Guns Over People: Asia and the Pacific in the Global Militarised Order

By Kamakshi Amar and Rachel Tan

 

Illustration by Gerimara Manuel

‘National security’ concerns are often cited as reasons for the build-up of military power in a country. However, a critical examination of the logic and strategies behind this reveals that imperialism and the unrelenting quest for global hegemony, rooted in economic dominance, are the primary driver of wars and conflicts. And nowhere is this more true than in Asia and the Pacific. The quest for global dominance between the two most powerful nations at present—the United States and China—has transformed Asia and the Pacific into the ultimate battleground.

The uninhibited build-up of military power to gain global dominance is clear when considering global military expenditures and geostrategic power plays. Global military expenditure in 2024 was a staggering USD 2.7 trillion, led by the United States of America (US) (37 per cent), China (12 per cent) and Russia (5.5 per cent) as the topmost spenders. With  over 870 military bases in 80 countries, the US has invested over USD 997 billion in global military infrastructure, while Russia continues to expand its military influence through arms exports and foreign operations from West Africa to Eastern Europe. These patterns reflect a continuation of colonial legacies where the military is used to dominate, extract and control.

Military expenditures in Asia and the Pacific meanwhile rose to USD 629 billion in 2024, with China alone accounting for half of the region’s military spending while steadily increasing its defence budget year-after-year. Furthermore, China and Russia’s historic ties have been elevated by both nations calling their partnership a ‘no limits’ relationship. As a result, joint military exercises between the two countries increased from nine in 2021 to 14 in 2024 and China is currently the largest supplier of machinery crucial to support the Russian defence industry. Taking advantage of the Russia-Ukraine war, the imperialist regime of the US also pushed its Western allies, especially the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) members to expand their military budgets, with member states recently committing to raising their core defence requirements and defence and security related spending to five per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP). NATO has cited Russia as the ‘the most significant and direct threat’ and called China an enabler of Russia’s war with Ukraine, thereby tying European interests to geostrategic developments in Asia and the Pacific.

The US influence in the region is most starkly visible in its control of the maritime infrastructure encompassing key sea trade routes of the South China Sea, the Malacca Strait, the Taiwan Strait and even further extending to include the Indian Ocean in its Indo-Pacific framework. These routes are important for US trade and commercial interests, primarily its imports of consumer goods from the region and export of agricultural goods, services and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). The US has historically protected its interests by building security alliances more prominently with Japan, South Korea, Australia and the Philippines and exerting control over the Pacific Islands. There are at least 60 military bases and several thousand military personnel under the US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM).

On the other hand, the crucial trade routes also form the backbone of China’s massive economic growth, serving two-thirds of its trade volume and over 80 per cent of its vital energy imports of oil and Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). China views the strong military presence of the US in the region as a threat to its trade flows due to potential risks of a naval blockade by the US and its allies. To reduce its dependence on these maritime trade routes, China introduced the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013, connecting itself with the rest of Asia, Europe and Africa via a network of land and sea trade routes as well as oil and gas pipelines. BRI’s expansion to 150 countries with investments in major infrastructure projects coupled with its use of diplomacy, is intended to place China in a strategic position to shape global economic and political norms.

The United States and China engage in noticeable powerflexing in the South China Sea. The US employs the Philippines, Taiwan and South Korea as its frontline allies to counter China. It has further strengthened its strategic alliances such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) and AUKUS (Australia-UK-US), among others. The surge in military spending and heightened influence by global powers reflects a current world order that is increasingly built on the three interconnected evils of militarism, imperialism and corporate profit. 

Who Builds the War Economy? Unpacking a Complex Web of Actors and Roles

The global war economy is sustained by a complex web of actors that include more than just states and military forces. These include International Financial Institutions (IFIs), regional security alliances and corporate actors whose policies and practices fuel militarisation, conflict and structural violence. Understanding the roles that these actors play is essential to dismantling the systems that perpetuate war and to building alternatives rooted in Feminist Peace and Justice.

Corporate profits over human lives

Those that gain the most from rising conflicts and consequent soaring military budgets are war profiteering corporations who amassed USD 632 billion in 2023 alone. These profits come at the expense of civilian populations, especially grassroots women and marginalised communities, who bear the cost of violence, displacement and austerity. 

Owing to the threat from China and military aid directed towards Ukraine and Israel, private corporations in the US have received contracts worth USD 2.4 trillion from the Pentagon in just five years from 2020 to 2024. This is higher than what they received during the 20 years of the US driven ‘War on Terror’. A majority of these contracts are led by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, the five top arms manufacturers in the world, infamously dubbed the ‘merchants of death’. Wars and threats of wars are profitable businesses for both private and public arms companies, as well as laboratories to test their new weapons. Asia and the Pacific region is the biggest importer of arms, with India, Pakistan, Japan and Australia leading the numbers. The arms race in the region makes it more profitable for weapons corporations, especially those based in the US (37 per cent), Russia (17 per cent) and China (14 per cent) as the biggest exporting countries to the region. Furthermore, the traditional weapons industry is deeply interconnected with extractive industries, especially metals and minerals that are the primary raw materials for weapons manufacturing. These metals and minerals are extracted from ecologically sensitive regions, displacing marginalised communities and further creating violence and conflict.

Benefitting from the expanded military budgets are also tech firms that underwrite the technological needs of the military. The top Big Tech firms–Microsoft, Alphabet (parent company of Google) and Amazon–bagged over USD 28 billion in military technology and service contracts from the US government and its allies from 2018 to 2022. This military-technology ecosystem is expanding with emerging corporations such as SpaceX, Palantir and Anduril weaponising the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and space technologies. When tech firms, who control valuable personal data of citizens, are simultaneously involved in building up advanced military technology, it poses a very tangible threat of being abused in times of war and conflict. Tech giant Microsoft has provided services such as cloud computing and AI to the Israeli military, which has in turn been accused of using them to develop military intelligence systems such as ‘Lavender’ that is said to have autonomously generated lists of tens of thousands of Palestinians as targets for bombing during the genocide in Gaza. Tech firms’ involvement in the war industry highlights how technology is being manipulated in the service of militaristic regimes.

Financing of War Economies by International Financial Institutions

The proliferation of finance towards war economies requires institutional support and infrastructure. International Financial Institutions (IFIs) such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) have historically financed policies and projects that perpetuate structural inequality and violence, deepen socio-economic grievances and provoke conflict.

IFIs have also played a key role in financing infrastructure projects that serve military and strategic interests rather than the needs of local communities. In the Pacific Islands, the ADB and World Bank have financed port and airport infrastructure projects that facilitate military access and operations, often without meaningful consultation with affected communities. These projects have resulted in environmental degradation, displacement of communities and erosion of sovereignty. The militarisation of infrastructure in the Pacific Islands reflects the strategic interests of major powers, particularly the United States, China and Australia, who are competing for influence in the region.

The IMF, World Bank and ADB have repeatedly partnered with authoritarian regimes and dictatorships that commit grave human rights abuses and have provided them with the financial resources necessary to maintain their hold on power and repress dissent. The legacy of these partnerships persists across Asia and the Pacific. In the Philippines, after declaring martial law in 1972, the military budget under Ferdinand Marcos jumped from USD 132 million to USD 537.6 million in 1976. During this period, the World Bank and IMF continued to provide loans and technical assistance to the Marcos regime, despite widespread documentation of human rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, torture and disappearances. In Indonesia, the World Bank and IMF provided extensive financial support to the Suharto regime from the 1960s to the 1990s, despite its brutal repression of political opposition, mass killings and occupation of East Timor and West Papua.

In countries across Asia and the Pacific, IFI-imposed austerity has resulted in cuts to healthcare, education, social protection and public sector employment, while military spending has remained a protected priority. This fiscal imbalance reflects the priorities of global elites and militarised states, rather than the needs and aspirations of ordinary people.

The Human and Economic Costs of Militarisation

In 2023, the global cost of violence, including military spending, reached USD 19.1 trillion. This is equivalent to 13.5 per cent of global GDP and represents diversion of resources away from health, education, social protection and climate action. In stark contrast, global investments in peacebuilding and peacekeeping stood at just USD 49.6 billion in 2023, less than 0.6 per cent of global military expenditure. This fiscal imbalance represents a global trend that prioritises militarisation and conflict over peace and development. 

The human costs of this militarised global order are staggering. Since 2008, the cost of armed conflicts has increased by 184 per cent, with military spending yielding little to no significant positive impact on economic growth. From 2008 to 2024—a period of 26 years—the overall peacefulness of countries declined by 4.5 per cent, leaving many nations caught in a downward spiral of underdevelopment, authoritarianism and violence.

The trade-offs between military spending and social spending are particularly stark in the Global South. An analysis of 197 countries from 2000 to 2013 found that a one per cent increase in military spending results in a 0.62 per cent reduction in health expenditure, with the drop reaching as high as 0.96 per cent in low-income countries. This means that every dollar spent on weapons and military infrastructure is a dollar taken away from healthcare, education, clean water and other essential services. In countries such as India, Pakistan and the Philippines, where millions of people lack access to basic healthcare and live in poverty, the prioritisation of military spending over social development is a form of structural violence that perpetuates inequality and suffering.

The gendered impacts of militarisation are profound and far-reaching. Women and marginalised communities bear the brunt of military spending cuts to social services, as they are disproportionately reliant on public healthcare, education and social protection. Militarisation also fuels gender-based violence, as the presence of military forces is associated with increased rates of sexual violence, trafficking and exploitation. In conflict zones and areas with heavy military presence, women and girls face heightened risks of rape, sexual assault and other forms of violence. The militarisation of communities also reinforces patriarchal norms and structures, as military culture is built on hyper-masculine ideals that devalue women’s lives and contributions.

Demands for Feminist Peace & Justice

Militarism as we can see from this analysis, is not just restricted to conflict zones. It is an integral part of our economic and political structures. Our resistance, therefore, lies in strengthening our collective consciousness of the systemic nature of militarism and rising against the militaristic and imperial forces that drive it, for a more equal and safer world. Demands for Feminist Peace and Justice call for sustained and concrete efforts to dismantle militarism and the military-industrial complex. These critical demands are:

1. Dismantle the Military-Industrial-Complex: The militarised regimes and the military industry supporting them are at the heart of making our world unsafe and unlivable by propagating wars and conflicts. Thus, it is vital to expose and dismantle them by: 

  • Removing all military bases from the Asia and the Pacific region;
  • Stopping war games, military exercises and weapons testing in the region;
  • Disarmament and defunding of military expenditures;
  • Redirecting expenditure to social causes; and
  • Stopping the production of weapons.

2. Stop extraction of resources for the war economy and uphold peoples’ sovereignty over resources, labour and markets: The economic and political systems such as extractive industries, technologies and international funding institutions that aid wars and conflicts need to be held accountable and dissociate themselves from the business of war-making.

3. Uphold accountability to peoples, reparations and justice: Those who have suffered the worst from wars and conflicts deserve reparations and meaningful justice rooted in their contexts. They must be holistically supported in their recovery from trauma and violence. 

###

About the Authors

Kamakshi Amar is Programme Officer for the Women in Power (WiP) Programme of APWLD that works towards putting grassroots women’s voices at the forefront of political decision-making. It challenges militaristic, authoritarian and fascist political frameworks by promoting feminist transformative leadership.

Rachel Tan is Programme Officer for the Grounding the Global (GG) programme of APWLD that monitors the development of international human rights mechanisms to ensure that they are informed by women’s realities in Asia and the Pacific and accessible at the grassroots level for stronger accountability and Development Justice. 

This article is a feminist analysis based on multiple deliberations with members, grassroots activists and organisations and regional and global allies, to strengthen understanding of militarism as experienced in Asia and the Pacific.  

References & Notes

  1. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2025). Trends In World Military Expenditure, 2024. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/2504_fs_milex_2024.pdf
  2. Base Nation. (2024). Bases Maps. https://www.basenation.us/maps.html 
  3. Le Monde. (2024). Moscow’s Winning Return to Africa. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/08/21/moscow-s-winning-return-to-africa_6719241_4.html
  4. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2025). Trends In International Arms Transfer, 2024. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/2504_fs_milex_2024.pdf
  5. The Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. (2022). Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development. President of Russia. http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5770
  6. Rácz, A., & Hrytsenko, A. (2025). Partnership Short of Alliance: Military Cooperation Between Russia and China. Center for European Policy Analysis. https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/partnership-short-of-alliance-military-cooperation-between-russia-and-china/#footnote_4_40842
  7. China Power Team (2022). How Deep Are China-Russia Military Ties?. China Power. https://chinapower.csis.org/china-russia-military-cooperation-arms-sales-exercises/
  8. Corder, M., Corbet, S., Quell, M., & Cook, L. (2025, June 26). NATO summit commits to hike military spending after pressure from Trump. The Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/nato-defense-spending-trump-spain-db0912cbfdaedc4c6b57809c9e11d6bd
  9. Sauer, P., Sabbagh, D., & Jones, S. (2025, June 24). Nato members willingly increasing defence spending amid rising threat from Russia, says Rutte. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/24/nato-members-willingly-increasing-defence-spending-amid-rising-threat-from-russia-says-rutte
  10. Sacks, D. (2024, October 9). NATO’s Indo-Pacific Aspirations. East West Center. https://www.eastwestcenter.org/publications/natos-indo-pacific-aspirations
  11. Indo-Pacific is a geopolitical construct that refers to the region connecting Indian and Pacific oceans highlighting the strategic significance of the region for economic and security considerations. It has been adopted and widely used by the US government to underscore its interests in the sea lines of communications, maritime trade and security and attempts to address China’s growing influence.  Pant, H.V. & Basu, P. (2025, January 27). An enduring commitment to the Indo-Pacific. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/an-enduring-commitment-to-the-indo-pacific/article69143448.ece
  12. Gupta, D. (2025, May 24). Increased U.S. Military Presence in the Indo-Pacific: Global Implications. Global Strategic and Defense News. https://gsdn.live/increased-u-s-military-presence-in-the-indo-pacific-global-implications/
  13. Dosson, R. P. (2025, July 8). The Malacca Dilemma: China’s Achilles’ Heel. Modern Diplomacy. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/07/08/the-malacca-dilemma-chinas-achilles-heel/
  14. Dosson, R. P. (2025, July 8). The Malacca Dilemma: China’s Achilles’ Heel. Modern Diplomacy. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/07/08/the-malacca-dilemma-chinas-achilles-heel/
  15. Simonov, M. (2025, June). The Belt and Road Initiative and Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment: Comparison and current status. Asia and the Global Economy, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aglobe.2025.100106
  16. Hartung, W. (2024, December 2). War drives revenue increases for world’s top arms dealers. Responsible Statecraft. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/war-profiteering/
  17. Hartung, W. & Semler, S. (2025, July 8). Profits of War: Top Beneficiaries of Pentagon Spending, 2020 – 2024. Costs of War. https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/sites/default/files/papers/Profits-of-War_Hartung-Semler_Costs-of-War_Quincy-FINAL.pdf
  18. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2025). Trends In International Arms Transfers, 2024. https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2025-03/fs_2503_at_2024_0.pdf
  19. Paulson, J. (2022). Militaries, Intelligence Agencies, and Law Enforcement Dominate U.S. and U.K. Government Purchasing from U.S. Tech Giants. Tech Inquiry. https://techinquiry.org/docs/InternationalCloud.pdf 
  20. Paulson, J. (2022). Militaries, Intelligence Agencies, and Law Enforcement Dominate U.S. and U.K. Government Purchasing from U.S. Tech Giants. Tech Inquiry. https://techinquiry.org/docs/InternationalCloud.pdf
  21. Abraham, Y. (2025, January 23). Leaked documents expose deep ties between Israeli army and Microsoft. +972 Magazine. https://www.972mag.com/microsoft-azure-openai-israeli-army-cloud/
  22. Abraham, Y. (2025, April 3). ‘Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in Gaza. +972 Magazine. https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
  23. De Santos, J. (n.d.).  Show of force. Was the Philippines a regional military power under Marcos? PhilStar.  https://newslab.philstar.com/31-years-of-amnesia/strongest-military  ; USD to PHP exchange rates: 1972 – PHP 6.67, 1976- PHP 7.44
  24. Keen, M.& Tidwell, A. (2024, January 31). Geopolitics in the Pacific Islands: Playing for advantage. Lowy Institute. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/geopolitics-pacific-islands-playing-advantage 
  25. Toussant, E. (2024). The World Bank and the IMF in Indonesia: An emblematic interference. Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt. https://www.cadtm.org/The-World-Bank-and-the-IMF-in-Indonesia-an-emblematic-interference
  26. Institute for Economics & Peace. (2024). Global Peace Index 2024: Measuring peace in a complex world. https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/GPI-2024-web.pdf
  27. Institute for Economics & Peace (2024). Global Peace Index 2024. https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/GPI-2024-web.pdf#:~:text=%E2%80%A2%20In%20the%20ten%20countries,relative%20to%20GDP%2C%20Ukraine%20experienced
  28. Fan, H., Liu, W., & Coyte, P. C. (2018). Do military expenditures crowd-out health expenditures? Evidence from around the world, 2000–2013. Defence and Peace Economics, 29(7), 766-779. Taylor and Francis Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2017.1303303 
  29. These demands for Feminist Peace and Justice were developed at APWLD’s ‘Regional Convening on Campaigning for Feminist Peace and Justice’ in Batticaloa, Sri Lanka in September 2025, that brought together members, grassroots organisations, activists and allies from Asia and the Pacific and elsewhere.