A day before the convening of this year's NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, on July 12, the U.S. Foreign Affairs magazine carried an article by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, in which he wrote, "What we do—or do not do—now will define the world we live in for generations. So we will send a clear message: NATO stands united."

However, is the transatlantic military alliance really standing united?

Division within

During the two-day summit, the alliance adopted its "most comprehensive defense plan since the end of the Cold War," while pledging to provide more long-term support to Ukraine.

Under its new plans, NATO aims to have 300,000 troops fully ready for action. NATO allies have also made an "enduring commitment" to invest at least 2 percent of their GDP annually in defense, although after nine consecutive years of increased defense spending since 2014, only 11 of its 31 members have reached or exceeded this threshold.

Jan Oberg, Director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research in Lund, Sweden, described asking NATO members to pledge a minimum of 2 percent of GDP on defense annually as "absurd."

A military budget "should be decided according to a comprehensive threat analysis, followed by a priority discussion, and never be tied to a country's economic ups and downs," he told Xinhua News Agency. "What we are seeing is a rampant, exclusivist militarism that doesn't care about the other side or about the consequences of its own provocative policies."

The gathering failed to set a timetable for Ukraine's membership. Stoltenberg told a press conference that allies had agreed on a package of three elements to "bring Ukraine closer to NATO." However, he clarified that an invitation for Ukraine to join the alliance will be issued only "when allies agree and conditions are met."

NATO members have been divided on how to bring Ukraine closer to their bloc. While some Eastern European members are pressing for an explicit commitment on when Ukraine will join, the United States and Germany allegedly are reluctant to clarify.

On the other hand, Sweden is more close to becoming a NATO member after Türkiye agreed to drop its opposition to the admission before the summit. At the same time, Türkiye pushed for the revival of its EU membership talks.

Oberg expressed concerns over Sweden's NATO membership, saying the Nordic country, instead of remaining an important non-aligned buffer zone that has kept it out of war for 200 years, may become directly involved in conflicts. "Sweden will lose even more of its independent foreign policy and will have to spend horrendous sums on adapting to NATO," he said.

A product of the Cold War

NATO was formed "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down," a mission it carried in the past as a product of confrontation, Feng Zhongping, Director of the Institute of European Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told Beijing Review. "However, if Europe, to this day, still believes that NATO is the only security provider to the region, there must be something wrong," he added.

"The U.S. began to form its network of alliances in the wake of World War II, a network that was strengthened during the Cold War—in the form of NATO. The alliance was supposed to end with the dissolution of its Soviet Union-led counterweight, the Warsaw Pact, in 1991. However, it still exists, with constant adjustment and diversified efforts," Wang Fan, President of China Foreign Affairs University, said at the 11th World Peace Forum in Beijing in early July.

He pointed out that the U.S. seems to believe it must maintain the supreme authority in NATO, so that other countries will not deviate from its strategic arrangements. "This is exactly the problem that has to be dealt with in regional security structure," Wang said.

In the opinion of Benyamin Poghosyan, Chairman of the Center for Political and Economic Strategic Studies, Yerevan, Armenia, NATO has played a destabilizing role in regional security. "NATO's expansion, particularly the decision made in 2008 on the future accession of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO during its summit in Romania, triggered a new confrontation between Russia and the West, especially Washington, and is one of the primary reasons for the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which broke out in February 2022," he wrote in an article for China Daily on July 10.

A dangerous move

This year, NATO invited leaders of Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea, four so-called "partners" in the Asia-Pacific region, to attend its summit for the second time. NATO officials have also been discussing for months plans to open a liaison office in Japan, which would represent the alliance's first outpost in the Asia-Pacific region.

Nevertheless, a sentence noting that NATO would continue discussions with the Japanese Government on the issue, which had survived several rounds of discussions, was removed from the summit's communiqué in the last round of talks, Japanese media outlet Nikkei Asia reported on July 11.

Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating warned about NATO's eastward expansion into the Asia-Pacific region, saying, "The Europeans have been fighting each other for the better part of 300 years, including giving the rest of us two world wars in the last 100 [years]. Exporting that malicious poison to Asia would be akin to Asia welcoming the plague upon itself."

"The NATO enlargement in Europe has been a mistake. We are paying the price and I don't want to pay the price for a new NATO enlargement in Asia, because the price will be much heavier than in Europe," Pascal Boniface, Director of the French Institute for International and Strategic Affairs, told Beijing Review.

Many European countries, including France and Germany, believe that NATO should never be used as an instrument of conflict, he added. For example, French President Emmanuel Macron has put his foot down, insisting NATO's geographical expansion risks shifting the alliance's remit too far from its original North Atlantic focus.

"It remains a North Atlantic Treaty Organization and, whatever they say, geography is stubborn: the Indo-Pacific is not the North Atlantic. We do not want it to look like NATO is creating legitimacy to be present geographically in other regions," Macron said.

Noticeably, the communiqué mentioned China 15 times, saying that China posed "systemic challenges" to NATO.

"What's said in the NATO communiqué is the complete opposite of the truth and the product of Cold War mentality and ideological bias. China strongly opposes it," Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin told a press briefing on July 12.

"We need to be careful not to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we present China as a foe, as an enemy, we will create an enemy," Boniface said, adding that China could be the partner or sometimes the competitor, but should never be regarded as an enemy of Europe.

"NATO might have its own role to play in ensuring the security in the European sphere," Saran Shyam, President of India International Centre and former Foreign Secretary of India (2002-04), told Beijing Review. "However, the situation in Asia is quite different and the security architecture must be adapted to that reality. So, we don't need NATO in Asia."

Former Chinese Ambassador to the U.S. Cui Tiankai's view echoed that of Shyam. "We do not welcome NATO's presence in Asia or the Asia-Pacific. If NATO tries to expand into the region, it might well signify its decline," he concluded.

(Print Edition Title: Charged With Challenges)

Copyedited by G.P. Wilson

Comments to mamm@cicgamericas.com