The United States (US) is apparently contemplating the possible creation—either a formal or an informal– security alliance in the Asia-Pacific region on the lines of the longstanding collective defence pact, the 32-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
If the proposal materialises, the new alliance is expected to include Japan, South Korea, Australia, plus, the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), comprising Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, among others.
The New York Times last month quoted US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth as saying: “No one should doubt America’s commitment to our Indo-Pacific allies and partners. We will continue to wrap our arms around our friends and find new ways to work together”.
He said Indo-Pacific is a “region where the US favours continuity in security alliances more than disruption”.
Ely Ratner, a former US assistant secretary of defence for Indo-Pacific security issues, has suggested in an article in Foreign Affairs, that the US and its allies in Asia should form a collective defence pact, similar to NATO.
The proposed new alliance is primarily meant to be a protective shield against the two nuclear armed countries in the region: China and North Korea.
Of the world’s nine nuclear powers, the only region with four nuclear-armed countries is Asia: India, China, Pakistan and North Korea—the others outside Asia include the US, UK, France, Russia and Israel.
Meanwhile, AUKUS, a trilateral security partnership linking Australia, the UK and the US, is aimed at “promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and stable”.
Hegseth’s visit to the region was followed by a visit from another senior US official, Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Central focus on the Indo-Pacific region
Addressing a press conference in Kuala Lumpur on July 10, Rubio said: “When I was sworn-in I went to the State Department, I gave a speech on the steps, and then my first meeting right out of the box was with Japan, South Korea, and India”.
“And we have repeated that meeting numerous times since then with that group. We have a running internal joke with my counterpart from Japan: I have literally now seen him about eight to 12 times, and our joke is that we see each other more than we see our own families,” he said.
Tammy Bruce, State Department Spokesperson told reporters on July 10 that Rubio was in Kuala Lumpur for the ASEAN-related foreign ministers’ meetings and bilateral engagements, reaffirming the US commitment – “to a free, open, and secure Indo-Pacific”.
Rubio participated in the ASEAN-US Post-Ministerial Conference and held meetings with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar and counterparts from Malaysia, Russia, Japan, and the Philippines. The Indo-Pacific region accounts for two thirds of global growth and remains a central focus of the US foreign policy, he said.
Rubio also signed a nuclear cooperation Memorandum of Understanding with Malaysia, advancing civil nuclear energy collaboration under the highest standards of safety, security, and non-proliferation.
123 Agreements
Negotiations towards a 123 Agreement are under way. And once finalised, it would permit the transfer of nuclear material and equipment for peaceful purposes, further deepening bilateral energy, security, and economic ties.
Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act generally requires the conclusion of a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement for significant transfers of nuclear material or equipment from the US.
Moreover, such agreements, commonly referred to as “123 Agreements,” facilitate cooperation in other areas, such as technical exchanges, scientific research, and safeguards discussions, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).
In conjunction with other non-proliferation tools, particularly the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), 123 Agreements help to advance US non-proliferation principles. They establish the legal framework for significant nuclear cooperation with other countries.
In order for a partner to enter into a 123 Agreement with the US, that partner must adhere to a set of strong non-proliferation requirements. The US State Department is responsible for negotiating 123 Agreements, with the technical assistance and concurrence of DOE/NNSA and in consultation with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
According to the US Department of Energy, about 25 countries currently have 123 agreements in force.
But there is also a more militaristic perspective to the proposed security alliance.
Dr. M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs and Graduate Program Director, MPPGA at University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told IPS if it is created, this new forum will add to the already growing trend of militarisation, which will increase the risk of war, especially with China, and divert money from other urgent priorities such as dealing with climate change.
“And, should it be set up, the US Government will try to make its members buy more expensive and destructive weapons from US arms manufacturers, which will strengthen their political power over policy making in the US, and in turn will make the social landscape in the US even worse,” said Dr. Ramana.
New relationships
Stressing the growing new relationships in the region, Rubio told reporters: “These engagements are very important to us. And we are going to continue to stay very committed, because this notion or idea that the US would ever be distracted by the Indo-Pacific or even Southeast Asia is impossible.”
“Wars get more attention, but it is impossible to not be focused.
This is where much of the story of the 21st century is going to be written. This is where two thirds of economic growth is going to happen over the next 25 or 30 years.”
And many of the countries of Southeast Asia – not only are they some of the youngest countries in the world, but they are about to see an enormous expansion of their labour markets, their labour pool, and number of workers, he said.
“This is a historic, once-in-a-generation opportunity not just for these countries to revolutionise themselves from an economic standpoint, but further strengthen our relationship. We have over 6,000 American companies that have invested heavily in these economies over the past 20 or 30 years. We are not abandoning those relationships. On the contrary, we want to strengthen and build upon them.”
China’s no-first-use policy
Dr. Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, and until recently, Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to China, told IPS China is nuclear armed but has a no-first-use policy. Nuclear armed North Korea has a policy centred on deterring attacks. In the circumstances to promote a NATO type arrangement in East and South East Asia as a deterrent would seem excessive.
China, he pointed out, has only one base outside mainland China (in Djibouti). North Korea has none. China and North Korea have no military personnel outside their own territories. The US has thousands of military personnel in bases surrounding China. The US pivot to Asia had China in its cross hairs.
The best way to reduce real and imaginary tensions (some stoked intentionally), he pointed out, would be to encourage parties to enter into dialogue with each other. The world needs peace, not conflict, for human progress.
“We require alliances that promote infrastructure development for developing countries that address the threat of climate change, which strive to eliminate extreme poverty, and which will make the world a better place. In the past, US military incursions in the region did not produce peace.”
On the contrary, the progress of countries was dramatically curtailed, thousands of combatants and civilians died and millions were maimed, declared Dr Kohona.
Stressing the strong relationship between the US and Japan, Rubio said: “We obviously have very strong commitments and an alliance with Japan. We continue to cooperate very closely with them. As I speak to you now, there are active exercises going on between the US and Japan.”
“So, our relationship with them will continue to exist. The idea that somehow Japan would be able to develop domestic – their own capabilities for mutual self-defence is not only something that we find offensive, it is something we would be supportive of, obviously within the confines of their constitutional system. But they have some limitations on what they can do. But the idea that Japan’s military would become more capable is not something we would be offended by; it is something we would actually be encouraged by”.
Thalif Deen is a former News Editor of the Daily News
– IPS UN Bureau Report
