AUGUST 30 — The Indo-Pacific is often analysed through the prism of geopolitics: the rivalry between the United States and China, the shadow of nuclear deterrence, the proliferation of bilateral security treaties, and the intensifying naval build-up across strategic straits and sea lanes. Yet this fixation on military competition obscures the most immediate threat facing the region — the volatility of nature itself. 

The Ring of Fire, with its seismic instability, has proven repeatedly that no aircraft carrier or missile shield can prevent earthquakes, tsunamis, or volcanic eruptions. What can, however, mitigate these shocks is a genuine collective capacity for Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR).

The Ring of Fire as the true strategic theatre

From Aceh’s tsunami in 2004 to the Tohoku disaster in 2011, and most recently the recurrent earthquakes in the Philippines and Indonesia, the Indo-Pacific has borne disproportionate human and economic losses. Asean alone has faced billions in damages annually from natural disasters. 

In such a context, military alliances and pacts — whether the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA), the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), or the US hub-and-spokes system — must recognise that their credibility lies not only in deterring adversaries but in delivering immediate relief to victims of nature.

A carrier strike group’s projection of force matters less to a villager in Lombok or Mindanao than whether helicopters and engineers arrive within hours with clean water, shelter, and medical supplies. The lesson is clear: the first test of alliances in the Indo-Pacific is not warfighting, but lifesaving.

Asean’s imperative for HADR- first thinking

Asean’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation emphasises non-interference and consensus. Yet, when disasters strike, delays caused by diplomatic caution are costly. 

The Asean Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on disaster management (AHA Centre) has been a step forward, but it remains under-resourced. If Asean wants to prove its centrality in the Indo-Pacific, it must demand that military cooperation prioritise joint disaster relief drills, shared logistics hubs, and interoperable supply chains.

Malaysia and Australia, bound by over five decades of FPDA commitments, already rehearse combined humanitarian operations. This should become the template: a doctrine where the first mission profile is HADR, not combat. If codified, such a reorientation would not only save lives but also strengthen trust among members otherwise wary of defence entanglements.

Energy security and disaster resilience

If anything, disaster resilience in Southeast Asia cannot be divorced from its energy-security matrix. Earthquakes, tsunamis, and floods not only displace people but also disrupt vital energy infrastructure — from offshore rigs to refineries and subsea pipelines — that underpin both national survival and regional trade. His research demonstrates that militaries and civilian agencies must coordinate not merely to deliver relief but also to safeguard these critical lifelines.

In that sense, HADR is not just humanitarian — it is strategic. Protecting energy networks, supply chains, and industrial zones in the Ring of Fire is as important as patrolling sea lanes. Without functioning energy systems, economic recovery after a disaster stalls, and national security erodes from within.

Recasting alliances in the Indo-Pacific

The Quad countries — Australia, India, Japan, and the United States — have conducted naval exercises like Malabar, projecting balance against China. But the same assets, if mobilised during the next typhoon season, would demonstrate to Asean peoples that alliances serve them directly.

In fact, the Quad’s credibility in Southeast Asia will grow faster through disaster relief than deterrence patrols.

Likewise, US alliances with Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines must be judged by whether they can respond with agility to earthquakes in Hokkaido, eruptions in Luzon, or super typhoons in Cebu. This is where Asean can push for a “HADR Clause” in any engagement with external partners—a normative expectation that defence cooperation comes with humanitarian dividends.

The moral and strategic payoff

Reframing alliances as HADR-first does not diminish their deterrent value. On the contrary, it amplifies their legitimacy. Citizens will support defence spending and partnerships when they see their navies and air forces as first responders in crises. Moreover, HADR operations allow militaries to build trust without triggering insecurities; Chinese participation in joint disaster drills, for example, is far less politically sensitive than naval patrols in contested waters.

Finally, this approach resonates with Asean’s “5Cs” — consultation, consensus, collaboration, collegiality, and cooperation — while demonstrating that even in a fragmented Indo-Pacific, common threats can forge solidarities.

Conclusion

In the Indo-Pacific Ring of Fire, the next major crisis is more likely to come from nature than from a clash of arms. Alliances that fail to recognise this will lose both legitimacy and relevance. To be meaningful, military pacts must re-engineer their priorities: lifesaving first, warfighting second. Asean, as the convening centre of regional architectures, should make this the defining demand of its partnerships. As Associate Professor Chin Jit Kai reminds us, resilience and security are indivisible — because when disaster strikes, survival itself is the first line of defence.

* Phar Kim Beng, PhD is the Professor of Asean Studies at International Islamic University of Malaysia and Director of Institute of Internationalisation and Asean Studies (IINTAS).

* Associate Professor Chin Jit Kai is from the Department of Mechanical Engineering Universiti Teknologi Petronas.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.