This surge in trade, especially of “dual-use” goods that can serve both civilian and military purposes, has almost single-handedly kept Russia’s battle-stricken defence industry afloat. These items, including electronics, machinery, and components for advanced weaponry, accounted for roughly two-thirds of all Chinese exports to Russia.
Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, as part of the so-called Indo-Pacific 4, have stood steadfast with NATO allies since Russia invaded Ukraine. The nations’ leaders have gathered at every major NATO summit and meeting since.
Loading
NATO officials stress it’s because of shared values, wider co-operation and sharing experiences while combating cyber threats, economic coercion, and disinformation campaigns – and not because of deep-rooted concerns about the China challenge.
But Beijing has since attempted to link NATO’s increased interest in the Indo-Pacific with the growing likelihood of conflict so that it can blame its aggressive actions on NATO, just as Russia sought to pin responsibility for its invasion of Ukraine on the alliance.
China’s state-run media published an article in April last year that argued, “Where NATO goes, war is most likely”. Yet, NATO officials stress that its role is largely defensive and aimed at maintaining peace and deterring aggression.
Loading
David Sacks, an Asia studies fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says there are two other potential flashpoints in the Indo-Pacific that are animating NATO’s focus on the region.
“NATO members are concerned that if China uses force against Taiwan and the US comes to its direct defence, Washington would have to make difficult trade-offs that would compel its NATO allies to shoulder more of the burden in deterring Russia,” he wrote recently.
“In addition, if deterrence in the Taiwan Strait fails, the economic consequences for Europe would be devastating.”
Despite Beijing borrowing oft-repeated lines of misinformation from the Kremlin, NATO cannot expand to include any countries from the Indo-Pacific as members. The NATO treaty states that mutual defence only applies to member states’ territories in Europe, North America, Turkey, and islands in the Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer.
There is also no consensus within NATO that the alliance should even become more active in the Indo-Pacific.
And divisions remain on the extent to which China poses a fundamental challenge to European security. Many say with war raging on European soil and many NATO members struggling to build up their defences, now is not the time to take on additional obligations.
Sacks says NATO members and Indo-Pacific partners should pursue tailored co-operation, heavily focusing on industrial partnerships to improve so-called interoperability and interchangeability of weaponry.
The Australian government, too, believes this is a critical opportunity and has recently sent Angus Campbell, a retired general who served as chief of the Defence Force, to Brussels as Australia’s new ambassador. That appointment has not gone unnoticed among allied nations as a sign Australia is serious about working together more closely.
‘No interest’ in NATO reinvention
Veteran Labor figures such as former prime minister Paul Keating and one-time foreign minister Bob Carr have warned against any NATO presence or partnership in the region. The pair has been increasingly vocal about Australia’s reliance on the United States.
Keating has labelled Rutte’s predecessor, Jens Stoltenberg, a “supreme fool” for his push to increase the alliance’s ties with Asia in an attempt to contain China. Carr told a recent World Peace Summit that Australia should invest in diplomatic and economic efforts in Asia and not Europe.
‘The fact that we are here together, working together, in itself is the message.’
Mark Rutte, NATO secretary-general
“Australia has no interest in seeing NATO reinvented as some tool to contain China,” he said.
However, experts argue if war does break out in the Indo-Pacific, the economic costs to NATO members would likely surpass those associated with the war in Ukraine; hence, NATO has an interest in contributing to deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and preventing China from providing even greater military assistance to Russia.
But Rutte, despite the misgivings of many and the continued annoyance of Beijing, is adamant the alliance must deepen ties with like-minded democratic nations in the Indo-Pacific.
“As global competition intensifies, we will continue to strengthen our Indo-Pacific partnerships,” he told reporters at the meeting of NATO foreign ministers last week.
“We are getting more and more flesh on the bones now in terms of exchanging insights on innovation; the battlefield … we learn from what Japan and others are doing in the Pacific with their exercises.
“But the fact that we are here together, working together, in itself is the message.”
