Asia shaken as US abandons role as guardian of rules-based order

SINGAPORE — Defense ministers and senior military officers from Asia, the U.S. and Europe sparred at the Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in late May amid growing concern that U.S. President Donald Trump’s “peace through strength” approach could come at the expense of the “rules-based order.”
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appealed for understanding of Washington’s security strategy at the three-day conference, which concluded on May 31 in Singapore. However, listening to his speech firsthand, I could not help feeling that America’s leadership in upholding order in the Indo-Pacific is likely to erode further.

“We let ourselves get distracted by empty globalist rhetoric about the rules-based international order,” Hegseth said in his speech on May 30, rejecting the position of many European and other countries that place a premium on international law and rules. Instead, he advocated stability through strength, urging U.S. allies in Asia to accelerate efforts to bolster their defense capabilities.

Military buildups by China and North Korea have altered the balance of power in Asia and increased instability across the region. In this new reality, Hegseth’s argument that strength matters more than rules is not without merit. Even so, he went too far by denying the rules-based order, calling it nothing more than empty rhetoric. A world devoid of rules and order would leave major powers largely unchecked, with survival of the fittest becoming the governing principle.

Japan has pursued the vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific based on international law and order since it was first championed by the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe about a decade ago. The current U.S. approach points in the opposite direction.

Many Southeast Asian conference participants voiced concern about the current situation.

“Institutions such as the United Nations, established to uphold stability, multilateralism and international law, are becoming increasingly weakened in the face of geopolitical rivalry,” Malaysian Defense Minister Mohamed Khaled Nordin said. “When developing nations violate agreements, they face condemnation and pressure. But when powerful countries or their allies do the same, the international response becomes conspicuously muted.”

Khaled did not mention any country by name but implicitly criticized what he suggested were military actions by the Trump administration of questionable legality under international law, including its strike on Iran.

The U.N. Security Council is responsible for maintaining international peace and order by identifying violations of international law and imposing sanctions on those responsible. But the council’s authority has been undermined since Russia, one of its permanent members, became an aggressor. If the U.S. retreats from its role in maintaining international order and the rule of law, global security will be dealt another blow.

However, this is not the first time the U.S. has scaled back its commitment to the international order. Weary of prolonged “war on terror” operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East, the Barack Obama administration declared in 2013 that America would no longer serve as the world’s policeman. The shift, then, did not begin with the inauguration of the Trump administration; it had been underway for years.

International law and rules are not only needed to prevent maritime and territorial disputes; they are also urgently needed to establish limits on the military use of artificial intelligence.

At a special session of the Shangri-La summit, participants discussed the risks posed by the military application of AI, which could lower the threshold for the outbreak of war. Senior military officials from Pakistan and China, both nuclear-armed states, warned that the use of AI could accelerate the pace of conflict to the point where it becomes difficult to control.

If the international order continues to erode and security tensions keep rising, Asia’s geopolitical landscape could be profoundly affected. There are three possible scenarios.

The first is that Asia splits into three camps as the U.S.-China rivalry intensifies. China’s neighbors, including Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, would deepen their ties with Beijing, while maritime nations such as Japan, Australia and the Philippines would strengthen their alliances with America to counter China’s growing influence. Meanwhile, countries such as Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia would seek a middle ground, avoiding alignment with either side.

The second would see a stronger sense of urgency driving deeper security cooperation among Japan, South Korea, Australia, India and Southeast Asian countries. By fostering regional cohesion, such cooperation could prevent Asia from fragmenting into rival camps and help preserve a certain level of stability.

The third lies somewhere in between. There is little doubt that the first would be the worst outcome and the second the most desirable.

Achieving the best-case scenario will be difficult but not impossible. “If there are concerns that U.S. military engagement in Asia may waver, momentum will grow even further to deepen security cooperation within the Asia region as a hedge against that risk,” said Bilahari Kausikan, former permanent secretary of Singapore’s foreign ministry. “We are already seeing such signs emerging even within ASEAN.”

ASEAN defense ministers in October agreed to conduct joint military exercises and expand cooperation to protect undersea cables and strengthen cybersecurity. However, unity among ASEAN members alone will not be sufficient to counter China’s formidable military power and preserve regional order. Japan’s actions will be crucial.

Japan needs to further strengthen its defense capabilities and support the U.S. to help ensure that it remains engaged in Asia. Tokyo should then expand defense assistance to ASEAN members and other regional partners.

Japan is taking steps in the right direction by drastically increasing defense spending and relaxing restrictions on defense equipment exports. Yet Asia’s geopolitical environment is deteriorating rapidly. The key question is whether Japan can adapt quickly enough to keep pace with the fast-changing situation.