【Mingdi】
On 5 July, representatives of NATO's 30 member states signed a protocol to finland and Sweden to the treaty, formally launching the process of NATO's northward expansion that poses new challenges to European security. With Finland and Sweden joining, NATO membership will reach 32, 2.6 times the number of members (12) when it was founded in 1949. As a historical product of the confrontation with the Warsaw Pact Clique, NATO's repeated eastward expansion shows that the Cold War mentality of camp antagonism has never disappeared in the strategic circles of the United States and Europe. In recent years, the United States has been even more interested in promoting nato's "Asia-Pacificization" to get involved in Asia-Pacific affairs, and countries in the region must maintain a high degree of vigilance in this regard.
NATO in the service of US hegemonic interests
Whether it is the historical trajectory of NATO's development or its future strategic trend, it fully demonstrates the essence of NATO as an "instrument" for the United States to maintain hegemony. From the establishment of NATO in the early days of World War II, to the gradual eastward expansion after the Cold War, and then to the "global transformation" with "Asia-Pacificization" as the essence, every step is actually in the service of the interests of US hegemony.
After the end of World War II, taking advantage of the depression in Europe, the United States established political and economic leadership over the countries of Western Europe through the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. In April 1949, citing the threat posed by the socialist camp in the Soviet Union and under the pretext of so-called "mutual defense," the United States finally established military leadership over its European allies through the establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO's successful establishment as an organization for the integration of military forces between the United States and Europe after the end of World War II is rooted in the hegemonic needs of the United States against the Soviet bloc. During the Cold War, NATO, as the "megaphone" of US military strength, directly played the role of "helper" in the strategic deterrence and intimidation of the Us People against the Soviet Union at the most intense moments of the three Berlin crises and the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the United States benefited greatly from them.
After the end of the Cold War, every stage and transformation of NATO's development was undoubtedly driven by the adjustment of the strategic needs of US hegemony.
The first phase was a "confused period" in NATO's development, from the declaration of the end of the Cold War at the 11th NATO Summit in 1990 to the outbreak of the Kosovo War in 1999. After the end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the socialist bloc in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, NATO lost the "glue" of the common threat, and the struggle for its survival continued to ferment. But what makes everyone wonder is that NATO not only did not disband like the Warsaw Pact, but achieved the first round of eastward expansion after surviving 10 years of "confusion.". In this regard, the international relations community has conducted in-depth research and debate. Liberal institutionalist and constructivist scholars emphasize that nato's inertia in operating as an international organization and the coordination of Western institutions and values are the root causes of NATO's continued existence in the early years of the Cold War, but the most convincing argument in the debate comes from realist scholars. Realist scholars argue that although the end of the Cold War has greatly reduced the need for the United States to use NATO to fight the Soviet Union, its strategic need to use NATO to continue to control Europe and consolidate unipolar hegemony still exists, which is the decisive factor in nato's survival.
The second phase is the first round of eastward expansion from 1999 to 2022, when NATO's "strategic concept" document framed China as a so-called "systemic challenge" by NATO. The development of NATO at this stage consists of three main lines: First, the United States took advantage of Russia's decline to promote NATO's eastward expansion step by step, "encroaching on" the sphere of influence that originally belonged to the Soviet Union, and the final result was to provoke a strong counterattack from Russia this year, resulting in Europe facing the direct threat of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict; Second, because of the loss of the Soviet Union's constraints, the United States began to use NATO's military power without scruples to hegemonic needs outside Europe. From the war in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq to the war in Libya, NATO has evolved into a "thug" of US hegemony, completely reduced to the "family" of US interests; Third, the United States has gradually built NATO into a community and spokesperson for Western interests, and the tasks undertaken by NATO are no longer limited to the military level, and NATO has become an important tool for the United States to smoothly "rule" Europe and vigorously promote the US and Western systems and values. It should be noted that it is the "anti-terrorism" strategic needs of the United States that have led NATO's fighter planes to the Middle East and North Africa outside Europe, and it is also the "participation-expansion" strategy of the United States that has led to NATO's continuous eastward expansion and functional transformation.
NATO's "Asia-Pacificization" threatens regional security
In 2017, the Trump administration made a strategic judgment that "great power competition has returned to international politics". In order to serve the strategic needs of the United States to carry out great power competition, NATO, as an important "tool" for maintaining US hegemony, has embarked on the third stage of transformation with "Asia-Pacificization" as the essence.
Limited by the trump administration's tensions with European allies, the early promotion of NATO's "Asia-Pacific" has been limited. However, the Biden administration attaches great importance to the importance of the alliance system in the US hegemonic strategy, and the so-called "Indo-Pacific Strategic Report" issued by the US government in February this year is unabashedly proposing to actively promote nato and "Indo-Pacific" allies to strengthen ties and build a "new System of Indo-Pacific Alliance". Affected by this, NATO's "Asia-Pacificization" has shown a momentum of accelerated advancement. In April, the foreign ministers of Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand were invited to participate in the NATO Foreign Ministers' Summit for the first time; In May, Japan also signed a military agreement with the United Kingdom for the first time, following the Rokk's National Intelligence Service as the first Asian member to join the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence; In June, the NATO summit not only invited the heads of State of Asia-Pacific countries such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand for the first time, but also defined China for the first time as a "systemic challenge" to NATO's so-called "security, interests and values" in the "Strategic Concept" document, which is updated every 10 years. At this point, the sinister intention of the United States to push NATO to shift its strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region to serve its hegemony has been clearly revealed.
As a direct product of NATO's eastward expansion over the past 20 years, the trauma caused by the Russian-Ukrainian conflict to Europe and the world is still fermenting. However, the United States cannot wait to plot a "new eastward expansion" of NATO across the Eurasian continent, and this dangerous plot is bound to add new uncertainties to Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, and global security.
First of all, if European countries blindly cooperate with the strategic vision of the United States, NATO's "Asia-Pacificization" is bound to endanger the self-interests of European countries. Since 2020, China has surpassed the United States to become Europe's largest trading partner, and the strategic pattern of intertwining and interdependence between China and the EU has taken shape. Maintaining the healthy and stable trilateral relationship between China and the United States and Europe is the strategic choice that best serves the interests of the three parties. If European countries only care about cooperating with the hegemonic needs of the United States and ignore their own actual interests, and continue to allow their strategic autonomy to be eroded by the hegemonic needs of the United States, Europe will eventually be forced to fall victim to the great power game, and the only thing that will suffer the most damage will be Europe itself.
Second, NATO's "Asia-Pacificization" will seriously impact the security pattern in the Asia-Pacific region and harm the interests of Asia-Pacific countries. The Asia-Pacific region is the most active region in the global economy in the 21st century, and the overall trend of peace, stability, and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region has not changed. Even at the peak of the Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union in the last century, the Asia-Pacific countries did not slide into the pit of camp confrontation and group confrontation, and the security of the Asia-Pacific countries today does not need nato to "intervene" thousands of miles away. As a historical product of the strategic confrontation and containment carried out by the United States against the Soviet Union, NATO represents the Cold War mentality marked by group confrontation and camp antagonism, and if NATO is allowed to get involved in Asia-Pacific affairs, it will undoubtedly complicate Asia-Pacific security issues, polarize the Asia-Pacific security pattern, and ultimately endanger the interests of all countries in the region.
Finally, NATO's "Asia-Pacificization" will also threaten the already fragile world economic and global security landscape. After experiencing the double impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the current world economic and global security pattern is unprecedentedly fragile, with weak economic growth, inflation spreading, food crisis and energy crisis intensifying, and uncertainty rising. If the United States and Europe blindly promote NATO's "Asia-Pacificization" and provoke confrontation in the Asia-Pacific camp, it will certainly make the dangerous world economic and security situation worse and will seriously dampen the confidence of most countries in world economic growth and global governance, thus facing greater uncertainty in globalization and the world peace process.
The sinister intention of the United States to transplant the "NATO experience" to the Asia-Pacific region has been vigilant and criticized by countries in the region. Indonesia's Jakarta Post commented that the Attempt of the United States to build a new alliance system in the Asia-Pacific region completely ignores the interests of ASEAN and will only bring new turmoil to regional security. Singapore's Foreign Minister Vivian said, "ASEAN is not a military organization, and we do not want to find a superpower to be our 'godfather', and we have no interest in the Asian version of NATO."
The Asia-Pacific region should be a highland of peace and stability and a hot land for cooperative development, not a geopolitical arena. NATO's "Asia-Pacificization," which undermines peace and stability in the region, is doomed to fail.
(Author: Huang Zhaolong, Research Fellow, Nankai University Base, Tianjin Research Center for the Theoretical System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, Assistant Researcher, Zhou Enlai School of Government, Nankai University)
Source: Guangming Daily