By Xiang Haoyu

项昊宇

An article by Japan's newly elected Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba published by Hudson Institute, an American conservative think tank, has sparked controversy. The article, titled "The Future of Japan's Foreign Policy", asserted the establishment of an "Asian version of NATO" on the pretext that "the absence of a collective self-defense system like NATO in Asia means that wars are likely to break out because there is no obligation for mutual defense. Under these circumstances, the creation of an Asian version of NATO is essential to deter China by its Western allies."

近日，日本新任首相石破茂在上台前夕发表于美国保守派智库哈德逊研究所的一篇文章引发了不小的争议。这篇题为《日本外交政策未来》的文章阐述了关于创设“亚洲版北约”的主张，声称“由于亚洲不存在北约这样的集体防卫体制，没有相互防卫的义务，就容易发生战争。为了慑止中国，西方盟国应当创设亚洲版北约”。

The idea of forming an "Asian version of NATO" is laden with Cold War-style bloc confrontation and zero-sum mentality. It is completely divorced from the reality in the Asian region known for its complexity and diversity and goes counter to Asian countries' wishes to seek common ground, shelve differences, and pursue inclusive cooperation. Therefore, it came as no surprise that the article soon triggered universal opposition and questioning from Japan itself, other Asian countries, and even the US. It is overwhelmingly believed that what Japan's new prime minister suggested has no viability because it is against Japan's domestic law and regional realities, nor is it in line with America's policy objectives.

这篇文章有关“亚洲版北约”的观点充斥着冷战性质的阵营对抗和零和思维，既严重脱离亚洲地区复杂多元的现实，也不符合亚洲国家求同存异、包容合作的诉求。果不其然，这一观点迅速引发日本国内、亚洲各国乃至美国的普遍反对和质疑，绝大多数意见认为这一主张有悖日本国内法律和地区现实情况，也不符合美国的政策目标，根本不具可行性。

After WWII, the US has maintained its dominance in the Asian security order leveraged on the bilateral "hub-spoke" system encompassing its regional allies such as Japan, ROK, Australia, and the Philippines. International strategists believe there are two reasons why the US didn't forge a collective security architecture in Asia. First, bilateral alliances enable it to better manage and control its allies, preventing them from unilateral actions that may embroil the US into unnecessary conflicts. Second, Asia doesn't have the tradition and collective recognition of multilateral defense cooperation, and America's Asian Pacific allies are geographically far from each other with different security concerns and demands, making shared strategic objectives almost impossible. Therefore, an "Asian version of NATO" has no viability in the region.

二战后，美国主要依托日本、韩国、澳大利亚、菲律宾等条约盟友，采取双边性质的“轴辐”体系来维持对亚洲安全秩序的主导权。国际战略界认为美国在亚洲没有打造集体安全架构的原因在于，一是通过双边同盟，可以更好管理和控制盟友，防止其采取可能将美国卷入不必要冲突的单边行为；二是亚洲地区，不仅缺乏多边防务合作传统和集体认同，美亚太盟友地理位置分散，彼此之间安全利益关切诉求不同，难以凝聚起共同的战略目标。因此，“亚洲版北约”在本地区严重缺乏现实可行性。

Between the aggravated China-US rivalry and the prolonged Ukraine crisis, there has been renewed attention to an "Asian version of NATO" in the international community over recent years. Washington has sped up its deployments around China in the name of its "Indo-Pacific" strategy, and its minilateral cooperation has kept deepening through the US-Japan-India-Australia quadrilateral mechanism (the Quad), the US-UK-Australia (AUKUS), and the US-Japan-Philippines and US-Japan-ROK alliances, giving rise to a composite and multi-tiered alliance system. In the meantime, leaders of Japan, ROK, Australia and New Zealand have been invited to NATO summits for three years in a row, indicating their intensified military and security cooperation. The NATO 2022 Strategic Concept labeled China as a "systemic challenge", with which the organization began to extend its antenna to Asia Pacific. All these moves are signs that NATO is trying to enhance its presence in the Asia Pacific.

近年来，在中美博弈加剧和乌克兰危机延宕的背景下，国际上对于“亚洲版北约”关注再度升温。美国以“印太战略”为名在中国周边加快投棋布子，美日印澳“四边安全机制”、美英澳（奥库斯）、美日韩和美日菲等小多边合作不断加深，初步形成一套复合型、圈层嵌套的网格化盟伴体系。与此同时，日韩澳新四国领导人连续三年受邀参加北约峰会，与北约强化军事安全合作。2022年北约发表新版“战略构想”将中国定位为“系统性挑战”，并将触角伸向亚太地区。这些动作被视为“亚太北约化”和“北约亚太化”正在同步发展。

Yet the US is actually very cautious about establishing the so-called "Asian version of NATO". Senior officials in the Biden administration have said repeatedly on various occasions that they had no such intention. After the US-Japan-ROK meeting at Camp David last year, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan expressly denied that the trilateral security relations constituted a new NATO in the Pacific, and US Defense Secretary Austin said they didn't want to form another NATO in the Indo-Pacific even though they valued the relations with their allies and partners. At the same time, countries in the Asian Pacific region are passive or opposed to the idea. Former Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong used to express his opposition publicly, and a Singaporean scholar, when receiving an interview from a Japanese media outlet about Shigeru Ishiba's article, asserted that no country wants an Asian collective security organization except Japan.

但实际上，美方对于建立“亚洲版北约”的态度却颇为慎重，拜登政府高层多次在不同场合表态无意建立“亚洲版北约”。去年的美日韩戴维营峰会后，美国总统国家安全事务助理沙利文明确否认美日韩安全关系是“太平洋地区的新北约”。美国防长奥斯汀曾称，尽管美珍视与盟伴关系，但美国“并不是要在印太地区建立一个北约”。与此同时，亚太地区各国对于“亚洲版北约”均持消极或否定态度。新加坡前总理李显龙就曾公开表达反对立场。针对石破茂文章的观点，新加坡学者在接受日媒采访时更是断言：“除了日本，没有国家想要亚洲集体安全组织。”

While the "Asian version of NATO" won't become Japan's policy any time soon, we must be alert to the deep-rooted Cold War mindset of some Japanese political elites exposed by this idea – they are not small in number. Their bigoted obsession with zero-sum confrontation has presented itself in the foreign policies and actions of several Japanese administrations from Shinzo Abe to Fumio Kishida. If the new Prime Minister continues to adopt a "beggar-thy-neighbor" foreign strategy and serves as a proponent of ideological competition and geopolitical confrontation, he will further split the region and exacerbate geopolitical tension. That will do no good to Asia's stability and development, neither will it bring real security to Japan in the end.

尽管“亚洲版北约”尚难转化为日本的现实政策，但需要警惕的是，这一主张暴露出的是日本一些政策精英中根深蒂固的冷战思维，在日本国内有一定代表性。这种僵化偏执的零和对抗性思维，实际上已经鲜明体现在从安倍到岸田内阁的对外政策行动中。石破茂内阁的对外战略如果继续以邻为壑，充当意识形态竞争和地缘政治对抗的推手角色，只会进一步割裂地区，激化地缘矛盾，不仅对亚洲的稳定发展无益，最终也难以给日本带来真正的安全。

(The author is a special research fellow at the Department for Asia-Pacific Studies, China Institute of International Studies)

（作者是中国国际问题研究院亚太研究所特聘研究员）

Editor's note: Originally published on huanqiu.com, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.