July 13, 2023

On February 19, 2021, at the 2021 Virtual Munich Security Conference, President Biden addressed the global community for the first time. He defined the partnership between Europe and the US as the cornerstone of all that the West hopes to accomplish in the 21st century, just as it did in the 20th century. He said: “I know — I know the past few years have strained and tested our transatlantic relationship, but the United States is determined — determined to reengage with Europe, to consult with you, to earn back our position of trusted leadership.”

And on July 7, 2023, at a press briefing ahead of NATO’s Vilnius summit, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said:

“President Biden said on day one of his administration that the United States would revitalize our alliances and re-engage with the world to meet the great challenges of our time.  And on Sunday, the President will depart for his next major trip overseas, at a time when we have indeed regained our global standing as a strong and trusted partner for peace, progress, and security.

“This trip will reflect that progress, and it will showcase the President’s leadership on the world stage…

“Thanks in large part to President Biden’s leadership, NATO is stronger, more energized, and more united than ever; (emphasis added).”[i]

In brief, Jake Sullivan took special care to underline President Biden’s leadership of the West. Indeed, after the disastrous US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine bolstered President Biden’s global standing. Nonetheless, frequent references to President Biden’s leadership are more about his future political legacy than his becoming the Democratic nominee in 2024 or winning the presidential election.

In London President Biden met with King Charles and Prime Minister Sunak. His meeting with the latter was the sixth in the last six months underlining the fact that the UK, as always, remains Washington’s top European ally. “Couldn’t be meeting with a closer friend and a greater ally,” Biden said during brief remarks Monday, sitting next to Mr. Sunak at 10 Downing St.

The first important development in Vilnius was President Erdoğan dropping his opposition to Sweden’s NATO bid. In an earlier post I said, “… barring a miracle, with the recent burning of the Quran in Stockholm, there is zero chance of President Erdoğan changing his position.” I should have known better and said, “… barring another U-turn…” because Türkiye has already witnessed so many, particularly in the Middle East. 

Having convinced Stockholm to take important legal measures to combat terrorism, Türkiye’s approval of Sweden’s entry into NATO should have come earlier. As for the suggested linkage between Türkiye’s so-called “EU accession process” and Sweden’s membership in NATO, EU leaders did not even comment on it and left its rejection to Dana Spinant, deputy chief spokesperson of the European Commission.

All that remains for the Turkish public now, is to wait and see what the logic underlying this abrupt about-face was and what the “Vilnius deal” actually represents.[ii] More F-16s and modernization kits? The easing of EU visas for Turks? An update on the customs union? Regardless, the pro-government Turkish media has already declared the summit a victory for President Erdoğan.

Now, President Erdoğan’s approval of Sweden’s NATO membership has to be turned into law. At a news conference in Vilnius, he said that the process would have to wait until October 1, when lawmakers would return from the summer recess. The parliament is in session at present but Mr. Erdoğan said, “There are many international agreements and legislative proposals that need to be discussed. We take them up in the order of their importance. But our goal is to finish this process as soon as possible.” Perhaps he too would like to wait and see the answers to the foregoing questions.

On the top issue of Ukraine’s NATO membership, the allies said that NATO would allow Ukraine to join only “when allies agree and conditions are met.” But to please Kyiv, they also stated that Ukraine’s path to full Euro-Atlantic integration has moved beyond the need for the Membership Action Plan. Consequently, they decided to establish the NATO-Ukraine Council, a new joint body where Allies and Ukraine would sit as equal members to advance political dialogue, engagement, cooperation, and Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO.

This pathway to membership may not meet Ukraine’s highest expectations but it was the maximum the Alliance could offer Kyiv. Understandably, President Zelensky asked for immediate membership, perhaps also considering the possibility of a leadership change in Washington in another fifteen months and what this might entail for the war in Ukraine.

As could be expected, the 90-paragraph-long, 11,298-word Vilnius Summit Communiqué targeted Russia in the strongest possible language.

And last Wednesday, the G7 leaders issued a statement promising support to Ukraine as it defends its sovereignty and territorial integrity, rebuilds its economy, protects its citizens, and pursues integration into the Euro-Atlantic community.

On China, NATO’s Vilnius Summit Communiqué said that China’s stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge NATO members’ interests, security, and values; that the PRC employs a broad range of political, economic, and military tools to increase its global footprint, and project power while remaining opaque about its strategy, intentions, and military build-up;  PRC’s malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target Allies and harm Alliance security; the deepening strategic partnership between the PRC and Russia and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut the rules-based international order run counter to Western values and interests.

It also said that NATO countries remain open to constructive engagement with the PRC, including building reciprocal transparency, with a view to safeguarding the Alliance’s security interests but adding, “We are working together responsibly, as Allies, to address the systemic challenges posed by the PRC to Euro-Atlantic security and ensure NATO’s enduring ability to guarantee the defence and security of Allies…”

Only a day before, last Sunday, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had said, “President Biden and I do not see the relationship between the US and China through the frame of great power conflict. We believe that the world is big enough for both of our countries to thrive.”

In a Foreign Affairs article published also on Sunday, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg said, “The Chinese government’s increasingly coercive behavior abroad and repressive policies at home challenge NATO’s security, values, and interests. Beijing is threatening its neighbors and bullying other countries. It is trying to take control of critical supply chains and infrastructure in NATO states. We must be clear-eyed about these challenges and not trade security interests for economic gains.” [iii]

Finally, on Sunday, Australia’s former Prime Minister Paul Keating issued a statement saying that NATO has no place in Asia and should stick to its original focus, which is the security of the Transatlantic region. Mr. Keating appeared to refer to a recent report in Politico, which claimed President Macron had blocked NATO’s plans to establish a liaison office in Japan.[iv]

The former prime minister reportedly lauded the French leader for “doing the world a service” by apparently emphasizing the military bloc’s focus on Europe and the Atlantic.

According to Mr. Keating, the alliance’s very existence past the end of the Cold War “has already denied peaceful unity to the broader Europe.”

Exporting such “malicious poison to Asia would be akin to Asia welcoming the plague upon itself,” he insisted. And he warned that NATO’s presence on the continent would negate most of the region’s recent advances.

In brief, NATO’s extending outreach to Asia and the Indo-Pacific is likely to continue being a controversial topic for the West.

But perhaps the West needs to look at the past while charting a course in its relations with China. Below are a few takeaways from Odd Arne Westad’s remarkable book on China, “Restless Empire”:

“Until the mid-twentieth century, the relationship between Chinese and foreigners within China was profoundly unequal. Most foreigners had rights of extraterritoriality, meaning that their legal affairs in China could only be handled by courts set up by their own country. Many lived in concessions or settlements inside Chinese cities run by foreign-dominated councils and administered by foreign officials… Everyone who lived in such concessions was taxed by the foreign-led local administrations, not by the Chinese government, province, or city. The land on which foreign concessions stood had been expropriated from its owners and leased in perpetuity to foreign powers, with subleases given by them to individuals or companies… There, Chinese could be arrested by Chinese authorities only with the permission of the foreign consul in charge of the territory… The concessions, all on the rivers or at the coast, were defended by foreign military ships, small, maneuverable vessels with six-inch guns. Small contingents of foreign troops were stationed in the main concessions and settlements. Then, of course, there were the Japanese troops on Taiwan, the British in Hong Kong, and the French in Indochina.” [v]

Nonetheless, the interaction with the West and Japan, the latter seen by China as their future Asiatic partner until the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, opened China to the world, the industrial age, science, and technology, and brought higher standards of education. But it seems that no one expected China to rise as the world’s second most powerful country so rapidly. And if there is indeed, “a deepening strategic partnership between the PRC and Russia”, Washington and other NATO capitals might ask themselves if they also bear some responsibility in pushing the two powers closer to one another.

—————————————————————————————————————

[i] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/07/07/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-national-security-advisor-jake-sullivan-5/

[ii] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_217147.htm

[iii] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/europe/stronger-nato-more-dangerous-world-vilnius-jens-stoltenberg

[iv] https://www.globalvillagespace.com/nato-is-malicious-poison-former-australian-pm/

[v] Odd Arne Westad, Restless Empire, (Basic Books, 2012),171-174