Contrary to China’s assertions, NATO has a long history of engagement with the Indo-Pacific. But the alliance’s deep partnerships in the region have taken on renewed importance in recent years amid Russia’s war on Ukraine and renewed strategic competition between the U.S. and China, says USIP’s Mirna Galic.
U.S. Institute of Peace experts discuss the latest foreign policy issues from around the world in On Peace, a brief weekly collaboration with SiriusXM's POTUS Channel 124.
Transcript
Laura Coates: Mirna Galic is the United States Institute of Peace's senior policy analyst for China, and also East Asia. She was actually just in the Philippines and is the chair of the study group on NATO and Indo-Pacific partners. Their report came out two months ago, when the USIP convened an expert study group on NATO and Indo-Pacific partners. She joins us now. Mirna, welcome and good morning. How are you?
Mirna Galic: Good morning. Thanks, Laura.
Laura Coates: I'm glad that you're here. I know that there has been recently in terms of the funding that has gone from Congress and this particular bill that was signed over the weekend had to do with also aid to the Indo-Pacific region. Talk to us a little bit about why that would have been included and what's been happening.
Mirna Galic: Well, I think the Indo-Pacific remains a really important part of U.S. policy, you can see that with all of the emphasis that's been placed on the Indo-Pacific, most recently with the state visit of Japan's Prime Minister, and also, which was followed by the sort of tripartite summit between Japan, the U.S. and the Philippines. So presumably, funding for this, this region would have been in there both because it's important, and possibly also to remind everyone that while we're still focusing on Russia, and on the Middle East, we haven't forgotten the importance of the Indo-Pacific.
Laura Coates: So, in terms of what is happening there, and what's needed, I mean, tell me about the NATO interest in the Indo-Pacific region, it's both historic, but also current.
Mirna Galic: So, our report looks at relations between NATO and the formal partner countries that has there, and those are Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand. And we're examining how the ties between NATO and these countries are deepening amid Russia's war against Ukraine, NATO's growing awareness of the security challenges posed by China and important structural changes in the international system, which include the return of strategic competition between the United States and China and Russia. So, that's the context of NATO's focus on the region.
Laura Coates: And then, in terms of this, this is all I understand, it's preceded the Alliance to focus on China as security challenge, is that right?
Mirna Galic: That's correct, yeah. So, we make some findings and suggestions in the report in several areas. And one of them is this idea of NATO's history of engagement on the Indo-Pacific region and with its partners there. And despite China's assertions, NATO has a long history in the region. It precedes NATO's recognition of China as a security challenge by at least one decade, if you look at when the four partner countries signed partnership agreements with NATO in the early 2010s. And by more than two decades, if you go back to early Japan-NATO engagement in the 1990s, and to when these partners started working with NATO on Afghanistan in the early 2000s. So, we suggest in the report, among other things, that NATO can do a better job of telling the story and setting the record straight here.
Laura Coates: But what is the benefit of that clarity? And I know it sounds like an odd question, but I know it's very nuanced. Why do you think failing to set the record straight, has a detrimental consequence?
Mirna Galic: So basically, these days you hear a lot, and particularly from China, but also from Russia, this idea that NATO is expanding, and one of the examples of this expansion is NATO's so-called efforts to enter into the Indo-Pacific. China really paints NATO's interest in the Indo-Pacific as new and as foreign and unfairly as all about China. But when you look at NATO's history of engagement in the region, and with its partners in the region, that's actually clearly not true. And so, you know, making that story clear. And setting that record straight undercuts China's ability to push misinformation about NATO in the region, which it's doing quite a bit lately.
Laura Coates: Talk to me about the role of Australia in particular, in terms of bilateral relations.
Mirna Galic: With the United States? Or with NATO?
Laura Coates: NATO. I ask because I know that they're most integrated into NATO's military operations, right?
Mirna Galic: Indeed, so Australia has sort of contributed other than NATO members. It contributed the largest set of troops to Afghanistan, it's well integrated into NATO's operations and planning. And it's actually attained the status of a Special Operations partner, which allows it to have better access to NATO planning and better access to NATO engagements and exercises. So, that's really been helpful for Australia because I think they're quite interested in the idea that they're contributing to the security efforts of the alliance, and they want to also have an insight into what those efforts are going towards and some of the planning towards that. But each of these partner countries has been very engaged with NATO all in different ways. And so certainly, I think the partners individually and as a group are clearly important to NATO. And in fact, although these partners belong to a group called the Partners Around the Globe, which is not a formal group, they're the clear standouts among that group. So, they've really effectively become, even though it's not actually the case, but they've effectively become another regional partner grouping.
Laura Coates: But is there an expectation that in the Indo-Pacific among partner countries, that NATO will be a significant direct actor in the region?
Mirna Galic: No, not at all. In fact, partner countries expect NATO rather than being a direct actor in the region to coordinate with them on issues that are of interest to the region stemming from the region or of mutual importance to partners, and NATO. So, they have no expectation of NATO coming in militarily into the region. And in fact, there are concerns among some countries that that would have a destabilizing effect. So certainly, they're not expecting NATO to be a player directly in the region, but they are expecting NATO to pay attention to what's going on in the region security wise to engage with them on issues in the region, and on issues stemming from the region, and generally to engage with them on issues of mutual interest.
Laura Coates: And returning to the United States in particular. I know congress has obviously provided some aid to the region. But is there something more that the United States, Congress or our government should be doing in that particular region with respect to not only just the appropriation of funds?
Mirna Galic: I think the United States again, has made the Indo-Pacific a priority region. If you look at the Indo-Pacific Strategy of the current administration, it lays out a number of things that our government should and could be doing and which they are starting to implement now, two years after that strategy was passed. So yes, certainly I think both Congress is aware of, and the administration is aware of the real importance of this region to U.S. security and interests. And also, the importance of the engagement of our allies and partners in this region with our allies in Europe, which helps U.S. security, certainly.
Laura Coates: Really interesting. Thank you so much for joining us today. Got a really good take on what we need to know about the Indo-Pacific region in particular, always very, very helpful. Mirna Galic, thank you so much for joining.
Mirna Galic: Thanks, Laura.