'Shared adversity', new weapons as Philippine, US forces launch 'Balikatan'
Around 17,000 troops are expected to take part in the annual "Balikatan", or "shoulder to shoulder" drills, which for the first time will include an integrated air and missile defence simulation to be attended by President Ferdinand Marcos.
Sophisticated US weapons including the "highly mobile" NMESIS anti-ship missile system will also be deployed, including near a crucial chokepoint in the waters separating the northern Philippines from self-ruled Taiwan.
"We will demonstrate not just our will to uphold our mutual defence treaty in existence since 1951 but our matchless capability to do so," US Marine Corps Lieutenant General James Glynn said Monday at the Balikatan opening ceremony in Manila.
"Nothing builds bonds more quickly than shared adversity," he added, without specifying a common threat.
Philippines Major General Francisco Lorenzo added the exercises would reinforce the country's ability to address "contemporary security challenges".
The Philippines has been engaged in months of confrontations with Beijing over disputed areas of the South China Sea.
It has steadily deepened defence cooperation with treaty ally the United States since Marcos took office in 2022 and began pushing back on China's sweeping claims to the crucial waterway.
During a recent visit to Manila, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said Washington was "doubling down" on the alliance.
"Deterrence is necessary around the world, but specifically in this region, in your country -- considering the threats from the Communist Chinese," he said in late March.
While the bulk of visiting forces involved in Balikatan will be from the United States, countries including Australia and Japan are sending smaller contingents.
- 'More missile systems' -
Last year's Balikatan featured tests of the US Typhon mid-range missile system, which was left behind following the exercises.
The Philippine Army subsequently said it was planning to acquire the Typhon, sparking warnings from China of a regional "arms race".
Chief of Staff Romeo Brawner last month said the Philippines was indeed looking to upgrade its arsenal.
"We are looking at acquiring more missile systems to complete the integration of our air and missile defence," he told New Delhi's Raisina Dialogue, adding more warships and fighter jets were also being sought.
On April 2, the United States said it had approved the possible sale of $5.58 billion in long-coveted F-16 fighter jets to the Philippines, though Manila said the deal was "still in the negotiation phase".
A week later, the Philippines took possession of the first of two corvette-class warships with "advanced weapons and radar systems" acquired in a deal with South Korea's Hyundai Heavy Industries.
- 'Inevitably' involved -
Given the Philippines' proximity to Taiwan and its surrounding waters, Manila's cooperation would be crucial in the event of any US conflict with China.
On April 1, as Chinese ships and warplanes surrounded the self-ruled island in a simulated blockade, Brawner said his country would "inevitably" be involved should the democracy be invaded.
China considers Taiwan part of its sovereign territory and has vowed to one day bring it under its control.
While Manila later said Brawner's comments were primarily referencing efforts to retrieve Filipino workers in Taiwan, its Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with Washington gives US forces access to nine bases in the country.
Two of those are located in Luzon's northernmost Cagayan province, which will host live-fire drills during Balikatan this year.
pam-cwl/rjm
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Army's acquisition process for new weapons systems is still broken
To the surprise of many, the U.S. Army, long considered to be the most bureaucratically hidebound of the military services, appears to have successfully reoriented itself toward the demands of a potential war in the western Pacific. For example, at this month's Talisman Sabre military exercise with Australia and Singapore, the Army employed its Typhon missile system, which entered service in 2023, to sink a maritime target at a distance of over 100 miles. And in that same exercise, it employed the HIMARS rocket artillery system in conjunction with the other two nations to demonstrate interoperability among them. Recognizing the growing threat from China, the Army began to reorient itself during the Biden administration and has therefore easily and quickly adapted itself to the Trump administration's priorities. But notwithstanding its strategic reorientation, the Army's acquisition processes continue to suffer from a long-standing inability to consistently field major new weapons systems. The Army continues to operate Abrams tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and Apache helicopters that, although upgraded over the years, are fundamentally products of the mid-1970s. The list of failed Army programs is both long and troubling. In 1982, the Department of Defense canceled the Roland short-range air defense missile system, originally a Franco-German product that the Army unsuccessfully sought to modify and integrate. Three years later, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger canceled the Sergeant York Division Air Defense gun which, like Roland, had been in development since the mid-1970s. The Sergeant York not only had spiraling costs but was also unable to track low-flying targets and suffered from a range too short to attack missiles fired from Soviet helicopters. In 1987, the Army had to cancel its Aquila remotely piloted vehicle program — the forerunner to today's drones. The Aquila suffered from cost overruns and development delays, as well as an inability to carry the payloads and data links for which it had been designed. In 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld terminated the Crusader self-propelled howitzer, which also suffered from cost overruns and was too heavy for the expeditionary operations that became the military's priority after 9/11. Two years later, Rumsfeld canceled the Comanche reconnaissance helicopter. The cancellation represented the latest in the Army's decades-long failure to replace the late 1960s vintage OH-58 Kiowa Warrior. The Army tried again with its Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter program, and in 2008 this too was terminated. The Army's armor programs at best have had mixed results. The service successfully fielded the lightweight Stryker vehicle, which has seen a number of upgrades and variations since it was first entered full-scale production in 2005. But that was not the fate of the Manned Ground Vehicle, a key element of the Future Combat System, which was meant to be a lightweight companion to the Abrams tank. The Pentagon terminated the Future Combat System program in 2009 due to cost overruns and technological challenges, and the Manned Ground Vehicle, which suffered from the same shortcomings, collapsed with it. In June, the Army terminated its M-10 Booker combat vehicle program, previously known as Mobile Protective Firepower. The Booker was meant to be a lightweight air-droppable vehicle that could be carried on a C-130 aircraft. After having taken delivery of 80 of them, the Army determined that the M-10 was too heavy for the aircraft and a poor fit for the service's operational requirements. The common thread in all these failures is the Army's manifest inability to anticipate evolving requirements, to control costs and to avoid program delays. As the war in Ukraine has demonstrated, cutting-edge technologies will be critical to success on future battlefields. To be effective in any future contingency, the Army will have to overhaul its entire acquisition system. It simply cannot tolerate the program delays and cost growth that have stymied so many previous development programs. Moreover, the Army must carefully assess its requirements for new systems, focusing on a range of future contingencies and not limiting itself to any one of them. It is therefore critical that as the Army contemplates acquiring a follow-on to the M-10, and for that matter replaces key weapons systems like the Abrams tank, it should not restrict its requirements and programs to contingencies in the western Pacific, where it is likely to do no more than to supplement Navy, Marine and Air Force operations. Instead, the Army should look beyond both its current Pacific orientation and expected forthcoming reductions in its European presence. Its future program development and acquisition should also account for its ongoing and critical role in support of NATO's ability to deter an aggressive and predatory Russia that seems likely to continue menacing Europe for many years to come. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
Newsweek
a day ago
- Newsweek
China Warns US Ally in Sea Dispute
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Beijing has pushed back after the Philippines' defense chief accused China of "aggression" in the South China Sea. "The Philippine side's remarks are a complete distortion of black and white, and a case of shifting blame onto others," Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson Zhang Xiaogang told reporters. Newsweek reached out to the Philippine Armed Forces and the Chinese Foreign Ministry with written requests for comment. Why It Matters China asserts sovereignty over most of the islands, reefs, and shoals of the resource-rich South China Sea, putting it at odds with competing claims from several neighboring countries. Beijing has dismissed as invalid a 2016 ruling by a Hague-based arbitral tribunal that rejected its expansive territorial claims. Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the Philippines has stepped up its challenge to China's expanding presence in its exclusive economic zone. The dispute has led to clashes and driven the U.S. defense treaty ally to significantly boost security ties with Washington and, increasingly, other partners in the Asia-Pacific. Philippine Marines patrol the shores of West York Island, one of the islands occupied by the Philippines in the disputed South China Sea, on June 5, 2025, while Philippine Navy ship BRP Andres Bonifacio is... Philippine Marines patrol the shores of West York Island, one of the islands occupied by the Philippines in the disputed South China Sea, on June 5, 2025, while Philippine Navy ship BRP Andres Bonifacio is anchored nearby. More Ted Aljibe/AFP via Getty Images What To Know During the Defense Ministry's press briefing on Wednesday, Zhang responded to Philippine Defense Minister Gilberto Teodoro's remark in a recent interview that China's behavior was behind a "major shift" in defense policy—one that has forced the Philippine armed forces to make external security their focus. "The territorial scope of the Philippines has long been determined by a series of international treaties, and China's South China Sea Islands are outside the territory of the Philippines," Zhang stated. He called the Philippines' occupation of certain features in the contested Spratly Islands "illegal," and accused the country of harassing China's maritime forces. The official also rebuked the Philippines for "catering to extraterritorial forces to stir up chaos in the South China Sea," a swipe at Manila's increasing defense cooperation with partners such as the U.S., Japan, Australia, and India. During his Monday interview with local media, Teodoro doubled down on the Marcos administration's pushback. "As you know, the president's statements were we would be unyielding and resistant to Chinese aggression in the West Philippine Sea. And we've been gearing up towards that mission," he said, using the Philippines' term for the part of the South China Sea within its maritime zone. The country has been "very proactive" in working with its partners and strengthening alliances to uphold international law and UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), he said. Teodoro said he'd be skeptical about any good-faith gestures from China until the country renounces its so-called nine-dashed line, echoing remarks made to Newsweek in June, where he pointed to a "deficit of trust" with Beijing. China's nine-dashed line is an invisible, unilateral demarcation that forms the basis for Beijing's sweeping claims. What People Are Saying MaryKay Carlson, U.S. ambassador to the Philippines, said at a forum earlier this month: "As we have often heard President Marcos say, economic security is national security. For the past eight years, the Arbitral award has been a linchpin in the Philippines' national security vision for a peaceful and prosperous archipelagic nation, one that the United States steadfastly supports." Beijing-based South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative, in a recent report, wrote of the 2016 arbitral ruling: "Historical records and maps consistently show that China exercised a long-standing presence and influence over features and routes in the South China Sea. "Rejecting these rights as 'non-legal' is to impose a singular, Western-centric framework and to delegitimize alternative narratives of maritime order." What Happens Next Neither Beijing nor Manila is expected to cede ground in their long-running territorial dispute. Next week, vessels of the Indian Navy will join their Philippine counterparts for a series of joint exercises, in an overt expression of support by New Delhi.
The Intercept
2 days ago
- The Intercept
The Philippine Missile Crisis: U.S. Deployed Arms to the Philippines and No One Noticed But China
Last spring, the United States quietly placed long-range missile launchers within reach of China's mainland — and almost no one noticed. There was no congressional debate, no televised announcement, and no vote. It was the latest step of a growing military partnership with the Philippines, just across the South China Sea. The U.S. has been steadily expanding its military footprint in the Philippines as part of its broader strategy against China, a nuclear-armed rival. With little public scrutiny or accountability, Washington is now preparing to deploy a second Typhon missile system to the Philippines. Experts and U.S. officials have widely acknowledged that the confrontational policy could bring the U.S. into direct conflict with China. 'The United States has been fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the Philippines since World War II,' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said during a joint press conference in Manila earlier this year. 'Our partnership not only continues today, but we are doubling down on that partnership, and our ironclad alliance has never been stronger.' Filipino activists, for their part, want the U.S. military out. 'We are being used as a training ground, as an experiment ground for the U.S. missile system.' 'We are being used as a training ground, as an experiment ground for the U.S. missile system,' Mong Palatino, the secretary-general of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, a progressive civil society coalition, told The Intercept. 'It endangers our population, it undermines our security. The lesson here is that we will not be able to be self-reliant as long as we are dependent on a former colonial master like the U.S. in protecting our sovereignty.' The U.S. and Philippine governments spread misleading narratives to hype the threat posed by China threat as a means of justifying the U.S. military presence, he said. The deployment of the offensive weapons system has already triggered a forceful response from China, which now publicly warns that these systems risk 'self-inflicted destruction' for the Philippines and could upend fragile regional stability. Without naming Washington directly, China's most recent national security white paper condemns the regional buildup of 'intermediate-range missile systems' and the return of a 'Cold War mentality.' With the Philippines already embroiled in a maritime dispute over China's claim to the entire South China Sea, the document warns that deploying missiles in the Philippines would lead to 'aggravated regional tensions,' making maritime disputes 'more difficult and complicated' to resolve. Last year, China's defense ministry spokesperson noted a pattern: 'wherever US weapons are deployed, the risk of war and conflicts will rise, and the local people will suffer undeserved suffering from war.' It's difficult to imagine an American official accepting the deployment of Chinese or Russian missile systems in Mexico or Cuba; in one of those cases, obviously, not much of an imagination is needed. Yet Washington expects Beijing to tolerate precisely this scenario on its own doorstep. The vast majority of Americans have little or no awareness of the U.S. expanding military posture in the Philippines, or what it could trigger. The American public has barely been informed that it may soon be underwriting another confrontation with a nuclear peer. Once committed to confrontation, Manila's leaders may gamble on indefinite U.S. support. If that support wavers, whether due to domestic politics, a loss of public appetite, or economic factors, the consequences could be ruinous for a country that will bear the brunt of any direct clash between the two giants. The war in Ukraine serves as a cautionary tale. After years of war and staggering losses, Ukraine's bargaining position is arguably worse than it was before the invasion, a tragic outcome that might have been avoided with early diplomacy. The danger in the South China Sea is that Washington is encouraging a similar trajectory: backing increasingly aggressive stances from regional partners without fully grappling with the risks or leveling with the public about where this path could lead. Once again, escalation is all happening in the absence of serious public debate. The first Typhon missile launcher, which can fire missiles as far as 1,200 miles, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, was stationed in the Philippines last year as part of annual joint military exercises between American and Filipino troops. Washington has had a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines since 1951. In recent years, the U.S. military has expanded its presence, adding new bases and committing $82 million to build out infrastructure at those sites. The U.S. and the Philippines have also quietly approved a new ammunition manufacturing hub — funded by the U.S. and set to be built beside Subic Bay, which was once home to the largest U.S. naval base in Asia. 'They're a very important nation militarily and we've had some great drills lately.' The expansion of the security partnership accelerated under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the son of longtime dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who has embraced Manila's historic ties with Washington after a period of drift under his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte. After meeting with Marcos last week, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will lower its tariff rate for the Philippines from 20 percent to 19 percent. 'They're a very important nation militarily and we've had some great drills lately,' Trump said after the meeting. 'We're back with them. I think I can say that the last administration was not getting along with them too well.' 'And Pete, I would say that you were — you couldn't be happier, right, with the relationship,' Trump added, nodding to the defense secretary. At the helm of this growing security relationship is Hegseth, a controversial appointment with little background in Southeast Asia. Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has even gone viral for his lack of familiarity with the region. During his confirmation hearing, he couldn't name a single member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Meanwhile, activists in the Philippines — from fisherfolk and environmentalists to labor leaders — have been speaking out against the growing U.S. military presence. When 18,000 troops from the U.S., Philippines, and Australia took part in a military exercise in the South China Sea in 2023, protesters marched outside the U.S. Embassy in Manila, warning that the Philippines would be the most devastated if conflict broke out between the U.S. and China. The U.S. military presence in the Philippines has long been resisted by the Filipino public, with mass movements successfully pressuring the government to expel American bases in the early 1990s. That victory came after decades of struggle under a U.S.-backed dictatorship and, today, with a Marcos back in power, the U.S. is strengthening its alliance even as authoritarianism tightens its grip. As Washington turns the Philippines into a potential battleground for great-power conflict, Filipino activists hope Americans will also confront the long-buried history of how the U.S. first came to occupy the archipelago — through invasion, colonization, and the mass killing of Filipinos in the name of empire. Most of all, though, they want those lessons to be transposed to the present, to stop the looming threat that their country could be sacrificed to war with China in the name of that same empire. 'Of course, we have a maritime dispute with China, but that maritime dispute should not be used as a justification to allow a country like the U.S. to use the Philippines as its forward military base,' Palatino said. 'We should resolve our maritime dispute with China diplomatically and peacefully.'
