By Zhan Debin

The two-day NATO summit concluded in The Hague, the Netherlands, on June 25. It is rare that South Korean President Lee Jae-myung , Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese  were all absent. The collective absence of key Asia-Pacific partners sent a striking diplomatic signal at this summit. All three countries offered nearly identical reasons for staying away, which include escalating tensions in the Middle East and more urgent domestic priorities. This is hardly a coincidence. It could be seen as a measured response to NATO's expansion into the Asia-Pacific region and a rational choice shaped by a clearer understanding of NATO's true nature.

In recent years, NATO has repeatedly pushed the narrative of so-called indivisible Eurasian security in an attempt to extend its reach into the Asia-Pacific. Yet, right before the summit, the US unilaterally launched airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, sharply escalating an already tense situation in the Middle East. This incident laid bare the hypocrisy behind NATO's claim of safeguarding global security and further convinced Asia-Pacific countries that NATO, a bloc that manufactures crises and shifts risks onto others, is nothing more than an instrument for the US to uphold its global hegemony.

What is even more alarming is that the US carried out this military operation without giving prior notice to most of its NATO allies. This unilateral approach once again showed that many so-called allies are little more than supporting actors expected to fall in line, which has only deepened divisions within NATO. This reality has made it clear to many countries that NATO cannot offer genuine security guarantees. Instead, it risks dragging them into escalating geopolitical conflicts. Asia-Pacific nations are well aware of this and naturally have no wish to become expendable pawns on the front line.

At this summit, Donald Trump made it clear that NATO members should raise their defense spending to 5% of GDP, far exceeding the current levels of key Asia-Pacific partners (around 2.3% for South Korea, 1.8% for Japan, and 2% for Australia). Australia has stated that its defense budget will be determined independently based on its own national interests; Japan has canceled its planned "2+2" talks with the US; and South Korea has opted for strategic avoidance. These moves all signal a clear message that they are defending their economic sovereignty and policy independence, and rejecting NATO's style of "burden-sharing diplomacy."

At the same time, NATO is also trying to push beyond its geographic limits by forcibly labeling China as a security challenge. However, according to the North Atlantic Treaty, NATO is explicitly defined as a regional military alliance confined to the North Atlantic area. It has no mandate to extend its reach into the Asia-Pacific, nor any right to interfere in affairs around China. China has repeatedly stressed that NATO has no authority to overstep its boundaries or expand its mandate, and that its so-called Asia-Pacific strategy is nothing more than blatant geopolitical expansion.

It is worth noting that since taking office, leaders like Lee Jae-myung, Shigeru Ishiba, and Anthony Albanese have all shown a clear willingness to ease tensions with China and pursue a more balanced foreign policy. On June 26, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung told the National Assembly that peace is directly linked to the economy and the people's survival. This remark highlights, in its own way, a shared understanding among Asia-Pacific countries that a peaceful and stable environment for development is hard-won and must be cherished.

The Asia-Pacific is the world's most dynamic economic region, accounting for nearly 60% of global growth and close to half of global trade. Regional frameworks such as the RCEP continue to deliver tangible development dividends. What this region truly needs is not a "NATO in the Asia-Pacific," but a security architecture built on mutual trust, equality and win-win cooperation. Mechanisms such as the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus), the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES), and the East Asia Summit  have already provided effective safeguards for regional peace and stability.

As a cornerstone of stability in the Asia-Pacific, China upholds the principle of fostering amity, sincerity, mutual benefit and inclusiveness in its neighborhood diplomacy. China has remained ASEAN's largest trading partner for 16 consecutive years and continues to play an active role in promoting regional mediation and peace processes. In stark contrast, NATO exports confrontation, division and uncertainty. The difference between these two paths speaks for itself.

The collective absence of the three Asia-Pacific leaders from this NATO summit sent a clear message to the world that Asia-Pacific countries do not wish to become pawns in geopolitical rivalry, nor will they lend support to an overreaching and expansionist military bloc. True security comes from making independent strategic choices, drawing strength from a focus on development, and upholding solidarity and cooperation among regional countries. Keeping a distance from NATO is a necessary step to safeguard peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific.

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.