US Warmongering: A Threat to Environments and Environmental Defenders

Statement of the Asia Pacific Network of Environmental Defenders on World Environment Day

As communities around the world commemorate World Environment Day, the Asia Pacific Network of Environmental Defenders (APNED) raises the alarm on a growing threat to environments, climate justice, and environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs) across Asia and the Pacific: the escalating militarism and warmongering of the United States of America in pursuit of geopolitical and economic dominance.

APNED condemns imperialist wars, wars of occupation, foreign military interventions, proxy wars, and other forms of militarized domination pursued by imperialist states to secure strategic, political, and economic interests at the expense of human rights and the environment.

Imperialist war and militarization are among the most destructive forces confronting people and the planet. Wars have historically caused deforestation, biodiversity loss, soil degradation, water contamination, and air pollution. The Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and more recent conflicts in Palestine and Ukraine have left profound ecological damage. In Gaza, the ongoing genocide and military assault have devastated ecosystems and public infrastructure, contaminated water sources, destroyed agricultural lands, and generated enormous quantities of hazardous debris and unexploded ordnance.¹

The environmental impacts of war extend far beyond the battlefield. Militaries are among the world’s largest institutional consumers of fossil fuels and major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Recent estimates suggest that global military activities account for approximately 5.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, even without fully accounting for emissions generated directly by armed conflicts themselves.² Military expansion, weapons production, military exercises, and warfare accelerate the climate crisis while diverting public resources away from climate action, environmental protection, and community resilience.

Imperialist war and militarization also pose grave threats to environmental human rights defenders. Across Asia and the Pacific, EHRDs already face criminalization, surveillance, judicial harassment, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, and killings for defending ecosystems and communities from destructive projects. Many defenders come from sectors that are already marginalized and disproportionately affected by environmental harm and climate change, including Indigenous Peoples, peasants, fisherfolk, women, youth, and local communities.

In contexts of militarization and armed conflict, these risks intensify. Civic space contracts, dissent is increasingly framed as a security threat, and impunity for human rights violations grows. Communities resisting environmentally destructive projects are often subjected to intimidation, displacement, and violence under the pretext of national security or development. Militarized environments undermine the freedoms of expression, association, and assembly that are essential for environmental protection and democratic participation.³

Today, the United States remains the world’s largest military spender and the principal driver of military expansion across many regions of the world. Through its extensive network of overseas military bases, alliances, weapons transfers, military exercises, and security arrangements, it continues to project military power far beyond its borders. Its support for Israel’s occupation of Palestine and military assault on Gaza, military interventions abroad, and strategic rivalry with competing powers have contributed to escalating geopolitical tensions with severe environmental and human rights consequences.

In Asia and the Pacific, these tensions are increasingly reflected in the expansion of US military access and security partnerships. The Philippines continues to deepen military cooperation with the United States through the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT), the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), all of which remain in force and have been reaffirmed by both governments.⁴ Indonesia and the United States have likewise strengthened defense cooperation through the US–Indonesia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, expanded military exercises such as Super Garuda Shield, and broader security cooperation arrangements.⁵ Similar military partnerships are being strengthened throughout the region under the framework of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy.

These arrangements are often presented as measures to maintain stability and security. However, they also facilitate the expansion of military infrastructure, troop deployments, military exercises, logistical networks, and strategic control over territories that are home to ecologically sensitive areas and resource-rich communities. Forests, coastal ecosystems, agricultural lands, and Indigenous territories increasingly become sites of military buildup and geopolitical competition. Increased military presence can restrict access to land and natural resources, contribute to environmental degradation and pollution, and expose communities to the risks of future armed conflict.

For environmental defenders, militarism and extractivism are deeply interconnected. Military power secures political and economic interests, while extractive industries provide the resources necessary to sustain geopolitical competition. Together, they deepen environmental destruction, accelerate climate change, shrink civic space, and undermine the collective rights of communities to determine their own futures.

At the same time, strategic competition is driving a renewed scramble for critical minerals, energy systems, digital infrastructure, and advanced technologies needed to sustain military and economic supremacy. This trend is reflected in initiatives such as the Pax Silica framework, which seeks to strengthen cooperation among US allies and partners in securing supply chains for semiconductors, artificial intelligence infrastructure, critical minerals, advanced manufacturing, energy systems, and digital connectivity.⁶ While framed as economic and technological cooperation, these initiatives risk accelerating extractivism, mineral extraction, energy infrastructure expansion, and land conversion across Asia and the Pacific to meet the resource demands of geopolitical competition. Indigenous territories, agricultural lands, coastal ecosystems, and other resource-rich areas risk becoming new frontiers for extraction in service of strategic competition among global powers.

Environmental defenders are often the first to challenge these projects and expose their social and ecological impacts. As militarization and geopolitical competition deepen, defenders face growing risks of criminalization and repression as governments invoke national security, foreign investment, or geopolitical necessity to justify environmentally destructive projects and suppress community resistance.

On this World Environment Day, APNED stands in solidarity with environmental defenders, Indigenous Peoples, peasants, fisherfolk, workers, women, youth, and all communities resisting militarism, ecological destruction, and human rights violations.

We call on governments across Asia and the Pacific to reject policies that intensify military confrontation, expand foreign military presence, and facilitate destructive extractive projects under the guise of security and development. We urge civil society, social movements, and peoples’ organizations to strengthen collective action in defense of human rights, environmental justice, climate justice, and the protection of environmental defenders.

No to US warmongering.

No to militarism, occupation, and ecological destruction.

Protect environmental defenders.

Defend human rights and the environment.

 

References

1. United Nations Environment Programme. (2024, June 18). Environmental impact of the conflict in Gaza: Preliminary assessment of environmental impacts. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/environmental-impact-conflict-gaza-preliminary-assessment-environmental-impacts
2. Conflict and Environment Observatory, & Scientists for Global Responsibility. (2022, November 10). Estimating the military’s global greenhouse gas emissions. Conflict and Environment Observatory. https://ceobs.org/estimating-the-militarys-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
3. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (n.d.). Protecting human rights in conflict situations. OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/protecting-human-rights-conflict-situations
4. U.S. Department of Defense. (2025, March 28). United States–Philippines joint statement on Secretary Hegseth’s inaugural visit. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4137869/united-states-philippines-joint-statement-on-secretary-hegseths-inaugural-visit/
5. U.S. Department of State. (2023, November 13). Joint Statement from the Leaders of the United States and the Republic of Indonesia: Elevating Relations to a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. https://id.usembassy.gov/joint-statement-from-the-leaders-of-the-united-states-and-the-republic-of-indonesia-elevating-relations-to-a-comprehensive-strategic-partnership/ 
6. Gonzales, G. (2026 April 22). What is Pax Silica? What are its goals, and what concerns does it raise? Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/technology/features/things-to-know-pax-silica-philippines-goals-concerns/