October 10, 2024
SEOUL – When Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba took office, he raised both expectations and concerns in Korea. On the one hand, his recognition of Japan’s historical wrongdoing during its colonial period, including 35 years of occupation, offers hope for improving Korea-Japan relations. On the other hand, his foreign policy vision, particularly the proposal for an “Asian NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization),” presents significant challenges. While his intentions may be grounded in addressing regional security concerns, this idea is strategically and diplomatically flawed.
In an article for the Hudson Institute on April 25, Ishiba outlined his vision for an “Asian NATO,” citing lessons from the Russia-Ukraine war as a key rationale.
However, upon closer examination, his argument lacks coherence when applied to the realities of the Asia-Pacific region. Ishiba points to the US’s limited response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, arguing that Ukraine not being a member of NATO allowed the aggression. He claims this justifies the need for a NATO-like security structure in Asia to deter similar threats.
However, this argument overlooks the substantial military and economic aid the US has provided to Ukraine despite its non-NATO status. Washington’s efforts to support Ukraine through sanctions and arms supplies indicate that collective defense mechanisms like NATO are not the only way to maintain international security. Thus, the assumption that an “Asian NATO” is necessary for deterrence is misguided.
Ishiba suggests that without a collective security system, Asia is on the brink of war, just as Europe was before Russia’s invasion. He argues that “Ukraine today is Asia tomorrow.” Specifically, he presents that China might invade Taiwan. This reasoning, however, fails to account for the distinct geopolitical contexts of the two regions.
While Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was driven by territorial ambitions or Russian President Vladimir Putin’s show of force, the relationship between China and Taiwan is far more complex, rooted in historical, political and national identity issues. Moreover, the US has a de facto security alliance with Taiwan, and any Chinese invasion would likely trigger a direct US military response, unlike the situation in Ukraine.
Asia has not experienced more wars than Europe, even without a formal collective security system. The US has maintained military stability in this region, relying on the concept of a “hub and spokes system,” which is the US alliance management system with many bilateral cooperation. The US is pushing a new kind of alliance management system called a “lattice-like architecture” which is a grouping of three of four countries led by the US. The argument that Asia needs an organization like NATO to prevent conflict ignores the region’s unique security dynamics.
Ishiba claims that China, Russia and North Korea form a nuclear alliance, necessitating an Asian NATO. While it is true that these countries cooperate on some fronts, there is little evidence to suggest that they have formed a cohesive nuclear bloc. China remains officially opposed to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, and its support for Pyongyang is primarily diplomatic and economic rather than military. Furthermore, speculative reports suggest Russia’s nuclear cooperation with North Korea, but no concrete evidence has emerged. Creating an Asian NATO to counter an alliance that does not yet exist could provoke greater cooperation between these countries and push them to form the alliance rather than deterring them.
Ishiba’s proposal to reintroduce US nuclear weapons into Northeast Asia violates global norms on nuclear non-proliferation. The international community has worked for decades to reduce nuclear weapons, and reversing this trend would not only undermine these efforts but also risk triggering a regional arms race. The redeployment of US nuclear weapons would likely escalate tensions, pushing China, North Korea and even non-nuclear states to reconsider their positions on nuclear weapons. The idea goes against the broader goal of global nuclear disarmament and could destabilize the region.
Ishiba’s suggestion of stationing Japanese Self-Defense Forces (SDF) in Guam also raises significant concerns. The defense relationship between Japan and the US is based on an unequal treaty, but this inequality reflects the broader international order in which the US plays a hegemonic role. Attempting to establish “equal” defense responsibilities by having the SDF stationed in US territories overlooks the strategic and symbolic importance of the current world order. Such a move could infringe on US sovereignty and likely be met with strong resentment from Washington. Equality in state-to-state relations must consider broader geopolitical realities, and this proposal risks unsettling the delicate balance that has underpinned US-Japan security cooperation for decades.
The strategic logic behind NATO’s creation in 1949 was clear: the North-Atlantic bloc needed a united front against the Soviet Union and its communist allies. In Asia today, there is no equivalent threat. While China’s rise and its assertive behavior have sparked concerns, portraying it as an adversary is an overreaction. China’s political system may incorporate socialist elements and its foreign policy is often at odds with international norms, but economically, China is deeply integrated into global capitalism. Isolating China is unrealistic given its economic ties with virtually every country in the world. An attempt to form an Asian NATO would likely fracture rather than unite the region, as many countries would regard their trade relations with China crucial as security concerns.
Ishiba’s vision of an Asian NATO, rooted in Cold War thinking, is outdated, impractical and counterproductive. Rather than seeking to create a military bloc that excludes and antagonizes China, a more constructive approach would be to propose a collective security organization that includes China. Engaging China within a security framework, encouraging it to abide by international norms and addressing regional concerns through diplomacy is a far more effective strategy than reinforcing division. Applying the Cold War-era containment model to the 21st-century Asia-Pacific context risks further tensions rather than fostering peace. The region’s security requires cooperation, not confrontation. By recognizing the distinct geopolitical dynamics of Asia and working towards inclusive solutions, Japan together with neighboring countries can better address the challenges of the 21st century.