In a recent article, former Biden administration official Ely Ratner proposed the establishment of a Pacific defense pact similar to NATO, primarily aimed at countering China’s growing influence. While this recommendation received criticism for various reasons, including the challenges posed by Donald Trump’s “America First” voter base and concerns about Asian allies’ trust in the United States, it highlights a broader issue: much of the U.S. foreign policy in the region appears to prioritize American interests over those of its allies.
Ratner’s article was strikingly candid, reflecting the traditional foreign policy establishment’s perception of East Asia. This perspective is driven by a somewhat alarmist interpretation of China’s political rhetoric, particularly its vision of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” which some misinterpret as a desire for regional dominance. Ratner argues that if China achieves its goals, the United States risks being relegated to a “diminished continental power,” undermining its economic and technological leadership globally.
Ultimately, the United States’ concern is not merely about a stronger China but rather about losing its ability to influence global affairs from a distance.
Interconnection of Defense and Economics
The pursuit of a binary alignment in Asia—encouraging countries to either side with or against China—represents a flawed strategy. Not only does this approach fail to resonate with East and Southeast Asian nations, but it also creates security vulnerabilities. Proponents of this stance often reference remarks from the late Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and military leaders from the Philippines about potential conflict over Taiwan. However, they neglect to mention that these nations would likely act as bases for U.S. military operations rather than engaging independently. Thus, Japan’s or the Philippines’ involvement is contingent on the U.S.’s military response to Chinese actions. To mitigate such risks, the U.S. should adopt a Taiwan policy focused on reassurance and maintaining the post-1979 status quo in the Taiwan Strait.
A defense pact in Asia would primarily serve to bind U.S. allies in an adversarial stance against China. This dynamic is complicated by the strong economic interdependencies these countries share with Beijing. Unlike post-war Europe, where economic divisions created clear ideological barriers, there is no such divide in Asia. As noted by Asia expert Evan Feigenbaum from the Carnegie Endowment, it is illogical for the U.S. to enforce coercive economic measures while expecting allies to comply with its security agendas.
Moreover, defense and economic policies cannot be treated as isolated spheres. An article from the Australian Lowy Institute warned that a collective security organization among U.S. allies would place them in a challenging position of having to choose between aligning with China or the U.S. Nations with bilateral security commitments to Washington would face considerable economic fallout from reduced trade with China. As it stands, China is Australia and Japan’s largest trading partner, while the Philippines relies heavily on China for imports and exports. The pragmatic foreign policy of Australia’s current government, which has fostered stable relations with Beijing, underscores this reality.
Uncertainty Among Allies
The skepticism surrounding U.S. reliability and the desire for a more diversified foreign policy among allies aren’t likely to resolve immediately after Trump’s presidency. For instance, Japan’s recent elections saw a rise in seats for the fringe right-wing party Sanseito, which promotes a “Japan-first” agenda and has proposed constitutional amendments to ban foreign military presence in Japan.
Although Japanese leadership downplays tensions regarding the U.S.-Japan alliance, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has a track record of advocating for amendments to the alliance terms. While U.S. strategists seek greater Japanese defense spending, they may not favor giving Japan increased control over military operations on its soil. The balance of power in the military alliance remains skewed, leaving Japan with limited authority to reject U.S. directives.
At present, the concept of an “Asian NATO” seems less about enhancing U.S. security assurances and more about transferring defense burdens from the U.S. to its allies, effectively empowering Washington to dictate the terms of engagement in conflicts. Given the rise of sentiments questioning the U.S. military presence and the Trump administration’s controversial tariff policies, Japan must reevaluate what it stands to gain from such an alliance.
While Japan may have previously entertained the idea of a regional security alliance, Ishiba has expressed growing concerns over a predominantly adversarial view toward China in light of current security dynamics. He argues that fostering diplomatic channels is increasingly crucial amidst a deteriorating security situation.
The Dead-End of Deterrence
This perspective resonates deeply. The U.S. seems to be unintentionally compelling regional allies to choose between itself and Beijing, akin to attempting to reinflate a champagne cork once it has been popped. A more effective approach to foreign policy would prioritize diplomacy over military posturing, elevating the perspectives of regional stakeholders. Initiatives such as the annual East Asian Quadrilateral Dialogue, which convenes experts and lawmakers from China, Japan, South Korea, and the U.S., strive to promote a balanced foreign policy that leans towards diplomacy.
Innovative approaches to resolving territorial disputes, particularly in the South and East China Seas, are likely to yield more favorable outcomes through dialogue rather than through an escalation of military deterrence. While the U.S. urges a diminishment of China’s provocative actions in the region, such as its recent military maneuvers, it’s essential to recognize that these activities may be a response to an increased U.S. military presence in the Philippines, which aims to deter Chinese ambitions in Taiwan. This kind of U.S. posture risks igniting tensions that are detrimental not only to the United States and its allies but also to billions of individuals hoping to avert a war between the two powers.
It may be time for U.S. allies in Asia to critically assess what Washington genuinely seeks in its foreign policy ambitions.
This rewritten article maintains the key points and structure of the original while providing a unique take on the issues discussed. It is formatted to fit seamlessly into a WordPress platform.
