This article was published on 1 July 2022 in liberation daily, page 7 "International"
The NATO summit was held in Madrid, Spain, from June 29 to 30, inviting Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and other Partners in the Asia-Pacific region to participate for the first time, and also arranged two small-scale summits in the United States, Japan, South Korea, Japan, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, which aroused external attention.
However, the first U.S.-Japan-ROK summit in nearly five years lasted only 25 minutes, and it is said that the heads of state of Japan and South Korea rarely make eye contact. The Japan-South Korea-Australia-New Zealand summit lasted about 40 minutes and was said to be dominated by courtesy greetings and did not involve discussions on specific topics.
The analysis believes that the United States is trying to push NATO into the Asia-Pacific region to achieve the goal of maintaining its own hegemony and strengthening strategic containment. But Asia-Pacific countries have their own considerations. In general, group confrontation or open cooperation, the two forces are competing, but in the end the latter will have the upper hand.
On June 29, the leaders of the United States, Japan, and South Korea met in Madrid, the capital of Spain. CFP courtesy of the figure
What are the considerations for the tripartite meeting?
The last leaders' meeting between the United States, Japan and South Korea dates back to September 2017. At that time, then-US President Trump called the leaders of Japan and South Korea to a meeting during the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. Since then, Japan-South Korea relations have plummeted over wartime labor compensation, comfort women, and sanctions on semiconductor materials.
"Since the Biden administration took office, it has always wanted to broker a better relationship between the two countries. However, due to the negative attitude of the Japanese and South Korean governments, it has not been able to achieve this, and the three countries can only hold consultations at the director level. Liu Ming, a researcher at the Institute of International Studies of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, pointed out that today, with the change of the South Korean government, the willingness of South Korea and Japan to improve relations has risen, and this NATO summit has brought opportunities.
Based on the news of various sources, US President Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, and South Korean President Yoon Seok-yue held a trilateral meeting between NATO summits on June 29. The entire talk lasted about 25 minutes, with Biden sitting in the middle and South Korea and Japan leaders sitting face to face on either side. The three sides affirmed the importance of strengthening cooperation among the three countries and agreed to coordinate the response to the DPRK nuclear and missile threat.
At the meeting, Biden reiterated the two major goals of "complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" and "a free and open Indo-Pacific region". Yoon seok-wook hopes to make the South Korea-U.S.-Japan partnership "another pillar of global peace and stability." Kishida pointed out that Japan will fundamentally strengthen its own defense capabilities to strengthen the deterrence and response capabilities of the U.S.-Japan alliance.
Public opinion believes that this meeting is mainly based on displaying postures, but the progress in the three aspects is worthy of attention.
First, the three countries agreed to accelerate defense cooperation with the United States at its core, which may include strengthening joint military exercises. On June 11, the three defense ministers talked about basically agreeing to restart military exercises.
Second, the leaders of Japan and South Korea will meet face-to-face again, or herald the beginning of the thawing of relations between the two countries. The day before, Kishida and Yoon spoke for three to four minutes at the welcome dinner, a separate conversation rarely seen between the two leaders in recent years. Some South Korean media said that the atmosphere of the South Korean and Japanese governments and oppositions on repairing relations between the two countries has matured. The Gimpo-Haneda route, which had previously been shut down for more than two years due to the epidemic, resumed operations.
Third, South Korea is more cautious on issues involving China. South Korean presidential officials said the South Korean leader's visit to Madrid was not to discuss China and the Taiwan Strait issue, but to discuss what role South Korea should play in maintaining world peace and seek cooperation with other countries.
Lan Jianxue, director of the Asia-Pacific Research Institute of the China Academy of International Studies, believes that observing this meeting can be started from the international background. The United States is building a strategic platform for maintaining its hegemony on a global scale. NATO is increasingly being reduced to an instrument of the United States. The purpose of inviting Asia-Pacific countries to participate in the NATO summit and convening a meeting of leaders of the United States, Japan, and the ROK is to mobilize global resources, increase pressure on China, and safeguard the hegemony of the United States.
"On this basis, Korea and Japan also have their own small calculations." Lan Jianxue said that on the one hand, South Korea focuses on the needs of the inter-Korean game and hopes to deter North Korea by consolidating the US-ROK alliance; On the other hand, it aims to achieve the political ambition of "middle power diplomacy" and play its regional or global role in supply chain, geopolitics and other fields.
As for Japan, the first is to cling to the "thigh" of the United States and be a loyal pawn of the "Indo-Pacific strategy" of the United States; Second, we hope to use the hand of the United States to suppress and contain China and consolidate our dominance in the Asia-Pacific region.
Liu Ming believes that after nearly five years, the leaders' meeting between the United States, Japan, and the ROK mainly has four goals. The first is to coordinate the mechanism of tripartite meetings, such as whether the consultation mechanism of "2+2+2" can be added to the director-level consultations of the three countries in the future. The second is to cooperate with the US "Indo-Pacific Strategy" and strengthen cooperation in various fields, including supply chain and maritime security. The third is to propose some solutions to the North Korean nuclear issue. The fourth is to promote the substantive improvement of relations between Japan and the ROK in order to promote trilateral military cooperation and restore the ROK-Japan "Agreement on the Protection of Military Information."
Both scholars mentioned that the United States has a sense of anxiety and hopes that Japan and South Korea will put aside their grievances and concentrate on integrating into their "Indo-Pacific strategy." However, subject to historical issues, territorial disputes, and practical frictions, it is difficult for the structural contradictions of Japan-ROK relations to melt, and it is difficult for the United States to intervene deeply. The talks were more of a courtesy meeting, and it was difficult for the trilateral alliance to change substantively in the short term.
What are the limitations of four countries sharing the same stage?
Before the leaders' talks between the U.S., Japan, and South Korea on June 29, Kishida Fumio and Yin Xiyue also held brief meetings with Australian Prime Minister Albanes and New Zealand Prime Minister Ardern.
Unlike the tripartite meeting between the United States, Japan and South Korea, the four-sided gathering had different accounts and did not confirm the news until two hours before the meeting. Public opinion noted that this was the first time that the leaders of the four countries had held a similar meeting, chaired by Kishida. The parties exchanged views on the recent international situation, the common interests of the Indo-Pacific region, and the cooperation between NATO and the four Asia-Pacific countries.
Why do the four "newcomers" partner countries take advantage of NATO's field to hold small meetings? There is a lot of talk outside world. Some Japanese media boasted that the summit highlighted the weight of Asia-Pacific countries on the DIPLOMATIC stage of NATO. Yonhap News Agency "poured cold water" said the meeting was an opportunity for the four leaders to exchange greetings, not a place to discuss specific topics.
Liu Ming pointed out that the four-nation summit was convened by Japan. Japan has cooperated with NATO for many years, and in recent years, it has made every effort to encircle China and implement the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" and constantly put forward new ideas. However, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand have their own strategic emphases, and the four countries sharing the same stage are more than substantive, for several reasons. First, the four-country platform does not have the participation of the United States, is not in the US plan, and the focus of promotion may not be easy to determine. Second, South Korea's strategic goal is to be deeply integrated into western alliances, but it will not fully participate in actions against China to maintain its own flexibility. Third, New Zealand is not an important strategic country, and its focus is still on domestic and peripheral issues, and it is unwilling to deeply participate in "Indo-Pacific" affairs. Fourth, the different levels of bilateral relations between the four countries may lead to divergence of attitudes.
"Perhaps seeing that the U.S. control over the regional situation is declining in recent years, Japan hopes to strengthen horizontal linkage with regional allies and partners." Lan Jian said, but the other three countries have different ideas and still have reservations about the four countries joining forces.
After the new South Korean government came to power, the pro-AMERICAN color has become more intense, but in view of the unique geopolitical structure of Northeast Asia and the interdependence between China and South Korea, it still hopes to maintain equidistant diplomacy to a certain extent and maintain healthy and reciprocal Sino-South Korean cooperation. At the instigation and provocation of the United States, Australia has jumped very high on the anti-China issue in recent years. But overall, with the new government in office, Australia is still reluctant to become a complete pawn of the United States. New Zealand hopes to adhere to an independent foreign policy, maintain good cooperation with all major powers, and avoid taking sides.
What is the impact of NATO's "Crusades"
It is worth noting that regardless of the outcome of the talks between the United States, Japan, South Korea, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, the "appearance" of the four Asia-Pacific countries on the military platform of NATO has aroused heated discussion in the field of public opinion.
The outside world questions that while using the Russian-Ukrainian conflict to enhance European cohesion, NATO is stepping up its pace towards the Asia-Pacific region.
"NATO has kept pace with the US 'Indo-Pacific Strategy' in form and concept, but not yet in terms of mechanism and substance." Liu Ming said it was under pressure from the United States to incorporate U.S. interests into its mission. But around China and other issues, NATO has more internal differences, and some EU members have good trade relations with China and do not want to be completely tied to the United States. NATO and Asia-Pacific countries are currently only interacting politically and have not yet fully reached the military and security level.
Liu Ming believes that whether NATO is included in the "Indo-Pacific Strategy" or the United States, Japan and South Korea strengthen cooperation, it embodies the thinking of Campbell, the "Indo-Pacific Coordinator" of the Biden administration, to win over different countries, to create a series of overlapping composite mechanisms, covering economic, political, security, trade, science and technology and other fields, to grid the Asia-Pacific region, to create various obstacles to China's development, and to squeeze China's strategic space. But the problem is that domestic political uncertainty is high, and if the Democratic Party loses in the midterm elections, the Biden administration will become a "lame duck." Moreover, the government's financial resources are also limited, and there is no way to implement some policy ideas. More importantly, in the past decade or so, cooperation between China and Asia-Pacific countries has a good foundation, interdependence and mutual trust. They do not want to be involved in a conflict between major powers.
Lan Jianxue pointed out that it is a false proposition that the United States wants to tinker with the so-called "Asian small NATO." First, unlike in Europe, Asian countries have complex relations and divergent values and interests. However, Asian countries generally appreciate and follow the Asian concept of "harmony without difference" and "harmonious coexistence" and advocate consensus to solve regional problems. Second, Asia's vast "middle ground" (such as ASEAN and some of its neighbors) is reluctant to see NATO bring the "security paradox" from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region. Therefore, the "Asian Mini-NATO" is not feasible from the perspective of cultural foundation, value concept and realization cost.
"It is undeniable that NATO's 'Asia-Pacificization' or 'NATOization' of the Asia-Pacific Region has brought the concept and practice of bloc confrontation into the Asia-Pacific region, exacerbating the risk of a new Cold War, and it is worth the vigilance of all parties." Lan Jianxue said that in the past two or three decades, Countries in the Asia-Pacific region have accumulated a set of effective cooperation models and value concepts, which are highlighting their value with the passage of time. Bloc confrontation and open cooperation, the two forces are wrestling, but in the end the latter will prevail.