NATO: An antithesis to peace

By Mariam Shah

This year's NATO summit sets out some unprecedented geopolitical ambitions that have raised serious concerns in the Asia-Pacific. The discussions revolved around NATO's expansion plans and the potential inclusion of Ukraine as a NATO member. Additionally, there is a growing emphasis on NATO's strategic interest in the Asia-Pacific region.

There are three major takeaways from the NATO Vilnius summit, as outlined in detailed defense plans. First, a "Defense Investment Pledge" was agreed upon to "strengthen commitment to defense investment" (read to keep running the military-industrial complex by fueling the conflicts and wars). Secondly, the aim is to bring Ukraine closer to NATO. As the leaders said in a declaration, "Ukraine's future is in NATO." The third important aspect was strengthening NATO's partnerships in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

The summit addresses the expansion of cooperation with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, to deter what the U.S. media portrays as "China's strategic ambitions." To counter China's growing influence, the "Indo-Pacific Four" will create apprehension and instability in the region. It is one of the hegemonic ambitions of NATO to trap Asian countries into conflicts and blocs, creating a never-ending cycle of arms race and instability.

Recently, Australia's former prime minister, Paul Keating, released a statement criticizing Jens Stoltenberg, the head of NATO, accusing him of being a "supreme fool" for amplifying ties between NATO and Asia as a means to counter China. He stated, "Europeans have been fighting each other for the better part of three hundred years." He warned that "exporting that malicious poison to Asia would be akin to Asia welcoming a plague upon itself." Keating also opposed Australia's acquisition of nuclear submarines through the AUKUS alliance a few months back.

Moreover, the claim in the NATO summit communique that China's "ambitions and coercive policies" posed a "challenge to NATO's interests, security, and values" shows the West's growing obsession with China. Interestingly, China does not have a history of attacking other nations or being involved in proxy wars like the United States, nor does it have ambitions like NATO. In the last two decades, countless wars and conflicts have emerged due to the faulty policies of the U.S. and NATO, which armored the weapon industry and killed thousands of people.

There is no doubt that NATO has become a tool of Washington's agenda, as the collective narrative of the organization is now driven by U.S.-induced obsession. The recent summit in Vilnius shows how far NATO is willing to take its geopolitical ambitions, endangering regional and global peace. NATO's expansionist agenda and growing disregard for the legitimate security concerns and interests of major regional countries will have serious repercussions.

What has been China's stance?

China has long been calling for NATO to abandon its outdated Cold War and zero-sum mindset and discard its misguided reliance on military supremacy. Moreover, NATO should also stop engaging in actions destabilizing Europe and Asia-Pacific. China emphasizes that it has never engaged in military aggression against other nations or participated in military alliances. It opposes the use or threat of force in international relations and refrains from establishing or joining military blocs. Therefore, what is the basis for NATO's assertion that China poses "systemic challenges?"

As per Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin's regular press conference on July 12, China maintains an unwavering commitment to a policy of "no first use" of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, including refraining from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states and nuclear-weapon-free zones. Now the question is whether any NATO member is willing to commit a similar commitment.

China has repeatedly urged NATO to embrace a cooperative approach and abstain from actions instigating instability in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Any move to establish an "Asia-Pacific version of NATO" will prove volatile for regional peace and stability. NATO is a regional organization; creating its global scope will disrupt the equilibrium by creating political and ideological blocs, causing confrontation and instability. The Western military and geopolitical ambitions should not disturb the peace of Asia-Pacific at any cost.

NATO has long been involved in unlawful wars and conflicts by calling every military adventure "self-defense." There is a focus on strategies for winning wars, while discussions on achieving peace seem noticeably absent. There is hardly any discourse on resolving conflicts or pursuing peace. NATO member states are not interested in discussing peace, even in Ukraine. Additionally, the notion that NATO's core purpose is to promote peace is contradicted by examining historical evidence.  

NATO was never a peacemaker, nor did it intend to talk about peace, and this should be a lesson for the "Indo-Pacific Four." They should prioritize the peace and security of the Asia-Pacific rather than becoming pawns in NATO's unending obsessions and expansionist plans. This intrusion into Asia-Pacific will only incite division, foster enmity, and create chaos, putting all the regional countries at risk.

Mariam Shah, a special commentator for CGTN, is an Islamabad-based independent researcher in the field of conflict studies and military psychology.