Asia boosts weapons buys, military research as security outlook darkens
By Greg Torode and Jun Yuan Yong
HONG KONG (Reuters) -Spending on weapons and research is spiking among some Asian countries as they respond to a darkening security outlook by broadening their outside industrial partnerships while trying to boost their own defence industries, a new study has found.
The annual Asia-Pacific Regional Security Assessment released on Wednesday by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said outside industrial help remains vital even as regional nations ultimately aim for self-reliance.
"Recent conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, coupled with worsening U.S.-China strategic competition and deterioration of the Asia-Pacific security landscape, may lead to a rising tide of defence-industrial partnerships," it read.
"Competitive security dynamics over simmering flashpoints ... feed into the need to develop military capabilities to address them."
Spending on defence procurement and research and development rose $2.7 billion between 2022 and 2024, it showed, to reach $10.5 billion among Southeast Asia's key nations of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
The spike comes even as the nations spent an average of 1.5% of GDP on defence in 2024, a figure that has kept relatively constant over the last decade.
The study, released ahead of this weekend's annual Shangri-La Dialogue defence meeting in Singapore, said Asia-Pacific nations still rely on imports for most key weapons and equipment.
Such items range from submarines and combat aircraft to drones, missiles and advanced electronics for surveillance and intelligence gathering.
The informal Singapore gathering of global defence and military officials is expected to be dominated by uncertainties stemming from the protracted Ukraine conflict, Trump administration security policies and regional tension over Taiwan and the disputed busy waterway of the South China Sea.
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are increasingly active and making inroads, the study said, though European companies have a prominent and expanding regional presence, via technology transfer, joint ventures and licenced assembly deals.
The UAE now operates a diversified network of collaborators, such as China's NORINCO weapons giant and rival India's Hindustan Aeronautics.
Joint development operations are not always easy, the study said, offering lessons from India's two-decade collaboration with Russia to produce the BrahMos supersonic anti-ship missile.
While the feared weapon is fielded by India, exports have been hampered by lack of a clear strategy, with deliveries to its first third-party customer, the Philippines, starting only in 2024, the study added.
Closer Russia-China ties could further complicate the weapon's development, particularly if Moscow chooses to prioritise ties with Beijing to develop a hypersonic version of the missile.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Roknifard: Regime Change in Iran Unlikely
Israel woke up to a new reality Sunday after President Trump confirmed that the US had bombed Iran's main three nuclear sites. The attack has been lauded across Israel as a historic symbol of unprecedented cooperation with the US. However, now the concern is about how Iran will respond. Julia Roknifard, Senior Lecturer, School of Law & Governance at Taylor's University, Malaysia told Bloomberg's Horizons Middle East and Africa anchor Joumanna Bercetche expecting a regime change in Iran on the back of these attacks is extremely unlikely.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Protesters clash with police at Palestine Action demonstration
Protesters have clashed with police at a demonstration in support of Palestine Action as the Government moves to ban the group. The crowd surged towards police when officers tried to detain someone in Trafalgar Square in central London, while onlookers chanted 'let them go'. The protest had initially been planned to take place outside the Houses of Parliament, but the location was changed early on Monday morning after the Metropolitan Police imposed an exclusion zone. The Met commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said he was 'shocked' by the planned protest and described Palestine Action as an 'organised extremist criminal group'. The Home Secretary is due to update Parliament following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base. The rally started at midday and must end by 3pm, Scotland Yard said. On Sunday, Cabinet minister Jonathan Reynolds said he could not rule out the possibility of a foreign power being behind Palestine Action Speaking at the protest, Palestine Action spokesperson Max Geller said there had never been any evidence of such claims. 'I can't overstate how absurd and disappointing that accusation is,' he told the PA news agency. 'I want to make very clear that there has never been any evidence offered to support such a claim, and if we were allowed to be a legally recognised group, that man would be being sued right now for libel.' Asked about Sir Mark Rowley's comments, he said: 'It's really troubling that the head of the Met would pre-empt the government and ban us from protesting (at the Houses of Parliament). 'It's a frustrating turn for democracy in this country.' Yvette Cooper will provide MPs with more details on the move to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support it, in a written ministerial statement. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. Speaking on Sunday, the head of the Met said he was 'shocked and frustrated' at the protest, but that until the group is proscribed the force had 'no power in law' to prevent it taking place. 'The right to protest is essential and we will always defend it, but actions in support of such a group go beyond what most would see as legitimate protest,' he added. 'Thousands of people attend protests of a different character every week without clashing with the law or with the police. The criminal charges faced by Palestine Action members, in contrast, represent a form of extremism that I believe the overwhelming majority of the public rejects.' Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company the Wagner Group. Palestine Action has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Opinion: Offshore balancing – The proper solution to Trump's whims with Europe
Over the past few months, Trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw the United States from NATO, citing concerns about a lack of European defense investment. Later on, at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Secretary Hegseth confirmed Trump's sentiments, stating that they were 'pushing our allies in Europe to own more of their own security — to invest in their defense, things that are long overdue' so 'we can increase our focus on the Indo-Pacific, our priority theater.' This is the perfect time to begin planning a new grand strategy, one that replaces our long history of firm interventionism in favor of a restrained approach that preserves US national security, reduces costs, and empowers allies. The most promising option appears to be offshore balancing. What is Offshore Balancing? Offshore balancing is a selective, interventionist approach. It advocates for withdrawal of US forces from regions without a great power or a firm national security interest. Instead, the United States would equip and strengthen local forces – with arms, training, and intelligence – as a counterweight to regional powers. But, if regional allies are ineffective in deterrence or a local country grows too powerful, the United States would intervene into the region to protect its and its allies' security. Europe is a perfect place for the United States to exercise restraint. Due to large equipment and personnel losses, Russia is weak and unable to pursue attacks against other nations. This presents a unique window of opportunity for the US to shift the burden of defense onto Europe. Why Offshore Balancing? Currently, the United States faces threats in three, main global theaters: the Persian Gulf, South China Sea, and Europe. For years, this 'three-war standard' has significantly strained the US military and industrial base. In fact, signs of trouble have already started to show. The number of defense contractors in the US has dwindled to less than 10 due to consolidation, thus hurting product quality, while the United States is struggling to 'to maintain robust munitions levels' and supply our allies adequately. At the same time, our allies are particularly under-equipped. Europe is overly dependent on the United States for its technological capabilities, has limited interoperability across weapon systems, and invests a limited amount of money into its own defense. Overall, this situation is dangerous as it provides our adversaries – China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran – an opportunity to mount a challenge against the liberal international order the United States has worked so tirelessly to create. Under current geopolitical situations, Washington would be unable to defend all regions simultaneously, forcing a tradeoff between abandoning hegemony or quickly ramping resources (at a great financial cost) to defend regional allies. By employing a grand strategy of offshore balancing in Europe, the United States can find a balance between credible deterrence and military overstretch. First, by significantly withdrawing from Europe, the US military would free up resources (weapon systems, personnel, money) that they can instead commit against China, the biggest threat to US national security. While Russia does pose considerable risks to the US, its status quo engagement in Ukraine limits its overall influence and strong regional allies can counterbalance against them. Additionally, in Europe, the United States would shift some of the defense burden to its allies, forcing them to act as a unified front (something lacking right now) and work together for collective security. If successful, in the advent of a conflict, Europe can support the US military by leveraging its own capabilities (weapons production, technology sharing, etc) and taking control of a majority of the fighting in Eastern Europe, thus maintaining US hegemony. Concerns? At first glance, this proposal may seem as if we are abandoning NATO and endangering our alliances globally. However, the baseline for comparison shouldn't be the status quo, rather the future. Due to military overstretch, the ability for the United States to maintain military presence in Europe is rapidly decreasing, negatively affecting our ability to protect our alliances in the long-term. Offshore balancing, if designed right, can not only address the aforementioned long-term threats to our alliances, but can also cushion any international fallout the US might face. By gradually withdrawing US forces, our European allies can be given plenty of time to ramp up their own defense production and military capabilities. By maintaining our nuclear deterrent and a limited ground presence in the region, the United States can firmly demonstrate commitment to its allies. Absent offshore balancing however, European allies have no i55ncentive to share the defense burden: despite agreeing in 2006 to spend 2% of the GDP on defense, most NATO member states only reached that target now, after Trump's threats. At the same time, harsh rhetoric on Europe should be avoided. Earlier, Trump had stated he would not protect and instead encourage Russia to attack non-paying NATO member states. This language distances our allies and weakens our ability to form a regional bloc to counter a rising and revisionist Russia. The Future As new global threats gain traction, the United States will need to calibrate its military grand strategy accordingly. Offshore balancing is a realistic solution that simultaneously empowers allies and bolsters US defense capabilities. For Europe, there is a limited window of opportunity for it to build its defense up. Maj. Gen. Davis (rtd.) estimates that only 3 to 5 years after Ukraine, Russia will have the capabilities to mount another challenge against a European state.
