Over the past decade, Russia and China have emerged as forces advocating multipolarity, opposing the Western-led world order and the unipolar world view. The establishment of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) in 2017 to maintain an open and free Indo-Pacific led to a shift in the West’s focus from Russia to China. Since 2019, the Western world, under the leadership of the United States (US), has intensified its efforts to confront China in its foreign policy. Within the Western world, the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are trying to integrate their strategies to counter Beijing’s rise in the international system. However, there is not a complete alignment in the methods employed by the Western world to deal with either Russia or China.
The Western world’s war against Russia began with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and accelerated after its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. In the process, China’s public refusal to condemn Russia for its actions in Ukraine caused the West to recall the so-called “Chinese threat” in the Asia-Pacific. While Europe is trying to focus on the war with Russia, NATO is simultaneously trying to figure out how to counter China. In the run-up to the Madrid Summit in 2022, the UK insisted that lessons should be learned from Ukraine and that Europe should be prepared for war in response to a possible “Chinese aggression” in Taiwan.
As a consequence of the United States’ warnings and pressures, Europe has begun to take strategic steps within the framework of NATO to counter China’s rise. The first of these steps was the participation of country leaders from Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and Australia in last year’s summit from the Asia-Pacific region. By doing so, NATO has started to develop strategic partnerships in the region in order to halt China’s alleged “aggressive actions” in the Asia-Pacific and counter them effectively.
At this point, the question arises as to how the West will counter China, especially within NATO. Leaving aside the debate on the Alliance’s mandate, it is clear that there is no consensus among member states on China. European states emphasize that China is not an enemy, but could be a major competitor. On the other hand, the powers led by the US and the UK are making efforts to make China the number one enemy after Russia.
Asia-Pacific countries, which have been negatively affected by the rivalry between the US and the European powers, are being forced to make a choice to engage in an open struggle with China. In this context, Japan is one of the countries in the region facing the most pressure. This is both because it is close to China and because it bases its security on its treaty with the US. In other words, without the support of the US, Japan will not be able to protect itself from China.
Therefore, Tokyo may feel compelled to act in accordance with Washington’s demands. Hence, it can be said that Japan is the most receptive Asia-Pacific country to cooperate with NATO in order to counter China’s actions. In connection with this matter, the Chinese Embassy in Tokyo has stated that NATO’s expansion plans into the Asia-Pacific region violate United Nations rules and that Japan’s interaction with NATO undermines regional security.[1]
Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea, considered as unofficial partners of NATO in the Asia-Pacific region, participated in the summit held in Vilnius this year, following the NATO Leaders Summit held last year. This repeated participation highlights the increasing importance of the Asia-Pacific region for NATO and the organization’s growing relationship with regional partners.[2] During the Vilnius Summit, Japan and Australia reiterated their support for Ukraine and pledged assistance to Kiev. Additionally, NATO approved individual partnership agreements focusing on areas such as cyber security, defense, and cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region with Japan and South Korea.
Furthermore, proposals to establish a NATO liaison office in Japan were rejected due to France’s veto. This was interpreted as a disappointment for the US and the UK, the driving forces of the alliance. In addition, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated that the opening of a liaison office could be considered at a later stage and that negotiations are ongoing.[3]NATO’s attempts to open an office in Japan provoke China and increase regional tensions. In fact, NATO’s mandate does not include the Asia-Pacific. Nevertheless, the aim is to counter China through regional partnerships. This leads to divisions within NATO.
While the US-led powers argue that NATO should provide more support to Japan and South Korea and thus contain China, European actors aim to contribute to Asia-Pacific security through NATO’s regional partnerships. In other words, the US is trying to shift NATO’s trajectory towards the Asia-Pacific. In doing so, Washington wants all NATO member states to confront and polarize against Beijing and, if necessary, to risk a hot confrontation with China. NATO’s European members, on the other hand, argue that peaceful regional partnerships can be enough to stop China, while dangerous alliances can only increase regional tensions and lead to war.
There is always the possibility of NATO getting involved in a conflict in the Asia-Pacific region. For instance, an attack on American forces could trigger the activation of NATO’s Article 5. As seen in the case of Afghanistan, NATO can conduct operations outside its geographical area of responsibility. However, unlike in Afghanistan, NATO members may not want to act collectively against China. Considering that China is the largest trading partner for Europe, NATO might be hesitant to get too involved in Asia-Pacific issues. Nevertheless, the case of Russia is also relevant. Despite Europe’s significant energy dependence on Russia, NATO had to provide support to Ukraine under pressure from the US. This support is closely related to European security concerns.
On the other hand, Europe may not want to take sides in the China-Taiwan question, which is not closely related to its own security. The most important argument used by the US to bring Europe to its side is the preservation of the rules-based international order. Washington claims that Russia has broken this order and China is next in line. According to the US, China is following in Russia’s footsteps and may soon disrupt the rules-based order by attacking Taiwan. What needs to be done, then, is to ensure that NATO somehow deals with global problems. The Strategic Concept adopted at NATO’s Madrid Summit last year for the first time recognized China as a systemic competitor and emphasized global security. In this context, NATO’s plan to counter China is essentially about ensuring global security. From now on, NATO will act with the motto of ”the preservation of international peace and security.” As in the United Nations Charter, NATO’s Asia-Pacific problem is essentially one of ensuring global security. This is the only way NATO will be able to deal with Asia-Pacific problems and especially with China.
[1] “China Warns Japan On NATO, Hopes It Refrains From Undermining Trust in Region”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-warns-japan-nato-hopes-it-refrains-undermining-trust-region-2023-07-24/, (Date of Accession: 24.07.2023).
[2] “3 QUESTIONS-Is Indo-Pacific a new frontier for NATO?”, AA, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/3-questions-is-indo-pacific-a-new-frontier-for-nato/2948372, (Date of Accession: 24.07.2023).
[3] “3 QUESTIONS-Is Indo-Pacific a new frontier for NATO?”, AA, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/3-questions-is-indo-pacific-a-new-frontier-for-nato/2948372, (Date of Accession: 24.07.2023).
