Reviving SEATO or building an Asian NATO?

The constant presence of world powers in the Asia-Pacific region may be a sign: is Washington pushing to revive the defunct Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) or create a wider “Asian NATO”?

Manuel Mogato | August 8, 2026

MANILA — Just days after Chinese Coast Guard vessels harassed several Philippine public vessels supplying food and fuel to local fishermen near Bajo de Masinloc, Washington sent its carrier strike group in a show of force in the contested South China Sea.

The United States wanted to reassure its allies that it would be there any time and anywhere to deter any ambitious power from dominating the region, including the strategic South China Sea.

Although the South China Sea is vast, it is critical, like the narrow Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. About $3 trillion in trade passes annually through the strategic waters, also believed to have rich deposits of energy and mineral resources as well as fisheries.

Most of the disputed waters in the South China Sea are either in Vietnam at the western part of the body of water or the Philippines in the eastern portion.

No wonder the two countries are taking the brunt of China’s illegal, coercive, aggressive, and dangerous (ICAD) activities.

On the Philippines’ side, Chinese presence and activities have been focused on three specific areas —Bajo de Masinloc, Escoda Shoal, and Ayungin Shoal.

Bajo de Masinloc takes precedence in importance to establish China’s choke points in commercial maritime traffic. (Also read: Philippine Defense Secretary calls on ASEAN to support a rules-based order in the South China Sea)

Washington knew this exactly, but its hands are tied because it has no legitimate interests on the rocky outcrop except to ensure freedom of navigation and overflight.

Thus, it can only use its powerful carrier strike group to patrol the contested waters, and, perhaps, intimidate ambitious regional powers from bullying smaller, weaker coastal neighbors.

However, the US military forces are thinly spread, with the long-running conflict in Eastern Europe and the prolonged war with Iran. (Also read: Rubio wants Asian states to send ships to protect the Strait of Hormuz)

Moreover, there are other small fires in other regions to quell, such as Latin America and the African contingents

The United States can no longer police the world alone.

In the Middle East alone, the US resources are fast depleting as missile exchanges with the Islamic regime in Iran have continued for months since February, when it launched air strikes with Israel in Iran.

It needed its allies to share the burden of keeping the world at peace and stable. It is letting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other European allies take the lead in supporting Ukraine in repelling the Russians.

In this part of the world, the United States has been building “small alliances”. Such as AUKUS, QUAD, QUAD Plus, JaPhUS, JAROKUS, SQUAD, and other alphabet soup security networks to counter its adversaries — China, North Korea, and Russia in the region.

Washington has also scaled up multilateral joint exercises with allies in the region, such as ALON, Cope Thunder, Balikatan, Salaknib, Kamandag, Resolute Force Pacific, RIMPAC, Talisman Sabre, and Cobra Gold.

These all-year-round training and exercises kept busy the US Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force in the region, moving from one area to another, a strong military presence that can be shifted to an area when an emergency arises.

In a way, it rehearses US mobility and logistics when necessary in troubled areas, for instance, in the Taiwan Strait or in disputed waters in the East and South China Seas.

Offensive missile batteries have been prepositioned in Japan, the Philippines, and in South Korea. Long-range hypersonic weapons (LRHW), or Dark Eagle missiles, have been moved to Guam from the continental United States.

Strategic bombers, nuclear-powered submarines, and Aegis guided-missile destroyers roamed the Indo-Pacific theater of operations.

The United States Coast Guard has joined the fray, deploying its cutters in Singapore and Subic Bay to match China’s “gray zone operations in the South China Sea.”

There are no “hot” wars in the region, but the presence of so many military assets from the US, China, Japan, Australia and other countries has intensified regional tensions.

Any miscalculations and accidents could ignite a shooting war among protagonists, which may drag small countries, like the Philippines, to unnecessary conflict.

As Washington prepares to confront Beijing, it has been prepositioning personnel, weapons, logistics, and other supplies in Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea, while actively building a reserve force in Australia.

Australia and Japan are also replicating US security arrangements, such as the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA), the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), and possibly the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), to strengthen security linkages with the Philippines.

The US bases in Japan, South Korea, and Australia, as well as the EDCA locations in the Philippines, have become critical to US military operations, as clearly seen in the Gulf States, Turkey, Israel, and Jordan in the war with Iran. (Also read: What’s the reason behind US expansion of military engagements in the Philippines?)

Washington needs forward locations and allies abroad to bring the conflict closer to adversaries, and at the same time increase the vulnerabilities of these so-called allies.

These developments undermine the ASEAN security architecture, as Washington’s overt efforts clearly seek to replace the existing regional mechanism with its own security bloc.

Is Washington pushing to revive the defunct Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) or create a wider “Asian NATO”?

War Secretary Pete Hegseth urged ASEAN and other regional allies and partners to increase their defense spending to 3 percent of GDP as an effective deterrence against a rising China.

Only Singapore is spending above the 3 percent threshold, while most countries, including the Philippines, have serious problems meeting the US requirement.

It is premature to create such a security architecture because countries in the region have diverse military structures, equipment, doctrines, tactics, and training.

Interoperability among countries in the region will be difficult, defeating the purpose of a regional alliance.

Besides, ASEAN doesn’t want to take sides between the US and China, and jealously guards its centrality, keeping the driver’s seat in charting its direction and free from any dictates of world powers.

The Marcos administration must continue its foreign policy of “friends to all and enemies to no one” and keep its neutrality. (Also read: Philippines still seeks diplomatic route over South China Sea conflict)

The Philippines needs to maintain its alliances and build more with like-minded countries to deter China, one of its effective weapons given its weaker military capabilities.

But it must avoid being a pawn of the US and its allies against their adversaries.