Will Philippines' second BrahMos missile system deter Beijing in the South China Sea?
The Philippines is set to receive a second battery of BrahMos supersonic anti-ship missiles from India – a move Manila hopes will bolster its coastal defences amid rising tensions in the South China Sea. However, analysts caution the deployment may carry more symbolic than strategic weight in deterring an increasingly assertive China.
Advertisement
The delivery was reported by The New Indian Express newspaper on Sunday, citing a defence source who said it was being shipped – unlike the first battery, which was delivered by air in April last year.
The reports came weeks after Philippine military chief General Romeo Brawner told the Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi that Manila was
seeking more missile systems to complete the integration of its air and missile defence.
'Alongside this, we will be purchasing more warships and multi-role fighter jets to build a strong and reliable deterrent force,' Brawner said.
'India is a vital partner. Beyond procurement, we are looking into joint manufacturing, technology transfer, and local production in the Philippines to support our growing defence industry.'
A model of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile on display at an Indian defence expo. Photo: AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
HKFP
3 hours ago
- HKFP
China vows to ‘resolutely safeguard' its students' rights after Trump ramps up attack on Harvard, Columbia
President Donald Trump ramped up his campaign against top US universities Wednesday, banning visas for all foreign students coming to attend Harvard and threatening to strip Columbia of its academic accreditation. Trump is seeking to bring the universities to heel with claims their international students pose a national security threat, and that they ignored anti-Semitism on campus and perpetuate liberal bias. A proclamation issued by the White House late Wednesday declared that the entrance of international students to begin a course at Harvard would be 'suspended and limited' for six months and that existing overseas enrollees could have their visas terminated. 'Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers,' the order said. Karl Molden, a Harvard government and classics student from Austria, said: 'I'm trembling. This is outrageous.' 'He is abusing his executive power to harm Harvard as much as he can,' Molden told AFP. 'My god!' said another international student at Harvard, who declined to be identified for fear of retribution. 'This is such a disgrace.' China's foreign ministry vowed on Thursday to 'resolutely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of its overseas students.' 'China has always opposed the politicization of educational cooperation,' ministry spokesman Lin Jian said, adding that the measure would 'harm America's image and international credibility.' US Secretary of State Marco Rubio promised last week to 'aggressively revoke visas' for Chinese students, a move condemned by Beijing. 'Retaliatory' Wednesday's announcement followed the Trump administration's earlier efforts to terminate Harvard's right to enroll and host foreign students were stalled by a judge. The government already cut around $3.2 billion of federal grants and contracts benefiting Harvard and pledged to exclude the Cambridge, Massachusetts, institution from any future federal funding. Harvard has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign against top universities after it defied his calls to submit to oversight of its curriculum, staffing, student recruitment and 'viewpoint diversity.' Trump has also singled out international students at Harvard, who accounted for 27 percent of total enrollment in the 2024-2025 academic year and are a major source of income. 'This is yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the Administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights,' a university spokesman said. 'Harvard will continue to protect its international students.' Trump's education secretary had also threatened on Wednesday to strip Columbia University of its accreditation. The Republican has targeted the New York Ivy League institution for allegedly ignoring harassment of Jewish students, throwing all of its federal funding into doubt. Unlike Harvard, several top institutions — including Columbia — have already bowed to far-reaching demands from the Trump administration, which claims that the educational elite is too left-wing. 'Combating anti-Semitism' Wednesday's official action suggested it was not enough for Trump. 'Columbia University looked the other way as Jewish students faced harassment,' US Education Secretary Linda McMahon said on social media platform X. She accused the school of breaking rules prohibiting recipients of federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. 'After Hamas' October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel, Columbia University's leadership acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students on its campus,' McMahon said in a statement. 'This is not only immoral, but also unlawful.' The US Education Department said in the statement its civil rights office had contacted Columbia's accreditation body about the alleged violation. Withdrawing Columbia's accreditation would see it lose access to all federal funding, a very significant proportion of the university's income. Students would also not be able to receive federal grants and tuition loans. Critics accuse the Trump administration of using allegations of anti-Semitism to target educational elites and bring universities to their knees. The administration has already put $400 million of Columbia's funding under review, prompting the university to announce in March a package of concessions to the government around defining anti-Semitism, policing protests and conducting oversight for specific academic departments. A Columbia spokesperson said after Wednesday's announcement the university was 'aware of the concerns' raised by the government. 'We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it,' the spokesperson said.
RTHK
6 hours ago
- RTHK
Moscow warns retaliation coming over airbase attacks
Moscow warns retaliation coming over airbase attacks A satellite image shows destroyed TU 95 aircraft in the aftermath of a Ukrainian drone strike at Belaya air base, Irkutsk region. Photo: Reuters Moscow will decide how and when to respond to Ukraine's attacks on its airbases, the Kremlin said on Thursday, confirming that President Vladimir Putin told his US counterpart Donald Trump that Russia would retaliate. Kyiv's weekend strikes on Russian airfields deep inside Russia destroyed nuclear-capable aircraft and infuriated Moscow. "As and when our military deems it appropriate," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said when asked what Moscow's response would be. The planes were parked at air fields deep inside Russian territory, including in Siberia. After a phone call with Putin on Wednesday, Trump said on social media: "President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields." Putin has repeatedly rejected a 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine and on Wednesday said that Kyiv would use it to rearm and mobilise. Trump's efforts to end the more than three-year conflict in Ukraine have so far yielded few results. The Kremlin said that Putin and Trump did not agree on a time to meet during their phone conversation but that "there is an understanding that a meeting is necessary." Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly called for talks with Putin, but the Russian leader said on Wednesday: "What can we talk about with terrorists?" (AFP)
Asia Times
6 hours ago
- Asia Times
India-EU deal holds key to a new world trade era
The European Union and India have reached consensus on almost half of the topics to be covered by a trade deal they hope to seal this year, according to a report. The India-EU trade deal isn't just about tariffs or trade quotas—it's a cultural cage match between India's vibrant, improvisational spirit and Europe's love for order. And if resolved in a win-win deal, it could rewrite the rules of global trade. This trade pact is more than a deal on goods; it's a daring experiment in fusing two wildly different worldviews: India's adaptive, sometimes chaotic economic approach—rooted in jugaad , the art of making do with what's at hand—with Europe's rigid, regulation-heavy ethos. This tension isn't necessarily a flaw; it's the deal's potential secret sauce. By forcing both sides to confront their blind spots, this agreement could birth a new trade model that values flexibility over cookie-cutter uniformity, giving India a chance to tilt the global economic balance more toward the Global South. Trade deals sound like dusty policy papers, but they're the arteries of the global economy, pumping goods, ideas, and power across borders. With world trade fracturing under US tariff threats and China's constrictive supply chain grip, India and the EU are racing to secure their economic futures. India, with its 1.4 billion people and roaring growth, is no longer a bit player. The EU, a trade giant, needs new partners as old alliances wobble. Recent reports peg the deal's deadline for late 2025, but the real story is how this pact could redefine who sets the terms in a world where emerging powers are flexing their muscles. To understand why this deal matters, consider the broader picture. Global trade is no longer just about who makes the cheapest widgets. It's about who controls the flow of ideas, technology and resources. India's tech sector, for instance, is a powerhouse, with companies like Infosys and TCS already competing globally. The EU wants a slice of that expertise, especially as it pushes for digital transformation. But India's negotiators are savvy—they know their tech and pharmaceutical industries are bargaining chips. By leveraging these strengths, India could secure better terms for its smaller industries, like textiles, which employ millions but struggle against global competition. India's negotiators are playing a bold hand, and it's not just about lowering tariffs on cars or whisky, though those matter (Europe wants India's 100% duties on autos slashed; India wants access for its textiles and pharmaceuticals). The heart of the deal lies in cultural friction. India's refusal to open its dairy and small-farm sectors—vital to millions of livelihoods—challenges the EU's free-market ideals. Indian farmers, often working tiny plots, aren't just economic units; they're the backbone of a rural culture that resists the EU's vision of efficient, large-scale agriculture. This isn't just about milk or mangoes; it's about whether global trade can respect local realities. In India, trade isn't just numbers—it's lives. The dairy sector alone supports over 80 million farmers, many of whom rely on small-scale operations. Opening it up to European competition could devastate rural communities. India's negotiators know this, which is why they're digging in their heels. For the EU, this feels like protectionism, but for India, it's about survival. This push-and-pull isn't just a hurdle; it's a chance to redefine what fairness in trade looks like. Can a deal respect both India's small farmers and Europe's efficient markets? That's the question both sides are wrestling with. Europe, meanwhile, is grappling with its own dogma. Its obsession with predictability—think carbon taxes and strict labor standards—clashes with India's improvisational resilience. Indian businesses, accustomed to navigating red tape and power cuts, see the EU's rules like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (set to hit Indian steel and cement exports in 2026) as a fancy tax on their hustle. Yet, this friction is productive. India's pushback forces the EU to rethink its one-size-fits-all approach, while Europe's insistence on transparency nudges India toward clearer rules. Moreover, the deal could shift power toward the Global South. India, projected to be the world's third-largest economy by 2030, isn't just negotiating for itself. It's setting a precedent. If India can protect its farmers while securing market access for its tech and textiles, other developing nations—say, Brazil or South Africa—might demand similar treatment at the negotiating table. The EU-India trade corridor, already worth 184 billion euros in 2023, could become a blueprint for deals that balance growth with cultural identity. Unlike the UK-India deal, which focuses heavily on whisky and cars, this pact dives deeper, tackling investment protection and geographical indications. The stakes go beyond economics. This deal is a test of whether two vastly different systems can find common ground. For India, it's a chance to prove it can negotiate as an equal, not a junior partner. For the EU, it's about staying relevant in a world where Asia's giants are rising and the US is withdrawing behind protectionist walls. Success here could inspire other trade blocs to rethink their approaches, prioritizing nuance over rigid templates. Failure, though, risks entrenching old power dynamics, where the Global North sets the rules and the Global South scrambles to comply. The India-EU trade deal is a high-stakes drama where two worlds collide—one thriving on chaos, the other craving order. As they hammer out the final chapters, they're not just trading goods; they're trading ideas about how the new world order should work. If they pull it off, the pact could inspire a new kind of global trade—one where the Global South doesn't just follow rules but helps write them. Brabim Karki is an author and businessman and the owner of Mero Tribune media. Follow him on X at @brabim7
