The NATO Summit wrapped up on Wednesday (12th July 2023), with the US President Biden hailing the “Transformational” power of freedom and calling for countries to come together to take the same spirit of unity against any threat that attempts to disturb the peaceful order of the globe. While this statement was mainly targeted toward the Russian aggression against Ukraine, another issue that made news was NATO’s plan for Asia. The four special invitees to the Summit Australian Prime Minister (Anthony Albanese), New Zealand’s Prime Minister (Chris Hipkins), Japanese Prime Minister (Fumio Kishida) and South Korean President (Yoon Suk Yeol) have majorly two things in common, firstly they are not NATO members and secondly, they belong to Indo-Pacific Region. This appearance of Indo-Pacific partners first at the NATO Summit in Madrid and now at the NATO Summit in Vilnius is certainly significant.
Further, NATO has leveled serious accusations against China and said that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) challenged its interests, security, and values with its “ambitions and coercive policies”. Also,the NATO heads of state, in their strongly worded communique, opined that the PRC employs a broad range of political, economic and military tools to increase its global footprint and project power while remaining opaque about its strategy, intentions and military build-up
NATO’s engagement with Indo-Pacific issues and East Asia’s engagement with European security lays down the new foundation of Eurasian geopolitics concerning the aggressive rise of China.To formalize these partnerships foundational agreements are being discussed and, with countries like Japan and Australia, talks have been concluded regarding the pact which is the Individually Tailored Partnership Programme (ITPP). Since the last two decades, it is observed that China has been winning without fighting, while the other Great powers like USA and Russia are fighting without winning. The rise of China represents the classic example of the “Power TransitionTheory” where the revisionist power (China) tends to replace the status quoist power (USA).This theory explains the growing interest of NATO in the Indo-Pacific to ensure containment of China. While the Transatlantic remained the major area of focus until the Cold War, the world now has shifted towards the Indo-Pacific. If this region is ignored, the globe might witness the rise of a New Hegemon andthe death of Rules-based world order as evident from the Chinese actions which includesthe refusal to condemn Russia’s war against Ukraine, use of Salami Tactics in South Asian region by the Belt and Road initiative and debt trap diplomacy, threatening of Taiwan, human rights violation in Xinjiang, bullying neighbours and carrying out substantial military build-up including nuclear weapons.There are concerns that if this aggressive rise is not contained, it will become normal for authoritarian regimes to use brute force to achieve their goals.
In this regard, the special invitees from theIndo-Pacific regionsare one of the tactics used by the Western world (especially the USA) to ensure offshore balancing, where the buck is passed to these nations. However, not only the alliance within NATO is divided on the question of Asia, but also leaders of Indo-Pacific like Paul Keating (former Prime Minister of Australia) oppose the expansion of NATO. Since NATO works on the principle of consensus, the move of any such expansion has been put on hold due toa lot of opposition. The need is to understand, that the countries not only in Asia but also in Europe are highly dependent on China.The China model representing a mix of authoritarianism and managed capitalismcannot be decoupled from the contemporary global scenario given the high level of economic, and technological interdependence.Thus, these countries tend to adopt a strategy of hedging where instead of taking clear sides, they follow a mixed approach of balancing and bandwagoning.
India’s Balancing Approach
As international relations is an exercise of both forging convergences and managing divergences, the world needs “De-Risking rather than Decoupling from China”. In regards to the Chinese actions and the persisting security dilemma, India is being forced to leave its strategic autonomy approach and align with the USA to ensure the Balance of Power. This is evident with the highly extensive “strategic partnership” existing between the two countries and the formation of groupings like QUAD.
However, at the same time, the need is to understand that a deep embrace of powers like the USA is not a solution either. From experiences of Pakistan and Afghanistan in recent times, it is evident that this superpower cannot be completely relied upon as it does not believe in stable committed relationships. Sovereignty is paramount and as evident from India’s foreign policy stance, especially in the context of Russia-Ukraine war, India respects the strategic partnership with the USA but refuses to work as its junior ally in the region.
To sum up, non-alignment is no longer a realistic proposition today, as there are no two well-defined camps like the ones which existed during the cold war era. Rather it is “multi-alignment” that defines the contemporary world order where a country aligns itself based on issues that serve its national interest. The need is to inject greater realism and accumulate more hard and soft power before engaging in far-reaching strategies. Thus, the way forward for geopolitical swing states like India lies in balancing national interests with international responsibilities.
The organizations like NATO whether are independent ensuring collective interests or just a symptom of state’s behaviour pursuing the agenda of superpowers still remains a matter of debate.
(The views expressed is personal)
