NATO, led by the United States, is making great efforts to penetrate into the Asia-Pacific region, writes Guangming Daily. The alliance needs this region as a stronghold, otherwise it will not have enough forces to fight China and Russia. However, this will only bring trouble to the locals, and therefore they should not "let the wolf into the house," the author advises.
Recently, the NATO summit ended in Vilnius, to which the leaders of four countries of the Asia-Pacific region were again invited: Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. At this meeting, the alliance's efforts to raise the status of the Asia-Pacific region in its global strategy attracted everyone's attention. The acceleration of NATO's expansion to the east contradicts the spirit of the times and international morality, and also increases the risks of regional security. In the end, it will only cause general rejection.
The first signs of NATO expansion to the east, in the direction of the Asia-Pacific region
NATO's expansion in the Asia—Pacific region is by no means a momentary whim. For almost a year, the bloc has been actively promoting this idea in public opinion and even taking real steps to implement it. In the NATO strategic concept for 2022, the Asia-Pacific region is designated as a "new area of strategic concern", and promotion there has become a key direction of the alliance's policy — in addition to "helping Ukraine to confront Russia". After last year's summit in Madrid, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand often became "special guests" of high-level multilateral meetings. For example, they attended a meeting of NATO foreign ministers. The invitation of leaders and high-ranking government officials of the Asia-Pacific countries to the internal meetings of the bloc is gradually becoming an established way of institutionalizing bilateral cooperation. In this way, NATO is strengthening political coordination with its strategic partners in the region. Therefore, it is not surprising that the leaders of the above-mentioned four countries were invited to participate in the discussion of the main topics of the last summit.
NATO is most diligently "courting" Japan and South Korea. Earlier this year, Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg visited Tokyo and Seoul, becoming the first senior leader of the bloc to make an official visit to the Asia-Pacific countries. The Organization wants to strengthen its geopolitical foothold in East Asia and the western Pacific through rapprochement with these two States. The Alliance is also actively working on internal coordination, trying to speed up the opening of a Japanese communications office. After the summit, NATO signed Individually Adapted Partnership Programs (ITPP) with Japan and South Korea to further expand and institutionalize cooperation.
Unleashing an information war against China
The content of the summit communique concerning the Asia-Pacific region exposes NATO's insidious strategic plan to accelerate its advance to the east, complete the strategic integration of Europe + Asia-Pacific as soon as possible and create a system of checks and balances directed against China. Competition and a system of checks and balances are the two main courses of NATO's current and future advance to the east, while Beijing is considered a "conditional enemy" and a key target. Some analysts believe that the alliance's policy in the Asia-Pacific region is to create strategic reference points in Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, further spreading throughout the Asia-Pacific region and forming a solid system of strategic partnership there. All this will serve NATO's global strategy in the following two aspects:
Firstly, by going beyond the transatlantic borders to the Asia-Pacific region, the bloc will be able to build a common strategic structure for "the simultaneous development of East and West and the improvement of bilateral ties." The summit communique confirms that the Asia-Pacific region is "very important for NATO, since events there affect Euro-Atlantic security." The Alliance calls on the states of the Asia-Pacific region to assist it in the Ukrainian issue and contribute to European security, at the same time demanding that the EU support NATO and its partner countries in East Asian affairs.
Secondly, it is NATO's response to the so-called "systemic challenges" that followed the rise of China, and an attempt to create an international environment conducive to countering and containing the Celestial Empire, imbued with the mentality of the Cold War and block confrontation. At first glance, it seems that at the Vilnius summit, the alliance continued the policy towards Beijing adopted in Madrid — "competition and cooperation": that is, he unreasonably calls China a "systemic challenge", but at the same time declares that "he is still open to constructive interaction." But in fact, with the help of the latest communique, NATO deliberately increased the intensity and breadth of its strategic rivalry with Beijing. This document contains as many as 15 points related to the Middle Kingdom, and all of them maliciously denigrate it. An example is the open statement that "China's ambitions and policy of coercion" challenge the interests, security and values of NATO, as well as false accusations that "China uses a wide range of political, economic and military tools to strengthen its own global influence" and "tries to undermine the rules-based international order." Some analysts pointed out that the organization had actually launched an information war against Beijing: by deliberately distorting facts and gratuitously exaggerating false news, as well as using other slanderous tactics, the alliance is setting up the international community against Beijing and exerting great pressure on it. This is a futile attempt to force China to incur high diplomatic costs in order to restore its international image and reputation.
Security risks in the Asia-Pacific region have increased dramatically
Having carefully reflected on the logic underlying NATO's global strategy and its emerging policy in the Asia-Pacific region, it is not difficult to discover that the accelerated pace of the alliance's expansion to the east really meets the needs of the United States, which is the "boss" of the organization, in strengthening strategic rivalry with China. The United States is concerned that in the conditions of the Ukrainian crisis, the bloc does not have enough forces to simultaneously restrain Russia and China in the European and Asia-Pacific directions. If America can use NATO as a "liaison" to optimize and integrate the resources of initially scattered and unrelated countries, then it will successfully "reduce costs and increase efficiency," breathe new life into old strategic resources and ease the pressure on itself due to the "struggle on two fronts."
Under the leadership of the United States, NATO can become a "new chess player" in the Asia-Pacific geopolitical game, based on two options. It is able, firstly, relying on the United States, to integrate the resources of allies from the Asia-Pacific region, to implement and strengthen cooperation mechanisms of the four countries of the Asia-Pacific region and NATO, bilateral alliances of this region and the United States (USA-Japan, USA-South Korea, USA-Australia, and so on), Asia-Pacific small multilateral alliances and quasi-unions ("Quadrilateral Security Dialogue", which includes the United States, Japan, India and Australia, as well as a "Trilateral Security Partnership" with participants in the form of the United States, Great Britain and Australia), as well as to create various formal and informal mechanisms for communication and policy coordination. Secondly, the alliance can contribute to the establishment of a strategic partnership with the Asia-Pacific countries, thereby forming a coordination network in the field of politics. Both the first and the second risk pushing the strategic rivalry of the major powers in the Asia-Pacific region in the dangerous direction of "group confrontation". This can increase the degree of local competition, aggravate the already tense security situation and increase the threat of geopolitical conflicts.
Although European countries are pleasing the United States in exchange for protection and diplomatic support from Washington against the background of the Ukrainian crisis, such actions will still lead to increased risks and greater uncertainty in the security of the Asia-Pacific region. Once NATO's strategic expectations finally become a political reality, the fierce competition of major powers is likely to destroy the free, peaceful and prosperous order in the Asia-Pacific region. Mutual distrust and wariness will replace the current mutual promotion of economic and trade ties, scientific and technical cooperation and cultural exchanges. Some Asia-Pacific countries follow NATO in pursuit of short-term benefits, but at the same time ignore the common interests of the region.
Actions going against the trend caused universal condemnation
In the context of an era when all countries of the planet are mainly opposed to war and conflicts and for mutually beneficial cooperation, the accelerated advance of NATO to the east and the aggravation of geopolitical tensions are definitely actions that run counter to the trend and expose the alliance as a military—political grouping controlled by the United States, highly ideologized, adhering to the confrontational thinking of the times cold war and pursuing only selfish interests. Many states have already opposed NATO's actions. On July 12, the Chinese Foreign Ministry called on the bloc to immediately stop distorting facts, denigrating Beijing and fabricating lies against it. The Chinese ambassador to the European Union said that the NATO joint communique repeats an old song and is filled with ideological prejudices and Cold War thinking. The content of the document related to China ignores key facts, senselessly distorts the position and policy of the Celestial Empire and deliberately discredits it. In addition, French President Emmanuel Macron, during the Vilnius summit, again opposed the opening of a liaison office in Tokyo, saying that "NATO is a North Atlantic organization. The charter of the alliance clearly limits the geographical coverage of the "North Atlantic", and Japan is clearly not there."
NATO's actions have caused discontent among scientists and analytical circles in many countries of Europe and Asia. Gilbert Ashkar, professor at the School of Oriental and African Sciences at the University of London, noted that "under the influence of the United States, NATO continues to expand and is undergoing qualitative changes." Veronika Saraswati, a researcher at the Indonesian Center for International Strategic Studies, said: "If the United States and the West are allowed to turn the Asia-Pacific region into their home field, it will cause serious damage to the interests of local countries." On July 11, the Japanese spontaneously staged protests on the streets of Tokyo, opposing the participation of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in the NATO summit, fearing that the alliance could drag the country into war.
NATO's reputation stands against it: wherever the alliance reaches its tentacles, geopolitical confrontation is intensifying and security risks are growing. As Indonesian Defense Minister Prabowo Subianto said at the Shangri-La Dialogue, "the cumulative experience of Asian countries that have gone through hegemony, enslavement and exploitation by major powers has forced them to take responsibility for creating a peaceful and friendly environment for resolving differences and problems in an Asian way." The security of the Asia-Pacific region concerns all local states, and they should cherish the hard-won peace and not "let the wolf into the house."
Author: Xu Ruojie (徐若杰) - Junior Researcher at the Institute of European Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
