By Prof. Anna Malindog-Uy
At the 8th International Workshop on Building Regional Security Architecture in the Asia-Pacific, held in Kunming, China, on June 22, 2025, I participated as a speaker in Session 1, titled “What’s Wrong with the World? What about the Asia-Pacific Region?” This high-level dialogue brought together scholars and experts from leading institutions in Southeast and East Asian countries, co-organized by the Shanghai Institute of International Studies, Yunnan University and Indonesia’s Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Alongside four experts for this session, we explored three urgent themes: a) the impact of the global security environment on Asia-Pacific; b) the current state of Asia-Pacific security cooperation mechanisms; and c) an assessment of China’s regional foreign policy since 2013.
In my presentation, titled “Three Asia-Pacific Flashpoints and One World in Crisis: Rethinking Security, Sovereignty and Solidarity,” I critically examined the region’s volatility amid growing US-China strategic rivalry, as well as the implications of the Middle East conflict, where the US plays a direct military role. I argued for a renewed emphasis on strategic autonomy, regional solidarity and a reconceptualization of security beyond militarism and put more emphasis on human security to navigate today’s increasingly unstable global order.
Three flash points
The Asia-Pacific region, home to more than half of the world’s population and the engine of global economic growth, has become a crucible for great power contestation, military escalation and strategic realignments. The three interlocking flash points that define the Asia-Pacific’s strategic landscape will determine whether this century will be remembered for coexistence or catastrophe.
Flash point 1 is the South China Sea (SCS) dispute. From disputed waters to dangerous waters, the SCS has long been the focal point of maritime disputes involving multiple Asean countries, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and China. But today, this contested body of water has evolved into a flash point for potential great power conflict.
The militarization of the region, underpinned by frequent naval patrols, air surveillance and forward deployment of strategic assets, has intensified. The US continues to conduct freedom of navigation operations while bolstering its alliances through the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement in the Philippines, QUAD and Aukus in the broader Indo-Pacific region. For its part, China views these moves as encirclement, disguised as regional security and freedom of navigation. From Beijing’s perspective, the US Indo-Pacific strategy is not a security framework; it is a containment architecture. Here lies the contradiction: while the US claims to uphold international law, it has refused to ratify the very cornerstone of maritime law — Unclos, or the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This is not just about law or sovereignty; it is about the recolonization of maritime space through strategic coercion. The question we must ask is: Can we resolve these disputes peacefully, or are we normalizing confrontation as a permanent condition of regional politics?
 |
| U.S. pivot to Asia-Pacific in preparation for war with China |
Flash point 2, the Taiwan Strait, is arguably the most volatile theater of the US-China rivalry. Western leaders have provocatively likened Taiwan to “the next Ukraine,” a flawed analogy that dangerously conflates distinct geographies, histories and politics.
Just like the Philippines under the Marcos Jr. government, Taiwan is a geopolitical pawn in a larger chessboard, used to provoke, pressure and distract. But one thing is clear: there is no military solution to the Taiwan question. The escalation of arms sales, diplomatic visits and provocative military maneuvers by the US does not strengthen peace; they sabotage it. The people of Taiwan and the Philippines, like any people, deserve peace and dignity, and should not be used as cannon fodder in a Cold War redux for the strategic interests of a superpower.
Flash point 3, the Korean Peninsula remains a critical flash point. The breakdown of diplomacy after the failed 2019 Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi left a vacuum filled by hardened positions and renewed military posturing.
In recent months, North Korea ramped up its missile testing activities, while the US, South Korea and Japan have conducted expanded joint exercises. The so-called trilateral security pact spearheaded under the Camp David principles is perceived by regional countries as an emerging Asian NATO. The peninsula is being re-weaponized under the logic of preemption and deterrence. But we must ask: Who benefits from this perpetual state of hostility? Certainly not the Korean people, north or south.
Conclusion
So, what is wrong with the world? Simply put, we are witnessing the disintegration of trust, the weaponization of diplomacy and the return of might over right. But what can be done?
We must urgently rethink security, not as militarization, but as human security. In an era marked by mounting geopolitical rivalries, climate disruptions and widening inequality, the traditional concept of security, anchored in military power, deterrence and state sovereignty, is not only insufficient but, in many cases, counterproductive.
Security, as it has been framed for decades, largely centers on protecting the state, its borders, its power and its strategic interests. This state-centric militarized paradigm dominates policies, alliances and budgets. Trillions are spent annually on arms races, war games and forward deployments, while public health systems crumble, climate crises go underfunded and millions face displacement, hunger and insecurity of the most basic kind. Thus, the call to rethink security as human security is not just rhetorical but a normative shift, a strategic necessity and a moral imperative.
From the South China Sea to the Taiwan Strait, the buildup of arms and strategic infrastructure creates flash points that heighten the risk of war, restrict trade and divert resources away from sustainable development.
Militarized security frameworks often present a false binary that national security must come at the cost of development. However, a nation’s true security lies in its people’s dignity and well-being. A secure society is one in which children can attend school without fear, where families have access to clean water, where jobs are readily available and where dialogue replaces violence.
The shift to putting more emphasis on human security requires both policy innovation and political courage:
– Budgets must be rebalanced, shifting from military expansion to investments in health care, education, renewable energy and social safety nets.
– Security institutions must evolve: regional forums must prioritize disaster response, humanitarian cooperation and climate adaptation.
– Multilateralism must be revived, not to maintain hegemony, but to genuinely collaborate on transnational threats.
– Narratives must change: from threat-centric national security doctrines to opportunity-focused human security blueprints.
Indeed, rethinking security as human security is not naïve; it is realism with a conscience. In an interconnected world, security can no longer be bought through weapons or walls. It must be built through equity, empathy and shared responsibility.
On this note, let us then have the foresight to invest not in the instruments of war, but in the infrastructure of peace, the schools, the clinics, the farms and the forests. That is where true security lies. Furthermore, we must return to dialogue, not as performance, but as genuine diplomacy. And we must elevate the voices of the region, not as followers of power blocs, but as agents of our own destiny. Let the Asia-Pacific not be remembered as the battlefield of the next great war but as the crucible of a new model of peace.
~ Prof. Anna Rosario Malindog-Uy taught Political Science, International Relations, Development Studies, European Studies, Southeast Asia, and China Studies. She is currently a director and the Vice President for External Affairs of the Asian Century Philippines Strategic Studies Institute (ACPSSI), a think tank based in Manila.
