In recent days, Washington proposed a new framework for AUKUS and led the US-Japan Summit and the US-Japan-Philippines Summit. The navies of the US, Japan, Australia, and the Philippines conducted joint patrols in the South China Sea, while the US, Japan, and South Korea held trilateral exercises. Japan, Canada, and New Zealand have expressed interest in joining AUKUS, forming the embryo of a “NATO of the Indo-Pacific,” with countering China becoming a new mission. Lacking communist China to dissolve quickly like the former Soviet Union, the era after the Chinese Communist Party may come sooner, potentially avoiding a deep confrontation landscape.
In September 2021, the US, UK, and Australia announced the establishment of the AUKUS alliance, originally aimed at quickly providing Australia with nuclear-powered submarines to counter the threat from China, also known as the “first pillar.” The US recently announced the alliance’s “second pillar” focusing on developing joint capabilities in areas like quantum technology, AI, advanced network capabilities, deep space radar, hypersonic missiles, electronic warfare, and underwater capabilities to jointly counter the threat from China in broader domains. These areas align with the common interests and concerns of the countries involved.
Japan is one of the US’s most powerful partners in the Indo-Pacific region, making its potential accession to AUKUS a hot topic. Japan’s security cooperation with the US beyond AUKUS is broader and closer, and Japan is also strengthening cooperation with the UK and Australia, making its inclusion in AUKUS seem natural.
During his recent visit to the US, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and the US escalated the US-Japan security alliance. Kishida stated: “Any attempt to unilaterally change the status quo through the use of force or coercion is absolutely unacceptable, regardless of the location.”
The US, UK, Australia, and Japan are likely to be the core members of the Indo-Pacific “NATO.” Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau announced on April 8 that Canada is considering joining the second phase of AUKUS and stated, “We have had good conversations with the United States, the UK, and Australia on how we can work more closely together… Canada and New Zealand will participate more closely with Japan in discussions on the second phase of AUKUS.”
Canada, Australia, the UK, the US, and New Zealand form the “Five Eyes” alliance, and these historically rooted English-speaking countries are expected to form the backbone of AUKUS. Additionally, the US, the UK, and Canada are also NATO members.
New Zealand maintains a policy of nuclear disarmament and did not participate in the “first pillar” of AUKUS but shows interest in the “second pillar.” It is considered a second wave that cannot be missed.
It is estimated that the US, UK, Australia, Japan, Canada, and New Zealand will form the core members of the Indo-Pacific “NATO.” Of course, the name will not be “NATO,” with a new name potentially being the Indo-Pacific Democratic Alliance to attract more members to join.
Following its establishment, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization initially had 12 member countries including the US, Canada, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the UK, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Portugal, and Italy. With more countries continuously joining, there are now 32 member countries. The Indo-Pacific “NATO” is likely to undergo a similar process.
After NATO’s establishment, countries that joined included:
– During the Cold War
– Greece and Turkey in 1952
– West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany after the reunification in 1990) in 1955
– Spain in 1982
– After the end of the Cold War
– Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic in 1999
– Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004
– Albania and Croatia in 2009
– Montenegro in 2017
– North Macedonia in 2020
– Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022
– Finland in 2023
– Sweden in 2024
The expansion history of NATO provides significant insights for the Indo-Pacific “NATO.” As international dynamics change, more countries will continue to make new choices. The Indo-Pacific region is witnessing a similar trend, with the question being who will make the decision first.
The US and its allies continue to emphasize that if the Chinese Communist Party is not tightly constrained, the situation faced by Ukraine today could be Taiwan’s tomorrow. Japanese Prime Minister Kishida stated during a speech to the US Congress on April 11, “What is happening in Ukraine today could be happening in East Asia tomorrow.” China’s ambitions extend beyond Taiwan, with the emergence of the Indo-Pacific “NATO” on the horizon.
If Ukraine had not hesitated and joined NATO earlier, Russia might have been less inclined to invade. Should the Indo-Pacific “NATO” emerge, the question of whether Taiwan should join sooner will be equally pressing. Of course, the US’s stance is crucial; if the US explicitly accepts, it may signal the abandonment of its ambiguous policy toward Taiwan.
The Philippines has recognized the risks involved. On April 11, a historic US-Japan-Philippines trilateral summit was hosted at the White House. The “Joint Vision Statement of the Leaders of Japan, the Philippines, and the US” expressed serious concerns over China’s dangerous and aggressive actions in the South China Sea. The statement firmly opposed the dangerous and coercive use of coast guard and maritime militia vessels in the South China Sea, as well as the disruption of the resource development of neighboring countries near second Thomas Shoal (Ayungin Shoal).
The US-Japan-Philippines alliance is more directly aimed at countering the threat from China compared to AUKUS. The militarily weak Philippines seems to have taken a step forward to Taiwan. The Philippines urgently requires the protection of the US-Philippine military alliance and hopes for the collective protection of the US, Japan, and Australia, potentially making it an initial member of the Indo-Pacific “NATO.”
On April 12, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. stated, “The trilateral agreement is extremely important; this will change the posture of our region, ASEAN, and the areas around the South China Sea.” He further commented, “In the face of all threats and challenges that we have to confront together, the Philippines has always been able to seek support from the United States. We hope that this trilateral agreement, formally signed yesterday, will become a formal treaty, coupled with other multilateral support and structures, which will make security, peace, and stability in the South China Sea a reality.”
The Philippines hopes to avoid becoming the Ukraine of the Indo-Pacific region. Japanese Prime Minister Kishida referred to the US-Japan-Philippines alliance as “natural partners.” US President Biden stated, “In the coming years, much of the history of our world will be written in the Indo-Pacific.”
This implies that both AUKUS and the US-Japan-Philippines Summit are just the beginning of the US’s efforts to counter China.
In August 2023, the US, Japan, and South Korea held a historic summit, and there have been consistent calls within South Korea to join AUKUS. With a close military alliance with the US and a long-term US military presence in South Korea, there are suggestions for the US to deploy nuclear weapons in South Korea, potentially going beyond the US-Japan alliance. US strategic missile submarines have docked in South Korea, and B-52 bombers have also landed in South Korea.
South Korea’s desire to join the Indo-Pacific “NATO” may not be urgent, but interest in the “second pillar” of AUKUS should exist. South Korea may be cautious not to further provoke China. While the current US-South Korea alliance can deter North Korea, if China were to become aggressive and support North Korea in attacking South Korea, it could lead to a disaster that neither the US nor South Korea desires. In the event of a conflict in the Indo-Pacific, the US’s expectation from South Korea may focus on managing the Korean Peninsula and not necessarily supporting on other fronts. South Korea may be hesitant on the sidelines of the Indo-Pacific “NATO” for now, waiting to decide when the situation undergoes a significant change.
India has maintained a non-aligned foreign policy stance but has recently enhanced cooperation with the US and its allies, including the Quad mechanism involving the US, Japan, Australia, and India. While India sees China as a significant adversary, it is more inclined to rely on bilateral and multivariate cooperation with the US and its allies to increase deterrence against China without overly provoking tensions that could lead to a conflict.
Among the ASEAN countries, the Philippines has taken a stance, with Singapore likely to be the next to align. After the US, UK, and Australia announced the establishment of AUKUS, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong expressed anticipation for AUKUS to contribute to regional peace and stability, highlighting the long-standing relationships Singapore has with Australia, the UK, and the US. This is likely frustrating for China, which prefers to portray Singapore as a follower of Beijing. However, the US has maintained a Navy base in Singapore, and Singapore has acquired advanced US F-35 fighter jets. Should a significant shift occur in the South China Sea, Singapore could become the second ASEAN country to align with an outside power, potentially joining the Indo-Pacific “NATO” ahead of other ASEAN nations.
Indonesia and Malaysia are concerned that AUKUS could provoke China, potentially leading to conflicts in the South China Sea. These two countries are currently hesitant to take a clear stance between the US and China, hoping to benefit from both sides instead. Malaysia has shown interest in enhanced cooperation with Australia, while Indonesia remains reserved. These two countries will continue to observe developments regarding the Indo-Pacific “NATO.”
Thailand has closer military cooperation ties with the US but also desires to continue reaping economic benefits from China, leading to a position of observation for the time being.
Vietnam, while a socialist country, has had long-standing tensions with China and rejected the notion of a “community of common destiny” with China’s General Secretary. Vietnam hopes for US intervention in the South China Sea to counterbalance China; however, Vietnam also claims non-alignment and is unlikely to join the Indo-Pacific “NATO” in the short term. Other ASEAN countries are likely to adopt a watchful stance.
While the Indo-Pacific “NATO” is on the horizon, the initial membership is not expected to be large. However, as circumstances evolve, such as further economic deterioration in China, the collapse of the Chinese Communist Party, or increased internal turmoil, more countries may join the Indo-Pacific “NATO” akin to the expansion of NATO.
If the Chinese regime continues to exist, constantly threatening neighboring countries and engaging in external disputes, the Indo-Pacific “NATO” will inevitably take shape and gradually expand. If the Chinese Communist Party collapses, the threats to various countries will dissipate, and the Indo-Pacific “NATO” may not fully form or expand, leading to the absence of a confrontational landscape. In a post-Chinese Communist Party era, China can return to the international stage sooner with a responsible and peaceful image, facilitating greater international cooperation and a quicker return to normalcy for Chinese society, enabling the people to live better lives sooner.
Conversely, if the Chinese Communist Party persists, continuing its aggressive ambitions and confrontational behavior, the Indo-Pacific “NATO” will likely strengthen, isolating China further. While the eventual collapse of the Chinese Communist Party is inevitable, the confrontational landscape will require time to shift, making China’s return to the global stage more challenging, potentially leading to additional hardship for the Chinese people. Russia today may serve as an example.
Since its dissolution, following Russia’s inability to integrate into mainstream global society or be accepted by Western nations, as seen in the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, despite President Putin’s claims of discarding communism, there is still a severe lack of mutual trust with Western democratic nations. After the dissolution of the Chinese Communist Party, a future China may face a similar scenario, particularly due to instigated nationalism, expansion fantasies, and party culture conflicting with universal values. If these issues are not resolved promptly, China’s reintegration into the international community may prove challenging.
The US is accelerating its efforts to counter China, with more countries closely following suit. Due to the malignant nature of the Chinese Communist Party, China could face further isolation from international affairs, potentially becoming estranged. The blueprint for an Indo-Pacific “NATO” has emerged, with recent changes in dialogue, reminding more hopeful individuals in China to abandon the Communist Party. Dissolving the party could become more pressing.
If the majority of Chinese citizens can reach a consensus early and act collectively, they may better control China’s destiny, rather than solely waiting for external pressures to dismantle the Communist Party. Should the Communist Party dissolve before the establishment of the Indo-Pacific “NATO,” China might quickly bridge the divide with other nations, regain its traditional culture, embrace universal values, and enable its citizens to live normal lives sooner.
Original Chinese article published by Dajiyuan.