Author: Irina KHALTURINA
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine is regarded as the primary arena for the confrontation between Russia and the Western countries that are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Since February 2022, the North Atlantic Alliance, which was previously perceived to be in a state of crisis, has acquired a renewed adversarial image, welcomed new members in Sweden and Finland, and gained promising prospects for the future. In 2018, former US President Donald Trump threatened to withdraw from NATO due to the failure of some European nations to meet the agreed defence spending quota of 2% of GDP. However, support for Kiev has since served to unite member states once again. In a global context characterised by heightened levels of confrontation, the role of military alliances is of paramount importance. Moreover, new alliances are on the verge of being established in a manner similar to that of NATO, with the United States once again poised to assume a leading role. It remains to be seen whether this vision will become a reality or remain a mere rhetorical construct.
Arctic NATO
In early October, the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced a collaborative initiative with Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden to establish an organisation with the objective of countering Russian and Chinese activities in the Arctic. In a statement, Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joly underscored that Canada and its allies have collectively decided to prioritize three key areas: increasing investment flows to the Arctic, advancing dual-use research, and developing monitoring programs to track Russian and Chinese activities in the region. In essence, this indicates the advent of an Arctic NATO with the objective of countering the activities of Moscow and Beijing.
The Arctic region has the potential to become a hub for international cooperation. In 1996, eight nations – the United States, Canada, Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland – established the Arctic Council, which assumed responsibility for matters pertaining to environmental protection, cultural interaction and scientific research. It is regrettable that these endeavours have not met with success, and the North Pole is now becoming another focal point for geopolitical competition. The underlying cause is similar to other regions: valuable mineral deposits and advantageous trade routes. The accessibility of these resources and opportunities is increasing as a result of global warming, which is rapidly diminishing ice cover. As a result, the countries involved in this region are no longer inclined to conceal their preparations for competition over resources beneath the polar ice.
In early March 2022, the Arctic Council effectively excluded Russia from its membership. Moscow does not appear to be unduly concerned by this development and has begun to emphasise the advantages of utilising the Northern Sea Route at the highest levels of government. In comparison to the conventional route via the Suez Canal, the maritime route from China and other East Asian countries to Northern and Western Europe via the Northern Sea Route is approximately 6,000 kilometres shorter. Russia, which possesses the longest and most developed territory in the Arctic zone, has identified the maintenance of a robust military presence as a key aspect of its national security strategy. Moscow has been engaged in preparatory activities for this eventuality since the previous decade, with a focus on the construction and refurbishment of military bases and airfields. It is noteworthy that China, which identifies itself as a "near-Arctic state" and has initiated a project called Polar Silk Road, is acquiring icebreakers and engaging in military-technical cooperation with Russia in this domain.
It is evident that Western countries, particularly the United States, will not ignore these developments, especially given the greater number of activities underway compared to the relatively fragile partnership between Russia and China. The Pentagon has identified the Arctic as a region of strategic importance for the United States. Consequently, the augmented Russian presence and its collaboration with China are perceived as a potential threat. In the meantime, Canada's aforementioned initiative indicates to the United States that closer cooperation should have commenced at an earlier juncture. Consequently, references to the Arctic are likely to become more prevalent in global media coverage. This is particularly relevant in light of the ongoing territorial dispute between Russia, Denmark, and Canada regarding seabed rights, encompassing an area of 895 thousand square kilometres in the Arctic Ocean.
A particularly illustrative example is that of the Svalbard archipelago, which is under Norwegian sovereignty. The Svalbard Treaty of 1920 affords citizens of signatory nations equal rights to exploit the territory's natural resources for economic gain. Currently, Russia is the only nation other than Norway that maintains a notable economic presence on Svalbard. Moreover, Russia has indicated its intention to form an alliance with BRICS in its pursuit of influence over the Arctic. It is also possible that other major nations, such as Brazil, may become involved in this initiative, potentially providing assistance to Russia in circumventing the technological sanctions imposed by Western countries. In light of these developments, it seems reasonable to conclude that the prospects for the establishment of a fully operational Arctic NATO are quite promising.
Asian NATO
It is worthy of note that Japan's newly appointed Prime Minister, Shigeru Ishiba, has pledged to endeavour to establish an alliance akin to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in order to deter China. Ishiba asserts that mutual defence commitments could play a pivotal role in curbing aggressive sentiments in the Asia-Pacific region.
Nevertheless, Ishiba's proposal has been met with considerable opposition. New Delhi, which is a partner of Japan in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, has swiftly rejected the proposal. In a statement, Indian Foreign Minister Subramanyam Jaishankar observed that, in contrast to Japan, India has never been an ally of another country. In response to Ishiba's proposal of establishing an Asian NATO equivalent, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated during his visit to Vientiane that the formation of military alliances carries inherent risks of confrontation that may potentially escalate into open conflict.
It is noteworthy that Washington also conveyed its disapproval of Ishiba's initiative. The proposal was also subjected to criticism by the influential Global Times, which described it as a revival of bloc politics. The negative reaction from Washington may be attributed to its reluctance to exacerbate relations with Beijing, which is undoubtedly displeased by discussions surrounding an Asian analogue of NATO. In addition, it prompts the question of whether Tokyo is adequately prepared militarily to respond to an escalation of tensions on the Korean Peninsula or in the Taiwan Strait.
Middle Eastern NATO
Meanwhile, Israel has once again prompted debate about the potential establishment of a Middle Eastern NATO. Israeli President Yitzhak Herzog has proposed the establishment of a NATO-like alliance in the Middle East with the objective of "jointly countering Iran and radical groups." He has indicated that it would be prudent to move forward with this proposal.
In an interview with CNBC conducted two years ago, King Abdullah II of Jordan articulated that his country has been a long-standing partner of NATO and would support the establishment of a so-called Middle Eastern NATO. Additionally, former US President Donald Trump proposed expanding NATO into the Middle East, suggesting that it be named NATOME (NATO-Middle East). Therefore, it can be seen that this concept is not entirely novel and tends to emerge with each increase in regional tensions. It is conceivable that the prospective alliance could encompass nations such as Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, as well as Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait.
The alliance between Israel and the United States is already in place. However, engaging other diverse regional actors, who are often deeply divided, represents a significant challenge in the context of the current geopolitical climate. Furthermore, it seems probable that mutual trust among potential participants is currently at a low ebb. This is particularly the case in light of the ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Libya, the actions of the Yemeni Houthis, and the uncertain outcome of Israel's confrontation with Iran. Nevertheless, should Trump return to the White House, this issue may receive renewed attention, despite the likelihood of increased polarisation in this complex region.
In any case, it seems reasonable to assume that military alliances in the Arctic, Asia, and the Middle East are unlikely to succeed without robust US support. The ongoing discussions around the concept of "cloning" NATO serve to illustrate the significant global influence exercised by the United States. Concurrently, the United States seems disinclined to relinquish its role as a regulator of regional security systems. In addition to addressing the ambitions of increasingly assertive so-called "middle powers," the urgent responses required to climate change and economic challenges, as well as actions taken by Russia, China, and Iran, must be considered. Conversely, it suggests the potential for a reduction in US influence, with the possibility of the emergence of autonomous collective security systems in these regions. In the absence of US dominance in matters of security, might it become more feasible for countries across diverse regions of the globe to reconcile their differences?
RECOMMEND: