Recently, Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs launched an internal probe following the leak of a classified diplomatic note sent by China, urging Malaysia to halt oil exploration activities in the South China Sea. The note, leaked by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, revealed China’s concerns over Malaysia’s drilling near the Luconia Shoals, an area claimed by both nations. While Malaysia asserts its rights under international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), China claims the area under its controversial nine-dash line. It is noteworthy to mention that the Luconia Shoals are approximately 1200 miles from China’s mainland and about 62 Miles from Malaysia.

The incident highlights the ongoing geopolitical tensions in the South China Sea, where several nations, including Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan, challenge China’s territorial claims. While Malaysia has focused on investigating the breach and maintaining diplomatic engagement with China, it continues to actively participate in ASEAN-led efforts to establish a Code of Conduct for the region. The key question remains: Can Malaysia firmly reject China’s expansive territorial claims, and if so, is its military prepared for such a stance? To answer this, we must analyze the strength of Malaysia’s armed forces. Let’s get into the details of it.

Malaysia’s Military capability

When it comes to military strength, Malaysia often flies under the radar. Malaysia’s defense capabilities are criticized for being inferior to those of its Southeast Asian neighbors. Malaysia is considerably behind regional powers like Indonesia and Thailand, ranking 44th out of 145 countries in 2024, according to the Global Firepower Index. Malaysia’s defense budget for 2024 is $4.16 billion, which is relatively small compared to Singapore’s $15.4 billion and Indonesia’s $9 billion. Defense researcher Collin Koh observes, “Malaysia’s military is aging and modernization is slow.” Despite the fact that statistics can only convey part of the picture, Malaysia’s military has concentrated on specialized tasks that highlight its capabilities in other crucial domains, such as counterterrorism and maritime security.

Historical Context

Under British colonial authority, Malaysia’s military history began when the British established the Malayan Police Force for local security. Japan conquered Malaysia, then known as British Malaya, during World War II, bringing instability to the region. The Malayan Emergency Army was established in response to the communist insurgency that Malaysia experienced following the war.

Malaysia made great military advancements after gaining independence from Britain in 1957. Significant investments in cutting-edge machinery as well as the establishment of the Royal Malaysian Air Force and Navy occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. As a reflection of its role in both domestic and international security, Malaysia has mostly participated in peacekeeping operations and regional security initiatives.

Current Military Capabilities

Malaysia’s armed forces, comprising 51,600 reserve members and 113,000 active members, are now undergoing modernization, particularly focusing on upgrading military hardware. A notable procurement includes 800 M72 EC lightweight anti-tank weapons from Nammo, replacing outdated RPG-7 systems for use in special forces operations and challenging environments. With an expected 8.4% annual defense budget growth from 2024 to 2028, reaching nearly $6.2 billion, the country is addressing security concerns such as piracy and regional threats. Modernization efforts include acquiring FA-50 light attack planes, littoral mission ships, and UAVs, alongside bolstering missile defense and naval capabilities.

Regional Comparisons

When compared to regional counterparts, Malaysia’s military capabilities differ significantly from those of Indonesia and Singapore. Indonesia’s military, with over 400,000 active-duty troops (300,000 Army; 60,000 Navy, including about 20,000 marines; 30,000 Air Force) 376,000 active personnel and 100,000 reserves, is far larger than Malaysia’s. Indonesia’s defence budget is more than double than that of Malaysia, and its military equipment includes 266 main battle tanks, 36 attack helicopters, and a large naval fleet. Singapore’s arsenal includes cutting-edge systems like Leopard 2SG tanks, Formidable-class frigates, and F-15SG fighter jets.

Malaysia faces several strategic challenges, both internally and regionally, that shape its defense and security priorities. In the South China Sea, Malaysia contests China’s expansive territorial claims in a pragmatic manner, as Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s government has taken a more diplomatic approach, prioritizing economic ties with China while managing tensions over incidents like Chinese coast guard incursions into Malaysia’s Exclusive Economic Zone.

Modernization Efforts: Recent Reforms

Under the current Malaysian administration, the defense budget has seen significant growth, rising from $3.7 billion in 2022 to $4 billion in 2023, with a planned increase to $4.16 billion in 2024. This funding supports various modernization initiatives aimed at bolstering Malaysia’s defense capabilities. Key acquisitions include Littoral Combat Ships (SGPV-LCS) for the Royal Malaysian Navy, though the program has faced delays, and ongoing negotiations with Turkey for Littoral Mission Ships (LMS). The Malaysian Air Force is set to receive 18 FA-50 light combat aircraft and 12 medium lift helicopters to modernize its aging fleet. The Malaysian Army is also exploring the acquisition of self-propelled howitzers, though this has been hindered by procurement challenges and government changes. Future plans involve a projected 8.4% annual growth in the defense budget from 2024 to 2028, aiming to reach $6.2 billion and support the procurement of advanced warships, missile systems, and other high-tech military assets.

Despite these advancements, Malaysia’s defense modernization faces several criticisms and limitations. Budgetary constraints, corruption, and inefficiency have significantly impacted the effectiveness of modernization efforts. While the 2024 defense budget allocation includes $1.2 billion for procurement, this amount is insufficient to cover ongoing programs and contractual commitments fully. Government turnover has contributed to inconsistent defense strategies and delayed projects, such as the acquisition of self-propelled howitzers.

Counter Arguments

Malaysia’s foreign and military policies have shown considerable promise and accomplishments in spite of criticism. The adherence of the Malaysian Armed Forces to international stability and security is exemplified by their noteworthy contributions to United Nations missions and their impressive performance in peacekeeping operations. Additionally, Malaysia’s advantageous position in Southeast Asia and its involvement in ASEAN demonstrate its efficacy in regional security and diplomacy. Despite financial constraints, the country’s efforts to modernize its military have led to the acquisition of cutting-edge gear and an improvement in operational readiness.

Furthermore, Malaysia continues to reap significant benefits from its non-aligned foreign policy, which has been the cornerstone of its international strategy. With this practical strategy, Malaysia may maintain its fundamental non-alignment beliefs while promoting a variety of foreign alliances and taking part in several multilateral platforms like BRICS. Malaysia’s foreign policy is centered on striking a balance with major nations while preserving its sovereignty and national interests, notwithstanding recent actions like applying to join the BRICS.

End Point

In the context of asserting its claims over its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) against China, Malaysia’s military modernization efforts show both strengths and limitations. Recent acquisitions, such as FA-50 light attack planes and littoral combat ships, along with increased defense spending, signal the country’s intent to bolster its defense capabilities. However, budget constraints, inefficiencies in procurement, and corruption have slowed modernization. Despite these challenges, Malaysia has made strides in peacekeeping and diplomacy, relying on strategic non-alignment to navigate complex regional tensions. While the Malaysian Armed Forces face structural limitations, they continue to enhance their operational readiness. Though not yet at the level to fully challenge China’s military dominance, Malaysia’s growing capabilities and international partnerships provide a foundation for asserting its EEZ claims, demonstrating a calculated approach to balancing modernization with strategic objectives.

The U.S.-Philippines relationship, spanning over a century, remains a cornerstone of both countries’ strategic and economic interests in Southeast Asia. The alliance, rooted in historical ties dating back to the American colonization of the Philippines in 1898, has evolved through different geopolitical eras, from the Cold War to the rise of China. Under former President Donald Trump, U.S.-Philippines relations saw continuity in defense and security cooperation, but new complexities emerged in areas like trade and climate change. With President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. now leading the Philippines, the relationship continues to adapt to changing global dynamics, setting the stage for future shifts, particularly if Trump were to return to the presidency in 2024.

Historical Foundations and the Evolution of Defense Cooperation

The U.S.-Philippines alliance has historically been anchored in defense agreements, starting with the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) of 1951, which cemented the commitment of both nations to come to each other’s aid in case of an armed attack. This treaty has been the backbone of U.S. military presence in the region, alongside other agreements like the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) of 2014.

During the Cold War, the Philippines served as a critical ally for the U.S., hosting major military installations like Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Station, which were vital to projecting U.S. power across the Pacific. Although these bases were closed in the early 1990s, the U.S. continued to engage with the Philippines through joint military exercises, arms sales, and rotational troop deployments. The signing of EDCA revitalized this relationship by allowing U.S. forces access to Philippine military bases, further deepening defense cooperation.

Trump’s Approach: Pragmatic Assertiveness and Unilateralism

Under Donald Trump, U.S. foreign policy was defined by a shift toward unilateralism, framed by the “America First” doctrine. While the broader policy landscape changed, the Trump administration’s approach to the Philippines maintained a strong defense partnership, particularly concerning China’s growing influence in the South China Sea. Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) continued to challenge China’s territorial claims, and the U.S. reaffirmed its commitment to the MDT. In 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo assured Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte that any armed attack on Philippine forces in the South China Sea would trigger U.S. obligations under the defense treaty.

However, Trump’s diplomacy was often transactional, using economic and military assistance as leverage for political concessions. Despite this, the military alliance between the two countries remained robust, largely driven by shared concerns over China’s aggressive posturing in the South China Sea. Trump’s administration made it clear that maintaining regional stability was a priority, even as he recalibrated U.S. alliances globally.

Economic Ties: Trade Surplus and Potential for Future Tariffs

Beyond security cooperation, economic relations between the U.S. and the Philippines are significant. The U.S. is one of the Philippines’ largest trading partners, and the Philippines enjoys a trade surplus with the U.S., exporting goods such as electronics, garments, and agricultural products. In 2022, Philippine exports to the U.S. amounted to over $11 billion, while imports stood at around $9 billion, resulting in a favorable trade balance for Manila.

A key concern for the Philippines under a potential second Trump administration would be the return of protectionist trade policies. Trump’s first term was marked by the imposition of tariffs on several countries, which affected global supply chains and created new trade dynamics. Another Trump tenure could potentially trigger a new wave of tariffs, though the Philippines might benefit in certain sectors, particularly if the U.S. seeks to diversify supply chains away from China. This could create opportunities for Philippine exporters, particularly in electronics and manufacturing, as the U.S. looks to strengthen economic ties with Southeast Asian nations that are not directly involved in the U.S.-China trade war.

Climate Change and Divergent Policies

One of the areas where Trump’s policy diverged significantly from the Philippines’ interests was on climate change. The Philippines, as one of the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world, has consistently advocated for stronger international cooperation on environmental issues. Trump’s skepticism toward climate science, epitomized by his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, strained this aspect of the U.S.-Philippines relationship.

Under Duterte, the Philippines remained committed to global climate action, though his administration often sought to balance environmental priorities with economic development. The lack of U.S. leadership on climate issues during Trump’s presidency was a missed opportunity for deeper cooperation. As the Philippines faces more frequent and severe natural disasters, collaboration on climate resilience and green energy initiatives is crucial for future bilateral relations.

The Marcos Administration: Navigating Old Alliances and New Realities

Since taking office in 2022, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has sought to strike a balance between maintaining strong ties with the U.S. and expanding relations with China. While Duterte had pursued a “pivot to China” policy, Marcos has recalibrated Manila’s approach, emphasizing the importance of the U.S. as a security partner while continuing to engage economically with Beijing.

Under Marcos, U.S.-Philippines defense cooperation has deepened further, particularly with the 2024 conclusion of new defense agreements that expand U.S. access to Philippine military facilities under the EDCA. These agreements were factored into the U.S. defense budget for 2024, underscoring the strategic importance Washington places on its alliance with Manila in countering Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific. The EDCA not only enhances military readiness but also provides infrastructure improvements to Philippine bases, contributing to economic development in the host regions.

The Biden administration has reinforced these defense ties, but questions remain about how a potential second Trump term might alter the course of the relationship. While Trump previously upheld strong military relations, his unpredictable foreign policy style could introduce uncertainties. For instance, Trump might attempt to renegotiate existing agreements, as he did with other U.S. alliances, seeking to reduce U.S. financial contributions or increase demands for Philippine support in countering China.

The Future of U.S.-Philippines Relations

Looking ahead, U.S.-Philippines relations are likely to be shaped by both geopolitical competition and economic considerations. The strategic alliance will continue to focus on the South China Sea, where both nations share concerns about Chinese territorial ambitions. The U.S. will also remain a crucial economic partner for the Philippines, given the ongoing trade surplus and potential opportunities arising from supply chain diversification. Additionally, new defense agreements in 2024 have solidified the Philippines’ role in the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy, which will likely remain a priority regardless of changes in U.S. leadership.

However, the return of Donald Trump to the White House could bring significant changes. A second Trump administration might pursue a more transactional approach to defense and trade agreements, potentially seeking new tariffs or renegotiating military commitments. While the U.S. would likely maintain its focus on countering China’s influence in the region, the nature of its engagement with the Philippines could shift, with increased pressure on Manila to take a more active role in regional security.

Moreover, Trump’s skepticism toward multilateral agreements and climate change could complicate efforts to strengthen cooperation in these areas. The Philippines, which faces severe environmental challenges, might find itself at odds with a Trump administration unwilling to prioritize climate resilience initiatives. In this scenario, the Philippines could look to other international partners, such as the European Union or Japan, for collaboration on green energy and environmental sustainability.

Strategic Responses of the Philippines

In response to potential changes in U.S. leadership and its implications, the Philippines is likely to diversify its alliances. In order to balance its strategic objectives, it may increase its interaction with other major international powers, such as China, Japan, and the European Union (EU). Reducing over-reliance on the United States also means bolstering ASEAN ties. While keeping a strategic presence in international forums like ASEAN, the UN, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Philippines will concentrate on regional cooperation to secure economic stability and security.

To navigate changing relations with a potentially repositioning U.S. leadership, the Philippines will have to employ a diplomatic strategy that is subtle. This entails maintaining national security and fostering economic expansion while striking a balance with other great powers. China’s increasing influence in the region is being countered by the Philippines through a trilateral approach that includes actively strengthening its strategic ties with Japan and the US. The focus will be on keeping a diplomatic balance that advances both security and economic goals.

It is anticipated that the Philippine government will reevaluate its domestic policies in light of prospective changes in U.S. leadership. This include adjustments to economic planning, defense plans, and foreign policy. The goal of domestic changes will be to strengthen the nation’s ability to withstand and adjust to changes in the world economy. In order to maintain the nation’s security and economic viability in the face of shifting global dynamics, the Philippine National Security Policy emphasizes the necessity of a strong plan to handle both internal and external threats.

Conclusion

U.S.-Philippines relations, built on a shared history and strategic interests, continue to evolve in response to shifting global dynamics. Under Trump, the military alliance was strengthened, particularly in light of growing Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea. However, divergences over trade and climate change introduced new complexities into the relationship. As the Marcos administration navigates its ties with both the U.S. and China, the future of U.S.-Philippines relations will hinge on balancing security, economic, and environmental priorities in an increasingly multipolar world.

With new defense agreements in place and trade opportunities on the horizon, the partnership remains critical for both nations. However, the potential for significant policy shifts under a second Trump administration underscores the uncertainty that lies ahead. The ability of both nations to adapt to these changes will determine the resilience and success of one of the oldest alliances in the Asia-Pacific.

The South China Sea (SCS) has long been a focal point of international geopolitical tension. A region that holds vast economic and strategic importance, it has seen competing claims from various nations. At the heart of this dispute lies China’s expansive territorial claims, which have been a source of friction with its neighbors, including Vietnam and the Philippines. As of late August 2024, both countries have taken significant steps to deepen their defense ties, signaling a potential shift in the regional dynamics surrounding the SCS. However, this recent development raises questions about its broader implications, given the complexity of the disputes and the strategic interests of the involved nations.

Historical Background: The South China Sea Dispute

The South China Sea, a body of water stretching from the southeastern coast of China to the northern shores of Borneo, holds immense strategic value. It is not only a critical maritime route through which an estimated $3 trillion worth of trade passes annually but also a region believed to be rich in oil, natural gas, and fish stocks. The territorial disputes in the region primarily revolve around a set of islands, reefs, and shoals, with China making sweeping claims over most of the South China Sea, marked by its controversial “nine-dash line.”

China’s claims overlap with those of several Southeast Asian nations, including the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. Despite international legal rulings, particularly the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration decision that invalidated China’s claims, Beijing has continued to assert its presence through aggressive maritime actions and the militarization of artificial islands. This has, in turn, led to growing tensions with countries like Vietnam and the Philippines, both of whom have found themselves at the forefront of the dispute.

Recent Developments: Strengthening Defense Ties

In late August 2024, Vietnam’s Defense Minister Phan Van Giang visited Manila to meet his Philippine counterpart, Gilberto Teodoro. This meeting culminated in the signing of “letters of intent” aimed at enhancing bilateral defense cooperation between the two nations, particularly in maritime security and disaster response. The agreement is seen as an effort to solidify ties amid growing Chinese assertiveness in the SCS. An official security agreement between the two nations is expected to be signed later in the year, marking a significant development in the evolving security architecture of Southeast Asia.

However, experts suggest that, at this stage, the deepening defense ties are more symbolic than substantive. According to Nguyen Khac Giang, a visiting fellow at the Vietnam Studies Program at the ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, the move is largely diplomatic and reflects a long-term strategy rather than an immediate shift in military cooperation. While both nations share a common interest in resisting China’s maritime ambitions, their approaches to the South China Sea dispute differ significantly.

Symbolic Diplomacy or Strategic Shift?

The decision to boost defense ties between Vietnam and the Philippines may be a symbolic gesture for now, but it reflects a deeper undercurrent of change in Southeast Asia’s security landscape. For both countries, the territorial dispute with China is a critical issue that could shape their future foreign policy and defense strategies.

Vietnam, which has a long-standing dispute with China, has traditionally sought to manage its differences with Beijing diplomatically. Since a 2011 agreement, both nations have made efforts to prevent further escalation in the South China Sea. Vietnam’s approach has been characterized by a careful balance: bolstering its claims through land reclamation and fortification while maintaining a functional relationship with China.

The Philippines, on the other hand, has had a more confrontational stance towards China, especially in recent years. The territorial dispute between Manila and Beijing has escalated, with both sides accusing the other of aggressive actions in disputed waters. For the Philippines, closer ties with Vietnam signal an attempt to build regional partnerships as a counterbalance to China’s maritime assertiveness.

According to Zachary Abuza, a professor at the National War College in Washington, this deepening relationship between the Philippines and Vietnam is a positive diplomatic step, though it may not immediately translate into significant military collaboration. The Philippines’ limited maritime capabilities, combined with Vietnam’s cautious approach to deploying its naval forces, means that both nations are still navigating how to turn diplomatic rhetoric into practical military cooperation. Nevertheless, Abuza notes that such engagements could encourage Vietnam to engage more actively in regional security dynamics, particularly in military exercises and deployments.

The Geopolitical Context: China’s Influence and ASEAN’s Division

The growing defense ties between the Philippines and Vietnam must be viewed within the broader context of China’s influence in Southeast Asia. Beijing’s strategy has long been to engage with claimant states on a bilateral basis, thereby preventing a unified regional response to its claims in the South China Sea. This approach has been largely successful, as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a regional bloc comprising 10 nations, has struggled to form a common stance on the issue.

China has been adept at exploiting divisions within ASEAN, often leveraging economic and political influence to ensure that member states with close economic ties to Beijing, such as Cambodia and Laos, do not support a unified position on the South China Sea. This fragmentation has allowed China to deal with each claimant state individually, avoiding multilateral negotiations that could put it at a disadvantage.

In this context, the recent Vietnam-Philippines defense agreement can be seen as a response to China’s divide-and-conquer tactics. By strengthening their bilateral ties, both nations are signaling their intent to resist Chinese pressure and assert their claims more forcefully. As Abuza notes, the move towards “minilateralism”—small groups of nations cooperating on shared interests—may be the only viable way for Southeast Asian claimant states to push back against China’s dominance.

The Role of the United States

The United States has been a key player in the South China Sea dispute, particularly in its support for the Philippines. Under the Mutual Defense Treaty signed in 1951, Washington has pledged to defend the Philippines in the event of an armed attack, including in the South China Sea. This commitment has been reiterated multiple times, especially as tensions between the Philippines and China have escalated.

For the Philippines, its defense relationship with the U.S. remains a cornerstone of its security strategy. However, the deepening ties with Vietnam reflect a broader strategy of diversifying its defense partnerships. This is partly a recognition that the U.S. alone may not be able to fully counter China’s influence in the region and that regional cooperation is essential.

Vietnam, too, has been seeking to strengthen its international partnerships. While maintaining a cautious approach to its relationship with China, Vietnam has been working to build stronger ties with nations both within and outside of ASEAN. Its defense ties with countries like the U.S., India, and Japan have grown in recent years, as Hanoi seeks to enhance its military capabilities and secure its position in the South China Sea.

Future Prospects: Toward Greater Regional Cooperation?

While the recent agreement between Vietnam and the Philippines is an important step, the question remains whether this will lead to broader regional cooperation among Southeast Asian claimant states. As of now, ASEAN has been unable to present a unified front on the South China Sea, largely due to China’s influence and the differing interests of its member states.

However, there is potential for greater cooperation among like-minded nations within ASEAN. The South China Sea remains a critical issue for countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia, all of whom have seen their territorial claims challenged by China. Strengthening bilateral and multilateral defense ties, as Vietnam and the Philippines are now doing, could pave the way for a more coordinated regional response to China’s maritime ambitions.

In the long term, such cooperation may also extend beyond Southeast Asia. Japan, Australia, and India have all expressed concerns about China’s actions in the South China Sea and have sought to build stronger security ties with Southeast Asian nations. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), which includes the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia, has also become more vocal on issues related to freedom of navigation and the rule of law in the South China Sea.

Conclusion

The deepening defense ties between Vietnam and the Philippines represent a significant development in the ongoing geopolitical struggle over the South China Sea. While still largely symbolic, this move reflects the growing recognition among Southeast Asian nations that they must work together to counter China’s assertiveness in the region. Whether this will lead to more substantive military cooperation remains to be seen, but it is clear that both nations are seeking to strengthen their positions amid rising tensions.

China’s strategy of dividing ASEAN and dealing with claimant states on a bilateral basis has been effective thus far, but the increasing cooperation between Vietnam and the Philippines could signal the emergence of new regional dynamics. With the U.S. continuing to back the Philippines and Vietnam seeking to build stronger defense partnerships, the future of the South China Sea dispute remains uncertain. However, what is clear is that the stakes are higher than ever, and the actions of regional powers in the coming years will shape the geopolitical landscape of Southeast Asia for decades to come.