[OPINION] Expanding armies, shrinking peace: Militarization in Southeast Asia

These examples of military-led approaches in the region may each temporarily contain dissent, but likely also exacerbate human suffering while failing to reduce either armed or non-armed opposition Southeast Asia is experiencing a regional arms race driven by military expansion and increased securitization, leading to a cycle of violence and humanitarian crises, particularly in Myanmar, the Philippines, and Indonesia. The militarization in the Philippines and Indonesia, marked by intensified military operations and foreign defense cooperation, has exacerbated local conflicts and humanitarian issues, highlighting the need for peaceful conflict resolution and inclusive socio-economic development. This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors. Several nations in Southeast Asia have undergone military expansion and increased securitization over the past decade contributing to what many observers describe as a regional arms race. The ongoing militarization in Southeast Asia, combined with the erosion of the liberal international order and the weakening of democratic and human rights norms, has contributed to a self-reinforcing cycle of violence involving state militaries and domestic armed oppositions. Rather than addressing the political causes of conflict, military solutions prolong insecurity, intensify armed confrontation, and exacerbate human suffering in conflict-affected communities such as Myanmar, the Philippines and Indonesia. Myanmar’s sham peace: Promising peace, waging war After the illegal 2021 military coup overthrew the elected government, military authorities intensified their repression of political expression, launched large-scale counteroffensive operations against armed resistance groups, expanded conscription, and gradually increased both conventional and unconventional aerial attacks on civilian and military targets. An estimated 90% of Myanmar’s population has been exposed to conflict. Over 3.5 million people have been displaced, while one in three citizens now require humanitarian assistance. The scale of insecurity has transformed Myanmar into one of the world’s most severe humanitarian and protection crises. The Myanmar military, which is responsible for the vast majority of political violence in the country, has demonstrated little genuine commitment to resolving the political crisis fueling nationwide conflict. Airstrikes and attacks against civilian populations continue despite junta leader Min Aung Hlaing’s 100-day peace plan, killing over 600 between April 20 to July 31. For the junta, peace talks appear to be less aimed at achieving conflict resolution than at managing threats to its authority and fragmenting opposition coalitions. Dialogue risks becoming a mechanism where the military prioritises regime survival over the pursuit of durable and inclusive peace. Recent China-brokered ceasefires between the military and Ethnic Armed Organisations operating in northern Shan state reflect the military’s longstanding divide-and-rule strategy: neutralising one adversary through ceasefire agreements while intensifying military operations against others. The Myanmar military faces limited external pressure to change while it is backed by international partners such as China and Russia, which continue to provide it with military equipment and technical assistance, and the junta also benefits from varying degrees of diplomatic engagement from neighboring countries such as India and Thailand. PH security dilemma: Rejecting dialogue, prolonging conflict The New People’s Army (NPA), widely regarded as Asia’s longest-running communist insurgency, has been engaged in armed conflict with successive Philippines governments since 1968. Since President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. declared in July 2024 that the rebellion had effectively ceased, armed confrontations between state forces and insurgents have continued and, in some areas, intensified. April 2026 marked the deadliest month for the insurgency in recent years, with counterinsurgency operations reportedly resulting in 19 deaths, including six civilians. Overall, at least 390 combatants and civilians were reportedly killed in insurgency-related and counterinsurgency violence in 2025 alone. Separately, Manila has deepened defence and security cooperation with the US and other regional partners amid growing tensions in the South China Sea. Joint military exercises, technology transfers, expanded access to military facilities, and new defence agreements have been justified by the Marcos administration as necessary measures to strengthen deterrence and protect Philippine sovereignty. However, these developments may also contribute to the militarization of areas where insurgent activity persists, including parts of Luzon, potentially complicating local conflict dynamics. Indonesia’s failure in Papua: Projecting power, not peace Indonesia’s President Prabowo Subianto is pushing to project power outside Southeast Asia. He seeks to transform Indonesia into one of the world’s 10 largest developed economies by 2045 while simultaneously improving military capabilities. Indonesia has also sought to strengthen its international profile by joining US President Donald Trump’s controversial Board of Peace platform. Through these initiatives, Jakarta aims to present itself as a responsible actor committed to international peace and security, supported by a strong defence posture. Domestically, the administration led by Prabowo Subianto, a former military general, regularly faces strident public opposition to its economic and populist policies and armed resistance in the province of Papua. Prabowo’s flagship “free lunch” program, which many Papuans perceived as facilitating greater military presence and settlement by military families in the region, generated significant opposition. The Indonesian government has deployed thousands of Indonesian Armed Forces and police to Papua since January 2025. One consequence of the increased security presence in Papua, has been a rise in military operations. According to conflict monitors, state forces have carried out 78 air and drone strikes since Prabowo assumed the presidency in October 2024. A military operation in April 2026 extended beyond active combat zones and struck civilian areas, including a refugee sanctuary previously recognised by both the Indonesian military and the West Papua National Liberation Army in Kambru District, blurring the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The resulting security deterioration has produced a severe humanitarian crisis, with more than 100,000 people reportedly displaced across Papua as of March 2026. At the international level, military cooperation and defense ties with foreign governments provide the Indonesian military with access to weapons, training, and logistical support, enabling the continuation of counterinsurgency operations in Papua. Perpetuating cycles of violence These examples of military-led approaches in the region may each temporarily contain dissent, but likely also exacerbate human suffering while failing to reduce either armed or non-armed opposition. Achieving peace requires a fundamentally different approach: prioritising peaceful conflict resolution over military responses, recognising historical injustices, facilitating meaningful dialogue between states and affected communities, providing impartial mediation, addressing long-standing grievances, ensuring accountability and the right to truth, creating conditions for reconciliation, supporting inclusive socio-economic development, and establishing political systems that accommodate diverse interests. Without at least some of this work, genuine peace will remain out of reach. The relatively successful peace processes in the region, such as those in Aceh, Indonesia, and the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao in the Philippines demonstrate that durable peace requires sustained peace-building efforts even long after formal agreements are reached. – Rappler.com Su Mon has provided the following: Su Mon is ACLED’s Regional Expert and the 2025 Conflict and Peace Research Fellow at the Australian National University and University of Melbourne. (ACLED is Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Asia Pacific). How does this make you feel? Loading