Bangkok, March 2026 — At a time of accelerating geopolitical uncertainty, the International Crisis Group convened a high-level panel at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand (FCCT) to examine one of the most pressing questions shaping global security today: how U.S. allies in Asia are adapting to a rapidly evolving strategic landscape.
The discussion, titled “Asia’s Security Order in Flux: The Role of U.S. Allies,” brought together leading analysts to unpack shifting defense postures, alliance dynamics, and the growing complexity of regional security. The conversation revealed a region in transition—one where traditional assumptions about alliances, deterrence, and stability are increasingly under strain.
A World of Rising Uncertainty
Opening the event, Comfort Ero, President and CEO of the International Crisis Group, set the tone with a stark assessment of the global environment.
Conflict prevention—the core mission of Crisis Group—is facing unprecedented challenges. Across regions, from Ukraine to the Middle East, Sudan to Latin America, the international system is under pressure. The return of large-scale war, combined with intensifying great power competition, has made diplomacy more difficult and less predictable.
Yet Ero emphasized a crucial point: conflict prevention and deterrence are not opposing forces—they are intertwined. In today’s world, diplomacy must operate alongside credible security measures.
This broader global instability forms the backdrop to developments in Asia, where the balance of power is shifting and strategic competition—particularly between the United States and China—is reshaping the region.
The Indo-Pacific at a Strategic Crossroads
The panel highlighted that Asia is no longer simply a theater of economic dynamism—it is increasingly a central arena of geopolitical contestation.
As Huong Le Thu, Deputy Program Director for Asia at Crisis Group, noted, countries across the region share a common concern: the implications of China’s rise.
This concern is not uniform, nor does it produce identical responses. However, it is a unifying factor driving policy shifts across U.S. allies, from Japan and South Korea to Australia and the Philippines.
The result is a region where states are:
- Increasing defense spending
- Modernizing military capabilities
- Expanding security partnerships
- Reassessing their reliance on the United States
These developments point toward a more fragmented and complex security architecture.
Japan: Between Alliance and Autonomy
Japan’s evolving security posture offers one of the clearest examples of this transformation.
As Matthew Wheeler, Senior Analyst for Southeast Asia, explained, Japan continues to view its alliance with the United States as the cornerstone of its security. However, Tokyo is also grappling with a fundamental tension.
On one hand, Japan depends on the U.S. security guarantee. On the other, it is deeply committed to a rules-based international order, which it sees as essential to regional stability and its own prosperity as a maritime trading nation.
Recent policy changes reflect this dual approach. Japan has:
- Increased defense spending to record levels
- Developed “counter-strike” capabilities, including long-range missiles
- Strengthened partnerships with Australia, the Philippines, and NATO
These steps are not intended to replace the U.S. alliance but to reinforce it while hedging against uncertainty.
Yet underlying this strategy is a growing question: what happens if the United States becomes a less predictable partner?
This question is no longer hypothetical. It is actively shaping debate within Japan, even if such discussions remain largely behind closed doors.
South Korea: From Peninsula to Region
South Korea is undergoing a similar shift, though from a different starting point.
Historically, Seoul’s security focus has been overwhelmingly centered on North Korea. The U.S.–South Korea alliance functioned primarily as a deterrent against conflict on the Korean Peninsula.
But as Christopher Green, Senior Consultant on the Korean Peninsula, noted, this perspective is changing.
South Korea now faces a broader and more complex threat environment:
- North Korea’s expanding nuclear arsenal
- Increased cooperation between Russia and North Korea
- Intensifying U.S.–China rivalry
- The possibility of regional conflict, including over Taiwan
This has led to a growing recognition that South Korea may not be able to remain confined to a peninsula-focused strategy.
In particular, there is increasing discussion of “entrapment”—the possibility that South Korea could be drawn into conflicts beyond its immediate interests.
At the same time, South Korea is strengthening its military capabilities and expanding its role as a global defense player, including becoming one of the world’s top arms exporters.
The challenge for Seoul is balancing:
- Alliance commitments
- Regional dynamics
- Domestic political considerations
The Philippines: From Internal to External Security
Perhaps one of the most notable shifts discussed at the panel is taking place in the Philippines.
As Georgi Engelbrecht, Analyst for the Philippines, explained, Manila has historically focused on internal security challenges, particularly insurgencies.
However, improvements in domestic stability have enabled a strategic pivot toward external threats, especially in the maritime domain.
Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the Philippines is undergoing a transformation in three key areas:
1. Strategic Doctrine
The introduction of the Comprehensive Archipelagic Defense Concept reflects a shift toward protecting the country’s maritime territory and exclusive economic zone.
2. Military Modernization
The Philippines is investing in new capabilities, including missile systems and air defense, though it still faces significant resource constraints.
3. Alliance Strengthening
Cooperation with the United States has deepened, particularly through the expansion of EDCA sites, including locations in northern Luzon.
This last point is particularly significant in the context of a potential Taiwan contingency.
For Manila, the key question is no longer whether Taiwan matters—but how it should respond if conflict occurs.
Australia: Geography and Responsibility
Australia’s position highlights another dimension of the evolving regional order.
Geographically distant from major flashpoints, Australia might once have been expected to remain somewhat insulated from regional tensions.
However, as Huong Le Thu noted, Canberra now views the current environment as the most challenging since World War II.
Australia’s response has been proactive:
- Leading on issues such as Huawei restrictions and human rights advocacy
- Investing heavily in defense through the AUKUS partnership
- Expanding its role as a security provider in Southeast Asia and the Pacific
At the same time, Australia faces its own dilemma: the “tyranny of distance.”
Distance provides security—but also raises concerns about abandonment by allies.
This reinforces Australia’s strong commitment to keeping the United States engaged in the region.
The Alliance Question: Trust and Uncertainty
A central theme throughout the discussion was the future of U.S. alliances.
While none of the panelists suggested that alliances are collapsing, there is a clear sense that trust is being tested.
As Comfort Ero noted, the United States remains an indispensable global actor. However, recent actions—particularly those perceived as unilateral—have raised questions among allies about:
- Reliability
- Predictability
- Consultation
These concerns are not confined to Asia. They are echoed across Europe, the Middle East, and beyond.
Importantly, the issue is not simply about one administration. As Huong Le Thu suggested, many analysts now view these developments as part of deeper structural shifts in U.S. foreign policy.
Strategic Autonomy: From Taboo to Debate
One of the most striking insights from the panel was the normalization of previously unthinkable conversations.
In countries such as Japan and South Korea, discussions about:
- Greater strategic autonomy
- Independent defense capabilities
- Even nuclear deterrence
They are no longer entirely off-limits.
These debates remain sensitive and politically complex. However, their emergence reflects a broader reality: allies are preparing for a future in which U.S. support may be less certain.
At the same time, none of these countries are seeking to abandon the United States.
Rather, they are attempting to balance dependence with resilience.
Taiwan: The Unspoken Center of Gravity
The question of Taiwan loomed large over the discussion.
While no panelist predicted imminent conflict, there was broad agreement that Taiwan represents a critical flashpoint in regional security.
For countries like the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea, the challenge is not just strategic—it is also political.
How should they respond if:
- The United States requests support?
- China escalates pressure?
- The rules-based order is tested?
These questions remain unresolved.
What is clear, however, is that Taiwan is no longer a peripheral issue—it is increasingly central to regional security planning.
A Fragmenting but Resilient Order
Despite the uncertainties discussed, the panel did not present a purely pessimistic outlook.
While the international system may be fragmenting, it is not collapsing.
As Comfort Ero emphasized, multilateral institutions—particularly the United Nations—remain essential, even as their effectiveness is questioned.
Similarly, alliances may be under strain, but they are also adapting.
Conclusion: Navigating the Flux
The discussion in Bangkok underscored a key reality: Asia’s security order is in flux, but not in freefall.
U.S. allies are not abandoning the alliance system. Instead, they are:
- Reinforcing their own capabilities
- Diversifying partnerships
- Reassessing strategic assumptions
The result is a more complex, multi-layered security environment.
For policymakers, the challenge is to navigate this transition without allowing uncertainty to escalate into instability.
For analysts and observers, the message is clear:
The Indo-Pacific is entering a new era—one defined not by a single dominant power, but by competition, adaptation, and strategic recalibration.
HDFF would like to thank ICG for the invitation to this very important and informative event.
Comments are closed