Fear of China is often cited as the reason why NATO wants to expand into Asia. But behind this ostensible reason lies a desire to revive a romantic empire.
From an Asia-Pacific perspective, the idea that NATO is seeking to expand eastward into the region seems like an almost redundant concept given the spread of foreign forces involved in current military exercises.
Across Asia and Australia, the land, sea and air are filled with the sounds of military exercises. RIMPAC sees warships from 29 countries deploy to the South China Sea. Pitch Black sees fighter jets from 20 nations take part in mock dogfights over northern Australia. And Predators Run sees ground forces from four nations training together in Australia.
Australian media have reported on RIMPAC with sensational headlines such as “29 nations prepare for war with China, Russia and North Korea,” but have ignored the inherent provocativeness of the exercise. It is unfair to confuse China's policy stance with that of North Korea or Russia, but this is a common theme shared by NATO countries and their allies.
Even if these militaries are not officially participating in NATO exercises, the results of this de facto expansion cannot be ignored, driven by manufactured fears of China and a longing for the West's unknown imperial past.
Fear of China is often used to explain NATO’s desire to expand its influence and intervention, a headline-grabbing argument that masks deeper anxieties and historical longings: As imperial glory fades, it is said, the romantic allure of empire grows.
It certainly played a role in Britain's return to the ASEAN region with its militant navigation and the establishment of joint basing facilities in Australia. France still refuses to give up control of its Pacific colonies.
This revisionist yearning is more widespread, as NATO brings together all the historical European colonial powers, including the most recent imperial power, the U.S. Driven by a mixture of romance, industrial necessity and attachment to past glories, NATO is now considering expanding eastward into Asia, following in the footsteps of its former colonial powers.
The crude exploitative relations of the colonial past were not welcomed. They were ignored after the end of the Second World War. No one wants to see a return of this Western arrogance in the first quarter of the 21st century.
Many Asia-Pacific countries are determined not to abandon post-colonial gains won through often bloody revolutions and take pride in the ASEAN model of peacefully resolving regional issues. They see NATO expansion as a threat to decades of peace.
Kishore Mahbubani, a Singaporean and former president of the UN Security Council, has written that “NATO in the Pacific means nothing but problems for the region,” and he gives three reasons why.
First, NATO is not a geopolitically wise organization. The Cold War ended 30 years ago, and NATO is now desperately searching for new missions to sustain its military industry and bureaucracy. In the process, NATO will destabilize Europe and likely do the same in the Asia-Pacific region.
A second major weakness is that NATO often flees from the dire consequences of its interventions after launching military operations. This is the risk NATO poses to the Asia-Pacific region and the consequences of misguided ambition.
The third danger is a threat to the very careful and pragmatic geopolitical culture that ASEAN has cultivated. Not a bomb has been dropped anywhere in East Asia in the 30 years since the end of the Cold War.
Mahbubani says NATO may end up exporting its destructive culture of militarism to the relative peace that has developed in East Asia.
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim echoed Mahbubani's desire to avoid Western provocations in the region: “My concern, my challenge is not to unnecessarily stoke tensions. I want to ensure that the region remains neutral and free from superpower rivalry.”
The continued provocations of the West towards China have worried many countries which seek to avoid military solutions such as those represented by NATO and other military activities by Western powers operating in the region.
Timor-Leste President Jose Ramos-Horta said, “The Chinese are actually sensitive to the feelings of their neighbours. That's why the Chinese respect Australia's position even more than Australia respects China's position.”
The recent agreement between the Philippines and China to provide supplies and rotations to the stranded Sierra Madre island demonstrates that both sides recognize the need to “de-escalate the situation in the South China Sea and manage differences through dialogue and consultation.” This cooperative resolution contrasts with NATO's track record in conflict resolution.
As a key partner in NATO, the US has a long and sordid history of conflict: former President Jimmy Carter described the US as “the most warlike nation in the history of the world.”
The NATO organizational model is a potential threat to peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region as it further consolidates U.S. efforts to contain China through military means. Regional countries such as South Korea, Japan and Australia, with the support of the U.S., are already building their capabilities to continue efforts to contain China. This is driving the militarization of the Asia-Pacific region.
NATO and its potential allies are trying to manufacture a pretext for war. From the perspective of Asia-Pacific security in the region, the challenge for China is to remain resolute in the face of this NATO provocation.
A version of this article appeared in China Daily on August 7, 2024.
