NATO is the wrong vehicle to deter a rising China. The U.S.-led, Brussels-based North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been stunningly successful, preventing major wars on the European land mass for most of its 75-year history. But both geography and NATO’s composition mean that the alliance is poorly positioned to thwart Beijing’s ambitions for mastery of the Indo-Pacific.
In his Jan. 31, 2024, remarks delivered at the Heritage Foundation, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg argued for NATO’s continued relevance. Stoltenberg pointed out that NATO has provided the United States with a vast array of allies. Stoltenberg noted that NATO has played a key role in shoring up security in Europe and creating a market for defense sales and partnerships. Stoltenberg was also correct to highlight that “managing the China challenge is not something the U.S. can do alone.” But the secretary-general’s implication that NATO can be a primary means to address the China threat is flawed.
To deter Beijing, the United States should focus on those most directly threatened: China’s own neighbors. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, India, and Australia, among others, have more to fear from a belligerent Beijing than those in far-away Europe. Indeed, the Middle Kingdom has a history of conflict with several of these countries, ranging from territorial disputes to open warfare. China covets Taiwan, seeking to turn it into the next Hong Kong.
China’s neighbors are more likely to feel threatened by its growing power, and their concerns are justified. Beijing’s massive military buildup — the largest in modern history — reveals its ambitions. China wants to be the regional superpower, capable of dominating surrounding states. Beijing has already employed coercive measures against Australia, Japan, Taiwan, and others to attempt to bend them to its whims. For their part, many of these same countries, if slowly and surely, have begun to wake up to the dragon next door.
By contrast, Europe doesn’t face the same immediate threat. Moreover, some of the leading NATO countries have signaled an ambivalence when it comes to preventing Chinese aggression. Many will likely prioritize trade and economic ties with Beijing. France, for example, has been quite open about where it stands. French President Emmanuel Macron has said that Europe must not become a “follower” of either the United States or China. Macron argued for a “European strategy” and “strategic autonomy” in the event of China invading Taiwan. The Chinese Communist Party has openly celebrated what it sees as divisions among America’s European allies.
The United States should thank Macron for his candor. And it should keep it in mind when formulating a strategy going forward.
Other top NATO partners are only marginally better. Indeed, even after Russia has invaded Ukraine, some, such as Germany, are continuing to fail to meet their minimum NATO dues. And they’re doing so despite professing to be concerned that Moscow might come for them next. Minimums are just that. And actions speak louder than words.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Deterrence has eroded in Europe. And it defies belief that many of the same countries whose response to the Ukraine invasion has been so underwhelming can be counted on should China invade Taiwan.
This doesn’t mean that NATO can’t help in countering Chinese aggression — it certainly can, and the U.S. should welcome the help. But it would be foolhardy for Washington to bank on our European friends to deter, and potentially fight, far from their doorstep. The United States should plan accordingly.
Sean Durns is a Washington, D.C.-based foreign affairs analyst. His views are his own.
