Tokyo and Manila recklessly willing to serve as chess pieces

When the latest United States-Japan-Republic of Korea "Freedom Edge" exercise commenced on Monday — six warships, 2,300 personnel, and advanced air, maritime and cyber capabilities — the official language was the familiar talk of "freedom" and "rules-based order". But whenever the governments of the US-led alliance say they are safeguarding "freedom" and "order", it is worth asking: for whom?

Yoshiyasu Ishimaki, director-general of the Operations Department for Japan's Joint Staff, declared that the drill "contributes to shaping a security environment that does not tolerate unilateral changes to the status quo by force". That sounds reassuring — until one asks who gets to define "unilateral", and who gets to decide which military buildup "threatens" the status quo.

Japan is rapidly expanding its capabilities toward a posture unthinkable for much of the postwar era, yet its officials increasingly present the country as the "guardian" of the "regional order" while building the means to exercise military power beyond the strictly defensive framework of its Constitution.

Meanwhile, Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr's recent remarks also reveal a troubling eagerness to manufacture "threats", suggesting China might "exploit gaps" from another scaled-back US-ROK exercise. By framing routine adjustments as invitations for "Chinese opportunism", Teodoro volunteers his country as a frontline proxy in a major-country contest most of the region wants no part in.

Japan and the Philippines are volunteering for roles in a US security architecture whose logic is based on Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard" — keep Eurasia divided, prevent any rival from dominating critical regions and use a network of allies to sustain US strategic primacy.

Since "America First" took hold, the transatlantic alliance system has shown visible cracks. Yet in East and Southeast Asia, Japan and the Philippines seem all too willing to act as the "all-purpose glue", accepting Washington's self-serving priorities — even at the expense of their own national interests.

Japan knows full well that the US is merely using it. Yet the Sanae Takaichi government is perfectly willing to play along — hiding behind the US shield to push for rapid remilitarization under the banner of defending a "Free and Open Indo-Pacific". Without Washington's strategy in the region serving as a convenient front, the domestic and regional resistance against such an aggressive military buildup would be far greater than it is today.

But Tokyo should be reminded that the "enemy state clauses" of the United Nations Charter concerning former Axis powers are still valid. The clauses allow UN founding members to take military action against Axis powers of World War II, including Japan, without UN Security Council authorization should they again pursue aggressive policies.

The Ferdinand Marcos Jr government of the Philippines presents a different but equally revealing case of how narrow political interests are seeking to hijack the regional agenda. It has positioned itself as perhaps the US' most obsequious partner.

Behind Japan and the Philippines' strategy of riding on the US' coattails lies a host of festering domestic problems as exposed by Japan's financial difficulties and the Philippines' complicated social and economic challenges.

Asian countries trade with one another, build factories together, study in one another's universities, and depend on stable sea lanes. Their future is tied to supply chains, markets and development. Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations from Malaysia to Indonesia have made plain their aversion to being forced to choose sides in this Asian version of the old Cold War.

The real question in the region is not who can assemble the most impressive military coalition. It is whether some Asian governments are prepared to surrender their strategic judgment for a role on somebody else's chessboard at the cost of peace and prosperity. On the chessboard of international politics, in the eyes of Washington, there are no irreplaceable pieces — save the king. Everyone else is expendable.