Should China Welcome an Asian NATO?

[mota bhai 2,675]

By Zachary Keck
April 30, 2014

Earlier this month, I discussed the possibility that Asian nations might form a collective security mechanism if the threat from China continues to grow ... Most observers believe that a NATO-like organization isn’t possible in Asia due to existing divisions within the region and a general desire not to alienate China, who is the top trading partner for much of the region.

...

One of the reasons that I believe a NATO-like security alliance could eventually take root in Asia is that the general conditions that led to NATO’s formation are falling into place in the Pacific. NATO’s first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, famously described the new organization’s purpose as “to keep the Russians out [of Western Europe], the Americans in, and the Germans down.” An Asian NATO’s purpose would be “to keep the Chinese out, the Americans in, and the Japanese down.”

If China’s economic rise continues, and its military capabilities grow accordingly, there will be increasing apprehension on the part of China’s neighbors to keep it out of their territories and internal affairs. Indeed, in just the last few years we have seen growing concern as China has become more capable of enforcing its expansive claims to the South and East China Seas. We have also seen Beijing’s willingness to meddle in other countries’ internal affairs on issues of great importance to it, such as the fate of Tibetans in South Asia.

...

As Asia and China have continued to rise in recent decades, the region has been perplexed by American foreign policy’s continued obsession with Europe and the Middle East.

...

Nonetheless, the region has watched the U.S. continue to be tied down by unforeseen events occurring in the Arab world and Eastern Europe. Moreover, U.S. allies in Asia have been concerned that America’s seeming lack of resolve in Syria and Ukraine is a good indicator of the level of resolve they can expect from the U.S. on China.

...

Nonetheless, China is not in favor of being kept out of the South and East China Seas, nor is it a fan of America being kept involved the disputes. It is the third goal of NATO according to Lord Ismay—namely, to keep Germany down—which China might welcome.

Although sometimes forgotten today, one of the main reasons the U.S. agreed to form NATO was because it realized that rearming West Germany would be crucial to limiting the burden Washington would have to shoulder in defending Western Europe. At the same time, there was little appetite among European powers for the rearmament of a country that had precipitated two massive conflicts in three decades. Thus, the crux of the issue was how one could rearm West Germany so it could share in the collective self-defense of Western Europe, without allowing it to return to its militaristic past. NATO and its integrated command structure was the solution the wise men of the early Cold War years devised.

...

If China can avoid a prolonged economic slowdown, Japan will almost certainly have to take a role in Asia’s defense that is comparable if not larger than the role of West Germany in Cold War Europe. In recognition of this and the deterioration of its security environment, Japan is already starting to strengthen its military capabilities and remove some of the restrictions in its post-WWII constitution. Most notably, Shinzo Abe is seeking to get domestic approval for Japan’s right to engage in collective self-defense.

...

This move ... has greatly unnerved China, who has repeatedly claimed that Tokyo is becoming remilitarized. South Korea, which is roughly comparable to France in post-WWII Europe, has expressed similar concerns about Japan.

...

Although Chinese leaders’ warnings about a remilitarized Japan are probably not entirely insincere, I believe that China is exploiting historical concerns about Tokyo to distract from its own clear efforts to gradually change the regional status quo.

...

A collective security arrangement in Asia would give China a chance to prove that its concerns are genuine. An integrated multilateral security arrangement would be the best defense against a remilitarized Japan ... Moreover, compared to the current U.S.-led hub-and-spokes alliance system in Asia, a multilateral security arrangement would better hedge against Japan or the Philippines being unduly emboldened in their dealings with China.

Thus, if China truly believes that a remilitarized Japan is the greatest threat to regional peace, it should welcome an Asian NATO with open arms.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/should-china-welcome-an-asian-nato/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

WPTO?

IOTO? You can pronounce that one.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Japan is not a threat

[Sousuke 1,214]

Japan is not a threat

It is to my wallet

On the main subject, I don't see it working unless Korea and Japan can overcome their past

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It is to my wallet

On the main subject, I don't see it working unless Korea and Japan can overcome their past

I thought they had.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I thought they had.

Nope it goes back to the shared lineage of the Japanese and Koreans and my understanding is that both deny and hate that shared lineage. It is a very old matter of contention.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Nope it goes back to the shared lineage of the Japanese and Koreans and my understanding is that both deny and hate that shared lineage. It is a very old matter of contention.

I thought the Korea formed out of China.