Khaled Abou Zahr
The Barack Obama years gave us the so-called pivot to Asia away from the Middle East. Now we are seeing a newer version, which is a debate on the pivot to Asia away from Europe. In a defining moment in US history, there are questions on the capacity of the country to face simultaneous challenges in Europe as well as Asia. The war in Ukraine has forced the US to question what might happen if a second front were to open in Asia. Would the US be able to continue supporting both, or would it have to make a choice?
As we see a fractured domestic front and a weakened fiscal position, with levels of debt reaching worrying levels, the challenges to the near-80-year-old Pax Americana are piling up like never before. There is no doubt that the war in Ukraine is the most visible issue, but challenges are also rising in the Indo-Pacific. The reality is that, coupled with these challenges, the US domestic scene is also pushing allies to balance their position. It is probably there that the biggest risk lies for the US’ global standing and posture.
It is hard to believe that, in the 21st century, with all the lessons of history, there is an open military front in Europe. And unlike what are known as the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, total victory does not seem like an option for the US and specifically NATO. There is no doubt that there is now no other choice than to face the music. Yet, we need to understand that military-industrial capacity and troop numbers are the main elements of any war. Today, Russia is at an advantage. This also puts forward the need for Europe to step up to the challenge and build up its military-industrial capabilities, among other points.
It is hence all the more worthy to note that this deficit is happening when, on the Asian front, tensions between China and the US and its allies are becoming more worrying. This is why, as the NATO Summit takes place next week, celebrating the 75th anniversary of the alliance, analysts in Washington are presenting or demanding new, clear strategies for the Indo-Pacific. Yet, the underlying question with all these initiatives seems to be: can the US face two fronts? Judging by the calendar of events at the White House the week Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un were meeting, one wonders if these challenges are even being taken seriously.
Nevertheless, NATO’s collaboration with Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand has pushed forward since the early 2000s. At that time, the main focus was counterterrorism in Afghanistan and anti-piracy efforts in the Indian Ocean. This transitioned to partnerships in the early 2010s, with a first official meeting in 2016 addressing North Korea’s military threats. This partnership was elevated with the participation of the leaders of Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand at the NATO summits in 2022 and 2023. The third meeting that confirms the growing focus on this region is scheduled for NATO’s 75th anniversary next week.
There is no doubt that there are many interests shared between NATO and these Asia-Pacific nations, including the rules-based international order and global security issues like cyber defense, terrorism, climate change and maritime security. Their leaders admit that there are worldwide ramifications to security crises in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific areas, especially if the rapprochement and industrial production links between China and Russia continue to strengthen.
NATO has no plans to expand eastward or establish a presence in the Indo-Pacific. The likes of Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand cannot join NATO due to the North Atlantic Treaty’s geographic restrictions. Yet, there are now clear calls to create an Indo-Pacific military alliance similar to NATO. This will probably take time and, until then, collaboration between NATO and the region will continue.
The upcoming NATO Summit aims to enhance cooperation, addressing topics such as China-Russia relations, nuclear dynamics, information manipulation, regional deterrence, the war in Ukraine, challenges posed by China and hybrid threats. Yet, how much support can the US really deliver to the Asia-Pacific while it is engaged in Europe? There is no doubt that, up to this point, the US and NATO have given their unwavering support to Ukraine and Europe. Yet, it is clear that it cannot be overstretched on multiple military fronts. And before that happens, it needs to react decisively to any geopolitical “balloon test.” Unfortunately, its failure is an invitation to more bold moves.
I, for one, would never bet against the US but I will admit that, with the current administration, I have trouble recognizing America for what it usually stands for. It is looking more and more like Europe. So, I would say that if the US can remain as the US, it will be able to face not two but three fronts and rally its friends and allies. However, if the US gives up on its values, then it will spell doom for the entire current world order. And we need to understand that this change will not come through peace. It will mean chaos and global instability for years to come.
No one wants to see a war, especially not a global one, but unfortunately today two things could precipitate it. The first is what we are seeing in conflict points across the globe, which is like a runaway train; and the second is bringing a true challenge to the key US-established strategic order. And the current domestic political turmoil, with its projection of weakness, is encouraging this to happen. Hence, the most worrying front is not Europe or Asia, but the domestic one.
