logo
The Philippine Missile Crisis: U.S. Deployed Arms to the Philippines and No One Noticed But China

The Philippine Missile Crisis: U.S. Deployed Arms to the Philippines and No One Noticed But China

The Intercept6 days ago
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.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Don't whine about federal budget cuts, lefties — put your money where your mouths are
Don't whine about federal budget cuts, lefties — put your money where your mouths are

New York Post

timean hour ago

  • New York Post

Don't whine about federal budget cuts, lefties — put your money where your mouths are

Before politics overwhelmed the word, the primary meaning of 'liberal' was 'generous.' President Donald Trump and the Republican Congress have given political liberals a chance to take that meaning back — by opening their wallets to show just how much they value NPR, PBS and other programs defunded by the GOP. There's no shortage of funds on the left. Laurene Powell Jobs, the mega-rich backer of The Atlantic, has a net worth estimated at above $11 billion a year ago and believed to be even higher today. George Soros, at 94, has a fortune in the vicinity of $7 billion, with billions more in his Open Society Foundation. Bill Gates has about $115 billion, his ex-wife Melinda around $30 billion. Any one of these left-leaning billionaires could single-handedly make up the $535 million that NPR, PBS and local stations were getting annually from taxpayers before Congress zeroed out the subsidies. If half a billion a year is too much for one zillionaire, a half-dozen of them — or more — could share the burden without feeling a pinch. But are wealthy liberals willing to put their money where their mouths are? Citing Michal Heiplik, president of the public-media analytics organization Contributor Development Partnership, The New York Times reports PBS and NPR have reaped a windfall from small-dollar donors in recent months, with 120,000 new supporters stepping up to give some $20 million. Overall, donations are running $70 million above last year. And what works for PBS and NPR will work for humanitarian programs formerly funded as part of USAID as well, though the cuts to be made up there are bigger: Congress has eliminated about $8 billion in funding for USAID and other foreign-aid efforts, according to the Cato Institute. That's a lot of money — but not a dime of it has disappeared. After all, where does government get its money in the first place? Washington could only give to foreign aid or nonprofit broadcasting what it took — or borrowed — from the American people in the first place. When government doesn't spend money, society doesn't lose any of its resources: They just stay with the taxpayers, and the middlemen in government don't get their cut. That, for liberals, is a big part of the problem. The Democratic Party depends on shunting everyone's tax (or debt) dollars into the hands of bureaucrats, one of the party's most loyal constituencies. It's not just NPR and PBS that have been publicly financed — it's also liberalism as a movement. Bureaucrats in government, in government-supported nonprofits and other less-than-fully-private parts of the 'private sector' may work for organizations that are officially nonpartisan, but their campaign-giving heavily favors Democrats. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Their employers may be nonpartisan in theory, but the employees have a strong partisan tilt, and personnel is policy: Any organization is only a collection of people. USAID and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting were both born in the Kennedy-Johnson years, at mid-century liberalism's zenith. Liberalism had been dominant for so long — starting with the New Deal and Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration — that liberal intellectuals and policymakers came to think of themselves as more than just one side of American politics. They claimed to speak for everyone, as if a single party could define what it meant to be nonpartisan. But even then, the conservative movement was taking off while the Democrats were being dragged to the left by young radicals who wanted 'acid, amnesty and abortion.' Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The agencies and programs the Republican Congress has defunded were never as neutral as they claimed to be. And as liberals, under the influence of the left, adopted a more adversarial attitude toward America's past and present, it only became more obvious that the agencies and public-private partnerships they ran represented only one side of any argument. But this doesn't mean liberals can't continue to fund everything they funded before. Now they just have to do it with their own money. Some centrist liberals rightly see that as an opportunity, not an imposition: When I told a friend at a government-supported think tank I was sorry for the professional upheaval he was going though, he noted that his institution had in fact been coasting by ever since the end of the Cold War. He said it needed a renewed sense of mission, and having to raise private funds would give it the impetus it had been lacking for decades. Republicans aren't worried NPR or PBS will move further left if they court progressive billionaires, considering what little presence conservatives had on those networks already. But if they're smart, the broadcasters will see the loss of government funding as a spur to court a wider spectrum of support — and to put to the test what it means to be nonpartisan. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.

DOJ to launch grand jury probe over Russia allegations against Obama officials
DOJ to launch grand jury probe over Russia allegations against Obama officials

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

DOJ to launch grand jury probe over Russia allegations against Obama officials

Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday directed Justice Department officials to open a grand jury investigation over how Obama administration officials handled intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election. The grand jury probe marks another escalation of the Trump administration's focus on allegations of wrongdoing by Obama officials, including the former president. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has in recent weeks declassified various documents connected to Russia's election interference, claiming it showed 'treasonous conspiracy' by Obama administration officials. 'Following the compelling case outlined by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, which exposed clear and blatant weaponization by corrupt intelligence officials acting at the behest of the Democrat Party and likely former President Obama, the Administration remains committed to conducting a thorough investigation,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. 'This effort aims to provide the American people with the truth about the extent to which former government officials worked to sabotage the Trump administration and undermine the will of the American people in a clear attempt to subvert our Constitutional Republic,' Fields added. Fox News first reported that Bondi had directed the start of a grand jury investigation. The documents Gabbard has released do little to suggest wrongdoing by the intelligence community in seeking to investigate Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 contest. Gabbard and other officials have pushed back on established findings from the intelligence community and a bipartisan Senate panel that Russia showed a preference for then-candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Gabbard has alleged that Obama officials manipulated intelligence to harm Trump. Gabbard referred the documents to the Justice Department and FBI for potential criminal referrals, though the director repeatedly dodged when pressed on what crime former President Obama could be charged with. Obama's office issued a rare public statement calling the document drops a 'distraction' as Trump faced calls to release information about the prosecution of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence under Obama and has faced intense criticism from Trump officials, has called the allegations against him 'patently false and unfounded.'

Company advised by Trump sons said it hoped to benefit from fed money, then took it back
Company advised by Trump sons said it hoped to benefit from fed money, then took it back

The Hill

timean hour ago

  • The Hill

Company advised by Trump sons said it hoped to benefit from fed money, then took it back

NEW YORK (AP) — A public document filed by a company that just hired President Donald Trump's two oldest sons as advisers included a sentence early Monday that said it hoped to benefit from grants and other incentives from the federal government, which their father happens to lead. But when The Associated Press asked the Trump family business about the apparent conflict of interest, the document was revised and the line taken out. Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are getting 'founder shares' worth millions of dollars in New America Acquisition 1 Corp., a company with no operating business that hopes to fill that hole by purchasing an American company that can play 'a meaningful role in revitalizing domestic manufacturing,' according to to the filing. The president has geared his trade policy toward boosting manufacturing in the U.S. The original version of the securities filing said the target company should be 'well positioned' to tap federal or state government incentives. That reference was taken out of the revised version of the filing. The Trump Organization didn't reply to a question about whether New America still planned to benefit from government programs or why the line was cut. But the outside law firm Paul Hastings that helped prepare the document sent an email to AP saying it was 'mistake' made by 'scriveners,' an old term for transcribers of legal papers. Kathleen Clark, an expert in government ethics, said any excuses are too late because the Trumps had already tipped their hand. 'They just deleted the language. They haven't committed not to do what they said earlier today they were planning to do,' said the Washington University law professor and Trump critic. 'It's an attempt to exploit public office for private profit.' New America is what's know as a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC. It's a publicly traded company that exists solely to use its funds to acquire another company and take the target public. New America plans to raise money by selling stock on the New York Stock Exchange at $10 a share. That will hand the two Trump sons a total of $5 million in paper wealth on the first day of trading. The company hopes to sell enough shares to raise $300 million, which it then plans to use buying a yet unidentified manufacturer. A press release issued by New America saying it was focused on 'American values and priorities.' It made no mention of the aim to get government incentives. The filing to New America's potential new investors to the Securities and Exchange Commission was explicit about what it was looking for in a target company. It said, among other things, it wanted a company that can ride 'public policy tailwinds' by benefiting from federal or state 'grants, tax credits, government contracts or preferential procurement programs.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store