The Indo-Pacific is arguably the new center of geopolitical and economic power not only for the United States and Canada but also for other member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO‘s summit in Madrid, Spain, in June 2022 marked the first time the four leaders of NATO‘s Indo-Pacific partner countries—Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea (ROK)—joined NATO counterparts for a meeting. More importantly, though, the Indo-Pacific region featured prominently for peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area in NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept, a key document that outlines the alliance‘s values, purpose, and role 1. The other paper to be quoted in this report is NATO‘s Strategic Foresight Regional Perspectives Report on the Indo-Pacific (2022) 2 . It specifically addressed, despite some earlier restraint from Western European states, a pacing challenge from China, which NATO sees as a factor of concern while condemning Beijing‘s illegal and inhumane practices.
Why has the whole region taken on greater salience for NATO, and not just two Pacific Rim countries? First of all, China‘s political, economic, and legal impact is no longer a threat to just Southeast Asian states, but it has affected or will affect other states geographically distant from the People‘s Republic of China (PRC). Secondly, coastal populations of some developing island nations of Asia and Oceania are highly at risk from projected rises in sea levels, leading to a range of concerns relating to territorial loss and thus statehood. In the long run, that might spark unrest locally while microstates could potentially witness a global struggle for influence. Thirdly, according to experts and the author of the following text, as a researcher in the South Pacific, countries could scramble for the area‘s untapped
1. NATO 2022 Strategic Concept: https://www.nato.int/strategic-concept/
sources, prompting a shadow of war. And at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean lie its richest sources of raw materials. Thus NATO states must realize why the geopolitical focus has tilted from the Euro-Atlantic region towards the Indo-Pacific. It is not the coincidence that the 21st century is the century of the Pacific.
The Indian and Pacific Oceans sit on the other side of the globe for Europe where most NATO states are located. Hence, a European––or rather Eurocentric––perspective prevails, where the Indo-Pacific gets little attention in geostrategy, research, and military training 3. However, the situation has been improving. Political, economic, and security issues on one continent influence internal affairs, both locally and regionally, on others. Hence, those mechanisms, dilemmas, and challenges in the Indo-Pacific compel the Euro-Atlantic bloc to rethink its behavior, adopt new patterns, and brace for possible conflicts in not that distant future.
With NATO‘s scarce outreach in the Indo-Pacific, the region has never attracted strategic interest for the political and military bloc. The NATO Regional Perspectives Report on the Indo-Pacific is a critical insight into the region at the time of the game between global powers, or the Great Power Competition (GPC), as officials in Washington would name that. As the world has stepped into the third decade of the 21st century, the region has risen in importance for both Pacific Rim nations and their allies elsewhere. Inviting the four Indo-Pacific partners, which yet are not the bloc‘s associate members due to the lack of appropriate provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty, to Madrid and then Vilnius showcases that NATO states need to align with like-minded allies in the strategically important region.
2. NATO Strategic Foresight Regional Perspectives Report on the Indo-Pacific: https://www.act.nato.int/article/strategic-foresight-regionalperspectives-report-on-the-indo-pacific/
3. The author serves as legal counsel to many military institutions. She teaches courses in the law of armed conflict at the Finnish Defense Forces International Center in Helsinki, the NATO Maritime Security Center of Excellence in Istanbul, and the NATO Center of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism in Ankara, Turkey.
NATO has boosted understanding of challenges emanating from the Indo-Pacific which has emerged as a dynamic geopolitical zone. Demographic, technological, and environmental processes in Asian and Oceanian nations will continue to shape future trends globally and affect the Euro-Atlantic zone to produce tangible results. Efforts to lay both political and military groundwork must advance the understanding of the civilization of the Indo-Pacific––unique and distinct from its Western counterpart. Inte-
restingly, an unalike and often irreconcilable set of values, including legal ones, is a cornerstone of legal culture. But what is legal culture, after all? It is referred to as a set of habits and values to describe relatively stable patterns of legally oriented social behavior to embrace, assess, and observe the law. Consequently, Western nations acknowledge that legal culture safeguards a set of values and rights protecting goods that matter to society through a raft of institutions. On this wise, citizens legitimize the power they all wield
to ensure development and security on multiple levels to effectively tackle domestic, external, military, energy, and now also climate threats 4 .
NATO member states cherish a diverging value system than those fostered by the Communist Party of China, a core of the country‘s political and economic system. China‘s ambitions, strategy, and behavior––all of them reaching far beyond the Indo-Pacific––indeed present systemic challenges to alliance security. Both locally and globally, China is pursuing an aggressive policy that must be named and halted while its devastating impact on politics, legal systems, and defense capabilities must be reversed. China nurtures overriding ambitions in Asia and Oceania whose fragile and still-developing nations remain highly dependent on external funding. As the threat of rising seas and water temperatures has
amplified, a number of legal issues have emerged. Do shrinking island states have the right to exclusive economic zones? Can a state exist without a territory? How to counteract illegal fishing? Are ex-situ nations entitled to all the rights and fundamental freedoms that migrants and [climate] refugees enjoy? War and natural disasters tend to bring easy money while the Communist Party of China will eagerly exploit vulnerabilities in Asia and Oceania––as it already did in Africa and South America. Finally, the Pacific Ocean contains some potentially valuable bottom resources while global powers rush to exploit them to gain both economic and military advantage––and perhaps to establish a brand new world order. Hence, it is vital to adapt international law to new technology that is changing at an increasingly rapid pace. Keeping a watchful eye on the events in the Pacific Ocean, the world‘s
biggest ocean––also by NATO states––is crucial to tackle a threat from authoritarian regimes and ultimately avoid a resource war that causes the most havoc.
So far the North Atlantic Alliance has developed no tangible contingencies on the Indo-Pacific, which could turn into a theater of war, including humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. However, the region is central to a handful of the bloc‘s member states according to their interests. The United States is irrefutably interested in preventing China from maintaining and /or bolstering its influence in the Pacific Ocean. China is in a standoff over the question of sovereignty over disputed territories, notably in the South China Sea. In addition, the government in Beijing has pledged to create alternatives to worldwide financial institutions while its top
officials have said Russia and China would stand guard over the world order based on international law 5, which in fact entails its authoritarian interpretation. Eventually, China is flexing military muscles against the United States and its allies––as reflected by a security deal Beijing signed with the Solomon Islands that opens up the possibility of a greater Chinese military presence and potentially a People‘s Liberation Army naval base to quell anti-Chinese riots or even invade Taiwan. It is not a coincidence that the United States has insisted that fellow NATO members add some mentions of the Indo-Pacific in the two reports while noting Beijing‘s harmful practices. After all, China is also the first great power since prewar Japan to challenge U.S. maritime supremacy, a post-World War II cornerstone of US global power and national security. Undeniably, China‘s
dramatic rise to major power status is the greatest long-term challenge to U.S. security 6
The Info-Pacific is cited just twice in the 2022 Strategic Concept, yet more than ever before in history. According to Paragraph 45, „the Indo-Pacific is important for NATO, given that developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security.“ „We will strengthen dialogue and cooperation with new and existing partners in the Indo-Pacific to tackle cross-regional challenges and shared security interests,“ NATO states pledged in the blueprint for the alliance for the next decade. And yet NATO and its Indian and Pacific Ocean partners see maritime security slightly differently. Perceptions depend on economic growth and state interests. The best
example is how states define freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific. The Japanese government wants a „free and open“ Indo-Pacific, the Indian cabinet seeks a „free, open, and inclusive“ area, while Australia‘s vision is of an „open, stable, safe, and prosperous“ Indo-Pacific and the United States envisions a zone that is „free, open, connected, prosperous, resilient, and secure.“
In an era of GPC, NATO members must tighten ties with like-minded nations in Asia and Oceania. Thirty-one member states, along with Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and Japan, pledged to advance dialogue, consultation, and coordination between Indo-Pacific countries and Euro-Atlantic counterparts. The alliance’s strategic report strikes a different tone
on Russia and China, noting that both emerged as a new regional alternative to some developing Indo-Pacific nations that struggle to survive. Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, the leaders of China and Russia, are seeking to undermine discretionary rules for establishing relations between states. According to the NATO report, in the worst-case scenario that must be addressed, „the Indo-Pacific landscape is likely to convert into a predominant Chinese attempt to federate or
potentially constrain split countries through economic,diplomatic, cultural, and military levers.“ Such a distinction––while paired with a strong reliance on Communist values––has already „put at risk the rule of law, international order, democratic values, maritime freedom, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. 7 “
AUTHOR: Joanna Siekiera PhDis an international lawyer with a PhD in public policy studies. She works as a legal advisor and lecturer in many military institutions: NATO, the US Marines, the armed forces of Finland and Turkey, among others. She completed a post-doctorate at the University of Bergen in Norway and a PhD at the University of Victoria in New Zealand. She is the author of 100 scientific publications in several languages, 40 legal opinions for the Polish Ministry of Justice and the book “Regional Policy in the South Pacific,” and the editor of 7 monographs on international law, international relations and security.
The opinions given and the positions held in materials in the Special Report solely reflect the views of authors.
Warsaw Institute
Wilcza St. 9, 00-538 Warsaw, Poland +48 22 417 63 15 office@warsawinstitute.org
