The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment.
NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses to a resurgent former US president Donald Trump, the NATO consolidation that the Biden administration has undertaken in the wake of the Ukraine crisis could transform during a Trump administration, despite their assertion to “reaffirm the enduring trans-Atlantic bond between our nations.”
Mainly, this could leave Ukraine more on its own. The front-line European states could be facing more heat than traditional Europe, which despite increasing its domestic defense budgets to support NATO, might feel abandoned once again. Therefore, the assessment of Biden at the NATO summit had not only domestic, but NATO implications as well.
NATO has come a long way since its formation 75 years ago. It remains an organization that is younger than Biden. Today, NATO is back to being an anti-Russian coalition in the midst of a hot, rather than cold, war.
“Russia remains the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security,” NATO’s Washington summit declaration says.
Unlike the time when NATO was formed, its expansion has brought in most of the old Warsaw Pact Soviet allies, and since the Ukraine crisis, Sweden and Finland joined NATO.
That raises Russian anxieties about the American intent in curbing Russian influence in Europe, which is now barely down to Belarus and some Caucasus outposts. As a result of the 75th summit, NATO seeks a more coherent policy to check Russia, where defending Ukraine more robustly is on the cards.
Twenty-one NATO countries have increased their defense budgets to 2 percent of GDP and are contributing to Ukraine even at the risk of diminishing their stockpiles. They have undertaken the biggest reinforcement of collective defense in more than a generation. Space, cyber, underwater domain and nuclear readiness are emphasized.
The second important aspect emanating from the summit is that for the first time, China is now seen as a rival of NATO, and not just a competitor. While individual NATO countries have comfortable economic relations with China, there is a greater sense of realization that Beijing is stoking the Russian power play and helping Moscow continue its war in Ukraine. NATO sees this China-Russia axis as detrimental to its approach and has hence castigated China.
“The deepening strategic partnership between Russia and the PRC [People’s Republic of China] and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut and reshape the rules-based international order, are a cause for profound concern,” it said.
Belarus, Iran and North Korea are also specifically mentioned as problems.
From the Indian point of view, the most important issue is the perceived reduction of barriers between NATO and the Indo-Pacific, since India is active in the Indo-Pacific, but not in NATO.
NATO summits have now made it a routine for its Indo-Pacific allies, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea, or the Indo-Pacific Four (IP-4), to participate in their summits even though they are not NATO members. The IP-4 are likely to be integrated into the military-industrial cooperation with NATO countries more robustly through the NATO Industrial Capacity Expansion Pledge. More exercises between NATO members and the IP-4 are under way, including the US-led RIMPAC, Japan-led Pacific Skies and Australian-led Pitch Black.
NATO is following the template provided by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin at the Shangri-La Dialogue last month when he spoke about “the new convergence in the Indo-Pacific.” Defense stockpiles in NATO countries have been reduced, and now the effort is to focus on using the industrial bases of Japan, South Korea and Australia to enhance production and contribute to NATO’s war efforts.
Besides this, joint projects to enhance partnerships are on the anvil. Deals in cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, disinformation and Ukraine have emerged from the first-ever NATO defense industry forum held alongside the NATO Summit.
They aim to “harness the unique strengths of highly capable democracies to address shared global challenges,” said US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, who believes that European events impact the Indo-Pacific and vice versa.
However, this is not a view that India shares. This is partly due to the assessment that the rapid expansion of China’s military-industrial complex is now a strategic threat to NATO and the IP-4. Therefore, a joint production of defense systems and cooperative maintenance of aircraft and flotillas would now become more common between NATO and IP-4 countries. India could be a non-NATO part of this.
NATO’s role in counterterrorism is endorsed through NATO’s Updated Policy Guidelines on Counter-Terrorism and an Updated Action Plan on Enhancing NATO’s Role in the International Community’s Fight Against Terrorism. These would guide NATO’s counterterrorism effort.
All 32 NATO members have promised to increase their military-industrial complexes at home for the first time in the organization’s history. This builds on the earlier commitment to increase defense spending to at least 2 percent of their budgets. NATO is also now looking at integrating its systems through common standards so that ammunition, communications, tanks and aircraft systems are more standardized, which would lead to easier common servicing and ammunition facilities. Such interoperability is now being taken much more seriously by NATO and would perhaps overcome the discordance among small militaries of many NATO countries.
India will remain wary of NATO’s expansion into the Indo-Pacific region. It welcomes intensified partnership with individual countries, but does not share an enthusiasm for NATO as an institution.
Gurjit Singh is a former Indian ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, ASEAN, Ethiopia and the African Union.
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
After the coup in Burma in 2021, the country’s decades-long armed conflict escalated into a full-scale war. On one side was the Burmese army; large, well-equipped, and funded by China, supported with weapons, including airplanes and helicopters from China and Russia. On the other side were the pro-democracy forces, composed of countless small ethnic resistance armies. The military junta cut off electricity, phone and cell service, and the Internet in most of the country, leaving resistance forces isolated from the outside world and making it difficult for the various armies to coordinate with one another. Despite being severely outnumbered and
After the confrontation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday last week, John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, discussed this shocking event in an interview. Describing it as a disaster “not only for Ukraine, but also for the US,” Bolton added: “If I were in Taiwan, I would be very worried right now.” Indeed, Taiwanese have been observing — and discussing — this jarring clash as a foreboding signal. Pro-China commentators largely view it as further evidence that the US is an unreliable ally and that Taiwan would be better off integrating more deeply into
RSS