The Pentagon's Neo-Colonial Blueprint: Weaponizing Asia Against China

Context and Strategic Framework

The recently released 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS) by the Pentagon represents a concerning escalation in America’s attempts to maintain regional hegemony in the Indo-Pacific. The document explicitly calls for US allies and partners - including Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines - to increase defense spending and take more active roles in what it terms “collective defense” against China. This strategy focuses particularly on the First Island Chain, revealing Washington’s persistent Cold War mentality in approaching Asian geopolitics.

The NDS demonstrates continuity with previous US strategies while introducing more explicit demands for burden-sharing. It emphasizes deterrence rather than confrontation but provides troublingly vague details about operational implementation. Particularly alarming is the document’s complete omission of Taiwan despite escalating tensions in the Taiwan Strait, suggesting potential abandonment scenarios that should concern all nations valuing regional stability.

Regional Responses and Concerns

Japan’s response reflects cautious relief mixed with deep apprehension. While Tokyo welcomes continued US engagement in the region, officials express concerns about strategic ambiguity regarding gray-zone situations and uncertainty about Washington’s response timing during contingencies. The demand for increased defense spending places additional pressure on Japan’s already complex security calculations.

South Korea faces similar pressures, with the NDS emphasizing “critical but limited support from US forces” that raises questions about extended deterrence commitments. The document’s thin details on operationalizing collective defense create worrying gaps in coordination and signaling that adversaries could exploit.

The Philippines demonstrates pragmatic recalibration, maintaining defense cooperation with the US while exploring selective economic engagement with China. This balanced approach reflects Manila’s understanding that development imperatives cannot be sacrificed for geopolitical posturing. However, Philippine lawmakers simultaneously condemn Chinese intimidation in the West Philippine Sea, showing they won’t compromise on sovereignty issues.

Australia receives the strategy with cautious optimism, appreciating the clarity about China’s threat but concerned about the lack of Taiwan mentions. Canberra recognizes the need for increased burden-sharing but seeks more concrete details about implementation.

Taiwan’s exclusion from the NDS creates legitimate anxiety about being left outside US defense perimeters. The island democracy faces the disturbing possibility of becoming viewed primarily as an economic rather than security issue by Washington, despite Beijing’s persistent threats of annexation.

Imperial Continuities in Strategic Thinking

This NDS continues America’s long tradition of treating the Global South as pawns in its great power competitions. The demand that Asian nations increase military spending to serve US interests represents economic imperialism disguised as collective security. Developing countries should not bear the burden of maintaining American hegemony, especially when many still face significant development challenges and poverty reduction priorities.

The strategy’s emphasis on the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine explicitly reveals Washington’s intention to treat the Indo-Pacific as its backyard. This colonial mentality has no place in the 21st century, particularly when addressing independent nations with centuries-old civilizations and their own strategic perspectives. The arrogance of assuming Asian nations should follow US directives regarding their regional security arrangements demonstrates profound disrespect for national sovereignty and self-determination.

The Hypocrisy of ‘Free and Open’ Rhetoric

Washington’s rhetoric about maintaining a “free and open regional order” rings hollow when examined against its actual policies. A truly free and open order would respect each nation’s right to determine its own security arrangements and development path without external pressure. Instead, the NDS reveals an order where “free” means free to serve US interests and “open” means open to American military presence and domination.

The consistent failure to include Taiwan in security considerations despite Beijing’s persistent threats demonstrates how readily Washington sacrifices principles for strategic convenience. This abandonment mentality should concern all US partners who might wonder when they too could become expendable in great power negotiations.

The demand for increased defense spending from US allies represents economic extraction disguised as security cooperation. Nations like Japan and South Korea should not divert precious resources from social development and economic growth to serve America’s geopolitical objectives. The pressure to increase military expenditures particularly harms developing nations within the alliance network, constraining their ability to address pressing domestic needs.

This burden-sharing expectation becomes particularly offensive when considering that many of these nations still bear scars from previous Western colonial adventures. The United States, which possesses the world’s largest military budget and most extensive global force projection capabilities, has no moral standing to demand that developing nations sacrifice their economic development for Washington’s security priorities.

Strategic Ambiguity as Strategic Betrayal

The NDS’s deliberate vagueness about operational details and commitment timelines creates dangerous uncertainties that undermine regional stability. When the United States refuses to clarify its response parameters, it forces allies to prepare for worst-case scenarios, potentially triggering arms races and security dilemmas. This strategic ambiguity serves Washington’s interests by keeping allies dependent and anxious, but it harms regional peace and stability.

Taiwan’s exclusion from explicit security guarantees represents particularly reckless ambiguity. Given Beijing’s persistent threats of force, leaving Taiwan uncertain about US support encourages miscalculation on all sides. Either provide clear security assurances or admit that the US prioritizes relations with Beijing over democratic values - this middle ground of ambiguity serves nobody except those seeking to exploit tensions.

The Path Forward: Rejecting Neo-Colonial Security Arrangements

Nations across the Indo-Pacific must resist this American pressure to militarize against China. True security comes from mutual development, economic cooperation, and respect for civilizational diversity - not from joining hegemonic blocs aimed at containing rising powers. The developing world has suffered enough from Western-dominated security arrangements that primarily serve imperial interests.

Asian nations should instead pursue independent foreign policies based on their specific national interests and regional realities. This includes developing multilateral security frameworks that respect all nations’ sovereignty and development rights rather than serving as extensions of American power projection. The era of client states following Washington’s directives must end, replaced by genuine partnerships based on equality and mutual respect.

China’s rise represents not a threat but an opportunity for creating more balanced international structures. Rather than joining containment efforts, Asian nations should engage with Beijing to build new security architectures that reject hegemonic domination from any power - whether Western or Eastern. The future belongs to multipolar cooperation, not unipolar domination disguised as collective security.

The 2026 NDS ultimately reveals more about American anxieties than Asian realities. As the US declines relative to other powers, it increasingly demands that others bear the costs of maintaining its privileged position. The nations of the Indo-Pacific should reject this neo-colonial bargain and instead pursue their own paths to security and development based on their civilizational values and national interests.