Australian media: NATO's involvement in East Asia is for the United States to take chestnuts from the fire
On August 25th, the Australian East Asia Forum website published an article titled "Mistakes in NATO's Contact with East Asia". The author is Ulf Hansen, Associate Professor at Japan's Chugoku University, and Linus Hagstrom, Professor of Political Science at Sweden's National Defense University. The full text is excerpted as follows:
NATO's engagement with East Asia to counter China's influence is a misguided and potentially dangerous strategy for the European members of this alliance. This will inevitably exacerbate the tense relationship between China and NATO, and may potentially bind China and Russia closer together. The strategy of containing China will not bring any tangible benefits to European security, but mainly serves the interests of the United States, which is eager to maintain its global hegemonic position.
Although NATO currently does not intend to recruit new members in East Asia, it is establishing strategic partnerships with like-minded countries in the region. Countries such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand are currently undergoing a process of identity transformation, transitioning from being NATO's "global partner" to being participants in the more tangible agreement known as the "individual targeted partnership program".
After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, NATO's strategic cooperation with Japan was strengthened.
At the official level, NATO's engagement with East Asia aims to strengthen cooperation in areas such as maritime security, new technologies, cyberspace, climate change, and resilience. But in reality, this move is undoubtedly aimed at countering China, which NATO currently openly views as a "challenge to our interests, security, and values.". During a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg mentioned his concerns about "China's large-scale military buildup" and "the modernization and expansion of China's nuclear power.". Kishida must be very happy to hear such a statement, as he has been working hard to establish closer relations with NATO.
However, it is difficult to see what benefits NATO's expanded military role in East Asia will bring to European security. It can be certain that NATO's approach will attract hostility from Beijing. Sure enough, China has responded strongly to NATO's words and actions. China is concerned that with NATO as a protective umbrella, the largely loose alliance of the United States in East Asia will present a more unified and anti China appearance. NATO, on the other hand, countered that its military strength is essentially of a goodwill and defensive nature.
NATO's so-called defensive intentions are unlikely to dispel Beijing's doubts. In fact, all international relations experts believe that it is impossible to accurately interpret the intentions of other countries. In situations where the intentions of other countries are uncertain, countries often raise their vigilance and take countermeasures. Once NATO increases its military strength in East Asia, even if not an international relations expert, it can be expected that the above situation is likely to occur in East Asia.
NATO member states often complain that China is trying to change the status quo, but they seem unable or unwilling to admit that their own risky entry into East Asia is also changing the status quo - Beijing will feel the need to respond to this.
If Chinese leaders believe that NATO's contacts with East Asian countries have increased the threat to China, they may also take measures to prevent it by increasing their armaments and building alliances. For example, if China further approaches Russia, it will have a counterproductive effect on European security.
The Ukrainian war made Europeans turn a blind eye to the dangerous consequences of expanding their reach. NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe is indeed closely related to European security, but its deepening of contacts with East Asian countries is unreasonable. This will only provoke opposition in China. In 2020, even the highest official responsible for foreign affairs in the European Union acknowledged this. But in Europe after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, such a realistic stance was not common. NATO's ambitions in East Asia unnecessarily put Europe at risk of becoming enemies with China.
When NATO went so far on the issue of leaving the region that it began taking action in East Asia, people had to question the benefits this approach brought to European security. If there are any benefits, it seems that there are very few. For the United States, NATO's shift towards East Asia has significant strategic significance. Washington is attempting to maintain US hegemony globally by integrating its loose coalition forces into a stronger alliance that can contain China's rise. It is obvious that NATO's new policy in East Asia is mainly influenced by the United States.
However, Europe does not insist on participating in this power game of the United States. As French President Emmanuel Macron pointed out earlier in 2023, getting involved in such a game is a trap for Europe.
