Gen. Andika posted a video regarding the proposed Super Garuda Shield. This time it will involve not just the Army, but Air Force and Navy too. Combined arms between 3 branches of service involving other countries not just between US and Indonesia (quite possibly other US allies in the indo-pacific). It's certainly something worth looking forward to.
Indo Pacific strategy
- Thread starter gonefishing
- Start date
Gen. Andika posted a video regarding the proposed Super Garuda Shield. This time it will involve not just the Army, but Air Force and Navy too. Combined arms between 3 branches of service involving other countries not just between US and Indonesia (quite possibly other US allies in the indo-pacific). It's certainly something worth looking forward to.
EX prime minister. Abe ceased to be prime minister in September 2020.A little bit to the north we have another - remarkable - development.
Japan's prime minister has begun saying loudly and publicly that Japan should think seriously and urgently about nuclear weapons.
It seems that Japan is getting nervous with the changing situation around them.
Will Ukraine invasion push Japan to go nuclear?
Ex-PM Shinzo Abe shocked Japan by saying it should think about nuclear weapons - but he's not alone.www.bbc.com
The current prime minister has said nothing on this matter AFAIK.
A minority report on why America’s Indo-Pacific strategy may fail
1. It is more productive for Team Biden to show that it is a more reliable and superior alternative. Increasingly, I think that India will continue with its protectionist tendencies in trade (backing out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, just as Trump backed out of TPP) and wants to be more self reliant in weapons production. India’s external affairs minister S Jaishankar pushed back against European pressure for India to oppose Russia’s actions in Ukraine by highlighting the fallout of the chaotic withdrawal of Western powers from Afghanistan and their silence on challenges to the rules-based order in Asia.
2. The EU and America must take a more aggressive and sophisticated diplomatic approach than that taken with regards to India on the issue of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This includes isolation of Russia, but also demonstrating and highlighting Russian bad faith, and utilising information to counter disinformation that attempts to create confusion and garner support in India.
3. IMO, India’s external affairs minister acknowledged the Ukraine conflict is the dominant issue in terms of principles and values as well as practical consequences, such as higher energy prices, food inflation, and various disruptions across Asia and Africa. He added, “there is really nobody who wants to see this conflict. There will be no winners out of this conflict,” he said. “Our position is that we all have to find some way of returning to diplomacy and dialogue. And to do that, the fighting must stop.”
4. For the Indians the world revolves around them. 26 ships and 1 submarine are sailing together to mark the culmination of the 11th edition of the India-led MILAN multi-nation naval exercise held at Visakhapatnam; with the sea phase from Mar 1-4. Themed "Camaraderie – Cohesion – Collaboration", MILAN 2022 comprises professional exchanges ashore and naval exercises at sea.
5. During the harbour phase of Exercise Milan 2022, Singapore Navy’s Deputy Fleet Commander, Colonel Ng Xun Xi, spoke at the International Maritime Seminar — a platform to exchange ideas on common maritime priorities and challenges faced by navies. In his speech, he highlighted the importance of collaboration in tackling transboundary threats. "These threats have the ability to disrupt the global economy. They are transboundary in nature and can take place across a vast expanse in the maritime area of operations, it is usually challenging for one nation to be able to deal with them alone, and therefore necessitates countries to work together to tackle these threats."
6. Very clearly, India’s national interest is to remain neutral or aligned to Russian interests — which is a sign that America’s Indo-Pacific strategy may fail. Keeping in mind:
1. It is more productive for Team Biden to show that it is a more reliable and superior alternative. Increasingly, I think that India will continue with its protectionist tendencies in trade (backing out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, just as Trump backed out of TPP) and wants to be more self reliant in weapons production. India’s external affairs minister S Jaishankar pushed back against European pressure for India to oppose Russia’s actions in Ukraine by highlighting the fallout of the chaotic withdrawal of Western powers from Afghanistan and their silence on challenges to the rules-based order in Asia.
“When the rules-based order was under challenge in Asia, the advice we got from Europe is do more trade. At least we’re not giving you that advice,” the Indian minister said. “In terms of Afghanistan, please show me which part of the rules-based order justified what the world did there.”
2. The EU and America must take a more aggressive and sophisticated diplomatic approach than that taken with regards to India on the issue of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This includes isolation of Russia, but also demonstrating and highlighting Russian bad faith, and utilising information to counter disinformation that attempts to create confusion and garner support in India.
3. IMO, India’s external affairs minister acknowledged the Ukraine conflict is the dominant issue in terms of principles and values as well as practical consequences, such as higher energy prices, food inflation, and various disruptions across Asia and Africa. He added, “there is really nobody who wants to see this conflict. There will be no winners out of this conflict,” he said. “Our position is that we all have to find some way of returning to diplomacy and dialogue. And to do that, the fighting must stop.”
(a) Jaishankar should tell us how to end the war in Ukraine. Spell out India’s concrete strategy for convincing Putin to quit his invasion of Ukraine. No flowery abstract language about peace, love and Kumbaya. Putin doesn't listen to such Indian speech or language.
(b) Asking nicely doesn't work when victory is a Russian aim. This is being approached very differently in Ukraine than in Syria. In other words, India’s external affairs minister speaks of an impossibility — a return to diplomacy — what he means freezing conflict on grounds gained Russia via the surrender of Ukraine —when an Indian minister talks of going the diplomatic route.
(c) Ukraine’s not going to surrender when they defeated the Russian Army in 1 of 4 axis of advance conducted by the Russians. It also makes no sense for Kyiv to accept terms dictated by Russia, when it is still able to fight at day 60 or more in the Russian-Ukraine war of 2022.
4. For the Indians the world revolves around them. 26 ships and 1 submarine are sailing together to mark the culmination of the 11th edition of the India-led MILAN multi-nation naval exercise held at Visakhapatnam; with the sea phase from Mar 1-4. Themed "Camaraderie – Cohesion – Collaboration", MILAN 2022 comprises professional exchanges ashore and naval exercises at sea.
5. During the harbour phase of Exercise Milan 2022, Singapore Navy’s Deputy Fleet Commander, Colonel Ng Xun Xi, spoke at the International Maritime Seminar — a platform to exchange ideas on common maritime priorities and challenges faced by navies. In his speech, he highlighted the importance of collaboration in tackling transboundary threats. "These threats have the ability to disrupt the global economy. They are transboundary in nature and can take place across a vast expanse in the maritime area of operations, it is usually challenging for one nation to be able to deal with them alone, and therefore necessitates countries to work together to tackle these threats."
6. Very clearly, India’s national interest is to remain neutral or aligned to Russian interests — which is a sign that America’s Indo-Pacific strategy may fail. Keeping in mind:
(a) the IAF needs the Russians more than the Russians need them, having recently inducted the first Su-30MKI squadron at the Thanjavur airbase in Tamil Nadu (which are armed with the BrahMos cruise missiles); and
(b) the Indian Army’s selection of the AK-203 designed to chamber 7.62×39mm cartridge. This means no commonality with NATO standards. Alexander Mikheev, Director General of Rosoboronexport, said manufacturing of the AK-203 rifles at the plant in Uttar Pradesh was likely to begin in mid-2022 and reach full scale production within 2-3 years — these are to be manufactured by Indo-Russian Rifles Private Ltd (IRRPL). IRRPL was set up jointly between with erstwhile OFB [now Advanced Weapons and Equipment India Limited (AWEIL) and Munitions India Limited (MIL)] of India and Rosoboronexport (RoE) and Kalashnikov of Russia.
Last edited:
The Chinese aggressive and dangerous intercept of Australian P8 got a lot of attention recently. However also Canada has been exposed to similar incidents. Canadian news portal Global News reported Chinese jets are regularly flying as close as 20-100 feet from a Royal Canadian Air Force CP-140 Aurora (Canadian Orion P-3) while monitoring activity around North Korea. There have been 60 intercepts since December 2021, and Canada classified more than two dozen of those to be dangerous. Australia and Canada accuse China of ‘dangerous’ air intercepts; Beijing pushes back (defensenews.com)
It's sometimes easy to forget that Canada is a Pacific nation, and one may get the the impression that also Toronto forgets this sometimes. Canada is not party to any formal military treaty, alliance or construct in the Indo-Pacific region in spite of being a Pacific nation. The incursion of a four-ship Chinese task force into the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Alaska in late August should send a clear signal to Canada also, given the close proximity to Canadian waters. Like Australia, Canada is subject to acts of pressure and coercion by China, including the politically motivated detention of Canadians, believed to be in retaliation for Canada’s arrest of the CFO of Huawei in Vancouver in late 2018, on U.S. charges of breaching sanctions on Iran. Canada is currently punching below it's weight, spending only 1.4% of GDP on defense. Why Is Canada Missing From the Indo-Pacific? – The Diplomat
Hopefully the war in Ukraine in combination with the aggressive behavior of China, will open the eyes of Canadian politicians and they will: 1. start spending more on defense, and 2. start building formal defense networks in the Pacific region together with likeminded countries.
France has a small but significant presence in the Indo-Pacific with 1.65 million French citizens, large EEZ and 7,000 troops permanently stationed, in addition participating regularly in training exercises. La stratégie de la France dans l'Indopacifique (diplomatie.gouv.fr)
I would call for the formation of "PATO" -- Pacific Alliance Treaty Organization, inspired by NATO, and with an articles similar to NATOs Article 5. Potential founding members: Australia, Canada, France, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, the US, and the UK. Total population: 715 million people. GDP: Around 40 Trillion USD (based on IMF estimates).
I think such an organization, if it could reach a "minimum critical mass" would put some constraints on what China would be able to achieve in the future, and act as a stabilizing force in the Pacific.
It would require some work to get Japan and South Korea to join of course.
It's sometimes easy to forget that Canada is a Pacific nation, and one may get the the impression that also Toronto forgets this sometimes. Canada is not party to any formal military treaty, alliance or construct in the Indo-Pacific region in spite of being a Pacific nation. The incursion of a four-ship Chinese task force into the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Alaska in late August should send a clear signal to Canada also, given the close proximity to Canadian waters. Like Australia, Canada is subject to acts of pressure and coercion by China, including the politically motivated detention of Canadians, believed to be in retaliation for Canada’s arrest of the CFO of Huawei in Vancouver in late 2018, on U.S. charges of breaching sanctions on Iran. Canada is currently punching below it's weight, spending only 1.4% of GDP on defense. Why Is Canada Missing From the Indo-Pacific? – The Diplomat
Hopefully the war in Ukraine in combination with the aggressive behavior of China, will open the eyes of Canadian politicians and they will: 1. start spending more on defense, and 2. start building formal defense networks in the Pacific region together with likeminded countries.
France has a small but significant presence in the Indo-Pacific with 1.65 million French citizens, large EEZ and 7,000 troops permanently stationed, in addition participating regularly in training exercises. La stratégie de la France dans l'Indopacifique (diplomatie.gouv.fr)
I would call for the formation of "PATO" -- Pacific Alliance Treaty Organization, inspired by NATO, and with an articles similar to NATOs Article 5. Potential founding members: Australia, Canada, France, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, the US, and the UK. Total population: 715 million people. GDP: Around 40 Trillion USD (based on IMF estimates).
I think such an organization, if it could reach a "minimum critical mass" would put some constraints on what China would be able to achieve in the future, and act as a stabilizing force in the Pacific.
It would require some work to get Japan and South Korea to join of course.
QUAD/QUAD plus are interesting but in my opinion it will have limitations to how far it can develop. For instance, I strongly doubt it will ever be able to develop into a NATO type of alliance, mainly due to India.
Nevertheless it's still a good move and a move in the right direction.
Nevertheless it's still a good move and a move in the right direction.
My question is whether there's even a need for a NATO type alliance in the region - will really lead to enhanced peace and stability or will it just benefit a select few countries? Is a NATO type alliance really needed or it is something which looks sound but might not solve anything or actually deter anybody [read China]. Might lead to a more insecure China which becomes more assertive. Also, to have a meaningful impact such an alliance should include various regional.countries and not countries which are already closely aligned to the U.S.
As it stands the Philippines and Thailand are non NATO treaty allies of the U.S; Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea are treaty linked; Singapore is not treaty linked but has close ties and Malaysia is officially non aligned but has longstanding and extensive defence ties with the U.S. and Australia and plays host to the only base Australia has on foreign soil. As for India it seeks closer ties with the U.S. but actually being part of an alliance might not be in line with its interests.
As it stands the Philippines and Thailand are non NATO treaty allies of the U.S; Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea are treaty linked; Singapore is not treaty linked but has close ties and Malaysia is officially non aligned but has longstanding and extensive defence ties with the U.S. and Australia and plays host to the only base Australia has on foreign soil. As for India it seeks closer ties with the U.S. but actually being part of an alliance might not be in line with its interests.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Don't think anyone is advocating for a NATO type alliance in the region, as you precisely point out there are disparate interests with their own ties to the likes of the US and other groupings, which would seem to work better for these countries own interests (and probably would be too hard to make work in terms of having a single voice on issues within the region).
Eg the various ASEAN countries have had different responses to the likes of sanctioning Russia (over Ukraine) and same with China (eg from various issues such as South China Sea/Taiwan tensions, to whether sanctioning Russia could mean having to do the same with China one day etc).
Rather as "NATO regularly meets with the Asia-Pacific partners to discuss security topics of mutual interest" it is probably enhancing dialogue with its like-minded democracies that advocate for the international rule of law in the region and whilst recognising that international rules and norms are coming under greater pressure in the region (and noting the linkages with the likes of the CCP and Russia).
I agree with the commentators above (NM and Vivendi) that measures to increase dialogue, understanding and relationships is both timely and a good thing. Anyway you're an astute commentator on these sorts of issues so looking forward to your perspectives if you have time!
A NATO type of alliance will, if it reaches a "critical mass" most certainly lead to a significantly lower risk of China contemplating military aggression against any of those countries participating in the alliance, just like USSR/Russia has never attacked NATO countries. It will remove a lot of uncertainties -- China would know there are certain red lines that will be extremely painful to cross and therefore will not cross them.
China has gradually become more assertive and aggressive without an "Asian NATO" to consider. I don't think it will become even more aggressive with an "Asian NATO" around. Although there is a likelihood it will use it as an excuse to justify increased aggressiveness, but that would not change it's actions, only it's argumentation.
As you rightly point out several Asian countries are already allies of the US, with varying degrees of commitments -- I believe some of them may have sufficient in common that they could consider being in a formal alliance that goes beyond bilateral agreements with the US. In particular I am thinking about Australia, Canada, France, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, the UK(*) and the US. As I indicated in my previous post, India in particular would not be interested in joining such an alliance. Perhaps Singapore would be interested, S already has agreements with several of the countries listed, and is strengthening ties to e.g., Japan: Singapore and Japan Sign Enhanced Memorandum on Defence Exchanges (mindef.gov.sg)
After a while, some other countries may see the benefits outweighs the disadvantages and ask to join. Several countries for sure would decide to stay outside of such an alliance, for a number of reasons. And some may not be accepted even if they asked to join. Such is life.
Some may say that since many countries in Asia cannot or will not join, such an alliance should not be formed. Clearly each country should be free to make their own security arrangements. If some Asian countries decide to form an alliance because they believe it's in their interest then they can and will do so.
If created, it would be important to signal to China that such an alliance is purely defensive in nature -- it will never attack China (just like NATO has never attacked the USSR or Russia during it's 73 years of existence -- not even after the collapse of USSR, when Russia was at it's weakest).
(*) To my knowledge the UK does not have any overseas territories left in South East Asia/Pacific however the strong links to several countries in the region, together with a strong desire to be a global player would indicate that the UK could become a founding member of such an alliance. AUKUS, and several other arrangements (e.g., 5 eyes, and Five power defense agreement) support this hypothesis.
If China saw its interests threatened and felt it was backed into a corner; it would respond militarily; irrespective of whether every single country in the Asia Pacific is part of a U.S. led alliance. In 1950, the U.S. had nukes and only 5 years ago had won WW2 but China still intervened in Korea because it was convinced it had to. Just like how China has issued various warning in recent times; it did warn the U.S. that it would intervene in Korea if U.S. troops neared the border.
Yet another Western led or dominated alliance would make the Chinese more paranoid and insecure and over time they could respond in various ways.
Such an alliance would require the participation of various key players in the region; if it just includes the 'usual suspects' [countries already aligned with the U.S] then it's merely window dressing.
Clearly; as was the case with SEATO decades ago.
- What China is told and what it believes can be profoundly different. When they look at a map they see various countries already linked or closely aligned to the U.S; they see U.S. troops/bases in Japan, South Korea and Guam; they hear about U.S. statements on Taiwan [the Chinese view this as an internal matter]; they see a U.S. which regularly trains with various regional countries and they see how geography ensures that China can be easily boxed in by the various Island Chains; not to mention China's dependence on the narrow and easy to interdict Melaka Straits. Taking all these factors into account; as well as the recent announcement on AUKUS; you seriously think the Chinese [already paranoid and convinced that the hypocritical and insincere U.S. supported; by various ''running dog regional lackeys';' wants to prevent the rise of China] will believe any assurances on how a U.S. led and dominated Asia Pacific NATO is defensive and not directed at China?
-To be a devil's advocate; even at various points during the Cold War when the Soviets enjoyed a clear superiority in varioys areas; it never attacked NATO.
No the U.K does not have any territory left in the region; the last was Brunei which gained independence in the mid 1980's. As it stands the U.K. is seen as a minor player in the region; one whose actual presence and influence has waned in comparison to the U.S. and Australia. It's one thing for the U.K. to be key player in AUKUS with an ex colony and one which is fully part of the ''Western Alliance'' anyway; another completely different thing for the U.K. to be seen as a serious player by regional countries.
Last edited:
Technically the Pitcairn Islands are a British Overseas Territory, to be fair though they are a fair way out in the Pacific.
Perhaps, or perhaps not. What is certain is that Chinese aggression is making all of China's neighbors more paranoid and insecure and over time they will respond in various ways. For example, consider the 9 dash line -- no other country than China think it's makes much sense. Still, China is pushing it very aggressively, and we have just seen the beginning of it, not the end.
I don't think so -- it would make China's room to navigate smaller. It would become much harder for China to split those countries if they have a formal alliance. NATO countries operating together are incredibly strong. There are also practical aspects, this was highlighted when Sweden which was already a NATO partner country and had trained a lot with NATO, participated in Libya and discovered that the lack of 100% NATO compatible encrypted communication was actually a major hindrance. This was resolved but it took some time. It illustrates how integrated and "networked" a modern force must be in order to operate efficiently. It is much easier to reach such a high level of interoperability within a formal alliance. Swedish Gripen Community Draws Libya Lessons - Atlantic Council
If only you could convince China to be as sensitive and empathic towards it's neighbors as you argue China's neighbors should be... If an alliance is formed in SE Asia/Pacific then it will be as a direct response to Chinese aggression. Nevertheless one should still try to convince China that it would be a defense alliance. Just like NATO.
I doubt the USSR at any time had a "clear superiority" over NATO.
Such an alliance would consist of "serious players" (e.g. Japan, the US) but also "minor players". Whether you classify the UK as a minor or major player is to me not an argument against them joining. The more the merrier. And they do have significantly more capabilities than e.g. New Zealand.
This is what I previously wrote - ''What China is told and what it believes can be profoundly different. When they look at a map they see various countries already linked or closely aligned to the U.S; they see U.S. troops/bases in Japan, South Korea and Guam; they hear about U.S. statements on Taiwan [the Chinese view this as an internal matter]; they see a U.S. which regularly trains with various regional countries and they see how geography ensures that China can be easily boxed in by the various Island Chains; not to mention China's dependence on the narrow and easy to interdict Melaka Straits. Taking all these factors into account; as well as the recent announcement on AUKUS; you seriously think the Chinese [already paranoid and convinced that the hypocritical and insincere U.S. supported; by various ''running dog regional lackeys';' wants to prevent the rise of China] will believe any assurances on how a U.S. led and dominated Asia Pacific NATO is defensive and not directed at China?''
''If China saw its interests threatened and felt it was backed into a corner; it would respond militarily; irrespective of whether every single country in the Asia Pacific is part of a U.S. led alliance. In 1950, the U.S. had nukes and only 5 years ago had won WW2 but China still intervened in Korea because it was convinced it had to. Just like how China has issued various warning in recent times; it did warn the U.S. that it would intervene in Korea if U.S. troops neared the border. ''
China's ''room to navigate'' is already somewhat limited and how it acts is also a reflection of this. China's actions are that of a growing power; one still unsure of itself; paranoid and insecure.
When and where did I suggest that they should be ''sensitive and empathic''? When and where .....
As has been explained; what it's told and what it actually believes can be profoundly different.... Also as much as you'd like to make it sound like it's clear cut - it's not. It's not as simplistic as saying China is the aggressor; thus we should form a NATO like alliance which will make China ''think twice''.. What if your alliance fails to achieve the intended results? What if China responds in various ways? Who exactly will join this alliance - only countries already aligned to the U.S. or other key players like India and Indonesia? Aren't you only looking at the on paper plus points rather than things in totality?
Your ''doubts'' aside there were various points during the Cold War when the Soviets enjoyed advantages in a number of areas; even if they were for brief periods.
I didn't classify it as either...What I did say is that it does not have the presence or the influence that the U.S. and Australia has in the region...
I also did not suggest it shouldn't join.
Last edited:
As explained to you already, I doubt India would be interested in joining. I already listed those countries most likely to be founding members. Whether other countries like Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia would be interested in joining later on, it's hard to tell. No doubt China and some other countries would try to portray such an alliance as being a US tool to manipulate and dominate (since that's what China would have done perhaps?) -- however, like NATO, it should be based on consensus. Thus countries like Japan, Australia or New Zealand would have veto rights. It would give them more, not less, influence on matters. Without such an alliance US would have larger room to navigate and play dirty.
Engagement with China would be very important of course. NATO tried for a long time to communicate with Russia, in various ways. Russia did not want to listen. I am less pessimistic than you regarding engagement with China, I think they would be more pragmatic, less paranoid, and understand that such an alliance would not only restrict China but also restrict the US. They would not like being restricted, but I think they would appreciate that the US would be restricted by the alliance partners. I think you underestimate China in this respect.
"various points... in a number of areas.. brief periods.." perhaps, but not enough to decide to take on all of NATO. They did attack other non-NATO countries are you are aware, the latest example being Ukraine. Russia would not have invaded Ukraine had Ukraine been a member of NATO. Whether they would have attacked countries that were NATO members, had those countries not been NATO countries in the first place, we don't know for sure. We also know that Eastern European countries were desperate to get into NATO because they saw that as the only protection against Russian aggression. The latest examples of countries wanting to join NATO are Finland and Sweden. This demonstrates what a huge success NATO has been, and still is today.
Last edited:
Interaction between New Zealand and NATO:
New Zealand has been engaged with NATO since 2001. Since 2012, work is being taken forward through an Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme. Since 2014 under the Partnership Interoperability Initiative, New Zealand participates in the Interoperability Platform, which brings Allies together with selected partners that are active contributors to NATO’s operations. For the first time, in December 2020, New Zealand participated in a NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting, together with Australia, Finland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden and the European Union High Representative/ Vice President of the European Commission, to discuss the shift in the global balance of power and the rise of China. This was only one of the latest and more visible political exchanges NATO has had with New Zealand at various levels in recent years. The NATO Secretary General travelled to New Zealand in August 2019.
NATO - Topic: Relations with New Zealand
New Zealand has a deep collaboration with NATO over many years. Unlike most people on this forum (including myself) New Zealand, by participating in all these NATO activities, has a very good understanding of both the value and the limitations of an alliance like NATO. Whereas we are reading some information on the internet, add our own speculations and form an opinion. New Zealand (and Australia, South Korea, and Japan) get to see "what's under the hood" of NATO. Perhaps the answer is not to create an "Asian NATO", perhaps the answer is to expand NATO to the region and change the name of the organization to reflect this... Time will tell how this will develop moving forward.
No matter how it plays out I suspect the lessons from NATO will somehow be applied in the region, and China will perhaps be unhappy with the result. But as long as it reduces the risk of those countries being attacked militarily, it is most likely worth annoying China a bit.
More on NATOs collaboration with the 4 Asia-Pacific partners: NATO - Topic: Relations with the four Asia-Pacific partners
New Zealand has been engaged with NATO since 2001. Since 2012, work is being taken forward through an Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme. Since 2014 under the Partnership Interoperability Initiative, New Zealand participates in the Interoperability Platform, which brings Allies together with selected partners that are active contributors to NATO’s operations. For the first time, in December 2020, New Zealand participated in a NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting, together with Australia, Finland, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden and the European Union High Representative/ Vice President of the European Commission, to discuss the shift in the global balance of power and the rise of China. This was only one of the latest and more visible political exchanges NATO has had with New Zealand at various levels in recent years. The NATO Secretary General travelled to New Zealand in August 2019.
NATO - Topic: Relations with New Zealand
New Zealand has a deep collaboration with NATO over many years. Unlike most people on this forum (including myself) New Zealand, by participating in all these NATO activities, has a very good understanding of both the value and the limitations of an alliance like NATO. Whereas we are reading some information on the internet, add our own speculations and form an opinion. New Zealand (and Australia, South Korea, and Japan) get to see "what's under the hood" of NATO. Perhaps the answer is not to create an "Asian NATO", perhaps the answer is to expand NATO to the region and change the name of the organization to reflect this... Time will tell how this will develop moving forward.
No matter how it plays out I suspect the lessons from NATO will somehow be applied in the region, and China will perhaps be unhappy with the result. But as long as it reduces the risk of those countries being attacked militarily, it is most likely worth annoying China a bit.
More on NATOs collaboration with the 4 Asia-Pacific partners: NATO - Topic: Relations with the four Asia-Pacific partners
As has been explained to you; any such alliance would have to include various key regional countries to have the needed impact.
I think they would be more pragmatic, less paranoid, and understand that such an alliance would not only restrict China but also restrict the US.
You might think so and you may be right. Personally I hardly see how an alliance led and dominated by the U.S. [irrespective of the consensus at play] in a region long dominated by the U.S. would not be perceived as yet another attempt [after AUKUS and the list of countries aligned/treaty linked to the U.S] to counter China and prevent its rise as a superpower. On top of that there are the various factors/dynamics at play which result in the Chinese seeing themselves as very vulnerable; the things they see when they look at a map which might not be apparent when others look at
it.
As simple and clear cut as that? A West/NATO which tried its best to negotiate, reassure, bargain, offer partnerships, etc but an obstinate; imperialistic, aggressive and unreasonable Russia not ''listening''.....
That was not a point of dispute was it - there was zero mention of the Soviets having the need or the means which convinced them to take on NATO.
You mentioned that NATO was/is a defensive alliance that throughout its history never attacked the. I pointed out that the Soviet Union never attacked NATO despite at various periods actually enjoying superiority in a number of areas.
Yes on numerous occasions you've mentioned Finland and NATO - point well taken. On NATO being a success; let's see. I certainly hope so but I won't assume NATO has been a success simply because the Soviets never attacked and the Russians haven't. I'll point out that things never reached a point where the Soviets decided they had to attack and I hope the same holds true for the Russians.
Good for New Zealand but we're talking about a hypothetical NATO type alliance in the Asia Pacific; whether it will indeed deter China; the need for various countries [not just longstanding U.S. aligned ones] to be included and whether such an alliance will lead to any tangible benefits. There is also the question of how China will react and the ways it can respond.
I know you're all gung ho about NATO [I have nothing against it] but this is the Asia Pacific; China is not Russia and the various countries in the region are disparate in a way the Europeans by large aren't; they don't see China as a common threat they way NATO sees Russia; they have different forms of governance; different levels of development; different threat perceptions etc and are not linked or integrated by an Asian version of the EU.
Last edited:
Pitcairn Island is still a British Overseas Territory, is it relevant enough for the UK to warrant any military presence in the Asia Pacific region.
There are U.S. military bases in the region; various countries linked or aligned to the U.S and China is boxed in by the various Island Chains and relies on the Strait of Melaka for the transport of its energy needs from the Middle East; across the breadth of the Indian Ocean which like the Strait of Melaka can easily be closed to Chinese shipping.
China is a major worry as as I see it; nobody, not the U.S. or Japan or Australia really has a sound plan on dealing with China beyond the usual diplomatic moves, warnings and forming and strengthening alliances. It's China which has the upper hand. The others are merely reacting to its moves.
If things really got serious the U.K. would be involved in the region; no doubts there. It has also said that it wants to be engaged in the region as it had various interests in the region. As its stands however the U.K.'s main focus is Europe and the Middle East and it will continue to have a minimal physical presence in the region; nothing beyond the odd deployment; participation in exercises, etc. Also, lets face it but British interests will be severely threatened if the sea lanes in the South China Sea are disrupted or if a close partner gets into a skirmish with China; I doubt if China has any designs on Pitcairn Island.
Last edited:
What "needed impact" do you refer to? What "key regional countries" would have to be included and why?
The list of countries I provided have a total population of 715 million people, accumulated GDP more than twice that of China, and also unprecedented strong combined armed forces, (in particular once they become fully integrated), three of which having nuclear weapons with a global reach. From the perspective of the previously listed countries I think it would have an impact.
No of course it's not that simple, but basically NATO did make several attempts, and Russia did not respond positively as you know. Declaring NATO as "the enemy" and then invading Georgia and Ukraine was a rather negative response I would say. And yes Russia is imperialistic and aggressive. I am sure you have read about Putin's statements regarding Peter the Great (although observers say Putin has more in common with Ivan the Terrible). It is also interesting to note that after complaining loudly about "NATO enhancement" they now say that Sweden and Finland becoming members is not really that much of an issue after all! Putin will never admit it in public, but their recent actions and also statements about Finnish/Swedish NATO membership seem to indicate that they actually understand NATO is purely defensive and has no intention of attacking Russia. The real problem they are having with NATO enlargement is that once an Eastern European country becomes NATO member, Russia cannot turn it into a vassal state/colony, which is what they really want to do. You can read more about NATOs attempts engaging with Russia here: NATO - Topic: Relations with Russia
It is correct that NATO never attacked USSR/Russia. It is also correct (and I also pointed this out previously) that USSR/Russa never attacked any NATO countries. Thus demonstrating that NATO acted as a deterrence. It still does. NATO has provided substantial amounts of weapons to Ukraine and Russia has so far not dared to attack any of the NATO countries, only threatened to do so.
It never reached a point where USSR/Russia decided to attack precisely because NATO is what it is: a strong military alliance with a very effective and convincing Article 5. I understand 73 years of successful deterrence is not enough to convince you. However you are clearly in a minority. All the Eastern European countries that struggled hard to become members clearly saw the value of NATO, and do even more now. The support for NATO has never been stronger than today.
I mentioned New Zealand's (and Australia's Korea's and Japan's) long relationship to NATO to highlight that they know what such an alliance entails, they know how it works. It is also interesting to notice that all 4 countries have gradually been strengthening ties with NATO. Odd if NATO is such a useless organization. Not so odd if they see clear benefits and want more engagement.
I believe it will deter China, you seem to be skeptical, for whatever reason. Let's agree to disagree. Note I do not expect such an alliance to deter China from aggression in general; it will however most effectively deter aggression against the members of the alliance, again assuming it reaches "critical mass" by including the countries I listed. Other countries in the region then have to look at the pros and cons of joining and make a decision accordingly.
When NATO was founded EU did not exist, and only a limited number of countries joined NATO initially. Also, NATO was founded to deter the USSR not Russia. Of course China is not USSR either, but China is clearly seen as a major threat to many countries in the region; and USSR was seen as a major threat after WW2. An "Asia-Pacific NATO" may well develop quite differently from NATO, and would probably have a much smaller number of members. I agree that many countries in Asia have different levels of development, different threat perceptions etc. However the countries I listed I believe have sufficient in common that they can become founding members. Korea and Japan have their differences of course but so does Greece and Turkey. As NATO has helped Greece and Turkey avoiding a war, so can perhaps an "Asian NATO" prevent future clashes between Korea and Japan by providing both internal and external "push" to resolve their disagreements through negotiations.
Perhaps an "Asian NATO" can also inspire other countries in the region to develop themselves and aspire to become members. This will provide a positive feedback loop and could help spread democracy and a rules based order in the region. China will not benefit from this if they intend to get what the want by force and not through trade and/or negotiations. However also China would benefit from having such an organization in the region if China choose to walk a different path, and act and work within a rules based system and not "the law of the jungle".
I have actually spelt it out before 2-3 times. Again - any NATO type alliance in the Asia Pacific would have to include countries such as India and Indonesia; unless countries like that are included such an alliance would make good window dressing but not much more than that. It would be seen as yet another ''exclusive'' club for countries which are already aligned with the U.S. and would not have added value.
The question you should ask is whether Russia has at present any need to attack a NATO country and whether it will if it felt it had to.... Same thing with China as I explained; the U.S. and its allies can make all the statements they want and form all the alliances/partnerships they want but if the political leadership in Beijing decides that it has no alternative but to resort to military means; it will.... Note that in 1950 when China was much much weaker and when the U.S. was already a nuclear power; China entered the war in Korea....
Of course they know ''what such an alliance entails'.... They've had a pretty good idea for decades long before there was any formal cooperation/dialogue with NATO - there was such a thing as ANZUS and there was for a brief period ANZUK.
Perhaps you should make a better attempt at understanding what others mean/say before forming rash conclusions....
NATO has been successful is acting as a deterrent on the basis that the Soviets never attacked it and the Russians haven't. On that basis on can also say the Warsaw Pact [despite being defunct and comprising countries which are now part of NATO] was also successful in that NATO never attacked it; irrespective of whether NATO ever had the intent or not. As it stands how effective NATO can continue deterring threats on its territory really remains to be seen ....
Again - ''this is the Asia Pacific; China is not Russia and the various countries in the region are disparate in a way the Europeans by large aren't; they don't see China as a common threat they way NATO sees Russia; they have different forms of governance; different levels of development; different threat perceptions etc and are not linked or integrated by an Asian version of the EU.''
On NATO; quite obviously the threat was the Soviet Union but if a NATO country was attacked from any other country other than the Soviet Union [for example a Greek/Albania war or Yugoslavia going after Italy because of Trieste] the same rules would apply; the said NATO country could invoke Article 5.
Another take is that Russia would prefer to have buffer states between itself and countries such as Poland which are NATO members; buffer states comprising countries not aligned with NATO [preferably with Russia] because Russia feels this is essential for its security; in line with the centuries long paranoia the Russians [and the Soviets had] had about an invasion from the West [not by the ''West'' per see].
They have things in common; if you want to look at it from that angle even Tonga and Belgium or the Dominican Republic and Liechtenstein have things in common. As it stands countries in the Asia Pacific have a very different way of doing things and have different views; this is not a united Europe linked by the EU.
As for Turkey and Greece; both are part of NATO; by virtue of being part of NATO are uunited by a common threat and Turkey has had centuries of history with the West as a sovereign nation state.
Note that despite on paper plus points as to why regional countries would want to be part of a U.S. led NATO type alliance; note that quite a bit of the dynamics at play which led to certain countries not wanting to join SEATO are still present. Also it's not as simplistic as saying ''China is clearly seen as a major threat to many countries in the region''. China is viewed with great concern and trepidation by almost every regional country but how each country views China and they way they want to go about handling China differs greatly; this is not NATO/EU and how it views Russia. How Indonesia and India for example; view China differs greatly from how say Japan and Australia view it....
Sounds great on paper; on a PowerPoint slide or as part of a motivational talk but in actual reality it's much more convoluted than that.
Last edited: