India-Philippines Ties Now Strategic Partnership on Upward Trajectory
This August, the visit of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to India marked a historic milestone in the relations between the two nations. The president's visit, which took place between August 4-8, was the first such state visit since 2007.
On August 5, India and the Philippines formally elevated their ties to a Strategic Partnership, backed by a comprehensive bilateral Plan of Action (2025–2029) signed in New Delhi.
In all, 13 memoranda and agreements were signed during Marcos Jr.'s visit. The partnership spans defense, maritime cooperation, trade, digital technologies, tourism, space cooperation, culture and science.
However, the transition from a prolonged historic stasis to the current phase of strategic dynamism has not been sudden. While India and the Philippines established bilateral diplomatic relations in 1949, thanks to Cold War politics, for decades, their partnership remained largely symbolic — anchored in mutual goodwill but unfulfilled potential.
Initial limitations were rooted in geographical distance, divergent regional priorities and systemic constraints. Over time, however, India's Look East policy, re-branded in 2014 as the Act East policy, began paving the way for more meaningful engagement through ASEAN frameworks, and India's initiatives such as the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative and Security and Growth for All in the Region, whose acronym SAGAR means ocean in multiple Indian languages. This was upgraded to Mahasagar, meaning the great ocean, in March 2025. The expanded acronym stands for Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions.
As India and the Philippines celebrate 75 years of bilateral ties, they stand stronger together at the cusp of making qualitative leaps in their relationship.
Defense Ties Key
Unlike several of its Southeast Asian peers, the Philippines does not have a strong trade relationship with India. The defense and security partnership has thus become the central pillar of the New Delhi-Manila strategic alignment. This is aptly reflected in the agreement on the sale of BrahMos supersonic cruise missile systems to the Philippines. This makes it the first country to procure these missiles from India.
India's BrahMos cruise missile system, delivered in two batches (first in April 2024 and the second in April 2025), now empowers the Philippine Marine Corps with advanced coastal defense capability. This was India's first major defense export.
During Marcos' recent visit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that defense cooperation is 'a symbol of deep mutual trust.' In turn, Marcos emphasized the Philippines as a vital partner in India's Act East and Mahasagar vision. Manila is also eyeing procurement of the Akash surface-to-air missile system from India.
Strategic Calculus and China
On the eve of Marcos' visit, the Indian and Philippine navies conducted their first-ever joint exercises in the South China Sea on August 3-4. The drills were held inside the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone, as part of Manila's broader efforts to counter China's maritime assertiveness.
India deployed three warships – INS Delhi, INS Shakti, and INS Kiltan – while the Philippines fielded BRP Miguel Malvar and BRP Jose Rizal. Chinese vessels reportedly followed the Indian-Philippine flotilla.
This shift signals a strategic evolution in India's posture toward the Indo‑Pacific. Barring a few exceptions, India had previously avoided direct mentions of the South China Sea. However, New Delhi now explicitly endorses adherence to the 2016 South China Sea arbitration award, drawing focus on upholding a rules-based maritime order.
For India, the South China Sea issue is no longer a peripheral concern, but is integral to its maritime and economic security as well as its regional leadership claims. The partnership with the Philippines is a tangible expression of India's Indo‑Pacific ambitions.
India's presence there through joint naval patrols and supplying BrahMos to the Philippines reflects an operational follow-through, not just a diplomatic alignment. The aim is deterrence and presenting a viable counterweight to China's claims in a region critical to global trade, through which about $3 trillion worth of goods transit annually.
Manila's pursuit of deeper ties with extra-regional partners such as India represents a deliberate move to reduce dependence on any single ally (for example, the U.S.) and forge multi-directional security and economic collaborations.
Looking at the South China Sea (or West Philippine Sea, as the part within the Philippines' exclusive economic zone is called) issue from the Philippine perspective, it is clear that — barring perhaps Vietnam on occasion — no country has faced as much harassment over territorial claims at the hands of China as the Philippines has.
Recognizing the need to balance China's assertiveness, both countries are prioritizing maritime cooperation, information sharing and defense engagements to protect a rules-based order in the area.
Diversifying its security and defense partnerships would not only reduce the Philippines' dependency on any single country but also empower the Philippines and India to navigate the complex interplay of regional strategic dynamics effectively.
Beyond Security
This strategic realignment extends into non-military domains too. For instance, India and the Philippines announced visa-free entry for Indian tourists and free e-visas for Filipino nationals, alongside plans for direct Delhi–Manila flights, expected to expand bilateral tourism and people-to-people exchanges. It has not gone unnoticed in Manila that Thailand and Malaysia offered visa-free entry to Indian tourists and, as a result, saw great benefits in tourism. These recent moves promise to further strengthen people-to-people linkages between the two countries.
The two sides have also agreed to launch a preferential trade negotiation, as bilateral trade remains modest ($3.3 billion in 2024), but has abundant room for growth. This is in tune with the ongoing review of the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement that was implemented in 2010. India-Philippines collaboration frameworks span space exploration, digital innovation, culture, health and agriculture, all underpinned by the 2025–29 Plan of Action. India's strengths, including IT, digital inclusion, pharmaceuticals, and space, align closely with the Philippines' development goals, positioning the partnership for substantive impact beyond security.
Once characterized by distant potential and limited interaction, the bilateral relationship between India and the Philippines is now evolving into a strong strategic partnership. In a changing Indo-Pacific region marked by increasing great-power rivalry, this partnership stands to benefit India's pursuit of its strategic objectives, and the Philippines' efforts for strategic diversification.
Originally published by 360info.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
9 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
What to Know about the Putin-Trump Summit in Alaska
The U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska is happening where East meets West — quite literally — in a place familiar to both countries as a Cold War front line of missile defense, radar outposts and intelligence gathering. Whether it can lead to a deal to produce peace in Ukraine more than 3 1/2 years after Moscow's invasion remains to be seen. Here's what to know about the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump, the first summit in four years: When and where is it taking place? The summit will take place Friday at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson outside Anchorage, according to a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning. It played a key role in the Cold War in monitoring and deterring the Soviet Union. It's Putin's first trip to the U.S. since 2015 for the U.N. General Assembly in New York. Because the U.S. isn't a member of the International Criminal Court, which in 2023 issued a warrant for Putin on war crimes accusations, it's under no obligation to arrest him. Is Zelenskyy going? Both countries confirmed a meeting between only Putin and Trump, despite initial suggestions that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy might take part. The Kremlin has long pushed back against Putin meeting Zelenskyy -– at least until a peace deal is reached by both sides and is ready to be signed. Putin said last week he wasn't against meeting Zelenskyy 'but certain conditions need to be created' and were 'still a long way off.' That raised fears about excluding Ukraine from negotiations. Kyiv and its European allies stressed that peace cannot be achieved without Kyiv's involvement. Zelenskyy was in Berlin for virtual meetings Wednesday with Trump and European leaders to try to ensure Ukraine and its allies are heard before the summit. The Ukrainian president told the group Putin 'is bluffing' about his military might and the effectiveness of sanctions, and 'is trying to apply pressure … on all sectors of the Ukrainian front' to try to show that Russia is 'capable of occupying all of Ukraine.' In reality, sanctions are 'hitting Russia's war economy hard,' Zelenskyy said. What's Alaska's role in Russian history? It will be the first visit by a Russian leader to Alaska, even though it was part of the czarist empire until 1867, the state news agency Tass said. Alaska was colonized by Russia starting from the 18th century until Czar Alexander II sold it to the United States in 1867 for $7.2 million. When it was found to contain vast resources, it was seen by Russians as a naïve deal that generated remorse. After the USSR's collapse, Alaska was a subject of nostalgia and jokes for Russians. One popular song in the 1990s went: 'Don't play the fool, America … give back our dear Alaska land.' Sam Greene of King's College London said on X the symbolism of Alaska as the site of a summit about Ukraine was 'horrendous — as though designed to demonstrate that borders can change, land can be bought and sold.' What's the agenda? Trump has appeared increasingly exasperated with Putin over Russia's refusal to halt the bombardment of Ukraine. Kyiv has agreed to a ceasefire, insisting on a truce as a first step toward peace. Moscow presented ceasefire conditions that are nonstarters for Zelenskyy, such as withdrawing troops from the four regions Russia illegally annexed in 2022, halting mobilization efforts, or freezing Western arms deliveries. For a broader peace, Putin demands Kyiv cede the annexed regions, even though Russia doesn't fully control them, and Crimea, renounce a bid to join NATO, limit the size of its armed forces and recognize Russian as an official language along with Ukrainian. Zelenskyy insists any peace deals include robust security guarantees to protect Ukraine from future Russian aggression. Putin has warned Ukraine it will face tougher conditions for peace as Russian troops forge into other regions to build what he described as a 'buffer zone.' Some observers suggested Russia could trade those recent gains for territory under Ukrainian control in the four annexed regions annexed by Moscow. Zelenskyy said Saturday that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' But Trump said Monday: 'There'll be some land swapping going on. I know that through Russia and through conversations with everybody. To the good, for the good of Ukraine. Good stuff, not bad stuff. Also, some bad stuff for both.' Zelenskyy said Tuesday that Putin wants Ukraine to withdraw from the remaining 30% of the Donetsk region it still controls as part of a ceasefire deal, a proposal the Ukrainian categorically rejected. Kyiv won't give up territory it controls, he added, saying that would be unconstitutional and would serve only as a springboard for a future Russian invasion. He said discussions led by the U.S. on ending the war have not addressed key Ukrainian demands, including security guarantees to prevent future Russian aggression and including Europe in negotiations. French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday that Trump was 'very clear' in a virtual meeting with European leaders and Zelenskyy that the U.S. wants to achieve a ceasefire. Macron added that Trump had been clear that 'territorial issues relating to Ukraine … will only be negotiated by the Ukrainian president.' What are expectations? Trump said Wednesday there will be unspecified 'very severe consequences' if Putin does not agree to stop the war after the summit. Putin sees a meeting with Trump as a chance to cement Russia's territorial gains, keep Ukraine out of NATO and prevent it from hosting any Western troops so Moscow can gradually pull the country back into its orbit. He believes time is on his side as Ukrainian forces are struggling to stem Russian advances along the front amid swarms of Moscow's missiles and drones. The meeting is a diplomatic coup for Putin, isolated since the invasion. The Kremlin sought to portray renewed U.S. contacts as two superpowers looking to resolve various global problems, with Ukraine being just one. Ukraine and its European allies are concerned a summit without Kyiv could allow Putin to get Trump on his side and force Ukraine into concessions. 'Any decisions that are without Ukraine are at the same time decisions against peace,' Zelenskyy said. 'They will not bring anything. These are dead decisions. They will never work.' European officials echoed that. 'As we work towards a sustainable and just peace, international law is clear: All temporarily occupied territories belong to Ukraine,' European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said. 'A sustainable peace also means that aggression cannot be rewarded.' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said Sunday he believed Trump was 'making sure that Putin is serious, and if he is not, then it will stop there.' 'If he is serious, then from Friday onwards, the process will continue. Ukraine getting involved, the Europeans being involved,' Rutte added. Since last week, Putin spoke to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, as well as the leaders of South Africa, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan, the Kremlin said. That suggested Putin perhaps wanted to brief Russia's most important allies about a potential settlement, said pro-Kremlin analyst Sergei Markov.
Japan Times
9 hours ago
- Japan Times
After serving as bulwark for 80 years, Japan's U.S. ties continue to evolve
Under the security alliance with the United States, Japan has served as a bulwark against an expansion of the Soviet communist bloc and China's hegemonic ambitions since the end of World War II. In August 1945, Japan surrendered in the war following heavy casualties, including from U.S. air raids across the country and the U.S. atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Allied powers considered dividing Japan. But the United States, wary of the potential rise of the Soviet Union, wanted Japan to recover quickly as a capitalist country. Washington used Japan as a base for containing communism during the Cold War.
The Diplomat
13 hours ago
- The Diplomat
80 Years After WW2, Japan Again Finds Itself in Uncharted Waters
The country's postwar history was a remarkable story of national rebirth. Now the assumptions that underpinned the last 80 years of policy are being stressed to the limit. August is a month of remembrance for Japan. On August 6, 1945, Japan became the first (and so far only) country in the world that has ever been struck by an atomic bomb. This was quickly followed by a second atomic bombing on August 9. Then August 15 marks the date of Japan's unconditional surrender to the Allied Forces, officially ending World War II. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the war and destruction. Japan's postwar history was a remarkable story of a nation's rebirth and reconstruction. Having vowed to strive to 'occupy an honorable place in international community' in its Constitution – and prohibiting itself from resorting to war as a means to settle disagreements with other countries – Japan has become one of the staunchest supporters of the international order, institutions, and norms that were created after World War II. Placing its bilateral alliance with the United States at the core of its foreign policy, Japan has striven to fulfill the role of 'a rule-promotor, a commons' guardian and an effective partner and ally to the U.S. and other democracies,' as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe put it in 2013. Indeed, Japan's postwar foreign policy embodies its tireless – and continuing – efforts in this endeavor. Despite persistent economic stagnation, Japan is the third largest financial contributor to the United Nations, only after the United States and China. It also is one of the top providers of Official Development Assistance. Both distinctions are fitting for a country that remains one of the most powerful economies in the world. Also, as the only country in the world that experienced the catastrophic damage of the atomic bomb, Japan has consistently been among the leading voices to push for nuclear disarmament. Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru reaffirmed Japan's commitment to ultimately achieve a 'world without nuclear weapons' when he spoke at the peace memorial ceremonies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki earlier this month. Looking at Japan's postwar foreign policy, the Japan-U.S. alliance has undergone the greatest transformation since the two countries signed their original mutual security treaty in 1951, which was later revised into its current form in 1960. What once was a lopsided alliance between the United States as 'protector' and Japan as the 'protected,' in exchange for hosting a U.S. military presence, has evolved into a much more equitable partnership. So far, the alliance has demonstrated a remarkable resilience, adapting to the changing reality of geostrategic environment from the Cold War to the post-Cold War through the 21st century. However, as Japan reflects on the last eight decades, it also finds itself at a crossroad, both domestically and externally. Domestically, the so-called '1955 system,' which consistently provided stable political leadership under the dominant rule of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), has been showing signs of atrophy in recent years. The LDP's undeniable decline following its electoral setbacks in three consecutive elections, coupled with a proliferation of small parties (none of which enjoys enough voter support to replace the LDP as a new governing force), strongly suggests that Japan will enter a period of muddling through with weak political leadership with frequent leadership changes. Meanwhile, Japan's economy continues to struggle, as inflation outpaces the rise in people's wages. With a declining population and a society that is aging at an accelerating rate, Japan is also struggling to deal with enduring issues such as immigration, diversity, and gender equality. The political, economic, and societal uncertainties at home could not have hit Japan at a worse time. Today, the country finds itself having to navigate uncharted waters as the international order undergoes tectonic shifts. With the U.S. abdicating its noblesse oblige with Trump administration's 'America First' policy and its tariff war against allies, partners, and foes alike, the resilience of the post-World War II liberal international order and the strength of multinational institutions are increasingly being questioned. The deteriorating environment in the Middle East and protracted war between Russia and Ukraine has been accompanied by increasingly close strategic alignment among North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran. Add to that declining confidence in the postwar multinational framework, and these factors all point to a inevitable reality: anchoring its foreign policy in a robust Japan-U.S. alliance no longer sufficiently serves Tokyo's interest. In the years immediately followed World War II, Japan's policy was led by the Yoshida Doctrine, focusing on economic development by relying on the Japan-U.S. alliance for security. As the world searched for a post-9/11 adjustment to the international order, the late Abe Shinzo offered visions for Japan such as the 'Proactive Contribution to International Peace' and 'Free and Open Indo-Pacific.' Will Ishiba be able to offer a forward-looking vision that can guide Japan through domestic and international uncertainty at this important time of reflection for Japan? His ultimate political fate may depend on it.
