Date:

Share:

NATO’s Duty Discussions and Security of Pacific

Similar Posts

This post is also available in: Türkçe Русский

British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, in her statement on April 27, 2022, said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) should protect Taiwan. The British Minister emphasized the importance that NATO’s mandate should not be limited to the Euro-Atlantic, but also included the security of the Indo-Pacific and mentioned the need for a “global NATO” in this sense[1]. Then she said “To ensure the Pacific is protected, we need to work with our allies like Japan and Australia to avert threats in the Indo-Pacific and ensure that democracies like Taiwan can defend themselves”.[2]

The aforementioned statements have brought up discussions about NATO’s mandate. In fact, NATO’s 5th article clearly states how and in what ways collective defense will be made, and in article 6, the jurisdictions to which it can be applied. Before moving on to this, it is necessary to reveal the factors and developments that led the British Minister to talk about a “Global NATO”. During the past year, both Taiwan’s opening of representative offices in Europe and the UK’s signing of the AUKUS defense alliance with Australia and the United States (USA) have led to tense relations between London and Beijing. After Lithuania allowed Taiwan’s representation, China imposed an economic embargo on this country. They even declared that they would not accept products of Lithuanian origin coming from European countries. Thereupon, Truss called on the whole World to be vigilant against Beijing’s “economic tyranny”. In addition, the British Minister criticized China for establishing close relations with Russia.[3]

In this context, the Chinese policies of Britain and the USA began to resemble the Cold War period. These two Anglo-Saxon countries see Russia and China as the opposite pole of the West. Britain’s priority is Russia; The United States’ is China. However, it is estimated that both of them have a power alliance or sharing over the Ukraine and Taiwan issues. In other words, while England was more interested in Russia’s attack in Ukraine; The USA takes the main responsibility for countering China’s “aggression” in Taiwan.

It is easier for NATO countries to get involved in the Ukraine issue compared to Taiwan. To understand this, it is necessary to refer to Article 6 of NATO. According to the article, the following conditions are sought for an armed attack to be deemed to have been committed against all member states:[4]

“An armed attack on the territories of the parties in Europe or North America, the French region of Algeria, the territory of Turkey or the North Atlantic islands under the sovereignty of either party and located north of the Tropic of Cancer. Or an armed attack on any party’s forces, ships, or aircraft on European soil or in the Mediterranean or the North Atlantic region, located in the north of the Tropic of Cancer.”

If we start from the 6th article of NATO above; Attacks on the troops of NATO member states operating in the region to protect or defend Ukraine will be deemed to have been made against all member states. Here, there will be no problem in terms of NATO’s duties and powers. However, the same cannot be said about Taiwan. According to this scenario, the USA and China will face each other in a possible war over Taiwan. Since the USA is a NATO country, it will request the activation of Article 5, which envisages the collective defense of the organization. However, it may not be easy to put this on a legal basis. The United States has an example of intervention in Afghanistan. Similar intervention attempts will be made for Taiwan. It should not be forgotten that NATO’s first overstepping of task was experienced in Afghanistan. Here, after the terrorist attack on its territory, the USA started an intervention in Afghanistan under the name of “pre-emptive strike” in order to eliminate this threat at its source. As the reason for this, the USA claimed the existence of a terrorist threat against her. In other words, despite NATO’s 5th and 6th articles, the USA carried out an operation in Afghanistan based on the “Preventive Intervention Doctrine”. But now in Taiwan, it is difficult to put NATO Articles 5 and 6 into effect. First, the United States has limited military advice in Taiwan. It seems unlikely that China will hit US troops and (if any) military equipment there. Second, although Taiwan is located on the Tropic of Cancer, it is not in the North Atlantic. In other words, it will not be possible to put NATO’s articles 5 and 6 into effect. Therefore, the USA and the UK should find a solution similar to the one in Afghanistan regarding Taiwan. It should be noted that NATO’s intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina is also controversial from a legal point of view. Here, the Srebrenica and Markale massacres of the soldiers of the Republika Srpska, which occupied the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, were cited as a reason.

At this point, it can be shown that international peace and security are in danger, as stated in the United Nations (UN) Charter, as a legal justification in Taiwan. This is where the idea of ​​“Global NATO” arises. China, on the other hand, talks about the “Global Security Initiative”. In short, the UK and the US are focusing on how they can use NATO on Taiwan. China, on the other hand, proposes alternative security platforms to prevent this. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said in her speech that “NATO needs to have a global perspective, ready to tackle global threats”[5]. Continuing her speech, she talked about the need to protect the Pacific. In other words, according to the UK, NATO’s mandate can be extended to the Pacific. Even if it is not possible to do this under NATO Article 5, it advocates turning to the Pacific at least in terms of dealing with threats. Therefore, NATO’s new concept may be “Global Security”. Because the UN system is insufficient in crisis conflict resolution. For example, Articles 52 and 53 of the UN Charter stipulate that when there is a development threatening the international peace and security, regional agreements or organizations can be used to implement coercive measures. However, since China and Russia will use their veto power in the UN Security Council (UNSC), it will not be possible to use the UN humanitarian intervention option in Taiwan.

NATO can now take action on its own in a crisis anywhere in the World, arguing that “global security is at stake” by forming a response force. Since China sees this danger, it says that NATO should return to its field of duty[6]. Britain, on the other hand, emphasizes that NATO can also be used for the security of the Indo-Pacific. The reason for this is the failure of the USA’s plans to transform QUAD into NATO. London began to take more initiative in the Indo-Pacific after Washington’s failure. The UK’s establishment of the AUKUS defense alliance is related to this. However, both the USA and the UK have difficulties in transforming QUAD into a NATO-like structure. To get out of this stalemate, Britain talks about the idea of ​​“Global NATO”. Because it does not seem possible to persuade India to join such a structure. In addition, no country in the region (except perhaps Japan) wants to be included in such an organization at the expense of opposing China.

It is understood that unless a new collective security organization is established in India and Asia-Pacific, NATO’s mandates will continue to be discussed further. In this context, NATO can develop a “Global Security Concept” in order to be involved in the crises in the Pacific. Existing explanations also point to this. However, even if such a thing is possible, there may not be any NATO member other than the UK and the USA who supports NATO’s creation of a task force on Taiwan. Therefore, a new Pacific-based collective defense organization can be established between the Anglo-Saxon countries (USA, England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). However, it will not be easy to include other Southeast Asian countries in this. Because these countries benefit greatly from China’s Belt-Road Project. Unlike the USA, it is seen that the UK and Japan have taken on a separate responsibility lately, in terms of establishing the security of the Pacific. Because it is clearly seen that the USA is now failing in the Indo-Pacific. Britain is trying to penetrate not only the region but also the whole World with its “Global NATO” proposal. So the idea of ​​”Global NATO” could be part of Britain’s dream of a global empire.

[1] “UK’s Liz Truss: NATO Should Protect Taiwan Too”, Politico, https://www.politico.eu/article/liz-truss-nato-taiwan-protect/, (Date of Accession: 05.05.2022).

[2] “The Return of Geopolitics: Foreign Secretary’s Mansion House Speech at the Lord Mayor’s 2022 Easter Banquet”, UK Foreign Office, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretarys-mansion-house-speech-at-the-lord-mayors-easter-banquet-the-return-of-geopolitics, (Date of Accession: 05.05.2022).

[3] “UK Foreign Secretary Calls on Allies to Curb Rise of Russia and China”, Financial Times, https://www.ft.com/content/30a43d6a-4467-4bfe-9949-78d0dad4db4e, (Date of Accession: 05.05.2022).

[4] “Collective Defence-Article 5”, NATO, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm, (Date of Accession: 05.05.2022).

[5] “The Return of Geopolitics: Foreign Secretary’s Mansion House Speech at the Lord Mayor’s 2022 Easter Banquet”, UK Foreign Office, “https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretarys-mansion-house-speech-at-the-lord-mayors-easter-banquet-the-return-of-geopolitics, (Date of Accession: 05.05.2022).

[6] “China Says Nato Has ‘Messed up Europe’ and Warns over Role in Asia-Pacific”, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/29/china-says-nato-is-messing-up-europe-and-warns-over-role-in-asia-pacific, (Date of Accession: 05.05.2022).

Dr. Cenk TAMER
Dr. Cenk TAMER
Dr. Cenk Tamer graduated from Sakarya University, Department of International Relations in 2014. In the same year, he started his master's degree at Gazi University, Department of Middle Eastern and African Studies. In 2016, Tamer completed his master's degree with his thesis titled "Iran's Iraq Policy after 1990", started working as a Research Assistant at ANKASAM in 2017 and was accepted to Gazi University International Relations PhD Program in the same year. Tamer, whose areas of specialization are Iran, Sects, Sufism, Mahdism, Identity Politics and Asia-Pacific and who speaks English fluently, completed his PhD education at Gazi University in 2022 with his thesis titled "Identity Construction Process and Mahdism in the Islamic Republic of Iran within the Framework of Social Constructionism Theory and Securitization Approach". He is currently working as an Asia-Pacific Specialist at ANKASAM.