Shoals, an area situated roughly 100 kilometers off the Malaysian state of Sarawak. While Malaysia asserts its rights to this region, China claims the area under its controversial nine-dash line, which covers nearly the entire South China Sea.

The diplomatic note highlights China’s longstanding claim over the South China Sea and highlights Beijing’s opposition to Malaysia’s exploration activities. According to the document, these activities infringe upon China’s territorial claims, and the note urges Malaysia to halt its operations immediately. This is not the first time such concerns have been raised, but the leak has brought the issue into sharper focus, putting additional strain on the diplomatic relations between the two nations.

Malaysia’s response to the leak has been swift. The country’s Foreign Ministry has initiated a police investigation into how the document was made public and launched an internal probe. Malaysia’s stance remains firm, with officials emphasizing that the country will continue to protect its sovereignty and pursue its interests in its maritime areas, in accordance with international law, specifically the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim further reinforced this position, stating that Malaysia will persist with its oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea despite the concerns raised by China. This development reflects the broader regional dynamics, as Malaysia, along with the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan, all have overlapping claims in the South China Sea, making the area a significant flashpoint for international relations.

Recent Developments

The leaked diplomatic note highlights the sensitive and contentious nature of the territorial disputes in the South China Sea. It also sheds light on the careful balancing act Malaysia is attempting, as it seeks to assert its rights in the region while managing its diplomatic ties with China.

In its statement released on Wednesday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed it is conducting an internal investigation and will be filing a police report to further scrutinize the incident. While the ministry refrained from naming the Philippine media outlet or verifying the authenticity of the note, it emphasized the need for swift action to prevent further leaks of classified materials. 

Malaysia Urged to Halt All activities in the South China Sea by China

The note in question reportedly urged Malaysia to halt all oil exploration and drilling operations in the Luconia Shoals, a resource-rich area located about 100 kilometers off the coast of Sarawak. According to the Inquirer, China claimed that Malaysia’s activities in the region violated its sovereignty under the controversial nine-dash line. China’s nearest landmass, Hainan Island, is situated approximately 1,300 kilometers from the disputed shoals.

The South China Sea dispute involves competing claims from multiple nations, including Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan. China claims nearly the entire sea based on historical maps, despite a 2016 international arbitration ruling that dismissed the nine-dash line as legally baseless. Malaysia, while sharing strong economic ties with China, has now become entangled in the broader geopolitical tensions over control of these vital waters.

Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reaffirmed its stance on the South China Sea, pledging to defend its sovereignty and interests in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The ministry noted that while Malaysia seeks peaceful resolution through dialogue, the country will remain firm in protecting its maritime rights.

Beijing has not commented on the leaked note. However, diplomatic tensions have flared in recent months, with China’s aggressive presence in the South China Sea leading to repeated confrontations, especially with the Philippines. Just this year, multiple stand-offs occurred between Chinese and Philippine coastguards near Second Thomas Shoal.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has maintained a more diplomatic approach toward Beijing, stressing the importance of balancing national interests with regional stability. However, the leak has raised concerns about Malaysia’s ability to maintain this balancing act amid increasing pressure from China. Anwar has acknowledged China’s concerns over Malaysia’s energy activities but remains open to negotiations on resolving maritime disputes.

This incident marks the second time in recent months that China’s activities in the South China Sea have drawn public attention in Malaysia. Earlier this year, a standoff between Malaysian state oil company Petronas and Chinese vessels occurred near the same contested waters. Chinese survey ships have increasingly patrolled the area, challenging Malaysia’s economic activities within its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Despite these challenges, Malaysia’s foreign ministry highlighted that Kuala Lumpur and Beijing have committed to handling the South China Sea dispute diplomatically. Both nations co-chair discussions within the ASEAN framework aimed at reaching a Code of Conduct (COC) for the region, with negotiations expected to finalize in the coming years.

China’s claims over the South China Sea are based on the nine-dash line, a boundary dating back to 1947. However, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled in 2016 that this claim had no merit under international law, siding with the Philippines. China has disregarded the ruling, continuing to assert its claims through military and diplomatic means.

Malaysia’s role in the dispute is further complicated by its reliance on China as its largest trading partner. Since 2009, bilateral relations between the two nations have strengthened, even as Malaysia faced pressure from the international community to stand firm against Chinese encroachment on its EEZ.

The Luconia Shoals, where the recent conflict has surfaced, are located within Malaysia’s EEZ, recognized by UNCLOS. However, China’s claim extends beyond its geographic proximity, relying on historical maps to justify its territorial ambitions in the South China Sea.

While the dispute escalates, Malaysia’s foreign ministry reiterated that its focus remains on diplomatic engagement. The government has called on all nations involved to respect the principles of peaceful negotiation and avoid any actions that could lead to violence or further escalation in the region.

End Note

The leak of China’s diplomatic note adds complexity to Malaysia’s foreign policy strategy, as it seeks to maintain both economic ties with China and its sovereign rights in the contested waters. Analysts believe that Malaysia’s next steps will be closely watched, both by regional partners and global powers like the United States.

Malaysia remains engaged in ASEAN-led efforts to establish a Code of Conduct for the South China Sea, aimed at reducing tensions and fostering long-term peace.

The investigation into the leak is ongoing, with the Malaysian government prioritizing both national security and diplomatic engagement with China. As tensions persist, Malaysia faces the challenge of navigating its position in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape.

Before ASEAN’s formation, Southeast Asia saw the establishment of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) in 1954, a Western initiative aimed at containing communism that included the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and regional members like Thailand and the Philippines. However, SEATO’s internal divisions led to its dissolution in 1977. The earlier Malayan Emergency (1948-1960), a communist insurgency in British Malaya, led the region’s vulnerability to communist influence and the need for cooperation. This context set the stage for the founding of ASEAN in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand through the Bangkok Declaration, with goals of preventing communism, promoting economic growth, and ensuring regional peace. Today, ASEAN faces a new set of challenges, including territorial disputes, economic disparities, and the influence of external powers, all of which test the organization’s ability to maintain regional cohesion and stability. Let’s get into the detail of it.

The Historical Context and Evolution of ASEAN’s Security Landscape

ASEAN’s origins are rooted in a period of intense ideological conflict, where its founding members aimed to protect their independence from global power struggles. As the organization expanded to include Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia, its focus shifted from ideological concerns to economic cooperation and regional integration. However, security has remained a critical issue, particularly as Southeast Asia has emerged as a focal point for great power competition. The South China Sea disputes have highlighted ASEAN’s security challenges, with overlapping territorial claims involving China and several ASEAN member states testing the organization’s cohesion and conflict management abilities. The South China Sea, a vital maritime region, represents broader security concerns, including economic vulnerabilities, military imbalances, and the influence of external powers like the United States and China.

Internal Divisions and Historical Grievances Among ASEAN Member States

ASEAN’s efforts at promoting regional cooperation are often hampered by internal challenges rooted in historical disputes and national pride. These tensions not only strain bilateral relations but also weaken ASEAN’s collective bargaining power, undermining its ability to present a unified front against external threats.

Malaysia and the Philippines: The Sabah Dispute

The territorial disagreement between Malaysia and the Philippines over Sabah is one of ASEAN’s most enduring disputes. The Philippines bases its claim on historical ties to the Sultanate of Sulu, while Malaysia asserts its sovereignty over Sabah, which was incorporated into its territory in 1963. Despite various diplomatic efforts, the issue remains unresolved, straining bilateral relations and complicating ASEAN’s quest for unity.

Cambodia and Thailand: The Preah Vihear Temple Dispute

The conflict over the Preah Vihear Temple between Cambodia and Thailand is another example of intra-ASEAN tensions. Despite the International Court of Justice ruling in favor of Cambodia in 1962, disputes over the surrounding territory have led to periodic military skirmishes. This ongoing conflict highlights how national pride and historical grievances can overshadow regional stability, challenging ASEAN’s capacity to maintain harmony among its members.

Cambodia and Vietnam: Maritime Boundary Dispute

The maritime boundary dispute in the Gulf of Thailand between Cambodia and Vietnam, involving overlapping claims on fishing rights and oil exploration, further illustrates ASEAN’s challenges. The inability to address such disputes effectively, due to ASEAN’s principles of consensus and non-interference, undermines the organization’s credibility and cohesion.

Indonesia and Malaysia: The Ambalat Dispute

The Ambalat dispute over oil-rich waters in the Celebes Sea between Indonesia and Malaysia reflects the broader challenge of managing resource-related conflicts within ASEAN. Despite ongoing diplomatic negotiations, the lack of resolution continues to strain bilateral relations and test ASEAN’s ability to mediate internal disputes.

Myanmar and Bangladesh: The Rohingya Refugee Crisis

While not a territorial dispute within ASEAN, Myanmar’s treatment of the Rohingya minority, leading to a massive refugee influx into Bangladesh, has strained relations within the bloc. This crisis raised critical questions about ASEAN’s principle of non-interference and its ability to address serious human rights concerns while maintaining regional stability. The situation exposed the limitations of ASEAN’s ability to manage internal conflicts and uphold its values.

Territorial Disputes and Overlapping Claims

The South China Sea is a flashpoint for regional tensions, with China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan all laying claim to parts of this critical maritime region. China’s expansive claims, encapsulated by the “New Ten-Dash Line,” overlap with the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of several ASEAN countries, leading to frequent confrontations.

Incidents of confrontation between Chinese and Southeast Asian vessels have escalated tensions. Diplomatic efforts, such as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) signed in 2002, have sought to prevent conflicts, but a binding Code of Conduct (COC) remains elusive. ASEAN’s inability to present a unified front has allowed China to assert its claims more aggressively, leading to the militarization of disputed features and an increased risk of conflict.

Economic Interests and Vulnerabilities

The South China Sea is a vital artery for global trade, with nearly one-third of the world’s maritime traffic passing through its waters. For ASEAN member states, the SCS is crucial for trade routes, fisheries, and potential energy resources. However, these economic interests also represent a source of vulnerability. The region’s dependence on these waters for economic prosperity has made it a hotbed for geopolitical competition.

China’s economic influence in the region complicates ASEAN’s security dilemma. As the largest trading partner for many ASEAN countries, China wields significant economic power, which it has not hesitated to use as leverage in territorial disputes. For instance, in 2023, China imposed trade restrictions on Vietnam in response to Hanoi’s increased maritime activities in the disputed Paracel Islands, targeting Vietnamese exports such as seafood and rice. These trade restrictions had a significant impact on Vietnam’s economy, highlighting the challenges ASEAN member states face in balancing their economic relationships with China while also protecting their territorial and security interests.

Economic disparities among ASEAN member states exacerbate these vulnerabilities. Countries like Singapore and Malaysia have relatively advanced economies, while others, such as Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar, are still developing. This disparity affects ASEAN’s collective bargaining power and creates divergent interests among its members, making it difficult to form a cohesive strategy in dealing with external pressures.

1. Singapore, the most advanced economy within ASEAN, has a nominal GDP of approximately $673 billion in 2023 and a per capita GDP of $82,807. As a global financial hub, Singapore’s economic strength lies in its advanced services sector, particularly in finance, trade, and technology. Its high level of development allows it to play a leading role in ASEAN, often driving regional initiatives and economic integration efforts.
2. Brunei Darussalam, though smaller in economic size with a nominal GDP of around $15 billion, enjoys a high per capita GDP of $37,152, largely due to its abundant oil and gas resources. However, its economy is heavily reliant on hydrocarbons, making diversification a pressing challenge.
3. Malaysia, with a nominal GDP of $399 billion and a per capita GDP of $11,933, has a well-diversified economy that spans manufacturing, services, and commodities. It is a middle-income nation striving to transition into a high-income economy, facing challenges in ensuring inclusive growth and reducing income disparities.
4. Thailand and Vietnam are significant players in the region, with nominal GDPs of $543 billion and $433 billion, respectively. Thailand’s economy is driven by its manufacturing sector and tourism, while Vietnam’s rapid industrialization has turned it into a crucial link in global supply chains, particularly in electronics and textiles. However, both countries face challenges such as infrastructure gaps, skill shortages, and economic dependency on external markets, particularly China.
5. Indonesia, the largest economy in ASEAN, has a nominal GDP of $1,371 billion. Its vast natural resources, large domestic market, and young population present significant growth potential. However, Indonesia still grapples with infrastructure deficits, regional inequalities, and the need to diversify its economy away from a reliance on commodities.
6. The Philippines, with a nominal GDP of approximately $437 billion, is characterized by a young, growing population that fuels domestic consumption. However, it also faces significant challenges such as high unemployment, economic vulnerabilities, and the impact of climate change.
7. Cambodia and Laos, with nominal GDPs of around $31.77 billion and $15.84 billion, respectively, are among the least developed in ASEAN. These countries rely heavily on agriculture, tourism, and, increasingly, Chinese investment and aid. Their economic dependency on China, coupled with underdeveloped infrastructure and low levels of industrialization, leaves them vulnerable to external pressures and economic shocks.
8. Myanmar, with a nominal GDP of $64.82 billion, has been hindered by political instability and economic sanctions. The manufacturing sector, which accounts for a significant portion of its GDP, struggles with inadequate infrastructure, a lack of skilled labor, and ongoing internal conflict.

These economic disparity among ASEAN member states creates a complex environment where national interests often clash, making consensus-building within the organization challenging. These economic differences also lead to varying levels of dependency on external powers like China and the United States, further complicating ASEAN’s ability to present a unified front in regional security matters.

Military Capabilities and Asymmetries

The disparity in military capabilities among ASEAN member states also contributes to the region’s security dilemma. While some countries, like Singapore, have advanced and well-equipped armed forces, others, such as Laos and Cambodia, have relatively modest military capabilities. This asymmetry affects the ability of ASEAN to coordinate joint security initiatives and response to external threats.

Singapore is known for having one of the most advanced military forces in Southeast Asia. Its defense budget, which stood at approximately $19.76 billion in 2023, allowed it to maintain a highly modernized and technologically sophisticated military. The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) are equipped with cutting-edge weaponry, including F-35 fighter jets, advanced naval vessels, and a robust cyber defense unit. Singapore’s strategic location and military prowess make it a critical player in regional security.

Indonesia, with the largest population in ASEAN, also has the largest military force. Its defense budget of around $9.2 billion in 2023 supports a sizable army, navy, and air force, although it lags in technological sophistication compared to Singapore. Indonesia’s military focuses on securing its vast archipelagic territory, including critical maritime chokepoints such as the Malacca Strait.

Vietnam has a defense budget of approximately $5.8 billion, with a strong emphasis on its army and navy, given its proximity to the South China Sea. Vietnam’s military capabilities are enhanced by recent acquisitions of advanced Russian-made submarines, fighter jets, and coastal defense systems. The country’s military strategy is shaped by its historical experiences with external aggression and its ongoing territorial disputes with China.

Thailand allocates around $6.9 billion to its defense budget, focusing on maintaining a balanced military force capable of addressing both conventional and unconventional threats. Thailand’s military, which has historically played a significant role in domestic politics, is equipped with a mix of Western and Chinese military hardware.

Malaysia spends approximately $4.1 billion on defense, with a focus on securing its maritime boundaries and addressing non-traditional security threats such as piracy and terrorism. Malaysia’s military, though smaller than those of Indonesia and Vietnam, is relatively well-equipped and plays a key role in regional security initiatives.

The Philippines has a defense budget of about $4.3 billion, which is modest given its extensive territorial claims in the South China Sea. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) have been undergoing modernization efforts to improve their capabilities, particularly in maritime security and counter-terrorism. However, the military still faces significant challenges in terms of equipment and training.

Myanmar, with a defense budget of around $2.4 billion, maintains a large army but faces challenges related to outdated equipment and ongoing internal conflicts. The military’s focus has been on domestic security, particularly in dealing with ethnic insurgencies and political unrest.

Brunei, despite its small size, spends a significant portion of its budget on defense, amounting to around $615 million. Its military is small but well-trained.

Cambodia and Laos have relatively small defense budgets, at approximately $500 million and $100 million, respectively. Their militaries are modest in size and capability, with a focus on internal security rather than external defense.

The military asymmetry within ASEAN creates challenges for joint defense initiatives and hampers the organization’s ability to present a united front in response to external threats. The disparities in defense capabilities also contribute to differing threat perceptions among member states, making consensus on security issues difficult to achieve.

ASEAN and the Great Power Dynamics

ASEAN’s unity is increasingly being tested by the growing influence of external powers, particularly the United States and China.

US-China Rivalry in Southeast Asia

The US-China rivalry is a defining feature of the current geopolitical landscape in Southeast Asia. As China’s influence grows, particularly through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the United States has sought to counterbalance this influence through initiatives such as the Indo-Pacific Strategy and by strengthening alliances with regional powers like Japan, Australia, and India. This great power competition puts ASEAN in a difficult position, as member states are often forced to navigate balance between maintaining economic ties with China and security partnerships with the United States.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative has made significant inroads in Southeast Asia, with billions of dollars invested in infrastructure projects across the region. Countries like Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar have become increasingly dependent on Chinese investment, creating a situation where their foreign policy decisions are heavily influenced by Beijing. This growing dependence on China has raised concerns within ASEAN about the potential for Chinese economic leverage to translate into political influence, undermining the organization’s unity.

The United States, meanwhile, has sought to strengthen its presence in Southeast Asia through various initiatives, including the Indo-Pacific Strategy, which emphasizes the importance of a free and open Indo-Pacific region. The US has also deepened its security partnerships with key ASEAN member states, such as the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, through joint military exercises, arms sales, and defense cooperation agreements. These efforts are aimed at countering China’s growing influence and ensuring the US remains a key player in the region’s security architecture.

The competing interests of the US and China have created divisions within ASEAN, with some member states aligning more closely with one power over the other. These divisions are further exacerbated by differing threat perceptions among member states, with some prioritizing economic ties with China, while others are more concerned with security threats and maintaining strategic autonomy.

Pathways to Resolution: Cooperative Security Frameworks

ASEAN’s security dilemma is compounded by the lack of a cohesive and effective regional security architecture. The existing security frameworks, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM), have been criticized for their inability to address the region’s most pressing security challenges effectively.

The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), established in 1994, was designed to promote dialogue and cooperation on security issues in the Asia-Pacific region. However, the ARF has often been criticized for being a “talk shop,” where discussions are held without concrete actions being taken. The forum’s consensus-based decision-making process has also been a significant impediment to addressing contentious issues, such as the South China Sea disputes.

The ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM), established in 2006, serves as a platform for ASEAN defense ministers to discuss security and defense cooperation. While the ADMM has made some progress in promoting confidence-building measures and joint exercises, it has been less effective in addressing the region’s more significant security challenges, such as territorial disputes and the influence of external powers.

To overcome these challenges, ASEAN may need to explore new cooperative security frameworks that go beyond the existing structures. One potential pathway could be the establishment of a more robust and binding Code of Conduct (COC) for the South China Sea, which would include mechanisms for dispute resolution and conflict prevention. However, achieving such a framework would require overcoming significant internal divisions within ASEAN and securing the buy-in of external powers, particularly China.

Another potential pathway could involve greater engagement with external partners through mechanisms such as the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) and the East Asia Summit (EAS). These forums could be leveraged to address broader security challenges in the region, including non-traditional security threats such as cyber threats, terrorism, and climate change. However, for these efforts to be successful, ASEAN would need to strengthen its internal cohesion and present a more united front in dealing with external powers.

Future Prospects and Challenges

The future of ASEAN’s security landscape is fraught with challenges, as the region continues to grapple with internal divisions, economic disparities, military asymmetries, and the growing influence of external powers. However, ASEAN’s ability to navigate these challenges will be crucial in determining the region’s stability and prosperity in the years to come.

One of the key challenges for ASEAN will be maintaining its unity and cohesion in the face of increasing external pressures. This will require addressing the internal divisions and historical grievances that have often hampered the organization’s ability to present a united front. ASEAN will also need to find ways to manage the growing influence of external powers, particularly the US and China, while maintaining its strategic autonomy and ensuring that its member states are not forced to choose sides.

Another challenge will be the need to develop more effective security frameworks that can address the region’s most pressing security challenges. This will require ASEAN to move beyond its current consensus-based decision-making process and adopt more flexible and pragmatic approaches to conflict resolution and security cooperation.

Finally, ASEAN will need to address the economic disparities and vulnerabilities that have often undermined its collective bargaining power. This will require greater efforts to promote economic integration and development within the region, while also ensuring that the benefits of growth are more equitably distributed among its member states.

End Note

ASEAN’s security dilemma is a complex and multifaceted issue that reflects the broader geopolitical dynamics of Southeast Asia. The organization’s ability to navigate this dilemma will be crucial in determining the region’s stability and prosperity in the years to come. While ASEAN faces significant challenges, including internal divisions, economic disparities, military asymmetries, and the growing influence of external powers, it also has the potential to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of Southeast Asia. To do so, ASEAN will need to strengthen its internal cohesion, develop more effective security frameworks, and find ways to manage the growing influence of external powers while maintaining its strategic autonomy. Ultimately, the future of ASEAN will depend on its ability to adapt to the evolving security landscape and ensure that its member states can navigate the complex geopolitics of Southeast Asia in a way that promotes peace, stability, and prosperity for all.

As the Philippines confronts an increasingly uncertain world, its armed forces are undergoing a transformative overhaul to meet evolving security challenges. With breathtaking landscapes and a rich cultural heritage, the nation is strategically positioned in Southeast Asia, making its military upgrades crucial. Significant modernization and training efforts are in progress across all branches: the Army is enhancing its equipment and training; the Navy is investing in advanced vessels and maritime capabilities; the Air Force is modernizing aircraft and readiness; the Marine Corps is acquiring amphibious assault vehicles and improving inter-branch coordination; Special Operations Forces are upgrading equipment and reconnaissance; Cyber Defense is strengthening infrastructure and expertise; and the Coast Guard is expanding its law enforcement and patrol capabilities. As the Philippines strengthens its defense and operational capacities, it is poised to better navigate complex security dynamics, securing a resilient and strategically aligned future. Let us get into the detail of it.

Background of the Philippines’ armed forces

The formation of the Philippine Armed Forces as a militia to oppose foreign control during the Spanish colonial era is the beginning of the force’s long history. The Philippines’ military underwent substantial change following its independence in 1946. The military forces have encountered several difficulties over the years, including as regional conflicts and domestic insurgencies. The Philippines is currently dealing with fresh geopolitical dangers, chief among them being China’s persistent territorial conflicts in the South China Sea. Tensions have increased as a result of these disputes, therefore strengthening the nation’s defenses is imperative.

Importance of Modernization

Modernizing the military is crucial for several reasons. The Philippines faces significant external threats, particularly from China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea. To effectively safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity, the country needs advanced and up-to-date defense systems.

As of 2024, the Philippines rank 23rd globally and 14th regionally in military strength. This ranking highlights the nation’s strategic importance in Southeast Asia but also points to a pressing need for modernization. Currently, 75% of the military’s equipment dates back to the Cold War era, with only 25% being modern. This outdated equipment highlight the urgency for an upgraded defense system to address evolving security challenges.

Responding to this, the Philippines intend to increase its defense budget by 6.4% to 256.1 billion pesos (about $4.38 billion) in 2025. The objective of this budget is to augment the military’s capacity to safeguard maritime concerns and facilitate the advancement of land, air, and sea forces.

Military Service Branches

The Armed Forces of the Philippines, which include the three main branches of the military—the Philippine Air Force (PAF), Philippine Army (PA), and Philippine Navy (PN)—are responsible for overseeing all of the country’s fighting forces. The Philippine Marine Corps (PMC) is supported by the Navy as well.

Air Force

Current State

The force currently counts 173 total units in its active aircraft inventory. The Philippine Air Force (PAF) uses both modern and vintage aircraft. EMBRAER A-29 attack aircraft are utilised in conjunction with South Korean FA-50s as a light strike platform within the fleet. Modified Cessna 208 and ATR 72 aircraft are used by the PAF for maritime patrol and reconnaissance. American-made equipment makes up the majority of the transport and helicopter forces.

The PAF has been concentrating on updating its capabilities lately. One prominent example is the newly renovated Basa Air Base, which is now undergoing major upgrades and is home to the PAF’s FA-50PH combat aircraft. This base will receive a 625,000-square-foot parking apron, funded by a $32 million Pentagon contract, as part of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. This upgrade will help the base accommodate up to 20 aircrafts to enhance its operational capacity.

Required Upgrades

To address current and future threats more effectively, the Philippine Air Force (PAF) requires several key upgrades. One of the most critical areas is the acquisition of new multi-role fighter jets. The PAF is currently evaluating the Saab Gripen E and the F-16 Viper as potential options. The Gripen E stands out for its advanced radar systems and lower maintenance costs, while the F-16 Viper is known for its proven reliability and extensive global support network. Both aircraft offer significant improvements over the existing fleet and would greatly enhance the PAF’s operational capabilities.

In addition to upgrading its fighter jets, the PAF also needs to enhance its airlift capabilities. New transport aircraft are crucial for enabling the rapid deployment of personnel and equipment, ensuring that the Air Force can respond swiftly and effectively to various situations. Modernizing air defense systems is another priority. Upgrades in this area are essential to protect the nation’s airspace from evolving threats and to strengthen overall military readiness.

Furthermore, investing in advanced surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities is vital for maintaining the security of the Philippines’ airspace. This is particularly important given the rising tensions in the South China Sea, where China’s assertive actions pose ongoing challenges. By implementing these upgrades, the PAF will be better equipped to safeguard Philippine airspace.

Army

Current State

With a wide range of equipment, the Philippine Army deploys a range of tracked and wheeled vehicles for use in fire support, reconnaissance, and troop transport, among other combat tasks. These cars are from Brazil, Turkey, and the United States, demonstrating a wide-ranging global collaboration.

The artillery of the Army consists of thousands of mortars and a combination of Israeli and American towed systems in 105mm and 155mm calibers. Multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRS) utilize the K136 rocket from South Korea. The Army is in possession of 567 armored fighting vehicles (AFVs), which include mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles, infantry combat vehicles, and tank destroyers. In addition, it possesses 325 pieces of self-propelled, rocket, and towed artillery in addition to 18 tanks.

Salaknib 2024, one of the most recent joint exercises, demonstrates the Army’s dedication to improving its operational skills by working with US forces.

Required Upgrades

To further its effectiveness, the Philippine Army requires several key upgrades. First and foremost, the modernization of infantry weapons and equipment is crucial. By updating these resources, the Army can significantly improve its combat effectiveness and better adapt to current and future operational demands.

In addition to infantry upgrades, the acquisition of advanced artillery systems is necessary to increase the Army’s firepower and precision. This involves securing new towed, self-propelled, and rocket artillery systems, which will provide the necessary fire support in various combat scenarios.

Improving night-fighting capabilities is another critical area of focus. By enhancing technologies that allow for effective operations during low-light conditions, the Army will increase its operational versatility and maintain a tactical edge in challenging environments.

The Army also needs to improve its mobility with the introduction of new armored vehicles. These vehicles will provide better protection for troops, ensuring more effective deployment and maneuverability on the battlefield.

Likewise, the enhancement of air defense capabilities is also vital. The acquisition of phased-out Japanese air defense missile systems marks a significant step in this direction. These systems are essential for countering aerial threats.

Navy

Current State

There is currently a major modernization initiative underway in the Philippine Navy. Notable developments include Hyundai Heavy Industries’ launch of the BRP Miguel Malvar, a guided missile corvette, which is scheduled for delivery in 2025, and the second corvette, which is scheduled for delivery in 2026. Additionally, the Navy plans to purchase its first submarine, with the French Naval Group’s Scorpène-class submarines being the most likely choice. The acquisition has a budget USD 1.25-1.80 billion and is a component of the Horizon 3 modernization plan (2023-2028). The Mexican Navy and the German Defense Minister’s recent trips, among other international engagements, demonstrate the continuous efforts to improve maritime security and international cooperation.

Required Upgrades

The Philippine Navy requires several key upgrades. One of the primary needs is the acquisition of new frigates and corvettes. Continued procurement of these advanced vessels is vital for strengthening the Navy’s surface combatant capabilities. The addition of the BRP Miguel Malvar and the forthcoming second corvette will significantly enhance the fleet’s operational capacity.

Another strategic priority is the development of a submarine fleet. The planned acquisition of Scorpène-class submarines, along with the establishment of domestic manufacturing and training capabilities, is crucial for expanding the Navy’s underwater warfare capabilities.

Enhancing maritime patrol and surveillance capabilities is also essential. The Navy must continue to develop these systems to effectively monitor and secure the vast waters of the South China Sea, where rising tensions require vigilant oversight and response capabilities.

Additionally, the modernization of naval bases and infrastructure is necessary to support both new and existing vessels. Upgrading these facilities will ensure that the Navy can efficiently maintain and operate its assets, thereby maximizing operational readiness.

Marine Corps

Current State

The Philippine Marine Corps (PMC) is strengthening its defenses against challenges to national security from the inside as well as the outside. The establishment of the Maritime Security Battalion on July 1, 2024, to safeguard maritime passages and assist with littoral operations, is one example of recent advances. The Marine Corps’ transition from counterinsurgency to external marine defense, especially in the South China Sea, is reflected in this unit. Furthermore, the Marine Corps has started conducting littoral operations and exercises related to marine domain awareness using small boats and fiberglass-reinforced plastic boats. Retraining units like MBLT-4, MBLT-6, and MBLT-9 is another part of the transformation that aims to improve their amphibious and coastal defense capabilities.

Required Upgrades

To strengthen its capabilities, the Philippine Navy should focus on several key areas. First, the acquisition of new amphibious assault vehicles is essential to bolster littoral and amphibious operations, providing the Navy with greater versatility in various combat and humanitarian missions.

Next, enhancing training programs and conducting more rigorous readiness exercises are vital for improving the Navy’s operational effectiveness.

Lastly, improving integration and coordination with other branches of the Armed Forces is crucial for conducting effective joint operations and maritime defense.

Other Forces

The primary focus of the Philippine Special Operations Command (SOCom) is the modernization of its training and equipment. Modern cooperative drills, particularly with American forces, have emphasized enhancing operational efficacy and marine security. To better address sophisticated threats and carry out specialized missions, SOCom is also advancing its intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities.

As of early 2024, the Philippines experienced approximately 8,800 cyberattacks daily, with government and educational institutions being the primary targets. In response, the government has allocated significant funds in the 2024–2025 budget to strengthen cyber defense. This includes increased funding for the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordination Center (CICC) and the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT). Key initiatives involve expanding the cyber defense infrastructure, enhancing workforce competencies through the Philippine Skills Framework, and improving the nation’s capacity to manage cybercrime incidents.

The Philippine Coast Guard is reinforcing its capabilities by acquiring advanced equipment and additional patrol boats. The aim is to boost operational readiness and enhance maritime law enforcement. Recent trilateral alliances and collaborations have focused on strengthening maritime law enforcement across Southeast Asia, underscoring the Coast Guard’s commitment to safeguarding Philippine maritime interests.

Financial and Logistical Considerations

In January 2024, under the “Re-Horizon 3” proposal, the Philippine military modernization plan allocated up to $35 billion for the next ten years. This plan prioritizes strengthening defense capabilities in response to escalating regional tensions and revises the previous acquisition list to address current challenges more effectively. The budget focuses on bolstering the Army, Navy, Air Force, and specialized units, aiming to enhance the country’s external defense and support comprehensive modernization efforts across all branches.

The Philippines is also intensifying its defense cooperation with international partners. Significant progress has been made in the U.S.-Philippines alliance, with an increased rotational presence, joint exercises, and the negotiation of new agreements, such as the General Security of Military Information Agreement.

By the end of 2024, the Philippines is expected to finalize a defense agreement with Germany, which will bolster Manila’s modernization efforts, improve military training, facilitate the purchase of equipment, and reinforce a rules-based order in the South China Sea. Additionally, the Reciprocal Access Agreement with Japan, signed in early 2024, allows for joint drills and mutual access for defense operations, addressing shared concerns over regional security, particularly in response to China’s activities in the South China Sea. These partnerships and agreements are crucial for enhancing the Philippines’ defense capabilities and integrating the country more closely with global allies amid rising regional tensions.

Inference

The Philippines’ armed forces are undergoing a comprehensive transformation to address evolving security threats. Across all branches, significant modernization and training efforts are underway: the Army is focusing on acquiring modern equipment and enhancing training programs; the Navy is investing in state-of-the-art vessels and boosting maritime capabilities; the Air Force is modernizing its aircraft and improving operational readiness; the Marine Corps is procuring amphibious assault vehicles and refining coordination with other branches; Special Operations Forces are upgrading their equipment and enhancing reconnaissance capabilities; Cyber Defense is building robust infrastructure and training specialists; and the Coast Guard is expanding its law enforcement capabilities and modernizing its patrol vessels. These modernization initiatives are expected to greatly enhance national security, bolstering the Philippines’ ability to protect its interests and contributing to regional stability. As these upgrades strengthen the country’s defense and operational capacities, the Philippines will be better equipped to navigate complex security challenges, ensuring a more secure and strategically aligned future.