As the media primarily focused on Ukraine’s NATO membership bid during the July 11-12 NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, another significant development went relatively unnoticed. NATO’s gradual shift towards the Asia-Pacific region to counter China’s increasing power is an important story that deserves attention and scrutiny.
When NATO was established in 1949, its primary purpose was to safeguard Western Europe against the Soviet Union’s expansionist threat. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO’s original raison d’être vanished. Consequently, NATO expanded its scope beyond Europe, engaging in operations in places like Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq to maintain relevance in the changing geopolitical landscape.
Given the dramatic events triggered by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, NATO has rekindled its core mission – the collective defense of its member states in Europe. Enhancing deterrence against a resurgent Russia has become NATO’s top priority. However, amidst these challenges, NATO’s decision to engage in Asian security affairs risks diluting its newfound focus on Europe and impeding efforts to revitalize defense investments within the region.
The differences among NATO members regarding the nature and extent of the China threat and the appropriate response are already apparent. A disagreement regarding NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s initiative to open a small NATO office in Tokyo exemplifies these divergent perspectives. While Stoltenberg views the office as a means to strengthen NATO’s relationship with Japan, French President Emmanuel Macron dismisses it as unnecessary.
To ensure security on the European continent, NATO’s European members must prioritize maintaining a constant American military presence. Fulfilling the spending guidelines adopted at the 2014 Wales summit, which entails devoting a minimum of 2% of individual GDP to defense spending, becomes crucial. While defense budgets have increased by $350 billion collectively since 2014, the benchmark is still met by only 11 out of 30 members, including Finland. The presence of numerous deficiencies in the German Bundeswehr, Europe’s wealthiest country, adds to the urgency of addressing these issues.
Apart from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, NATO lacks the capacity to project power effectively in Asia. Additionally, NATO heavily relies on U.S. military power, intelligence, and reconnaissance capabilities. Consequently, the alliance’s involvement in Asia would be limited to symbolic deployments like freedom of navigation operations, which hold minimal influence over Chinese actions. Given current military deficiencies and the pressing security issues in Europe, it is necessary to question the rationale behind expanding NATO’s ambitions in Asia.
Maintaining consistent military support for Ukraine is a vital concern for NATO. However, Europe’s defense industrial base, already strained by years of underinvestment, struggles to balance Ukraine’s needs with its own. The expansion of NATO’s remit into Asia would only exacerbate this challenge, forcing difficult choices in the future. Moreover, examining the accuracy of NATO’s diagnosis of China as a threat raises doubts, as China’s nuclear capabilities pale in comparison to the United States, and its global footprint remains limited, unlike Washington’s extensive network of military bases.
While ambition can be admirable, there is a fine line where it becomes excessive. NATO’s growing focus on the Asia-Pacific region, with its limited operational capacity and potential consequences for European defense and support to Ukraine, raises concerns. Maintaining a cautious approach and prioritizing Europe’s security landscape before venturing too far into Asia should be at the forefront of NATO’s decision-making process.
The post “NATO’s Ambitious Asia-Pacific Dreams: An Unnecessary Cause That Diverts Attention from Urgent Issues” first appeared on the European News Global.
European News Global 