NATO at China crossroads
Hyping Beijing as a threat will come at cost of facing global challenges together
At the NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Brussels late last month, the bloc’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, spoke of the so-called challenges that China presents to Euro-Atlantic security.
Despite stressing that “China is not our adversary”, Stoltenberg said that NATO must be cleared-eyed about the impact of China’s “coercive policies on our security”, and welcomed that allies are engaging in dialogue with Beijing on issues of mutual concern.
In recent years, NATO has consistently underscored the challenges posed by China, conspicuously manifesting a posture of balancing against China’s influence in the “Indo-Pacific” region. This deliberate stance has evoked concerns, as it raises questions about the motivations behind NATO’s persistent emphasis on countering China, and its implications.
Since its inception, NATO has focused primarily on Europe, with its membership relatively confined to the areas surrounding the North Atlantic. Since the Cold War ended, NATO’s raison d’etre has been continually questioned. Devoid of issues, some forces have begun propagating the narrative of the China threat, seeking to portray China as an adversary.
At the 2019 London Summit, NATO acknowledged for the first time the challenges posed by China’s rising power. The NATO 2022 Strategic Concept document stressed the need to “remain open to constructive engagement” while accusing China of attempting to “subvert the rules-based international order,” posing a systemic challenge to NATO’s interests, security, and values.
NATO’s accusations against China extend beyond the military realm to encompass technology, critical infrastructure, strategic materials, and supply chains. The NATO 2030 agenda report described China as a “full-spectrum systemic rival”, fostering an atmosphere reminiscent of a “new Cold War”.
Concurrently, NATO is accelerating its “Indo-Pacific pivot”, seeking partners in the Asia-Pacific. It has invited Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, and New Zealand — four “global partner countries” far away from the North Atlantic — to participate in foreign ministers’ meetings, defense ministers’ meetings, and summits. NATO aims to forge a “tailored partnership” with Japan and has invited the ROK into the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.
These shifts in strategic thinking and practices, whether overt or covert, warrant vigilance.
Behind NATO’s drumbeat of the “China challenge” lies the persistent influence of the United States. The Biden administration views NATO as a tool for restraining China, while NATO has revived Cold War-era ideological opposition and intensified its focus on the “Indo-Pacific”, attempting to link China with the threat posed by Russia. However, shifting toward the Asia-Pacific and confronting China does not align with the interests of many NATO member states, nor does it meet the security needs of the Asia-Pacific.
European countries do not have any fundamental geopolitical conflicts with China, and their economic development has already been impacted by the Russia-Ukraine conflict and energy crisis. Their limited financial resources cannot be diverted to meet the ambitions of the US or NATO. The European Union has repeatedly emphasized being against decoupling from China, indicating that Europe has no intention of being tied to the US agenda to contain China.
As the US sidelines NATO and seeks “mini-lateral” cooperation, establishing the AUKUS security partnership of the US, UK and Australia, as well as the quadrilateral cooperation of the US, Japan, India and Australia, it only has the support of its traditional allies. The lukewarm response from Asia-Pacific countries indirectly underscores that the strategic logic of “confronting China” does not resonate widely.
China’s development presents opportunities rather than challenges. Both the US and Europe have substantially benefited from China’s economic growth, and China, through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, has shared the fruits of its development with the world. It has also played a constructive role in international security affairs, including UN peacekeeping operations, the Iran nuclear issue, and the reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
The narrative of the “China threat” lacks a solid foundation. Conversely, the promotion of the China threat, adopting confrontational stances, and intervention in the Asia-Pacific region pose challenges to international security.
Examining NATO’s post-Cold War history, it is evident that while waving the banner of “collective security”, NATO has simultaneously interfered in security matters beyond its purview, meddling in extraterritorial affairs and national sovereignty, leading to irreversible tragedies.
NATO faces a strategic choice regarding its approach to China — either strengthen “constructive engagement” or portray China as a “systemic challenge”. Faced with the intricacies of the international security landscape and the growing prominence of non-traditional security issues, NATO should listen to diverse internal voices and carefully assess its own security environment.
It should refrain from returning to the Cold War path, positioning itself as a vanguard against China and getting entangled in a vicious cycle of escalation. In navigating its relationship with China, NATO must proceed with thoughtful consideration.