The Ill-Effects of NATO’s Eastward Movement

By N. GUNASEKARAN

The columnists and the so-called “defense experts” have expressed that Sweden’s accession to NATO was “an historic landmark.” Sweden’s accession to NATO would be finalized by the end of 2023. This was one of the decisions of the NATO summit, held in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania on July 11-12. The NATO summit planned to strengthen NATO by facilitating necessary investments with the approval of a new defense pledge to invest at least 2% of GDP in defense annually.

The initiatives to expand and strengthen NATO have proved beyond doubt, that the hegemonic powers with their corporate and military might are trying to lead the world on the path of destruction. This is the impending danger for the global population.

In the Vilnius summit, the NATO leaders discussed Ukraine membership issue ,new regional defense plans, etc. On Ukraine membership, the final communique said that,”when allies agree and conditions are met” Ukraine’s accession to NATO could proceed. The intention of the US and most Western European countries was to postpone the decision due to Ukraine currently being at war with Russia. The immediate accession of Ukraine would require collective defense, according to NATO Article 5. However, the US and other countries have no hesitation to step up supplies of weapons and equipments and they further committed for unprecedented level of military aid to Ukraine. This position of the US would further intensity the disastrous Russian-Ukraine war in which a great number of innocent lives already have been lost.

The war between Russia and Ukraine, and the interference of the US and other countries inChina’s relationship with Taiwan are recent developments that increased political tensions in the Asian region. The NATO summit held in Lithuania has furthered this process.

The NATO summit updated the geographic plans and committed to further developing the robust exercises in the eastern side. Such military plans, concluded with the attendance and cooperation of leaders from Asian countries, Japan and South Korea, have all been posing greater security threats for the Asian nations.The ill-effects of the expansion of NATO in Asia were multidimensional.

South Korean President,Yoon Suk Yeol declared that he wanted to “institutionalize the framework of our cooperation with NATO.” Under a New South Korea-NATO partnership, there will be cooperation in 11 areas including military connectivity and cyber security.

These decisions would accelerate the rivalry between China and South Korea, increasing the arms race in the region. It is to be noted that South Korea has been shipping munitions to Ukraine.

The security concerns were raised from wide sections of people across Asia, after Japan decided to establish a NATO liaison office in Tokyo.

It is obvious that NATO was established, not with the objective of controlling the Asian region militarily. It was established as a transatlantic security organization with the main purpose of countering the “communist threat”during the Soviet era. The pertinent question is what necessitated its continued existence, even after the demise of the Soviet Union. The US and its allies want to further the interests of their big corporate capital by controlling the Asian economies.

With this goal, the US and the European powers, along with Asia’s big corporate powers like Japan are intending to extend and expand the NATO establishment in Asia. In this context, the US and its allies see the unrestricted partnership between China and Russia as a potential threat for their strategic and economic plans.

With a NATO office in Tokyo, Japan was going ahead for remilitarization, and was prepared even to engage in armed conflicts in the region. But such moves were a serious violation of Japan’s own constitution and Article 9, which prohibits Japan from maintaining a military force or engaging in acts of warfare. Japanese ruling elites are prepared for sacrificing their own traditions of upholding peace for the benefit of their corporate interests.

Asia and the Indo-Pacific region must be the arena for collaboration and peaceful progress and not be the ground for military conflicts between military alliances.

Enduring backwardness, economic stagnation, staggering human development and poverty are the main challenges in this region. Expanding and strengthening military alliances and the increased militarism in the region would be very much detrimental to the interests of the Asian working population.

Beijing was naturally angered over the presence of Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea in the NATO summit. The statement of the summit condemned China for undercutting “the rule based international order.” China reacted sharply, saying that they would meet this challenge with “a resolute response.” Such reactions from China, the second largest economy in the world, predict a danger of a serious military crisis in the Asia Pacific region.

It could be recalled that the Brandt Commission, the independent commission on international development issues, recommended that the countries should earmark 1% of the GDP every year as grants to the less developed countries, who badly needed of relief from the problems of external debts.

The advanced countries should concentrate on the development issues of the poor countries, instead of expanding military alliances in all corners of the world.

N. Gunasekaran is a political activist and writer based in Chennai, India.

From The Progressive Populist, August 15, 2023

Populist.com