Some issues with the idea of an ‘Asian NATO’

October 10, 2024

SEOUL – When Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba took office, he raised both expectations and concerns in Korea. On the one hand, his recognition of Japan’s historical wrongdoing during its colonial period, including 35 years of occupation, offers hope for improving Korea-Japan relations. On the other hand, his foreign policy vision, particularly the proposal for an “Asian NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization),” presents significant challenges. While his intentions may be grounded in addressing regional security concerns, this idea is strategically and diplomatically flawed.

In an article for the Hudson Institute on April 25, Ishiba outlined his vision for an “Asian NATO,” citing lessons from the Russia-Ukraine war as a key rationale.

However, upon closer examination, his argument lacks coherence when applied to the realities of the Asia-Pacific region. Ishiba points to the US’s limited response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, arguing that Ukraine not being a member of NATO allowed the aggression. He claims this justifies the need for a NATO-like security structure in Asia to deter similar threats.

However, this argument overlooks the substantial military and economic aid the US has provided to Ukraine despite its non-NATO status. Washington’s efforts to support Ukraine through sanctions and arms supplies indicate that collective defense mechanisms like NATO are not the only way to maintain international security. Thus, the assumption that an “Asian NATO” is necessary for deterrence is misguided.

Ishiba suggests that without a collective security system, Asia is on the brink of war, just as Europe was before Russia’s invasion. He argues that “Ukraine today is Asia tomorrow.” Specifically, he