Asean and East Asian Summit must stress fiscal prudence over firepower — Phar Kim Beng

JUNE 10 — As President Donald Trump, ostensibly, prepares for his appearances at the East Asia Summit in Kuala Lumpur this mid October 2025 — with no assurance of showing up unlike other Heads of States that are the Strategic Dialogue Partners of Asean — all signs point to him pushing a familiar and blunt message: America’s allies and partners in Asia must spend more on US arms.

But if past and current trends are any indication, Trump’s appeals are likely to fall on deaf ears. The region is not just weary of increased militarization—it is actively rejecting Washington’s insistence that defense budgets be inflated at the expense of economic recovery and long-term stability.

There is an inherent contradiction in Trump’s demands.

A president who places tariffs on allies—from Japan to South Korea to even Southeast Asian nations—cannot reasonably expect those same countries to increase military procurement from the United States. The message from Washington is one of transactional loyalty, not strategic partnership. And in Asia, where historical memory is long and national budgets are tight, such coercive diplomacy rarely works.

Strategic Mistrust Cloaked as Defense Diplomacy

The push for higher defense spending has long been a hallmark of US foreign policy, particularly under Republican administrations that view military preponderance as a symbol of leadership. Trump’s doctrine—though lacking a coherent strategy—is clear in its intent: to boost American arms exports and reduce the US security burden by compelling others to foot the bill. However, the underlying tone of Washington’s approach under Trump is steeped in mistrust.

By questioning the reliability of alliances and imposing punitive tariffs even on long-standing partners, Trump has eroded the very strategic trust necessary for such defense cooperation.

Asian states are acutely aware that accepting US weapons often comes with strings attached—operational constraints, technology limitations, political conditionality, and long-term maintenance dependencies. Moreover, many of these nations are engaged in delicate balancing acts between China and the United States. A sudden uptick in American arms purchases could be seen not as deterrence but as provocation.

The Regional Response: Prioritizing Growth and Stability

In Southeast Asia and beyond, national budgets are being reoriented toward post-pandemic recovery, climate resilience, digital infrastructure, and education reform. There is little appetite—public or political—for ballooning defense outlays.

Countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and even Thailand have publicly emphasized the need for economic investments, not military escalation. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and Domestic Direct Investment (DDI) are seen as stabilizing forces, offering job creation, technology transfer, and revenue generation. Arms deals, in contrast, represent capital outflows with limited downstream benefits.

Indeed, even where defense procurement is on the agenda, the priority is on affordability, multilateral interoperability, and reduced dependency on any single supplier.

This explains why Asian countries have diversified their sources—turning to Turkiye, South Korea, France, and even indigenous defense development—rather than doubling down on American options.

Moreover, there is growing recognition that security in Asia is not only military.

Non-traditional threats—such as cyberattacks, piracy, human trafficking, illegal fishing, and climate-related disasters—require a broader toolkit than fighter jets and missile systems.

In forums such as the Asean Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus), the emphasis is on capacity building, joint training, and regional resilience. Arms races are anathema to these priorities.

The Trump Tariff Trap

The irony is that Trump’s own economic policies undercut his strategic objectives. By erecting tariff walls against Asian exports—often under the pretext of “national security”—Trump has undermined regional confidence in US economic leadership. Countries like South Korea and Japan have had to endure hostile tariff actions despite hosting major US bases. Asean member states, particularly those with growing manufacturing sectors, find themselves penalized even as they are asked to bolster America’s geostrategic posture.

The result is a transactional model of diplomacy that few in Asia are willing to accept.

Nations across the Indo-Pacific see the US demand for greater defense spending not as a shared responsibility but as an imposition—one that prioritizes America’s arms industry over regional economic needs. The message from Washington is clear: buy our weapons or risk being labeled unreliable. But the response from Asia is equally clear: we will spend where it matters most—for our people and our future.

The Myth of Free Riding

It is fashionable in Washington to accuse Asian partners of free riding—benefitting from American security guarantees without proportionate contributions.

Yet this narrative ignores the reality on the ground. South Korea contributes billions to the upkeep of US forces, Japan provides extensive basing support, and the Philippines, despite its domestic constraints, allows rotational US deployments. These are not passive beneficiaries but active participants in regional security architecture.

In Southeast Asia, countries have consistently engaged in multilateral peacekeeping, counterterrorism, and maritime cooperation. Their contributions may not be measured in F-35 purchases, but in the daily grind of maintaining regional peace and order.

The call for 5 per cent of GDP on defense—echoed by voices like US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—is simply out of step with the fiscal realities of the region. Asean alone is short of at least US$1.5 trillion in development expenditure with Indonesia needing at least a third of this figure.

Such a benchmark, if adopted, would severely hamper development goals and spark unnecessary regional tensions.

The Path Ahead: Economic Security First

As the region looks ahead to the next decade, it is clear that economic security will remain paramount.

The East Asia Summit in Kuala Lumpur and Asean Summits in Kuala Lumpur this year and Manila the next, must provide platforms for frank dialogue.

Trump may once again present a tough case for American arms purchases. But Asia’s answer, if rooted in pragmatism and sovereignty, will be a firm “No.”

The way forward lies in deeper economic integration, industrial upgrading, and human capital development.

Strategic autonomy does not require blind purchases of US weaponry. It requires building national capabilities in science, technology, and innovation.

It requires policy consistency—not shifting tariff threats. And it requires mutual respect—not coercive diplomacy dressed as alliance-building.

Washington must come to terms with a changing Asia—one that is no longer beholden to Cold War mentalities or dependent on unilateral guarantees. The region seeks cooperation, not compliance.

In the face of Trump’s renewed pressure, Asian capitals are likely to stand their ground, not out of defiance, but out of necessity. After all, the most enduring security lies not in missiles and tanks, but in resilient economies and empowered societies.

* Phar Kim Beng is Professor of Asean Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia and Senior Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.