NATO Sets Sights on East Asia: Don’t Expand NATO; Disband NATO

June 23rd, 2020 - by German Foreign Policy

German Foreign Policy

The western alliance is assuming a stronger posture in relationship to China. US experts call for NATO operations in the Pacific.

BERLIN/WASHINGTON (June 18, 2020) – NATO should systematically expand its military exercises and operations into the Asia-Pacific region, an expert of Washington’s Atlantic Council think tank proposes in the intensifying debate on the posture the western war alliance should assume in relationship to the People’s Republic of China.

China’s “presence in the Arctic, in Africa and in the Mediterranean” calls for a response, according to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Think tanks suggest that NATO should more closely monitor Chinese investments in the European infrastructure, because “civilian roads, ports and rails” under construction with Chinese participation “are an integral part of NATO’s plans for military mobilization.”

NATO is also strengthening its relations with “global partners” such as Japan, South Korea and Australia. For the first time, Australia’s defense minister participated at the meeting of the NATO Ministers of Defense that ended yesterday. The Atlantic Council is also suggesting the establishment of a NATO military headquarters in the Asia-Pacific region.

Global Balance of Power

Recently demands have been multiplying that NATO should focus more on rivalry with China. Late last week, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expressed his “concern” about China. [1] “China’s rise is fundamentally shifting the global balance of power,” he noted. The People’s Republic is expanding its “presence in the Arctic, Africa, and the Mediterranean,” is investing heavily in Europe’s critical infrastructure and is “a constant in cyberspace.”

Beijing is also investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles that could reach Europe.” “NATO allies must face this challenge together.” Of course, Stoltenberg did not mention that China — according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) — with its 320 nuclear weapons, possesses only a fraction of the nuclear arsenal of the United States (5,800) and Russia (6,375) and less than the two NATO nuclear powers in Europe together (France: 290; Great Britain: 215). [2] He admitted, however, that no country is “directly threatened” by China.

The Military Function of Civilian Infrastructure

For some time now, foreign policy think tanks have been discussing what concrete posture NATO should assume in relationship to China. A current paper circulated by the German Marshall Fund (GMF) is also focusing on Chinese investments in the European infrastructure, for example in ports such as in the Greek city of Piraeus and in railway lines such as the one linking Belgrade to Budapest, the Hungarian section of which directly affects a NATO member.

“Civilian roads, ports and rails are an integral part of NATO’s plans for military mobilization,” the paper notes. Thus, these Chinese investments “have direct security implications for the Alliance.” [3] Chinese companies have invested “in 12 ports in seven NATO countries that are essential for military mobility planning in NATO’s east, south and southeast.”

NATO should contribute “to defining key criteria on foreign direct investments in domains with dual civilian-military applications.” Moreover, “the protection and integrity of digital information” is also important for NATO. This statement clearly refers to the debate about the use of Huawei technology in the current development of 5G networks in Europe [4].

A NATO-China Council

The Atlantic Council recently proposed further considerations. According to Ian Brzezinski of the Washington think tank’s Transatlantic Security Initiative, NATO has long since outgrown its transatlantic alliance territory: It has carried out missions for example in Afghanistan, at the Horn of Africa and in the Middle East; and has established “global partnerships” with Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Mongolia. It has, therefore every reason to also deal with China.

A first step could be the establishment of a NATO-China Council, patterned after the NATO-Russia Council. If Brzezinski’s idea is followed, the project would be particularly aimed at integrating NATO’s European partners firmly into the United States’ policy toward China. The expert writes, that in a NATO-China Council, the Alliance members would be forced to address Beijing “in a coordinated manner,” such an institution could therefore “underscore,” that this dimension of great power competition is not between “China and the United States” but “between China and the transatlantic community.” [5]

NATO Operations in the Pacific

But above all, Brzezinski proposes that NATO expand its military activities into the Asia-Pacific region. The consultative dimension of the regional “global partnerships” should be complemented with “more regular and more robust military exercises (especially air, maritime, and special forces exercises).” [6] This could be used to add a NATO component to US combat exercises in the Pacific that have long featured the participation of European allies. ( reported. [7])

Brzezinski also proposes that the war alliance should establish a “Center of Excellence” (COE) in the Indo-Pacific [8] and integrate officers and NCOs from selected partners into the Alliance’s Command Structure, and deepen these partners’ familiarization with NATO missions, structures, and protocols. And finally, the alliance should also establish a small military headquarters element in the Indo-Pacific region to help facilitate and coordinate NATO exercises and operations.

Of course, NATO should not limit its activities solely to military measures. It must mobilize the full complement of “diplomatic, economic, technological, social, and military capabilities and dynamics” that “define geopolitical power.”

“Much More on our Radar Screen”

Last year, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg began to intensify the war alliance’s relationship with Australia. [9] That country has made a name for itself as Washington’s most adamant ally in the power struggle against Beijing. At the beginning of last week, Stoltenberg reasserted that, in the future, the alliance must work “even more closely with like-minded countries, like Australia, Japan, New Zealand and [South] Korea.” [10]

For the first time, the Australian defense minister had full participation in NATO’s Ministers of Defense meeting, which ended yesterday. Stoltenberg – out of consideration for those members of the alliance, who are still hesitant – does not yet speak in favor of NATO maneuvers and operations in the Asian-Pacific region: “The South China Sea is not a location for NATO missions. There is no reason to send alliance troops there.” [11] But the debate is continuing. In the meantime China is “much more on our radar screen,” explained US NATO Ambassador, Kay Bailey Hutchison on Tuesday: “NATO is now looking to the East.” [12] This was not referring to Eastern Europe, or Russia, but to East Asia, or China.

Please watch also our video column “War against China”.

 [1] Christoph B. Schiltz: “China kommt immer näher vor die Haustür Europas”. 13.06.2020.

 [2] Weniger Atomwaffen. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 16.06.2020.

 [3] Naďa Kovalčíková, Gabrielle Tarini: Stronger Together: NATO’s Evolving Approach toward China. WIIS policybrief May 2020.

 [4] See also The Costs of Economic Warfare.

 [5], [6] Ian Brzezinski: NATO’s role in a transatlantic strategy on China. 01.06.2020.

 [7] See also Struggle for Influence in the Western Pacific (I).

 [8] Zum Begriff “Indo-Pazifik” see also Asiens Schlüsselmeer.

 [9] See also The Transpacific Cold War.

 [10] Sebastian Sprenger: NATO chief seeks to forge deeper ties in China’s neighborhood. 08.06.2020.

 [11] Christoph B. Schiltz: “China kommt immer näher vor die Haustür Europas”. 13.06.2020.

 [12] Online Briefing with Ambassador Kay Bailey Hutchison on NATO Defense Ministerial. 16.06.2020.

War Against China

German Foreign Polcy

BERLIN (July-August 2019) — There is a reflex in Europe that is detrimental to China. It is the downside of the respectful awe at China’s vastness, its size, its culture, and statehood. By comparison, Europe appears tiny. The comparison mitigates the error of being incomparable.

China is greater.

“Keeping China down,” always has been in vain. To “keep China down,” violence is needed, and if necessary, warfare against China. Nearly every act of violence, at least in Berlin, had been considered morally justified to humiliate China.

The German Empire dispatched its troops to crush the “fists of justice and harmony” — a Chinese resistance movement. Kaiser Wilhelm, personally — here in front of German soldiers on their way to China — called for carnage.

” No quarter will be given! Prisoners will not be taken! Just as a thousand years ago the Huns (…) made a name for themselves (…) may the name German in China be affirmed by you in such a way that for a thousand years no Chinese will dare to look cross-eyed at a German.”

The German heroes of this carnage were honored by the Weimar State … heroized during German fascism … and are immortalized in street names in the Federal Republic of Germany. The capital Berlin commemorates these criminals and their cannons in the south of the city; in Cologne, there is a “Chinese Quarters,” where, not Chinese names are commemorated, but rather those of their German murderers. The commemoration honors the executioners of German global policy and historicizes German projection of power, that sought to “keep China down.”

This projection of power is currently again the issue — at the 2018 annual alignment of global military policy in Munich.

“China develops a comprehensive alternative system to the western” economy, complained Germany’s foreign minister, and appealed for “courage” in “power projection:”

“Europe needs a common global projection of power. It should never concentrate solely on the military, nor totally renounce it.”

Europe has never renounced military power at China’s borders. The military was ruthlessly called in during the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. The Federal Republic of Germany was a technical participant, as napalm and phosphorous devastated Vietnam. Journalistic agitation was aimed at the “Vietcong,” the barefoot soldiers — a sort of red devil. The “Dragon,” neighboring China — over whose routes and harbors war supplies were helping to curb the West’s wars in Asia — was considered no less diabolical.

The racist depictions of the people during the Vietnam and Korean Wars are being revived today.

Asian masses, eating up the global resources, such as suggested here in a journal in Berlin — turning the truth about Berlin and Europe, which are nourished from the blood of the victims of their colonial rule on its head…. This racist depiction is each time illustrated differently, for example, as China about to put the world into its mouth with chopsticks. We are being devoured and should defend ourselves.

These hysterics facilitate violence. In business journals, talk of war, has become routine: customs war, war of sanctions, and war of the systems. …

Therefore, taking up arms seems logical. At China’s Indo-Pacific borders, a ring of violence has been formed that potentially threatens nuclear annihilation.

Will Germany remain neutral? Will it lead “Europe’s” charge against China, in the transatlantic alliance? Germany is building up its armament with a crescendo of billions.

German arms companies were already pushing to have a share in the weaponized ring around China, to “keep China down” from the sea. In the western alliance, Germany is reinforcing that ring, as West Germany before, when it shared logistics and technology, but above all, lots of money and the racist depiction leading to a slaughterhouse in Vietnam.

Germany is not neutral. It is about to join the front.

However, unlike before, today’s weapons can reach Berlin directly from Asia’s battlefield. … Don’t be deceived.

Europe is tiny in comparison. China is greater.

© 2019 Droit d’auteur / German News Informations Services GmbH / Sources: Bundesarchiv (3); ARD (1); tageszeitung (taz) (1); FOCUS (1); is a non-state medium. It does not receive public funds, neither directly nor indirectly, either from within Germany or from abroad.

Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.