sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Gorana Grgić probes why NATO is expanding its reach into the Asia-Pacific region

Public Policy / opinion
Gorana Grgić probes why NATO is expanding its reach into the Asia-Pacific region
nato
NATO's logo.

By Gorana Grgić*

Since Russia invaded Ukraine last year, NATO meetings and summits have been receiving significantly more attention compared to previous years. And there are several big-ticket items on the agenda at the upcoming summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, which begins on Tuesday.

The foremost issue is, of course, NATO’s future military support to Ukraine in its ongoing war against Russia, particularly in the wake of reports of weapon delivery delays and the United States’ controversial decision to send cluster munitions to the Ukrainians.

The allies will also discuss Ukraine’s potential membership in the group. Ukraine is seeking an invitation and a roadmap to eventually join NATO, which the US and Germany, in particular, have resisted while an active war is occurring.

The members will also agree on the first major overhaul of NATO’s military plans since the Cold War and an increase in their individual defence spending. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is looking for commitments from all 31 members to spend at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defence – something that was considered an aspiration rather than a baseline a decade ago.

NATO’s interest in the Asia-Pacific

The other invitees receiving considerable attention are four leaders from the Asia-Pacific: Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol. The four will be in attendance for the second year in a row, following last year’s NATO summit in Madrid.

While NATO’s outreach efforts to the Asia-Pacific region are still in the infancy stage, they have generated some criticism in recent days. Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating called Stoltenberg a “supreme fool” for boosting the bloc’s ties with the region. And French President Emmanuel Macron is reportedly opposed to the opening of a proposed NATO liaison office in Tokyo.

With NATO so heavily focused on Ukraine at the moment, its interest in a region half-way around the world does raise some questions. Why are these four leaders becoming regular features at a summit for European and North American countries?

First, these countries have been among the most prominent members of the international coalition supporting Ukraine and sanctioning Russia. So, their presence at a security conference where Ukraine will be discussed makes sense.

More importantly, though, the Indo-Pacific region featured prominently in NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept, a key document that outlines the alliance’s values, purpose and role.

For the first time last year, the document referred to China’s ambitions and policies as a major challenge to NATO’s security, interests and values. It also specifically addressed the growing cooperation between China and Russia, which NATO sees as a threat to the established rules-based international order.

As such, the Strategic Concept called the Indo-Pacific “important for NATO, given that developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security”.

This makes the case quite clear for NATO to strengthen its existing partnerships in the region and develop new ones.

What these new partnerships will look like

Policy analysts have debated the merits and consequences of this expanded level of cooperation.

But despite hesitations among some commentators, the four Asia-Pacific countries generally want to move in the direction of stepping up their cooperation with NATO.

Indeed, if the Madrid summit served as an opportunity for the four Indo-Pacific partners to showcase their support for Ukraine and pledge stronger commitment to future collaboration with NATO, the Vilnius summit will serve as a benchmark to assess the progress that’s been made.

This is why, in the lead-up to the summit, NATO has been working to formalise its partnerships with the four countries.

Japan and Australia have been at the front of these efforts. Japanese media reported last week that Tokyo and Canberra have wrapped up negotiations with NATO on a new agreement called the “Individually Tailored Partnership Program (ITPP)”. This program specifies the key areas of cooperation between each country and the NATO bloc.

New Zealand and South Korea are working to finalise their individual agreements with the alliance, too.

The partnerships will largely focus on areas of global concern, such as maritime security, cybersecurity, climate change, outer space, and emerging and disruptive technologies (including artificial intelligence).

And from a defence standpoint, NATO and the four partners will aim to improve the “interoperability” of their militaries – the ability of different military forces and defence systems to effectively work together and coordinate their actions.

This might entail deepening the knowledge of each other’s military assets, improving the relationships between their soldiers and other military personnel, and expanding joint drills.

A Japan-US joint military exercise in Japan in November involved about 36,000 troops, as well as British, Australian and Canadian vessels. Hidenori Nagai/Yomiuri Shimbun/AP.

Why is this happening now?

The intensifying and deepening relations between NATO and its Indo-Pacific partners can be interpreted in two ways.

First, these partnerships form another important link in the expanding network of diplomatic and security ties between the US, its Western allies and the Indo-Pacific region. They complement partnerships like AUKUS and the Quad.

Beyond this, we can also view these agreements in the context of NATO’s evolving outreach with the rest of the world over the past couple decades.

Previously, NATO’s collaborations with Indo-Pacific countries involved pooling resources for security operations in non-NATO members, such as the Balkans in the 1990s and Afghanistan in the 2000s.

Nowadays, strengthening these partnerships is seen as a vital part of responding to the new challenges and threats posed by Russia and China.

Of course, this does not mean we will see NATO military equipment or troops permanently stationed in the Indo-Pacific. Nor would it be realistic to expect the Indo-Pacific countries’ military contributions to Ukraine to lead to a more permanent set-up in Europe.

Similarly, while all of this is aimed at intensifying security cooperation among US allies in the Indo-Pacific, this is in no way a prelude to the creation of a NATO-like collective defence pact in the region.

However, given the complexities of the current tensions with Russia and China, there is a clear need for greater coordination and cooperation among a larger group of countries. These new partnerships can be effective in addressing everything from disinformation and maritime security to cyber defence and competition in space.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin would obviously prefer these partnerships to slow down. Indeed, China has criticised the proposed NATO liaison office in Tokyo as an attempt to “destroy regional peace and stability”.

China and Russia might even find some comfort in seeing the clear differences among the four partners as to their desired level of engagement with NATO.

However, all four Indo-Pacific countries can agree on one fundamental fact – they expect to see more competition with both China and Russia in the future, not less.The Conversation


*Gorana Grgić, Senior Lecturer, Department of Government and International Relations and US Studies Centre, University of Sydney. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

21 Comments

Guardian columnist (and ex-foreign editor) Simon Tisdall is confused about why Nato doesn't let Ukraine join and call Putin's nuclear bluff. Maybe, Simon, because Nato knows it's not a bluff – and that Russia really does view Nato expansion to its border as an existential threat   Link

Up
5

Yep. Why The West doesn't get the fact that Russia really does see NATO expansion as a threat bemuses me. If Russia was hoovering up countries into an alliance as fast as they have been in the 21st century, The West would be apoplectic. This isn't about Putin being another Hitler. This fight is about Russia and it's place in the world going forward. It's a pity Angela Merkel does'nt replace Stoltenberg as head of NATO.

 

 

Up
5

The thing is NATO doesn't have a plan of expansion. A state has to request membership and meet quite stringent standards to qualify. The expansion of NATO since the end of the cold war was from ex-Soviet satellite states who thoroughly understood how little Russia could be trusted. Their view has proven correct. Besides NATO is a defensive agreement only. It has never been aggressive, although it has undertaken some peace keeping duties. Russia's view that NATO is a threat is only because NATO is a threat to their expansionist ambitions. 

Up
4

Alas where we are now is what happens when West and East are scared of each other and don't believe the other sides' intentions. 

Up
0

Good lord! You are a master of stringing western propaganda into a string of utter rubbish.

Up
4

Yes the Russian media is so much more balanced.

Up
0

the NATO does not want to expand to Asia-Pacific, the US does. and the reason for it is to contain China.

the NATO's "expansion to the east Europe" has caused the Ukraine war,  imagine the expansion to the Far East! it'll be causing another war in Taiwan no time.

And why does the world have to contain China?  More importantly, why does the world need to contain China when US wants to contain China? It's the US feeling threatened, not the other countries, especially Asian countries. 

Up
6

Bingo.

Up
0

Yes all the Asian countries around the South China sea and Taiwan, are desperate to keep the US out and let China in.

Up
1

Try studying history a little? Just take a look at what Hitler did in Europe and you will understand why Russia and China need to be contained. 

It will be too late when they are already here and your personal rights are thrown down the drain as an autocratic state tells you how to live.

Up
2

You mean like lock downs for healthy people and medical mandates we just had? I think we have already arrived there.

Up
2

Pretty extreme, the COVID reactions don't even come close to what Hitler's goons did or what Xi's security apparatus is doing, or Putin's FSB. You are comparing apples with bananas, or are you a conspiracy theorist. Just coming up from the rabbit hole and can't tell reality from fantasy?

Based on the information the Government had at the time what would you have done. Shrugged and said "Who cares who dies?"  While I don't agree with all the Government did around COVID, I do agree with them putting lives ahead of money. If you didn't mind who died, ask what you would have felt if it was some one in your family, your children, your partner or yourself. Remember back then we did not know how serious it was, just that it was killing people around the world. Yes they were reluctant to open up and did it in a very flawed way, but their initial reaction was pretty close to correct.

Up
0

he is not a conspiracy theorist, he is "Things just aren't adding up and it is ppretty obvious" theorist

Up
0

Not good enough Andreas. I'm at that point now, and I question the need for some of the actions down the track. But I do not compare what our Government did with that of Autocracies like China, or the Nazi's, or Putin. If he wants to be listened to, he should not be so extreme, else he will just be considered another conspiracy theorist.

Up
0

In this case, catering to Russian paranoia means allowing an invasion of a sovereign nation, Ukraine, that definitely does not welcome it. 

If we 'feel threatened' by Fiji, are we entitled to invade? If Chris Hipkins starts making grandiose claims about they are naturally part of our sphere of control, does that give us special rights? Should the rest of the world sit by and allow invasions, to preserve the precious feelings of invaders?

Up
2

I’m just amazed that the general public (lapping up the western media dribble) are letting their leaders / politicians lead them into nuclear war (no effort at all to deescalate) and you can be as sure as hell those leaders will have their rooms booked in underground bunkers. 
 

…believe me this will go nuclear 100%.

Up
1

NATO wants all of us to share their military bills confronting China. I am still confused why the hell we spend billions on these military planes. In my view its a waste of taxpayers money. Of course we need to play a game of USA friend to have preferences for our export produce. Maybe we can play little smarter than ozzies who sold their souls to devil with hundreds of billions to be spent on those silly submarines. We need to have our own way and not get involved in the games where we will be thrown under the bus

Up
4

Don't really understand history much do you? Do a study of Poland just before WW2 and see how well their under resourced military protected them from Hitlers hordes.

Up
3

Paul Keating 

"NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg as a "supreme fool".

"Stoltenberg by instinct and by policy is simply an accident on its way to happen"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-10/anthony-albanese-calls-jens-stol…

 

Up
3

What happens if we join NATO (North Atlantic?) and the CIA instigates some sort of instability in Taiwan.  We'd be in a state of de facto war with China.  Kiss goodbye to bilateral trade with our largest trading partner.  Kind of reminds me of how "you know who" provoked a conflict, and then blew up the Nord Stream pipelines thereby eroding the prosperity of the entire Eurasian continent.  Perhaps instead of calling it "bilateral trade", we could call it "dependence" That's how they sold that hot steaming turd of a situation to the Germans.     

Up
2

"China" 

Up
0