This weekend a NATO committee of 26 generals are meeting in Victoria, BC Canada to discuss the future of the mature Atlantic alliance. On the other side of the Pacific Ocean the leaders of America, Australia and Japan met to discuss the future of their young alliance.
Earlier this year Japan forged a joint security declaration with Australia. Understand the importance of this event: this was Japan’s first security outing with a country other than America since the second world war. Japan has always avoided getting involved in the “spaghetti tangle” of bilateral security pacts. Though the Australia declaration isn’t a full-fledged security treaty like Japan’s alliance with the US, be assured that it was a significant step towards the “normalization” of Japan’s foreign policy.
America’s ties with Australia are historically deep from both cultural and security perspectives. Add in Japan and now the Pacific is covered — north, south and west — by a triangular alliance. And the triangle is looking to add a new corner. Both Japan and America have been pushing for India to join in. If India signs up we could well be on our way to an Asia-Pacific Treaty of Brussels. I am sure Singapore could fill in as Luxembourg.
So where will this NATO of the East lead? The ultimate goal is China. China is to the Pacific as the USSR was to Europe — or at least is perceived as such. China becoming a security partner with the likes of Japan and India may not happen for a long time, and might require a bit of cold war action first. But right now we are seeing the foundations of a NATO-like structure that could absorb China, facilitating its constructive participation in collective regional security. Regardless of the “ifs and coulds” this rising alliance structure around the big pond is worth keeping an eye on. As Bob Kaplan said recently: “… the heart of the the post-Cold War military map … is going to be the Pacific.” (18:21)

Comments to this entry
Gray Hat
September 8, 2007
3:44 pm
"... a NATO-like structure that could absorb China, facilitating its constructive participation in collective regional security."
I'm afraid it requires some optimism to find this silver lining. "A bit of cold war action first" may prove a memorable understatement. And in view of recent developments in Russia, the example of NATO and the USSR doesn't offer much grounds for hope that a deterrent alliance will serve to reconcile or coopt an adversary.
Lexington Green
September 8, 2007
11:44 pm
links for 2007-09-09 « Newsbong: Because News Matters, Kinda
September 9, 2007
8:23 am
Curzon
September 9, 2007
1:58 pm
IJ
September 9, 2007
4:01 pm
Many think the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation will develop into a new NATO.
The SCO is especially disappointed at progress by the US and NATO in Afghanistan, which was said at the Bishkek summit to be becoming an open wound infecting Central Asia. President Putin called for a reinforcement of “anti-drug security belts”? around Afghanistan supervised by SCO monitors.
The Bishkek Declaration said: The member countries are willing to participate in the efforts to normalise Afghanistan's political situation ”¦ as well as improve the work of the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group. The Joint Communique issued after the Bishkek summit said: "The [SCO] leaders also discussed the possibility of the SCO taking bigger part in the Afghanistan affairs, to contribute more to regional security and stability." Finally SCO plan to hold an international conference in Afghanistan next year.
Scope for an alliance?
jimbo
September 10, 2007
10:00 am
Younghusband
September 12, 2007
7:47 am
Many pundits such as TM Barnett have harped on the need for a NATO-like organization to tackle collective regional security which has been basically the de facto job of America since the end of the second world war. But the relations between the countries in Asia have been riddled with mistrust and historical enmity. Yet now we see these disparate countries forming the foundations of a group that could bring about the actualization of a NATO like organization. As far as I know, this is the first time we have seen such pan-Pacific institutionalism since the Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere. Hopefully the outcome this time around is a bit more pleasing.
Admiral
September 12, 2007
7:25 pm