What is driving NATO's interest in the Indo-Pacific? | DW News

Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea were meeting with NATO, an organization that has historically always been Trans-Atlantic. Only now, it appears to want to be Indo-Pacific as well. The four nations mentioned aren't NATO members, but 'partner' countries. And its a partnership that's being redefined in a time of war.

Follow DW on social media:
#NATO #IndoPacific #Asia

[dongdong]

The US already has more than 300 military bases around China. What could NATO do more in this situation? Come and pay for this bill?

[cliffhall]

hello from Australia. Thats a good idea NATO coming to the Indo-Pacific. Most people don't realise that Russia has an eastern border on the PACIFIC OCEAN. Vladivostok naval base is home port for the Russian Pacific Fleet. Which close to both Japan and South Korea which is why we see them at the NATO meeting..So it makes perfect sense to have presence in the Pacific. The US 7th fleet is based in Japan, which is the ideal place for a NATO office. Australia, along with our allies, have been fighting communist Russia and China in the Indo-Pacific region since 1950. Australia jet fighters were fighting Russian MIG jet fighters during the Korean war along with one of our aircraft carriers and infantry. Next battle Australia was involved in was the Vietnam war, which was supported by both Russia and China. So yes, NATO should be officially involved in the Indo-Pacific.

[wynetsang]

NATO is being invited to Asian Pacific by Japan and South Korean, both are colonies of US. Therefore, US invited NATO there.

[Macfierce]

Whatever the formal treaty situation may be, i think it is very well understood that if you attack Japan or S. Korea, you're at war with the United States too, and by default then NATO as well. The fact that any of the five eyes countries (US, Australia, NZ, UK, Canada) would look out for one another goes without saying.

[stupidburp]

Some NATO members have island territory in the Indo Pacific. France, UK, and the USA for example.

[kelvinking]

Finding more market for USA military industrial complex weapons. Not a bad idea

[someutubchannel]

Yes!
If the USA is attacked.... Yes ...NATO is obligated to respond.
It's not just for Europe...

[ArabicReja]

NATO should join *naval patrol* the South China Sea to uphold international laws there,
where China illegally claims almost everything and militarizes man-made islands.

[happymelon]

9-7-2023 Former Australian PM Paul Keating:
Nato wants to meddle in Asia Pacific and Malicious Poisoning Asia.
Stoltenberg is less a leader and spokesman for European security than an American agent

French President Emmanuel Macron has reportedly opposed a NATO office in Japan, complicating months of discussions within NATO about establishing its first "outpost" in the "Indo-Pacific region". In this regard, Keating also agrees with Macron's point of view.

[colinyuan]

ok, if so, I would hope China can have an army in Belarus

[themapleleafforever]

We have a globalized economy. Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea are crucial to the European and North American economies (and vice versa). These interests have security concerns, therefore, it follows that NATO's, Japan's, S Korea's and Taiwan's interests naturally align in response to China's naval encroachment in the Pacific. International shipping lanes must be secured.

[happymelon]

Indo-Pacific was first used as a term in geopolitics by Shinzo Abe in 2007.
We ASIAN call our region "Asia-Pacific "
Only outsider QUAD thinks they own this place, try to erase "Asia" calling this place "Indo Pacific"

The ‘Indo-Pacific’ strategy “not only aims to erase the name Asia-Pacific and the effective regional cooperation framework in the Asia-Pacific region,
but also aims to efface the achievements and momentum of peace and development fostered by regional countries with joint effort for decades.”
The United States is “ganging up on others attempts to make Asia-Pacific countries ‘pawns’ of US hegemony.”

[KJMcK]

NATO Plus 5 is a security arrangement between NATO and five aligned countries: Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel, and South Korea. The arrangement is a defense cooperation framework between the United States, its NATO partners, and the five non-NATO countries.

[mingyuegao]

There are 300+ military bases built around China. The Philippines has agreed to reopen some military bases for the US and some of them are very close to Chinese continent and to Taiwan. Whereas China Does not have one single military base outside of China. Tell me how are we being aggressive? The US and its allies sending spying planes and warships strolling at our doorstep, sometimes only 50km to Chinese coastline. Why aren't they being the aggressive ones but we are? Why can't we expand our military presence in our sphere of influence, especially in our territory to defend ourselves from the threats of NATO? Don't say that NATO is a defensive organization. It has invaded many countries and bombarded Chinese embassy in Belgrade which caused 3 deaths. There are some debts that NATO has to pay as well.

[REMEGORAS]

Doesn't NATO stand for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization"? And does that not answer the question?

[MontyGumby]

NATO outside of Europe - this is getting really really RIDICULOUS

[djoys]

US influence in Asia varies from slight to significant indiferent countries of Asia. US presence has impact. Europe's influence is close to negligible, it is beyond EU means to do anything in Asia. Actually no one counts it too. Europe influence is only seen in ever biased Europe media.

[jsyony]

And some think NATO is defensive only. It is preemptively defensive at best, which we've learned is offensive upon judgment call. But none of this is even remotely surprising, or even good or bad. The central reality in international relations is power to everyone involved, USA, China, or Russia. In the 25-year window of being the sole superpower, USA blew the best chance in history at establishing "rule of law" by breaking so many itself, by resorting to the hammer when it should have turned to the reason, and it was for everyone to see. Not many outside of "the West" seem to believe in the "benign hegemon" anymore, and now power is back in the picture, as it has always been and will always be. Global power struggles of the past have culminated and ended in one way - war, destruction, and death. Is anybody going to be wise enough to recognize the foolishness of it all? Is anybody going to be better than their past? Is anybody going to learn from history? Probably not. These are only poor humans after all, infighting out of greed, jealousy, and fear until the end comes, whatever the variety. Well if that is to be the doom, who am I to bother? Cheers while it lasts.

[stephenharris]

NATO Is about protecting the Status Quo not about changing world rules by force

[eonglee]

2 critical questions to ask.

1. Who is going to whose door steps or back yards?

2. Who has good/bad track records in the past many, many years?