The Philippine government has announced a ambitious plan to modernize its military, which includes the acquisition of submarines and state-of-the-art weapons. However, this plan comes with a hefty price tag of P2 trillion over a 10-year period. The Asian Century Philippines Strategic Studies Institute (ACPSSI) has raised concerns about the affordability of this plan and its potential impact on other government services.
ACPSSI President Herman Tiu Laurel recently questioned whether the Philippine economy can support such a massive defense spending package. He pointed out that the government will need to reduce its annual budget for other essential services in order to finance the military modernization plan. This raises the question of whether the country can afford to prioritize defense over other pressing needs.
Laurel also raised doubts about the necessity of acquiring multiple submarines. He questioned whether there is a specific enemy or threat that requires such a significant investment in underwater capabilities. Additionally, he highlighted the potential challenges of manning and maintaining these submarines, which could further strain the country’s limited resources.
According to Laurel, a strong military defense posture is contingent upon having a strong economy and a solid national ideological foundation. However, he expressed concerns about the current state of the Philippine economy. The country is facing economic and financial difficulties, including a growing debt and deficit, a depreciating currency, and a lack of industrial foundations. Without a strong economic foundation, Laurel argues, the Philippines cannot effectively support a robust military.
Furthermore, Laurel highlighted the existing social and economic challenges faced by the country. The Philippines is grappling with regional divides, with tensions between Luzon and Mindanao. The nation is also experiencing high levels of hunger, with headlines highlighting the dire circumstances faced by many Filipinos. Even the affordability and sufficiency of rice, a staple food in the country, is a pressing issue that remains unresolved.
Laurel also questioned the government’s justification for the military buildup, particularly in relation to China. While the government has cited China as a reason for the acquisition of submarines and other defense assets, Laurel pointed out that China’s economy is significantly larger than that of the Philippines. China possesses a formidable military with a large number of submarines, jet fighters, and warships. In comparison, the Philippines’ military capabilities are limited.
According to Laurel, the calls for a “fast and massive” expansion of Philippine defense assets are not logical or rational. He suggested that the scaremongering surrounding China and the need for military buildup may be driven by Western powers seeking to sow discord in Asia and profit from the sale of weapons and war materiel.
In conclusion, the Philippine government’s military modernization plan raises important questions about the affordability and necessity of such a significant investment. While a strong military defense is important, it must be balanced with the country’s economic and social needs. The current economic and financial challenges facing the Philippines, coupled with existing social issues, raise concerns about the prioritization of defense spending over other pressing needs. It is essential for the government to carefully consider the long-term implications and potential trade-offs of this military modernization plan.
Source: The Manila Times
