“Asian NATO”: The Prospect of a Regional Security Proposal

Japanese Prime Minister, Shigeru Ishiba speaking at a Press Conference.
Credit: Cabinet Public Relations Office (内閣広報室)

The concept of an “Asian NATO” has recently risen to the forefront of Japanese politics, with the prospect of establishing a security framework across the Indo-Pacific and Asia. With increasing concerns regarding the influence of China, North Korea, and Russia, several prominent Japanese leaders have responded with a solution: the establishment of a formal security agreement reflecting the pre-existing NATO. 

NATO, established in 1949 with the purpose of fostering peace and security in Europe and North America, is founded on its member countries' shared values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Central to NATO's mission is the principle of collective defense, resulting in a sense of shared security among NATO members. 

In response to an evolving security landscape, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba advocates for the urgent need for a future defense agreement with its East Asian allies. This arrangement aims to collectively stabilize the rising tensions from their surrounding neighbors in Asia. Newly appointed Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya, articulating Ishiba’s vision, underscores the importance of creating a collaborative community to foster dialogue and de-escalate the increasing threats posed by China and North Korea, particularly regarding their expanding nuclear arsenals. This specific adaptation of the pre-existing NATO is predicated on the “need to strengthen deterrence against unilateral attempts to change the status quo” as stated by Iwaya. As Japan navigates the precarity of the current nuclear landscape, it proceeds with careful consideration of this enterprise before making any strategic advances. 

Furthermore, Ishiba and Iwaya have emphasized that this idea is not directed at any specific nation, and it welcomes all prospective countries without exclusion. This inclusive stance suggests that the proposal is envisioned as a future possibility rather than a current priority.

This initiative has faced its fair share of skepticism from other regional powers on the global stage. Specifically, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, Daniel Kritenbrink, has outright rejected the proposal. His stance was predicated on the idea that it is “too early” for the consideration of collective security agreements and the establishment of formal institutions in this region. In alignment with the Biden Administration's foreign policy approach, Kritenbrink advocates for “investing in the region's existing formal architecture and continuing to build this network of formal and informal relationships”. This strategy prioritizes enhancing Japan’s existing security frameworks and alliances in the Asia-Pacific region rather than establishing an entirely separate defense pact.

In contrast, China views any attempts at forming an "Asian NATO" as a direct challenge to its influence, expressing concerns that such a move would further escalate tensions and entrench U.S. dominance in the region. The widespread belief in Beijing is that the U.S. is hegemonic, and that the security alliance is solely being promoted by the West to institutionalize Asia for its own geopolitical interests. This perspective both underscores China's long-standing suspicion of U.S. intentions in the region and reinforces its narrative that such alliances are aimed at maintaining American dominance rather than encouraging global security. 

Furthermore, China criticizes this concept for its creation under the guise of deterring China. According to a statement by Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Wu Qian, Japan has “hyped up the non-existent ‘China threat’ in an attempt to divert the international community’s attention” from its Japanese military expansion. He claims that Tokyo frequently exceeds the restrictions of its constitution and has expanded its military capabilities, prompting vigilance among its Asian neighbors and the international community.

While some advocate for this new security alliance to address emerging threats, others point out that regional organizations like the now-disbanded Southeast Asia Treaty Organization and current organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations already exist to promote peace and stability. As mentioned before, the United States, China, and many other Asian countries thus call for strengthening these existing frameworks rather than form a new military alliance, fearing it could escalate tensions and erode regional autonomy. Additionally, nations like India, Japan, and South Korea emphasize multilateral dialogue and economic cooperation over collective defense pacts, undermining the emergence of an exclusive Asian security framework.

The concept of “Asian NATO,” though prospectively collaborative and beneficial, highlights the intricacies of regional politics in Asia and the Indo-Pacific. This initiative is emblematic of significant shifts in the international order as countries reevaluate their security strategies in response to emerging threats. Global actors are coming to recognize how the need for cooperation and dialogue has never been more critical. Japan's proposal, although met with skepticism, signals a growing recognition of these complexities and the urgency for collaborative approaches to pressing security challenges. While an “Asian NATO” may not be an immediate development, the potential for an alliance among regional actors to counter the threat of nuclear escalation remains a viable option for Japan and others in the near future. In the meantime, this concept continues to spark debate among regional powers regarding its implications for stability and security.