Japan Could Imagine an Asian NATO

Japan has a new Prime Minister, Shigeru Ishiba. He has some unusually bold messages, among which that Japan should consider building and participating in a new Asian parallel to NATO.

Because Japan is essentially a one-party country, the new chairman of the ruling LDP party nearly immediately became the next prime minister of the country.

Shigeru Ishiba is the elected candidate and he started immediately to set out guiding principles and ideas for his government, including a distinct new one: that Japan would consider and start to advance the idea of establishing an Asian version of NATO, inspired by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, created in 1949. NATO is arguably the most successful and durable security alliance in history.

The idea is controversial and will of course be challenged both internally and (heavily so) in China and North Korea. Russia is obviously also a counterpart, being the only country alongside Turkey with geography in both Europe and Asia. The Philippines, Vietnam and India will have to consider membership, if they are invited. Many other Asian countries will consider their interests and clarify their position in a possible new security scenery in Asia, but so far, their interest of joining and Asian defense organization seems to be relatively limited at the outset. The geographical reach is also not decided, but Australia would have much interest in the matter, extending the range to the Southern Hemisphere.

Shigeru Ishiba, speaks at his inauguration. By 首相官邸ホームページ, CC BY 4.0

Shigeru Ishiba is arguably the right person to make this statement, because of his year-long experience in Japanese politics, as well a experience as a defense minister. In Japanese society, conformism is considered a virtue, but Ishiba is a bit of an outlier in that regard, because of his outspokenness and his willingness to take unusual positions and to think different from the mainstream in his party. This is all relatively speaking, of course, for Ishiba is not an extremist, by any means, neither is he an anti-establishment figure. He just has this ability to think through controversial ideas and express his thoughts about them. That is traditionally considered uneducated and disrespectful, especially if done by a young person. But since Ishiba himself is getting older, the other Japanese or Confucian dogma sets in, that of showing respect for him as the elder.

We are also reminded that Shigeru Ishiba has been the candidate for leadership of the LDP, and thus PM candidate, at least four times before, where he has been bypassed. But now, his time has come and he seems eager to let out some compressed air and get a fresh start on certain things, including security policy.

Since quite a number of years, collaboration has been ongoing between NATO, different NATO countries, especially USA, and the Japanese Self-Defense Force. So the Japanese relation is not new for NATO. The new development is that Japan openly brings forward ideas about a more involved, formal collaboration under a label similar to NATO. Something like APTO, perhaps, “Asian-Pacific Treaty Organization”. It is an expression of a changing position of Japanese governments, in reaction to new developments in strategic powerplay in East Asia.

Japan’s challenges

1. The anti-aggression sentiment is still strong in Japan after the defeat in WWII and is even cemented in the Japanese Constitution. Shinzo Abe started to challenge that position, because he reflected on a the stronger military position of China and also answered to calls by the USA to contribute more to the common defense of the region. Shinzo Abe also openly and controversially went to the Yasukuni shrine to commemorate war heroes and war criminals alike which indicates he was seeking a new balance of not completely rejecting military strength as a factor in modern Japanese society. A referendum on a revision of the article 9 in the constitution is still pending.

2. China is growing increasingly a threat in the region, with the Chinese Navy displaying more assertiveness overall, particularly in the South China Sea and the sea around Taiwan with borders on the Southern Japanese islands. But also in the Sea of Japan and the East China Sea, the presence of China Navy vessels is felt. Seen from a logical military perspective, the situation calls for a more assertive posture from Japan in order to project enough force to discourage China from becoming too confident in the areas close to Japanese waters.

3. Russia is not able to muster extra force in the Pacific and East Siberian areas for the time being, but once their war on Ukraine is over, they most likely will have an appetite on disputed areas in the South Kulile Islands and elsewhere. Interestingly, the most imminent movement is from China, though. Some of the areas that China was forced to cede to the Soviet Union after WWII might be of interest for China to claim back, such as the Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island, especially in the case where Russia loses the war on Ukraine and come out weakened. China might be tempted to state claims against a weakened Russia. If Japan is similarly tempted to claim some ground up north, the situation will become tense and Japan needs to prepare for that eventuality.

4. If China chooses to make a crisis or even a conflict with Taiwan, Japan must inevitably get involved in some way. It will be impossible for Japan to just step back and claim neutrality. First, because Japan is not neutral. Second, because USA is involved and will need and demand Japanese support for its military intervention or support. It is a delicate issue because of the self-defense clause in the constitution, but one of the cases where neutrality and non-involvement are practically impossible.

5. Japan needs to find a better position in the current power theater of the East Asia. A completely passive composure is not an option because the other players are more aggressive than earlier. Apart from China, North Korea is more confident than before and good at exploiting their nuclear threat. Russia has shown that it does not respect any international laws and treaties if there is no forceful defense protecting them.

NATO position

Japan is one of NATO’s partners in the Indo-Pacific region, together with Australia, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand. The Indo-Pacific is important for the Alliance, given that developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security.

NATO and Japan have been engaged in dialogue and cooperation since initial contacts in the early 1990s.

NATO and Japan signalled their commitment to strengthening cooperation in a joint political declaration signed in April 2013. From 2014, work was taken forward through a NATO-Japan Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme. Currently, the cooperation is guided by an Individually Tailored Partnership Programme, which NATO and Japan agreed in July 2023.

Practical cooperation is being developed in a wide range of areas, including cyber defence, maritime security, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, non-proliferation, science and technology, human security, and Women, Peace and Security.

Since the very beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Japan has been steadfast in supporting Ukraine’s right to self-defence. This has included contributions to NATO’s Comprehensive Assistance Package as well as bilateral support. (nato.int)

On 14 August 2024, NATO Naval Forces conducted a successful passing exercise with two Japanese ships in the Eastern Mediterranean. The two NATO vessels participating were from Turkey and USA. This is, obviously separate to other exercises with Japan and the USA Navies, often including other countries in the region like South Korea and Australia, even India. (navy.mil)

(nato.int)

In today’s complex global security environment, Japan and NATO are committed to enhancing political dialogue and practical cooperation in order to uphold and strengthen the rules-based international order. (nato.int)

(nato.int)

Main things to watch for

One of the reasons that NATO is successful is strength, the second is a proven track record. The basis is generally seen as Article 5 of the Treaty, also known as the musketeer-oath. An attack on any member country is an attack on all member countries. It will almost certainly require a change to the Constitution of Japan to give such a promise of rising up in arms to defend anything else than Japan. There are other concerns such as that NATO is a democratic organization, so everyone has a say, which some possible members will find unpalatable for military and strategic decisions, perhaps also Japan.

Some critics of NATO in the heated political climate in US, including Trump, questions the value of the musketeer-oath, because, as they argue: “It is always US that has to come to the rescue, not the other members, that’s unfair.” However, that statement is false. The only time the oath has been called was 9/11. All members of NATO answered the call and came to the rescue, at their best capability and capacity.

Finland and Sweden, the two most recent joiners of NATO may serve as food for thought in the process. Similar to Japan, they had a tradition of fend for themselves and trying to keep out of trouble. Finland has fought wars with neighboring Russia and lost, but only after defending themselves bravely and effectively to the surprise of not the least Russia. Still, they seized the moment and applied for NATO membership when Russia attacked and got tied down in Ukraine. Sweden had to follow suit because they would be isolated in a sea of NATO countries and hardly has a navy that can protect their long coastline to the Baltic Sea. These countries gave up their nominal neutral self-defence status it had become unsustainable.

The challenge is for Japan to decide if time has come for a significant change.