NATO is a specific alliance to the region in the North Atlantic
The US proposal to expand the membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to include countries in Asia and the Pacific has been interpreted by sensible political analysts as more of desperation of the US to corral than to entice its allies in its unpopular bid to contain China.
There is a big flaw why NATO should not be allowed to expand and operate an alliance when by its nature, such a geo-political grouping should operate in different political spheres, and each seeking to achieve different interests and objectives, which, as one would put it, anachronistic to the purpose of NATO.
NATO is a specific alliance to the region in the North Atlantic.
To recruit countries outside of the area already constitutes a violation of the treaty.
The US itself keeps on repeating this principle that an attack on a member-state will invite immediate and prompt retaliatory action from the members.
The preposterous thing about this policy is the repeated use of the so-called “rule-based” policy as if to remind countries not to mess with NATO; that should a non-member country violate the territorial integrity of a member-state, it could result in a retaliatory and punitive action by NATO under Article V of the alliance, meaning that an attack to a member will be construed as an attack against all of the members.
If one has to ask, what rule-based principle must they observe?
Has it been declared by an international organization like the UN?
Even before an announcement was made by NATO secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, that NATO plans to put up an extension branch in Asia to accept members in the region, that already constitutes a violation of the concept of the geo-political alliance which accepts member- countries located in the North Atlantic.
The term North Atlantic is specific and can never be interpreted otherwise.
The acceptance of Japan as member of NATO is a glaring example of US bullying; that Japan could either not refuse the US invitation or use it as bargaining leverage to intimidate China on its dispute over Diaoyu or Senkaku islands and with Russia over its claim on the Kuril Islands.
The US wants to take advantage of the fact that Japan was a defeated country and now wants to pressure Japan against its objective of wanting to isolate China and Russia.
Both the US and Japan are using their interests to advance their position in the region.
With Japan as a de facto member of NATO’s Asia branch, it will surely help in advancing US interest in Asia.
The approach made by the US to entice countries in Asia to join NATO amounts to gradual mental conditioning; that keeping such breach in the geo-political alliance dormant and uncontested would appear like seeming tolerance by Asian countries to allow Japan to operate as NATO member and acting as caretaker of the region, but in truth is interceding on behalf of US and European interests.
The existence and membership of Japan as member of NATO if not questioned for a time could result in acquiescence of it as illegal regional grouping.
The US and other NATO members would be defending it like an original member.
Some could even interpret that this so-called Asian version of NATO as illegal and cannot co-exist with the original NATO.
In fact, the meeting in Vilnius, Lithuania already raised the alarm bell on the determination of NATO’s expansion to Asia.
Aside from Japan, NATO already invited South Korea, New Zealand and Australia.
The only problem to the invitation to join NATO is it has not formally announced the name of the alliance, for possibly, such could trigger an uproar and protest for the existence of an Asian edition of NATO.
It is this possible backlash that most strategic policy planners are compelled to act with great hesitation and caution.
Allowing NATO to open a branch office in Asia is like opening another front similar to what NATO and the European Union did to wage a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
A war similar to what is happening now in Ukraine becomes a likely possibility.
By then, the US has already managed to get lackeys willing to spend and die for its cause in the Taiwan Strait.
Most disturbing is that some countries located outside of Asia are acting as though they are members of the alliance which in fact do not exist and are allowed to exercise as members to openly violate China’s territorial waters like crossing the Straits of Taiwan in the guise of freedom of navigation.
We would like to cite participation of UK, Australia, Canada and India.
Most of these countries have only collateral alliance with countries in Asia, meaning their alliance is merely collaterally attached with the US or UK which in turn exercises hegemony for them to exercise their right.
In other words, none of them should be allowed to operate using NATO as their passport to secure their own security.
As far as the geo-strategic jurisdiction consideration is concerned, NATO should not be allowed to operate in Asia.
Moreover, the term “Indo-Pacific” denotes another sphere of geo-political jurisdiction and just a concoction of the US to expand its sphere of influence to legitimize the inclusion of India and the Pacific Ocean.
The idea of floating NATO in Asia is most unpopular and unwelcome.
Right now, only Japan and South Korea are the two Asian countries willing to broker the US-agitated proxy war against China.
Both countries are noticeably indebted to the US with Japan being occupied during WWII and South Korea during Korea War in 1950s.
This, aside from a number of US military bases embedded in their respective countries.
(rpkapunan@gmail.com)