For Asia, aligning with NATO’s expansionist policies risks destabilising the region and eroding cultural values of peace and coexistence
NATO’s expansion into Asia poses a monumental danger that threatens not only regional stability but also the core values of peace and coexistence that many Asian countries uphold. The recent change in NATO leadership, with Mark Rutte taking the helm, may suggest a potential for new strategies, but the underlying policies and militaristic attitudes of the alliance remain unchanged. The illusion of progress is merely that—an illusion—while NATO’s intentions to maintain a prolonged battlefield in Ukraine serve as a reflection of its true objectives. As observed, the US weapons sales surged dramatically in 2023, reaching a record total of $238 billion as the demand for arms skyrocketed due to the ongoing conflict. Profiting from the sale of weapons on one hand and exploiting the suffering of unarmed civilians across Europe and West Asia is becoming increasingly reprehensible. This reflects a strategic mindset where war is not an unfortunate circumstance but an industry.
This is, however, not a new phenomenon. This is how we “civilisations” behave. The history of military alliances has consistently illustrated a paradoxical truth: nations often proclaim peace while simultaneously preparing for war and engaging in it.
The recent rise of Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who has advocated for an ‘Asian NATO,’ is nothing but a sign of a looming storm ahead. Ishiba’s call for deeper ties among Asian nations and the establishment of a NATO-like grouping echoes sentiments that prioritise militarisation over diplomacy. This vision stands in stark contrast to the scepticism expressed by India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, who highlighted India’s unique historical position and its reluctance to embrace the treaty alliances that such a framework would entail. Ishiba’s proposition to station Japanese troops on the US soil and share control of nuclear weapons highlights the extreme lengths to which some leaders are willing to go in the name of security, yet it has not received significant backing from the US administration, signalling the complexities and limitations of this vision.
While NATO presents itself as a bastion of defence, its actions betray a far more sinister agenda.
The alliance has not only prolonged conflicts but has also turned them into battlegrounds for competing ideologies and geopolitical power plays. This relentless devastation not only lays waste to nations but also serves the insatiable appetites of the arms industry, which reaps substantial profits from the chaos of ongoing warfare. Evidence reveals that the US government perceives conflicts as lucrative ventures rather than humanitarian crises. Nations that align themselves with NATO risk becoming collateral damage in a power struggle that has little regard for their sovereignty or cultural identity. The allure of NATO’s promises can be enticing, but history teaches us that aligning with powerful military alliances often leads to disastrous outcomes. Karl Marx posited that “history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.” NATO’s past interventions, from the Balkans to Afghanistan, and today’s Ukraine showcase a pattern of destruction that is all too familiar.
The question remains: will Asia fall into this trap once again, sacrificing its autonomy for the sake of Western agendas? Moreover, the political discourse surrounding NATO often ignores the implications of its militarisation on social stability and development. This is particularly relevant as Asian nations find themselves increasingly pressured to align with NATO’s militaristic strategies. The focus on military expenditure detracts from addressing pressing social issues, economic development, and environmental sustainability.The growing arms race in Asia, driven by NATO’s expansion, threatens to spark regional conflict with catastrophic consequences, echoing the historical precedent set before World War I.
The belief that increased military presence fosters stability is fundamentally flawed, often leading to insecurity and competition as nations rush to arm themselves against perceived threats. This environment heightens the risk of miscalculations and unintended escalations, with incalculable costs in human lives and economic stability. Additionally, engagement in militaristic alliances under NATO’s banner risks placing Asian nations in a moral quagmire, contradicting the region’s philosophies that prioritise peace, harmony, and cooperation, as espoused by Confucianism, Hinduism, Islamism, and Buddhism. The very qualities that were undermined by colonialism, after years of suffering and the sacrifices of millions, must be protected and promoted, as aligning with NATO may ultimately undermine these cultural values in favour of a destructive path centred on military solutions.
Moreover, the consequences of such an alignment are not limited to immediate military conflicts. Long-term geopolitical ramifications could destabilise the entire region, further entrenching power struggles that lead to conflict. Embracing a militaristic alliance may offer a temporary illusion of security but ultimately leads to self-inflicted wounds—akin to harakiri. The path toward a more peaceful and stable future lies not in militarisation but in diplomacy, cooperation, and mutual respect. Instead of succumbing to the pressures of NATO’s warmongering agenda, Asian countries should seek to forge their paths, grounded in their cultural philosophies and values that prioritise harmony and coexistence. The rhetoric of security and defence masks a more insidious agenda—one driven by the military-industrial complex that thrives on conflict and arms sales. For Asian nations, the choice to align with NATO is a perilous one, fraught with the potential for self-destruction.
(The writer is a journalist and author; views expressed are personal)
