Plain and Simple: NATO Should Stay out of Asia
Where can NATO most productively focus its efforts amidst global change?
The following is an editorial by Liang Yan, Kremer Chair Professor of Economics at Willamette University and Research Associate at Levy Economics Institute
NATO's self-declared goal was to deter Soviet expansionism and the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe in the aftermath of World War II. Despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO did not fade away. Instead, it has been directly and indirectly involved in a number of military interventions, often without UN mandates, notably in countries like Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya, causing death and destruction. In the midst of instigating and fueling the Ukraine conflict, NATO continues to escalate its efforts to expand eastward beyond Ukraine, leading some analysts to argue that its true ambition is to encompass the so-called Asia-Pacific Four (AP4): Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), New Zealand, and Australia, in forming a "North Asia Treaty Organization."[1] What is the motive behind NATO's eastern expansion? Is the raison d'être of eastern expansion justifiable? How could this impact Asia's peace and security, and how have Asian countries responded? These are high-stakes questions that warrant critical analyses.
The 2024 NATO Summit concluded in July, and the subsequent Washington Summit Declaration mentioned China or the People's Republic of China (PRC) 14 times. Notably, it stated that "the PRC continues to pose systemic challenges to Euro-Atlantic security." By labeling China as a systemic challenge, NATO seeks justification for increasing its presence in Asia. However, how exactly does China pose these systemic challenges? The Declaration lavishes groundless and inflammatory accusations, such as claiming, "The PRC has become a decisive enabler of Russia's war against Ukraine through its so-called 'no limits' partnership and its large-scale support for Russia's defense industrial base." However, such accusations are not backed by any substantive evidence or intelligence. Russia has been a major trade partner with China for decades, and the sanctions against Russia by the US and its European allies were not endorsed by the UN, leaving no legal basis for China to comply. China's trade with Russia is based on normal commercial interests, and NATO has failed to provide any concrete evidence that China is supplying the so-called "dual-use materials" to support Russia's war efforts. In contrast, NATO has been actively providing weapons to Ukraine, escalating and prolonging the war. Furthermore, India, a close ally of the United States, has been trading with Russia, importing Russian crude oil by over 13 times its pre-war amounts and exporting billions of dollars worth of metal, electrical, electronic, and other industrial products.[2] Yet, neither the US nor NATO has raised concerns over the Russia-India trade. Also, ironically, while there is no evidence of China supporting Russia's military capabilities, China has been a key supplier to the United States' military-industrial complex, especially for laser and microwave weapons, as well as critical minerals and cast products. It is, therefore, hypocritical for the US and NATO to accuse China as a "Russian enabler."
If the alleged China's role in the Ukraine conflict is not the true motive for NATO's attempted expansion, what is? To answer this question, we need to examine the context and process of NATO's Asia pivot. The shift began with the 2019 London Declaration, where NATO recognized China's growing influence and international policies as both opportunities and challenges. Then, in the 2021 Brussels Summit Communiqué, NATO stated that China's "ambitions and assertive behavior presents systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to alliance security." NATO reiterated that China posed geopolitical challenges in its 2022 Summit, and invited the AP4 to attend the summit for the first time. NATO 2023 Vilnius Summit discussed the possibility of establishing a liaison office in Tokyo as a hub for cooperation with the AP4. As mentioned earlier, the 2024 Summit made numerous accusations against China, including support for Russia's war efforts, "sustained malicious cyber and hybrid activities," and rapid expansion and diversification of its nuclear arsenal. In recent weeks, NATO officials have also been uttering, without any legal foundation or operability basis, that NATO would "reclaim" some Chinese-owned infrastructure projects in Europe should a wider conflict with Russia break out.
Amid NATO's eastward turn, an alphabet soup of security alliances has been created, revived, or elevated in Asia, spearheaded by the United States. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (the Quad), a security dialogue platform involving Australia, India, Japan, and the US, was revived in 2017 when Trump entered the US presidency and China was declared a "strategic competitor." The AUKUS, a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the US, was established in 2021 to develop joint advanced military capabilities to deter and contain China. Additionally, the emerging US-Japan-ROK trilateral dialogue aims to confront China's "dangerous and aggressive" behavior in support of its "unlawful maritime claims." Connecting the dots, it is painfully evident that NATO's Asian footprint is not intended to ensure regional peace and security, nor to find a new "threat" to justify its continuous existence, but rather to orchestrate a China containment campaign under the United States' directive.
While the plan to establish a NATO office in Tokyo was deferred at the Vilnius meeting, NATO's assiduous efforts to grow influence in Asia persist, just as the US has doubled down the efforts to ramp up military capabilities in Asia. The US has renewed basing agreements with the Philippines and encouraged Japan's remilitarization. Japan, on the other hand, seems to embrace NATO with open arms. It has already upgraded its representation to NATO by creating a new ambassador post. Yet what would NATO bring to the Asia-Pacific region? NATO's outgoing Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg claimed that what is "happening in Europe today could happen in Asia tomorrow." The irony is that what is happening in Europe today wouldn't have transpired without NATO's provocation. As some have pointed out bluntly, there is no conflict in Asia, but NATO might pave the way for one. NATO's interest seems less about regional peace and more about maintaining the US hegemony by containing and suppressing China's rise.
As Warwick Powell, Professor at Queensland University of Technology and Senior Fellow of Taihe Institute, incisively points out, "Security is found through peace, and peace is built with collective prosperity."[3] However, the US has neither the intention nor the capability to promote collective prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. It has excluded itself from key economic partnerships like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). Its Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) lacks substantial economic engagement. Instead, its focus on defense spending and militarization could only divert crucial resources from economic development, leading to increased instability and anxiety and hindering the pursuit of collective prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.
This leads to critical considerations about NATO's future prospects in Asia. For decades, Asian economies have thrived in a peaceful environment, contributing over 70% of global GDP growth in the past decade,[4] and China has been a major driving force and partner for regional economic growth. Other than the AP4, almost all other Asian economies are wary of NATO's presence in the region. ASEAN countries, following the long tradition of non-alignment, prefer not to take sides in global power dynamics. They value their economic partnerships with China and are uninterested in joining the encirclement and containment of China. Even if there are disagreements and tensions between countries, such as the skirmishes surrounding the South China Sea, these are regional issues and should be resolved among regional members through dialogue and negotiations. Introducing external military forces would only escalate tensions. As the former Singaporean Ambassador to the United Nations Kishore Mahbubani affirms, the Asia-Pacific region has turned many "seemingly intractable conflicts" between countries into "lasting cooperation," and "countries in this region have demonstrated that enmity can be turned to amity." Further, Mahbubani sees NATO's presence in the region as playing a counterproductive role by exporting its "destructive militaristic culture" to East Asia.[5] Mahbubani's view was shared by many Asian leaders. India's External Affairs Minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, referred in 2021 to the use of the term "Asian NATO" as a "mind game" and asserted that India has never had a "NATO mentality."[6] Former Prime Minister of Australia Paul Keating stated his views in more colorful terms, "Of all the people on the international stage, the supreme fool among them is Jens Stoltenberg, the current Secretary General of NATO. … Stoltenberg, by instinct and by policy, is simply an accident on its way to happen."[7]
In fact, many European countries are not willing to support a NATO mission to contain China. As French President Emmanuel Macron insisted, the French were not in favor of NATO's expansion into Asia "as a matter of principle," and NATO should be confined to the North Atlantic by the treaty that defines it. Macron explicitly resisted a NATO focus on China, stating that China "has little to do with the North Atlantic."[8] Similar views are shared by other NATO members who are focusing on Russia, who have extensive economic ties with China, and who simply do not consider Asia as an area where existential threat to Europe exists. Indeed, Europeans do not have to engage in the United States' power games to their own detriment. The Eurozone economy entered a technical recession in the last two quarters of 2023 and has just barely achieved positive growth so far this year. European economies face several challenges, including the immigration and refugee crisis, climate change, persistent inflation, and energy insecurity, in addition to a stagnant economy. Addressing these thorny issues should be a top priority for European leaders, as it is critical not only for ensuring economic prosperity, but also for countering the rise of the far right and maintaining internal political stability. Committing to another military theater on a continent oceans apart simply makes no economic, political, or strategic sense. It is time for Europe to reclaim its strategic autonomy and act in its own interest.
Some clear-minded scholars and strategists also understand the mistakes of NATO's expansion into Asia. Center for Strategic and International Studies Visiting Fellow Mathieu Droin, Stimson Center Senior Fellow Kelly A. Grieco, and Associate Professor of Diplomacy and Disarmament at Jawaharlal Nehru University Happymon Jacob argue that European NATO members simply do not possess the military assets, including maritime and air capabilities, needed to project power into the Asia-Pacific region. Their analysis leads to a sobering conclusion: "NATO's Asian proposition, in short, is the worst of all worlds: it feeds fears about the alliance's intentions and infuriates Beijing without giving Asian partners the means to further deter China. Half-measures meant to counter China could end up sparking the very conflict the alliance is seeking to defuse."[9]
No doubt, China plays a key role in countering NATO's Asian expansion. China has made its position plainly clear. China does not take sides in the Ukraine conflict, and consistently calls for ceasefire and peace negotiations. China has vehemently condemned NATO's unfounded accusations and reiterated that China has "always been a force for peace and force for stability." It has warned repeatedly that China's different political system and values "should not be used as a reason for NATO to incite confrontation with China," and called for NATO to "stay within its bounds."[10] China remains committed to promoting regional peace, indivisible security, and collective prosperity through diplomatic engagement and economic partnerships. The nation continues to be an anchor for regional peace and a driving force for regional development. Therefore, there is no room or point for NATO to contain China or to set foot in Asia. It is in the best interests of Asia and Europe that it stays that way.
[1] Daryl Guppy, "Paused, but Not Abandoned," China Daily, July 25, 2023, https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202307/25/WS64bf199fa31035260b81843b.html.
[2] Nick Paton Walsh and Florence Davey-Attlee, "The Kremlin Has Never Been Richer – Thanks to a US Strategic Partner," CNN, February 19, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/19/europe/russia-oil-india-shadow-fleet-cmd-intl/index.html.
[3] Warwick Powell, "A Time for Multipolar Peace," Substack, July 10, 2024, https://warwickpowell.substack.com/p/a-time-for-multipolar-peace.
[4] "The Rise and Rise of Asia," World Economics, August 28, 2024, https://www.worldeconomics.com/Thoughts/The-Rise-and-Rise-of-Asia-2030.aspx.
[5] Kishore Mahbubani, "Asia, Say No to NATO: The Pacific Has No Need of the Destructive Militaristic Culture of the Atlantic Alliance," ARI, June 28, 2021, https://ari.nus.edu.sg/app-essay-kishore-mahbubani-2/.
[6] Javier Piedra, "For India's Top Diplomat, the Emperor Has No Clothes," Asia Times, June 28, 2021, https://asiatimes.com/2021/09/for-indias-top-diplomat-the-emperor-has-no-clothes/.
[7] Paul Karp, "Paul Keating Labels NATO Chief a 'Supreme Fool' and 'an Accident on Its Way to Happen,'" The Guardian, July 9, 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/09/paul-keating-labels-nato-chief-a-supreme-fool-and-an-accident-on-its-way-to-happen.
[8] Karp, "Paul Keating Labels NATO Chief."
[9] Mathieu Droin, Kelly A. Grieco, and Happymon Jacob, "Why NATO Should Stay out of Asia," Foreign Affairs, July 8, 2024, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/why-nato-should-stay-out-asia.
[10] Tessa Wong, "China Hits Back at NATO over Russia Accusations," BBC News, July 12, 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cxx24850k8yo.