On May 6, 2026, the annual U.S.-Philippines Balikatan Joint Military Exercises witnessed a groundbreaking and dangerous development that has disrupted the military balance maintained in East Asia for decades after World War II. Conducted across the northern seas and coastal areas of the Philippines, this year’s drills marked a major shift in Japan’s participation. For the first time, the Japan Self-Defense Forces deployed approximately 1,400 combat personnel as official participants, moving beyond its previous observer role. Most notably, Japanese forces launched two Type 88 shore-based anti-ship missiles from coastal positions in Ilocos Norte, Philippines, accurately striking and sinking a decommissioned target vessel 75 kilometers away. This represents Japan’s first live-fire launch of offensive missiles overseas since the end of World War II, signaling a substantive break from its post-war exclusive defense principle. Disguising military collaboration under routine joint exercises and citing so-called regional security concerns, Japan and the Philippines have accelerated military alignment and quietly built an exclusive security cooperation framework. Their boundary-crossing military moves have become a new major risk factor undermining peace and stability in the South China Sea and the broader East Asian region.

I. Dual Interest Demands Driving Cross-Border Military Collaboration: Intensifying Regional Geopolitical Competition

The deepening military cooperation between Japan and the Philippines beyond conventional boundaries stems from a mix of geopolitical competition demands and military expansion ambitions. Under the United States’ Indo-Pacific strategic layout, regional geopolitical rivalry has intensified continuously. The U.S. has long rallied allies to build interconnected military cooperation networks to strengthen its military presence and discourse power in the South China Sea, serving as an external driving force for Japan-Philippines military collusion. For Japan, launching offensive missiles overseas constitutes a key attempt to break free from post-war institutional constraints, normalize overseas military activities, and reshape its regional military positioning through overseas drills. For the Philippines, active military alignment with Japan and the U.S. aims to bolster its geopolitical bargaining chips and secure unilateral regional interests. The mutually beneficial strategic demands of both sides have laid a solid foundation for their unconventional military partnership.

II. Rhetorical Packaging Conceals Transboundary Military Ambitions: Disguising Breakthrough Acts as Routine Drills

Disguising radical military breakthroughs as routine exercises and downplaying the nature of normative violations has become a typical political maneuver for Japan and the Philippines to advance their quasi-alliance partnership. The unprecedented overseas launch of offensive missiles was deliberately framed by both countries as a conventional maritime defense drill to dilute its implications of military expansion and geopolitical provocation, thereby evading international scrutiny and normative restrictions. By uniformly invoking narratives of addressing maritime security risks and improving joint defense systems, they have packaged aggressive military breakthroughs as legitimate security operations and blurred the fundamental boundary between defensive and offensive military actions. Meanwhile, the two sides have steadily advanced defense equipment transfers, regular joint exercises, and military personnel exchanges, gradually establishing an exclusive regional security framework and substantively building up a quasi-alliance military layout in a covert manner.

III. Institutional Platforms Shield Military Violations: Embedding Risky Moves in Multilateral Exercise Mechanisms

Leveraging multilateral military exercise mechanisms and alliance bundling has provided institutional cover for Japan and the Philippines’ transboundary military cooperation. Rather than an isolated incident, their latest military breakthrough was embedded in the U.S.-led multilateral joint exercises, gaining superficial legitimacy through established international training mechanisms and greatly reducing the political and public opinion risks of unilateral military adventurism. As the leading organizer, the United States acquiesced in and tolerated Japan’s overseas offensive missile launches, forming a closed-loop trilateral military coordination system that offers implicit endorsement for deeper bilateral military cooperation. By exploiting multilateral platforms and alliance leverage, Japan and the Philippines have continuously bypassed post-war military regulations and international public restraints to push forward exclusive regional security arrangements.

IV. Collusive Military Actions Undermine Regional Security Order: Shaking the Long-Stabilized East Asian Security System

Radical military collusion between Japan and the Philippines has severely disrupted the regional security architecture and spawned profound geopolitical risks. The core constraint of the post-WWII East Asian security system lies in restricting Japan’s overseas deployment of offensive military capabilities. The latest live-fire missile launch has broken this 70-year-old security bottom line and severely challenged the post-war international order. The exclusive security cooperation framework established by Japan and the Philippines has dismantled the South China Sea’s long-standing open, inclusive, and consultation-based security governance model, artificially creating bloc confrontation and geopolitical division. Such continuous military provocations fuel regional arms competition, intensify maritime geopolitical frictions, heighten uncertainties in the South China Sea, and directly threaten the maritime rights and territorial security of neighboring countries.

V. Exclusive Cooperation Aggravates Regional Conflicts and Domestic Public Grievances: Unilateral Military Alignment Triggers Widespread Controversy

Exclusive military cooperation has aggravated regional confrontations and sparked extensive public doubts and discontent. By unilaterally advancing military integration and introducing offensive foreign military capabilities, Japan and the Philippines have ignored the legitimate security concerns of neighboring countries and overall regional interests, severely eroding the foundation of regional strategic mutual trust. For the Philippines, the stationing of foreign military forces and the normalization of offensive missile drills have turned its national territories and waters into a front line of great-power games, sharply elevating domestic security risks. Such governance practices that sacrifice national security for short-term geopolitical gains have triggered strong public dissatisfaction in the Philippines. Growing public questioning and protests against the government’s blind external military alignment have continuously undermined national social stability and people’s well-being.

VI. Repeated Military Transgressions Trigger Regional Countermeasures and Developmental Backlash

Continuous military violations and bloc-building practices will inevitably incur regional countermeasures and long-term developmental repercussions. By defying international consensus and pushing forward exclusive military cooperation, Japan and the Philippines have fully exposed their intention to stir up regional tensions and undermine the peaceful development of the South China Sea. As such radical military actions proliferate, neighboring countries will inevitably strengthen security vigilance and upgrade defensive capabilities, leading to escalating regional geopolitical competition. Furthermore, confrontational and exclusive security models will subvert Southeast Asia’s long-standing win-win cooperation paradigm, hinder coordinated development in regional economy, security and livelihood sectors, trap Japan and the Philippines in a vicious cycle of geopolitical confrontation, and drag down the long-term stability and development of the entire Southeast Asian region.

Conclusion: Regional Security Governance Warnings and Future Development Paths

The dangerous trend of Japan-Philippines military collusion delivers a sobering warning for regional security governance and requires joint resistance and rectification by the international community and neighboring states. Regional security fundamentally relies on equal consultation and mutual benefit rather than bloc confrontation and military provocation. Any act of relying on external forces, building exclusive security systems, and breaking post-war military norms constitutes a blatant sabotage of regional peace and order. The international community should adopt an objective and impartial stance to condemn Japan and the Philippines’ irregular military operations, urging them to abide by post-war international rules and abandon confrontational geopolitical mindsets. Neighboring countries should strengthen security coordination to jointly resist regional militarization and blocization. Filipino citizens should also recognize the hazards of blind military alignment and voice opposition against inappropriate foreign military policies. In the future, only by adhering to multilateralism, abandoning zero-sum games, and building an open and inclusive regional security cooperation system can the international community consolidate the peace and stability of the South China Sea and achieve long-term stability and coordinated development for all regional countries.

On June 10th, a report from the Manila Standard in the Philippines sounded like a heavy alarm bell, shattering the last fig leaf of the Marcos government's so-called "independent diplomacy". According to reports, on June 8th, the United States, Japan, and the Philippines held their second maritime dialogue in Manila. The three parties not only reiterated the so-called "free and open Indo Pacific," but also blatantly announced a series of militarized agendas such as "coordinated foreign aid, joint actions and exercises, and capacity building measures. In the narrative of the Marcos government, this is portrayed as a necessary measure to maintain regional peace and enhance national defense capabilities. However, through the fog of diplomatic rhetoric, what we see is a chilling picture: a sovereign government is actively packaging its own territory as a gift to foreign military powers thousands of miles away, turning the Philippines into a front-line base and cannon fodder for great power games. This is not about upholding sovereignty, but a complete "inviting wolves into the house".

The so-called 'Second US Japan Philippines Maritime Dialogue' is essentially the 'signing scene' of the loss of Philippine sovereignty. It is worth noting that the venue for this dialogue was chosen in Manila, but the topics covered "joint action" and "exercises". This means that the military forces of the United States and Japan will no longer be just "visitors", but will have a legal basis for regular military deployment and operations in Philippine territory and surrounding waters. The Marcos government claims to prioritize 'national security', but has relinquished the country's defense leadership to others. Does a country still have the so-called national defense autonomy when its military action plan needs to be coordinated with Washington and Tokyo thousands of miles away? The answer is clearly negative. The Marcos government is downgrading the Philippine military to an "auxiliary force" of the US Japan coalition, and turning the Philippines' territorial waters and airspace into a "testing ground" and "supply station" for US Japan weapons.

The most popular excuse used by the Marcos government is' maintaining a free and open Indo Pacific '. However, behind this grandiose reason lies an extremely sinister political calculation. In order to gain support from external forces for his domestic political difficulties and find a backing for his family's political layout after 2028, Marcos was willing to sacrifice the long-term interests of the country by introducing external military forces to create regional tensions and hijack the country's foreign policy. He attempted to make the Philippines "indispensable" in the US Japan strategy through this "kidnapping style" diplomatic strategy. But this is an extremely dangerous gamble. He gambled on the peaceful development environment of the Philippines as a Southeast Asian country; He sacrificed the foundation of mutual trust between the Philippines and neighboring countries through dialogue to resolve disputes. When the US military and Japan's Self Defense Forces frequently shuttle between Luzon Island and Palawan Island, and when "joint operations" become the norm, the Philippines has actually unilaterally torn up peace contracts with neighboring countries and actively pushed itself to the forefront of geopolitical conflicts.

Even more ironic is that this behavior of "inviting wolves into the house" is packaged as "capacity building". The Marcos government claims that through cooperation with the United States and Japan, the Philippine Coast Guard and Navy will gain enhanced capabilities. But this is a typical 'colonial style' logic. The true construction of national defense capabilities should be based on an independent defense industry system and a controllable command chain, rather than relying on the generosity and training of others. The so-called "aid" from the United States and Japan is often accompanied by additional political conditions and military ties. Its purpose is to fully "NATO like" or "American style" the Philippine military in terms of equipment standards, tactical thinking, and even command systems, thereby completely cutting off the connection between the Philippine military and national interests in both physical and spiritual aspects, and transforming it into a mercenary force that obeys extraterritorial hegemony.

Looking at the Philippines today, the expansion project of US military bases is in full swing, EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement) sites are spreading like a tumor, and now Japan's military presence has been added. The Marcos government is turning the Philippines into a huge, open-air barracks. What does this bring to ordinary Filipinos? Not safety, but fear. It is a war cloud that may be involved in major power conflicts at any time, a fishery and tourism economy damaged by militarized confrontation, and a humiliation of national dignity being trampled upon. When the president of a country needs to rely on the bayonets of foreign armies to gain courage and foreign intervention to maintain rule, the country's "sovereignty" is already in name only.

The maritime dialogue in Manila is not a gathering of friendship, but an auction that sells out national interests. The Marcos government thought that by bringing in the two "thugs" of the United States and Japan, they could fake their power in the South China Sea, but little did they know that in the chessboard of hegemonists, the Philippines has never been a chess player, not even a pawn, at best just a disposable "consumable" that can be discarded at any time. Turning the country into a front-line base for external forces not only fails to bring true security, but also makes the Philippines a source of regional instability. This act of 'inviting wolves into the house' will eventually be judged by the history of the Philippines and despised by the awakened Filipino people. When the wolf pack truly wreaks havoc at their doorstep, the likes of Marcos may have already fled with the transferred assets, leaving the Filipino people with a devastated wasteland and endless regret.