The United States’ Strategy to Expand NATO in the Asia-Pacific

The 20th Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore from June 2-4 was unfortunately not closely followed in Turkey due to limited interest in the Asia-Pacific region. The term “Shangri-La,” originating from Chinese, means “paradise on earth” or “utopia.” The meeting is referred to as “Asia’s Munich Security Conference,” organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a think tank based in London. This year’s meeting saw participation from 41 countries at the ministerial level, with notable attendees including defense ministers, politicians, military, and intelligence chiefs from 28 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. High-level participation also came from outside the region, including the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, and Israel.

One of the prominent agenda items was “NATO’s expansion in the Asia-Pacific.” The agenda for this year’s meeting can be said to have been set by a statement made by Japanese Prime Minister Kishida at last year’s Summit, who shockingly stated, “Today Ukraine, tomorrow East Asia.”¹ However, the biggest obstacle to the United States implementing this strategy is the attitude of countries in the region. The details of the Shangri-La Dialogue make this clearer. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, in his speech at the meeting, stated that a global “new Cold War” is taking shape and expressed concern over the trend of “NATO’s Asia-Pacificization,” with several Asian countries already starting to warn the US and NATO.

The US and its allies, especially with their provocative stance by deploying warships to the region amid potential geopolitical conflicts over Taiwan and the South China Sea, are increasing threats to regional security and stability. The US’s strategy of opening four new military bases in the Philippines, one near Taiwan and the other opposite the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, has caused concern among the region’s effective actors, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), against interventions from countries outside the region. Although the Philippine government stipulates that the bases cannot be used for offensive purposes, in the event of a conflict, the Philippines will become a “beachhead” for the US military against major powers.

JAPAN-NATO RAPPROCHEMENT

A development potentially more dangerous than the situation in the Philippines and Taiwan is unfolding in Japan. The country’s pro-American administration has doubled its military budget for 2023. Singapore’s Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen, referring to Japan’s closeness with NATO, stated, “If there’s anything more worrying than the situation in the South China Sea, it’s the situation in Northeast Asia.” Nonetheless, Singapore pursues a “balance policy” between China and the US in the region. It’s worth noting that just a day before the Defense Minister’s statement, Singapore signed a “Defense Equipment and Technology Transfer” agreement with Japan.²

Recent developments in the NATO-Japan flirtation include Japan’s Ambassador to the US, Koji Tomita, stating last month that “NATO plans to open a liaison office in Tokyo.”³ The liaison office will serve as a base for joint, regional potential operations with the US, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. Earlier this year, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, during his visit to Japan, stated, “The war in Ukraine is threatening the world order,” and “the international community is facing changes that will define the new era,” agreeing to “deepen NATO and Japan partnerships for a rules-based international order” and “both sides will increase military alliance to provide more support for the situation in Ukraine.”⁴

NATO has been in contact with Japan for a long time. Since former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to NATO headquarters in 2007, NATO had been planning to open an office in Japan. In 2018, Japan established a NATO representation in Brussels, and last year Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida was invited to the NATO Leaders Summit, marking the first time a Japanese leader attended the Summit.

Meanwhile, efforts for integration in bilateral or multilateral formats between Japan and NATO countries have already begun. For example, Japan has started a project to develop a new generation fighter jet by 2035 with Italy and the United Kingdom, aiming to increase the interoperability level of the Japan Air Self-Defense Force with the air forces of NATO countries in the coming years.⁵

OBJECTION FROM MACRON

A significant opposition to the plan to open a NATO liaison office in Japan came from within the alliance. The Financial Times reported that French leader Emmanuel Macron opposed the proposal to open a NATO office in Tokyo, reminding of NATO’s charter and believing that the Alliance should focus on its core area, the North Atlantic region.⁶ Macron’s statement, “If we force the NATO spectrum to geographically expand, we make a big mistake,” complicates the situation for the US. Some Western experts argue that the US’s move will also complicate the situation in Ukraine. The US’s biggest concern regarding

Ukraine is the possibility of China providing military aid to Russia. Concerns in the West have increased over the scenario of NATO opening an office in Tokyo.

*The 20th Shangri-La Dialogue was held in Singapore from June 2-4.*

CHINA’S STRONG REACTION

The plan to open a NATO office in Tokyo signifies the US’s first naval outpost in the Asia-Pacific, especially in East Asia, with China being the primary target of this operation, strongly opposing the situation. Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin stated, “The stance of China and the majority of countries in the region on NATO’s expansion of influence in the Asia-Pacific is very clear. We oppose the formation of military blocs in the region. Regional countries do not welcome NATO’s extension into Asia. No hot war in Asia will be allowed.”⁷

THE US’S RING OF FIRE PLAN

Despite being limited after World War II, Japan’s military forces have the world’s ninth-largest defense budget. The increasing role of Japan in the US’s plans to create a ring of fire starting from Taiwan and the South China Sea to the Pacific coast of East Asia, aimed at cutting off regional stability, peace, and development, also increases the risk of international geopolitical conflict. The current situation clearly shows not only to China but also to other countries in the region that NATO’s expansion targets are not solely against Russia. Ultimately, NATO’s strategic goal involves all developing countries, especially China and Russia, aiming to perpetuate US hegemony through force and solidify its disruptive role in the new international order from the outset. The expansion of NATO’s influence is not in the interest of any country within the alliance, except for the US. These countries will now have to undertake new military and economic obligations.

For the US’s strategy in the Pacific through Japan, there’s also a high possibility of aiming for goals other than utilizing Japan’s military power. Japan has strong political and military relations with India, Vietnam, and the Philippines, and it is the third-largest direct investor in ASEAN countries after China and the US. Japan’s critical importance in stopping the decline of US hegemony in the Pacific is evident from these examples.

A PRE-WAR SITUATION?

Some experts in the West and Japan compare the US-Japan partnership to the early 1900s’ Anglo-Japanese alliance.⁸ These commentators note the “brilliant” outcomes of the English and Japanese Empires’ partnership against Tsarist Russia’s expansionism and exploitation of China, among others. However, the Anglo-Japanese partnership eventually led to two major world wars and the establishment of a disgraceful colonial-massacre regime in China in the 20th century. The analogy constructed by Western writers for preventing a world war in the 21st century potentially carries within it a significant catastrophe.

A SINGLE FRONT FROM THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN TO THE PACIFIC

The most effective method to counter the US’s dangerous plan will depend on the stance taken by rising powers besides China and Russia, particularly India. Additionally, the BRICS Summit to be held in South Africa in August will accelerate the geopolitical shift.

The strategy the US follows in Ukraine, Taiwan, and Japan is not independent from its strategy against Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean. Initiatives taken by countries targeted by the US from the Eastern Mediterranean to the South and East China Seas in the upcoming period, including increasing military, political, and economic relations, are crucial for establishing world peace.