THIS YEAR, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) held a summit in Madrid from June 28 to June 30. The summit saw, for the first time, the invitation of four Asia-Pacific countries—South Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand—at the “leader” level. Prior to the summit, NATO only invited these countries at the “lower minister” level for their assistance in NATO’s Afghanistan missions. NATO’s historic and unprecedented decision this year regarding these countries shows its increasing attention towards the Asia-Pacific region. With the help of Asia-Pacific nations, NATO hopes to counter what it considers to be threats to international security and cooperation.   

NATO 2030

   NATO is an intergovernmental military alliance between 30 member states—mostly Western European and North American states. The organization holds periodic summit meetings to discuss strategic directions for NATO’s future activities, and this year’s summit in Madrid discussed a new main agenda: NATO 2030. The initiative was created by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the request of NATO leaders in 2019 and was officially endorsed at the 2021 summit in Brussels to strengthen the Alliance over the next decade[1]. The NATO 2030 agenda is an ambiguous yet ambitious initiative to make sure “NATO remains steady, strong, and united for a new era of increased competition[1].” In an interview with The Yonsei Annals, Jeffrey Robertson (Prof., Dept. of Diplomatic Studies) stated that the primary goal of this agenda is to “strengthen the link between the [NATO’s] military and political structures.” This link will ultimately reflect the U.S.-led liberal international order, which could help resolve unpredictable threats like global arms control and terrorism. 

   One of the principal elements of the NATO 2030 agenda during this year’s summit was upholding the “rules-based international order.” The rules-based international order agenda values and protects the security, freedom, and prosperity of NATO allies from authoritarian states like Russia and China. Until the summit, NATO had been cooperating on an individual basis with Partners across the Globe (PatG)—partners outside the Alliance’s traditional partnership frameworks[1]. With the endorsement of NATO 2030, NATO emphasized the need to strengthen its relations with like-minded PatG, especially those in the Asia-Pacific region. This led to NATO’s unprecedented decision to invite the four Asia-Pacific countries to the Madrid summit.  

NATO’s Asia-Pacific partners

   NATO’s commitment to forging new links with Asia-Pacific countries could be interpreted as part of its larger effort to consolidate them into NATO’s structure. The four Asia-Pacific countries NATO invited to the Madrid summit share most of the NATO members’ values. Not only are they established democracies, but they also share the goal of mitigating international security threats and have capable military systems to help achieve that goal. Furthermore, all four nations have close relations with the United States, the figurehead of NATO; while South Korea, Japan, and Australia are U.S. treaty allies, New Zealand is a close U.S. partner. However, the biggest reason why NATO is strengthening these relations now is due to security concerns in the four nations’ home region: the Indo-Pacific. The Indo-Pacific region stretches from Eastern Africa to the Pacific Island States, and countries within this area are now investing heavily in their militaries—a sign of worsening regional security. In fact, the Indo-Pacific region’s share of global military spending increased from 20% in 2009 to 28% in 2019[2]. 

   The growing importance of the Indo-Pacific region is also attributed to the increasing power and influence of Russia and China. NATO was originally consolidated in 1949 with the goal to prevent communist expansion, and NATO still views these two authoritarian governments with caution. In the Brussels Summit Communique, NATO called Russia and China’s “aggressive actions from cyber, hybrid, and other asymmetric threats, including disinformation campaigns” a threat to Euro-Atlantic security. Thus, NATO promised to deal with the two states with a “view of defending the security interests of the Alliance[3].” With Russia’s recent full-scale invasion of Ukraine and China’s unwillingness to condemn Russia, NATO’s animosity toward Russia and China deepened. NATO hopes to borrow its Asia-Pacific partners’ force and insight acquired from their long history of neighboring China and Russia. With these allies, Robertson believes that NATO hopes to strengthen its political foundation and “military capacity to act” in order to resolve challenges to democratic values and the international order.

How NATO will deal with Russia and China

   NATO has specific plans to utilize its new partnerships with the four Asia-Pacific countries against Russia and China’s growing power and influence. With the partnership, NATO hopes to extensively address the Russian invasion of Ukraine through projecting unity, mainly by identifying Russia as the common threat to Allied security worldwide. The Asia-Pacific partners’ geographical proximity will also make it much easier for NATO to cut off Russia’s war supplies, making it harder for Russia to finance its war. Furthermore, the agreement between NATO and its Asia-Pacific partners to develop advanced military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region will pressure Moscow to engage in genuine diplomacy and withdraw its forces from Ukraine. 

   Additionally, NATO aims to prevent China from learning from Russia’s aggressive activities and limit its coercive policies that challenge NATO’s interests. Tensions between NATO and China have been rising due to the Chinese government’s authoritarian state operations. As Stoltenberg mentioned, “China is substantially building up its military forces, including nuclear weapons, bullying its neighbors, threatening Taiwan…monitoring and controlling its own citizens through advanced technology, and spreading Russian lies and disinformation[3].” NATO perceives China to be helping Russia, and as such, wants to cut off China’s supply aid to Russia by shrinking its defense investment. NATO also believes that China is learning how to become more assertive over Taiwan from Russia’s use of force in Ukraine and hopes to mitigate China’s aggressiveness towards Taiwan in the long run.

South Korea-United States-Japan security cooperation

   On the sidelines of the NATO summit in Madrid, a trilateral meeting among South Korea, Japan, and the United States was held to discuss their concerns over North Korean aggression. At the meeting, President Joe Biden met the leaders of South Korea and Japan to express his concerns regarding the North Korean nuclear threat. In recent years, North Korea has continued pursuing the acquisition of escalatory ballistic missiles, precipitating Washington’s fears of North Korea’s potential to conduct a nuclear test. Biden wishes to combat the North Korean nuclear threat by affirming the United States’ alliance with South Korea and Japan, as mentioned in a subsequent White House statement after the summit: “President Biden underscored the United States’ unshakable commitment to the defense of both Japan and South Korea” against North Korea[4]. South Korea and Japan have also expressed their commitment to North Korea’s denuclearization in the trilateral meeting, hoping to achieve regional security by aligning themselves with Western powers. To this end, the three leaders promised to boost their military cooperation via joint military exercises––including anti-missile drills, combined tracking exercises, and regular military training. 

   Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida expressed deep concern over the possibility of further provocation by North Korea and hoped that the “trilateral cooperation regarding the response to North Korea will be solidified[5].” Similarly, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol emphasized the need for a strong partnership among NATO members as he stated in a speech at the official NATO summit, “North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats continue to evolve. And the global landscape is facing increased uncertainties, thereby rendering our partnership all the more significant[5].” Yoon also described South Korea as a globally pivotal state as it could offer NATO ample opportunities to practice the rules-based international order against the North Korean nuclear threat. 

Responses to the NATO summit

   In regard to the effectiveness of the South Korea-United States-Japan security cooperation, Robertson made a general statement about trilateral alliances: “To date, trilateral cooperation has failed.” This statement seems to ring true for these nations’ cooperation as well since their agreement to mitigate the North Korean nuclear threat does not seem to be making the situation any better. After the summit, North Korea referred to the cooperation as a sign of hostility from the United States and its allies and cited it as a reason for the nation to continue building its nuclear program. “The prevailing situation more urgently calls for building up the country's defense to actively cope with the rapid aggravation of the security environment of the Korean Peninsula and the rest of the world,” the North Korean Foreign Ministry stated[6]. 

   Russia and China signaled similar signs of hostility after the NATO summit in Madrid. Even though Russia did not directly mention the four Asia-Pacific partners, Russian President Vladimir Putin showed animosity toward the NATO 2030 agenda’s proposal to strengthen NATO’s relations with Russian neighboring states like Sweden and Finland. Putin warned that Russia would use countermeasures if NATO set up military infrastructure in Finland and Sweden after the two states joined the U.S.-led alliance, stating, “If military contingents and military infrastructure were deployed there, we would be obliged to respond symmetrically and raise the same threats for those territories where threats have arisen for us[7].” China has also rebuked NATO and its decision to form alliances with Asia-Pacific states, accusing NATO of displaying “cold war thinking and ideological bias.” China saw NATO’s decision to undermine its economic and military growth under the excuse of  global security as unreasonable, and it warned NATO to stay out of China’s interests as the government would make “firm and strong responses[8].” 

*                 *                 *

   With hostile reactions from North Korea, Russia, and China, it is unclear whether the NATO 2030 agenda and the organization’s new Asia-Pacific partnerships could actually safeguard NATO allies with freedom and security. Contrary to what NATO hoped for, taking allied action against its adversaries might be making them even more volatile. Furthermore, Robertson predicts NATO’s partnerships to be temporary at best. He believes that “the chances of NATO ever playing a significant role in [the Indo-Pacific region] is very slim,” while Indo-Pacific states also share limited national interest in playing a role in Europe. In the end, it is uncertain how NATO's new plans will unfold and whether they will bring positive outcomes. 

[1] NATO

[2] European Union

[3] NATO

[4] Yonhap News Agency

[5] VOA News

[6] NPR

[7] Reuters