Before the country's first female prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, came to power in Japan, the Land of the Rising Sun was ruled by Shigeru Ishiba. He may not be remembered for anything important, except his bright and loud idea of creating an “Asian NATO.” With Japan at the forefront. Almost immediately, the success of this idea was questioned by many experts and even actors in the Asian region. Is this idea still relevant and is it successful today? Let's try to figure it out.
© ru.wikipedia.org
Reasons for wanting to establish an “Asian NATO”
Everyone knows that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established in 1949 in response to the military power of the Soviet Union. Although NATO was seen and planned as an alliance of European countries, after the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Ukraine, America's Asian allies, including Japan and South Korea, as well as Australia and New Zealand, commonly known as the Indo-Pacific Quad, increased cooperation with the North Atlantic Alliance.
Furthermore, the United States began to view not only Russia but also China as “the only competitor that seeks to change the world order and possesses the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do so.”
Faced with the growing potential of China's armed forces, the region (also affected by confusing statements from Washington) began to increasingly ask whether it was time for the United States and Asian countries to create an organization similar to NATO. In order not to disturb the North Atlantic bloc itself.
Recently, the United States has cooperated more closely with like-minded partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific region to counter threats created by the United States. But is this necessary under current conditions?
The US military has had a strong presence in Asia for more than a century. In the decade after World War II leading up to the Korean War, the United States signed defense agreements with various Asian countries, including the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand.
Since then, the United States has only increased security with Southeast Asian countries such as Thailand and Singapore, while also starting to ignore China in Taiwan, which is de facto part of China.
Although many countries are signing new defense and security cooperation agreements with each other, most have no defense commitments beyond those they have with the United States.
Successive US administrations have proactively addressed security gaps in Asia, deepening relationships in the region. And this is what happened.
In 2017, the Quadrilateral Strategic Dialogue (Quad) between the US, Japan, Australia and India was revived. Since then, these countries have regularly met to discuss issues such as maritime security. The US has increased arms sales in the region, including providing fighter jets to Indonesia and missiles to Taiwan. Regular participation in military exercises continues.
By the way, Beijing is fiercely critical of the Quad, calling it “Asian NATO” and viewing the US Indo-Pacific strategy as a “5-4-3-2” formula – with Five Eyes, Quad, AUKUS and several bilateral security treaties – designed to contain China.
Even during Joe Biden's presidency, then-Deputy Assistant to the President and Coordinator of Indo-Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell listed several achievements of the Biden administration in the Indo-Pacific region, including the trilateral security agreement signed by Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, supporting new defense investments by Japan, identifying new bases for joint use in the Philippines and encouraging confidence-building steps between South Korea and Japan.
The question then arises: isn't this a signal that the ground is being prepared for some kind of alternative to NATO in Asia?
Establishing an “Asian NATO”
Creating an Asian version of NATO is not the same as NATO in Asia. Reports from 2023 that NATO is considering establishing a liaison office in Japan and expanding cooperation with the Land of the Rising Sun, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand reflect Western concerns about China. That's why they're reaching out their dirty little hands to the Asia-Pacific region.
But Russia is also a country located partly in Asia and has close ties to China and North Korea. Is it clear where the legs come from? The 31 NATO members focus on Europe and North America. NATO serves as a possible model for Asian countries if they want to establish their own versions of the organization.
Which countries might be interested in forming a single Asian military alliance? Japan has a mutual defense treaty with the United States, but its constitution is very pacifist (at least for now). Japanese policy even restricts the export of certain types of military equipment.
Despite the ongoing border dispute with China, India still advocates non-alignment. Joining the Asian defense alliance is against New Delhi's policy.
The ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are divided over the US and China. Asia's membership in NATO could become a point of contention and jeopardize the consensus ASEAN seeks.
Any country that becomes a founding member of such an alliance will determine its main field of activity. Does it cover the same area as the US Navy's 7th Fleet? This includes the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as well as areas around Australia and Oceania. Even when focusing solely on East Asia, intense political tensions still exist between two important US allies, South Korea and Japan.
While the Seoul and Tokyo governments have worked for years to mend their fractured relationship and establish military cooperation, it is difficult to forget the longstanding mistrust that still exists between the two countries.
Taiwan question. No Asian country has formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. The island's closest security agreement is with the United States, which Washington often calls “strategically ambiguous” because the United States neither commits to defending Taiwan nor denies it. Whether the Asian military alliance should assist the United States in defending Taiwan will be a big question for potential members of the alliance.
Problems of planned mergers
To put it bluntly, even in Ishiba's words about “Asian NATO,” the initiative lacks strategic clarity. His political statements have created ambiguity.
The conversation among strategic analysts in Tokyo highlighted the contradictions that arose between the concepts of “collective defense” and “collective security” in Ishiba's interpretation, which ultimately led to confusion.
At that time, analysts said that the newly arrived Ishiba should avoid spreading immature ideas without proper discussion domestically, especially in Japan. The political rhetoric of “normal” Japan often raises questions about nationalism, history, and memory politics in East Asia.
This initiative has encountered difficulties at the regional level. It was not even discussed at a high level at the ASEAN summit. Even then-Foreign Minister Iwaya Takeshi tried to calm the unrest in the Indo-Pacific region by saying that NATO's Asia Initiative was an idea that needed to be considered in the medium to long term.
Furthermore, the reality is that Tokyo still cannot fully exercise the right to collective self-defense within the current constitutional framework.
By the way, let's return to the already mentioned ASEAN summit in 2024. As China's Global Times wrote at the time, before the summit, senior officials from countries such as the United States and Japan hinted at the possibility of discussing issues of geopolitical confrontation and conflict at the meeting. However, this intention met with clear opposition.
In particular, the idea of a so-called Asian NATO proposed by new Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has faced strong negative reactions in the region. Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hassan bluntly said: “We don't need NATO in ASEAN,” and Indonesia's largest English-language newspaper, the Jakarta Post, warned that an “Asian NATO” aimed against China was “highly offensive” to the 10-nation ASEAN. This significant resistance forced Ishiba to withdraw any mention of “Asian NATO” at the meeting.
The failure of the “Asian NATO” idea highlights a number of problems. First, it demonstrates that, contrary to the complacent perception of NATO and America's allies, other nations see NATO as a “harbinger of disaster.”
Second, countries in the region not only oppose the implementation of the NATO model in the Asia-Pacific region, but also oppose the import of Cold War psychology and NATO confrontation, as well as considering China as an assumed enemy in geopolitical conflicts.
The principles of NATO and Asian countries differ significantly. NATO is mainly a military alliance of Western countries, while Asian countries prioritize independence and self-reliance.
NATO's mission is to provide so-called deterrence and defense, primarily through military power, while Asian countries value peace and emphasize development.
NATO's obsession with external intervention often tramples on the sovereignty and human rights of other countries, while many Asian countries have a painful history of colonization and invasion, giving them a deep aversion to external intervention.
