Philippines' Defense Chief Out of Line? Calls for China to "Lead in Disarming Nuclear Weapons"

Is the Philippines' defense secretary losing his grip on reality? Just days before the 58th ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meeting, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana made some outlandish remarks on July 4 during an interview with local media.

He suggested that China should take the lead in dismantling its nuclear arsenal as a gesture of "good faith" under the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty. This absurd proposition has been met with widespread ridicule online, with some commenters sarcastically noting that if China were to destroy its nuclear weapons, doing so on Luzon Island might be the most fitting location.

Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone

Let's first clarify the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty. Proposed by ASEAN in 2011, the treaty aims to designate Southeast Asia as a nuclear-free zone. It has two key components:

First, nuclear-armed states are prohibited from deploying nuclear weapons in Southeast Asia. This means that whether it is the recognized nuclear powers or other states with nuclear capabilities, none are allowed to station nuclear weapons in the region. This effectively prevents Southeast Asia from becoming a potential target for nuclear strikes.

Second, the treaty ensures that non-nuclear states in Southeast Asia are not subject to nuclear blackmail by nuclear-armed states. The recognized nuclear powers are expected to uphold this commitment through their national credibility and mutual deterrence.

Why does the Philippines oppose?

In essence, the treaty reflects a strategic idea of non-nuclearization in Southeast Asia.

It aims to keep the region neutral in great power competition, avoiding involvement in conflicts between major powers and preventing the use of Southeast Asian countries as pawns in geopolitical games.

Philippines' Misunderstanding and Motives

After the treaty was proposed, ASEAN began engaging the recognized nuclear powers to seek their support. China and Russia's approval of the treaty made sense. For Russia, Southeast Asia is not a primary strategic focus. For China, it is beneficial for Southeast Asia to remain neutral in great power competition, avoiding alignment with any side and not being used as a pawn. However, the Philippines' stance is puzzling.

Lorenzana's suggestion that China should dismantle its nuclear weapons is not only unrealistic but also disingenuous. He seems to be deliberately misinterpreting the treaty's purpose. If he truly believed that the treaty required nuclear powers to disarm, why did he not call for Russia to do the same? The real motive is clear: The Philippines is trying to use the treaty as a pretext to provoke China while hoping that the United States will not agree to the treaty.

The Role of the United States

The Philippines' defense strategy is heavily reliant on the United States. Historically, during the Cold War, the U.S. military had deployed nuclear weapons at Clark Air Base in the Philippines. The Philippines may have drawn a false lesson from this, thinking that by allowing U.S. nuclear weapons back into the region, it can gain leverage against China in the South China Sea.

In 2025, there is a real possibility that the United States could deploy nuclear-capable weapons to the Philippines. For example, the U.S. military's Multi-Domain Task Forces (MDTFs) have intermediate-range capabilities, such as the BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads. Even more concerning is the potential deployment of hypersonic weapons, such as the "Dark Hawk" hypersonic glide vehicle, which could also be nuclear-armed.

The Philippines' Geopolitical Gambit

The Philippines' recent actions reflect a misguided attempt to assert its strategic importance in the South China Sea. It has been trying to align itself more closely with the United States and Japan under the so-called "single theater" concept.

This idea, proposed by Japan's defense minister in February, envisions a coordinated military strategy across Japan, South Korea, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, the Philippines, and Australia.

The Philippines has interpreted this to mean strengthening coordination with Japan and Australia, even suggesting the establishment of a joint coordination center for strategic patrols in the South China Sea.

Moreover, the Philippines has been playing games with U.S. military equipment. During the "Shoulder-to-Shoulder" military exercises in 2024 and 2025, the Philippines has repeatedly retained U.S. military hardware under the guise of "training." This includes the "Ticonderoga" missile system and a naval missile launcher. These actions are not only opportunistic but also potentially destabilizing.

Conclusion

The Philippines' recent behavior is a classic example of overreaching. It seems to believe that by provoking China and relying on the United States, it can gain strategic advantages. However, this approach is fraught with risks.

The Philippines should recognize that its true security lies in maintaining regional stability and adhering to the principles of the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty.

Instead of playing geopolitical games, it should focus on building constructive relationships with its neighbors and contributing to regional peace.