Generally, big things start with an idea with both positive and negative implications depending on the paradigm. Impulsive and ill-considered actions bear long-term consequences. The establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (NATO’s) office in Tokyo is such an idea under consideration. This development has linkages to the conflict in Ukraine. Japanese Foreign Minister has stated his concerns about the future security situation in Europe replicating in East Asia. This statement indicts China for asserting itself in the region, undermining others’ security, or in an extreme event, a regional war with China.
In Europe, NATO is expanding to encircle Russia and is countering it by militarily helping Ukraine. To the Japanese Foreign Minister’s above statement, this could be China in the future that needs to be counteracted. Besides internal balancing, like increasing defence spending, Japan is trying to hedge against China by strengthening its alliance with the West and consolidating Western engagements in the region. Japan has also been improving its defence relations with like-minded countries like the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, and South Korea.
India is also hedging all bets to be in the game, though taking minimum risks and optimising its gains. The NATO footprint in Tokyo will provide another layer to India’s relations with the US and UK.
While Japan is more in the limelight by announcing to host the NATO office, other like-minded states are also shoring up their ties with NATO. In fact, the Tokyo office will be used to communicate with all regional allies. Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia are the four preferred partners – the Asia Pacific partners (AP4) – of NATO. South Korea is keen on increasing its defence ties with NATO. It is already hosting the US military and enjoys its nuclear umbrella. Seoul is also boosting relations with NATO under the Individually Tailored Partnership Programme (ITPP) along with Tokyo, Canberra, and Wellington to counter China’s regional influence. While both New Zealand and Australia benefit from the alliance, the latter benefits from the US and UK in regard to nuclear-powered submarines. These countries are already aligned with the West and benefit from strengthening their ties.
With the momentum of NATO in the Asia Pacific increasing on the premise that China is asserting itself in the region, China sees these developments as jeopardising its national security.
Still, NATO’s official presence in the region may not be smooth due to differences observed in the alliance. Many European countries are debating on managing their relations, particularly trade and investment, with China, independent of US interference. For instance, France has been vocal about the strategic autonomy of Europe in specific areas, including relations with China. During his visit to China, President Macron urged Europe to reduce its dependence on the US lest it gets dragged into the US-China confrontation over Taiwan. He has also rejected the idea of expanding NATO’s geography in the East. The opposition from France to NATO’s expansion in the Pacific cast doubts on the potential gains of the idea. It is also a reminder that if something is opposed within the ranks, there is a need for a rethink.
China and its opponents are engaged in an action-reaction play which can lead to betting on irrational ideas. With the momentum of NATO in the Asia Pacific increasing on the premise that China is asserting itself in the region, China sees these developments as jeopardising its national security. China has several regional sensitivities, including the Taiwan issue, the US support for Taiwan, its uneasy relationship with Japan, the maritime boundary dispute, and the overall US interference in the region. NATO’s office in Japan will deepen its concerns regarding the overall security situation in the region. Therefore, it is natural that it would react to these developments, not necessarily positively.
The so-called Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), Australia, the UK, and the US security pact (AUKUS), the Malabar Exercises, and many other such initiatives already contribute to a tense regional environment. NATO’s footprints in the region can increase the feeling of China being encircled militarily.
Therefore, China sfirmlyopposes the idea and asks what NATO is up to. In his regular press briefing, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin questioned NATO and Japan and blamed them for bringing bloc confrontation and undermining mutual trust in the region. If NATO and Japan are committed to their idea of official presence in the region, then the reaction from China is also likely to intensify. In addition to diplomatic efforts, China may feel a push to increase its military development further. The Ukraine war and Russia’s experience provide China with a template for dos and don’ts when responding to NATO and its allies.
One potential response to NATO’s presence in the region will be matching it with a similar alliance. Although the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has no stated military alliance goals, NATO’s presence in the region may push it to become a military alliance. If this happens, it can increase the regional geopolitical sensitivities between the key players, enhance the trust deficit, and politically divide the region.
If the aim is to improve cooperation among Asia Pacific partners, this can be strengthened without involving a military alliance with no official or missionary mandate in the region. NATO in the Asia Pacific, an idea that can make a state’s opponents feel anxious, and disturb stability, needs a rethink, especially when it carries more risks than gains.
