Introduction rise also sparked tension between the United States
and its allies. The rupture of NATO-Russia relations
AFTER THE COLD WAR, DUE TO THE and the intensification of Sino-US frictions have
disintegration of the Soviet Union as its biggest sparked debates about a “new Cold War”. Within
rival, NATO faced a crisis of legitimacy. To this this context, the United States hopes that NATO
end, NATO began to shape new legitimacy through can be a powerful tool to resist China’s rise,
transformation. In this process, NATO began to especially to create an “Asian version of NATO”
attach importance to member expansion and non- to contain China. Following this, the relationship
traditional security challenges, hoping to transform between China and NATO has become a question
from a security community to a political community worth exploring.
in the new international environment. In addition Under this background, this article includes
to military cooperation, it also provides a platform the following parts: firstly, the four stages of the
for political exchanges and consultation between development of China-NATO relations; secondly,
the two sides of the Atlantic, with the intention of NATO’s intervention in Asian affairs; thirdly, the
seeking new sources of legitimacy for itself. creation of the “Asian version of NATO”; and
In 2014, the relationship between NATO and fourthly, the impossibility of the “Asian version of
Russia became tense, and in this context, China’s NATO”.
Historical Evolution of the Relationship embargo on China that was twice as strong as the one
between China and NATO imposed on the Soviet Union, which was only lifted
in 1957. After the founding of the People’s Republic of
Of the five permanent members of the Security China, its foreign policy was “one-sided” and allied with
Council of the United Nations, China has the most the Soviet Union. Hence, its view on NATO was entirely
distant relationship with NATO since they have negative, considering it an “aggressive North Atlantic
been hostile to each other since their birth in 1949. bloc” and condemning its actions.
What’s more, since they are geographically distant
from each other, China and NATO have long lacked Phase Two: Strategic Collaboration
direct interaction and contact. But as two important (1972-1989)
international players, China and NATO have also
influenced each other explicitly or implicitly. Over The international situation changed significantly
the past 70 years, the two sides have had their in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Firstly, the US and
share of hostility, collaboration, fierce clashes and the Soviet Union had reached a terrifying balance
communications (Ze & Wei, 2020Ze & Wei (2020). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). Yet, currently, of military power. Secondly, China and the Soviet
the two face a more serious confrontation. The Union parted ways due to ideological differences,
history of the relationship between the two sides and there was even a possibility of war between the
can be broadly divided into the following phases: two sides. Thirdly, the United States was stuck in the
mire of the Vietnam War and forced to implement a
Phase One: Isolation and Hostility strategic contraction. Against this background, the
(1949-1972) visit of President Richard Nixon to China in 1972
opened the door to Sino-American contacts and
NATO was established in April 1949 with the aim brought about a major change in Sino-American-
of “keeping the Germans down”, “keeping the Russians Russian relations.
out”, and “keeping the Americans in” (Wei, 2013Wei (2013). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). But At this time, China even considered that the
the primary aim of the US in forming NATO was to Soviet Union had replaced the US as the greatest
unite the Western European countries and contain security threat, and its diplomatic strategy changed
the growth of the communist movement in Europe, from “Fight with two fists” (namely, fighting the US
represented by the Soviet Union. Similarly, NATO and the Soviet Union simultaneously) to “One Battle
also regarded the newly established China as a proxy Line, One Large Area”. One Battle Line refers to the
for the Soviet Union in East Asia, especially since the United States, Japan, China, Pakistan, Iran, Türkiye
outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. Then, the US and Europe. At the same time, one large area refers
declared China a ‘hostile country’ and imposed a total to the United States, Japan and all the countries that
ban on all US exports to China, forbidding US ships can be united against Soviet Union’s expansionist
from docking at Chinese ports and restricting Chinese momentum.
exports to the US. In 1974, Chairman Mao Zedong proposed the
At the same time, the NATO-controlled Coordinating Three-World Theory, arguing that Europe and
Committee for Export to Communist Countries formed NATO member countries such as Canada belong to
the “China Committee” in 1952, which imposed an the Second World, with which China could unite.
The common need to confront the Soviet Union of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) ranked as
led China and NATO to form a de facto strategic the number one security threat to the United States.
collaboration during this period. At this time, As a key tool of the US, NATO’s strategy has also
NATO members became China’s main suppliers undergone significant adjustments. In particular, the
of foreign weapons, although there was no formal Prague Summit of NATO in November 2002, known as
correspondence between the two sides. the “Reform Summit”, identified three main directions
for reform. The first was to define a new mission,
Phase Three: Political Opponent varying from a defensive military organization
(1989-2002) to a military alliance targeted against terrorist
organizations. The second was to continue NATO’s
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the eastward expansion by admitting new members,
common ground for cooperation between China including Lithuania, Bulgaria and seven other Central
and NATO was disappearing, while a huge gap in the and Eastern European countries, into NATO in 2004.
ideological sphere came to the fore. Sino-American The third was to explore new capabilities and improve
and Sino-European relations cooled sharply. The US NATO’s deployment capacity and flexible response
began to ban arms exports and military technology capability. Since then, the Europeanizing, globalizing
transfers to China. In particular, the NATO bombing and loosening characteristics of NATO have become
of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia on 8 May increasingly evident.
1999, in which three Chinese journalists died, was Using the US’s anti-terrorism goals, Russia expressed
the first frontal conflict between China and NATO. goodwill to the US and improved its relations with
This incident provoked strong protests among the NATO. Russia and NATO signed the Rome Declaration
Chinese people and caused China’s relations with on 28 May 2002. The two established the NATO-Russia
NATO to fall (Xiong, 2000Xiong (2000). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). In addition, low-level Council, with NATO offices in Moscow and Russian
official contacts that had been maintained until officials working in the NATO headquarters. After
then were broken. Russia also changed its Soviet-era 9/11, the US changed the terms of its positioning of
hostility to the West and began to seek membership China as a strategic competitor and instead considered
in NATO. Eventually, a ‘cold peace’ between Russia China a key partner in the fight against terrorism (Xue,
and the West emerged as NATO expanded eastwards. 2021). The US-led NATO has repeatedly expressed its
Russia, as a result, gradually shifted from being willingness to engage in security dialogue with China.
entirely pro-Western to an East-West ‘double-headed Given that diplomacy with the US is of top
eagle’ policy. Against this backdrop, it became priority, China and NATO have begun to engage and
a consensus between Russia and China to work communicate. This is conducive to boosting trust
together strategically to safeguard their interests. between China and the US, preferable to China’s
security and stability to its west, and beneficial to
Phase Four: Engagement and Dialogue China for playing a greater role through multilateral
(2002-2020) diplomacy. As of 2020, the two sides have held their
ninth China-NATO political consultation meeting. Of
After 9/11, the United States changed its perception course, China’s association with NATO in this period
of security threats, with terrorism and the proliferation is still in its infancy.
As a result of NATO's four enlargement waves, the number of member countries reached 31 as of April 2023. (NATO, 2023NATO (2023). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.)
thus providing an opportunity for NATO operations
The Transformation of NATO and to move beyond the traditional NATO defense areas
NATO’s Involvement in Asian Affairs and to realize the concept of “globalization”. This
manifested in two ways. Firstly, NATO member
After the end of the Cold War, NATO faced a states or partnership countries gradually extended
crisis of legitimacy with the disappearance of beyond Europe to the neighboring non-European
the Soviet Union. To maintain NATO as a tool countries. Secondly, NATO’s extra-territorial
of US supremacy, adding new defense functions operations changed from “Europe’s homeland
and geographical defense areas was necessary to defense” to “dealing with global crises”.
eliminate the legitimacy crisis brought about by the NATO is a transatlantic alliance; hence its Asian
decline of traditional threats (the Soviet Union or policy is not aimed at creating or reshaping Asia’s
Russia). In the aftermath of 9/11, non-traditional political and security architecture. Rather, it is
security issues such as terrorism and drug-related aimed at responding to various problems arising
crime occurred frequently. Such incidents are not in Asia and forming certain rules and mechanisms.
only concentrated in Europe and the United States, Those are essentially complementary to the Euro-
Atlantic political and security framework. Therefore, conflicts in the Middle East region and control
based on NATO’s security strategy and the level of and reduce the security threats that fundamentally
significance of different parts of Asia to NATO’s challenge NATO.
security interests, NATO’s Asian policy is mainly To this end, NATO’s policy for the Middle East
focused on three sectors: the Middle East, Central region mainly includes the following elements.
Asia and the Asia-Pacific. First, continue solidifying the security alliance
between NATO and Middle East allies, partner countries and dialogue countries, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries, utilizing
NATO’s Central Asia policy is more economic and military assistance to maintain an
out of geopolitical consideration effective political and military presence. Second,
than a real threat. to minimize or weaken the heterogeneous forces
in the Middle East, including Syria, Iran and other
NATO’s involvement in Asia is mainly reflected in countries, various terrorist organizations and
two major areas: On the one hand, to participate in extremist religious organizations. So that in that
peacekeeping, counter-terrorism and reconstruction case, they cannot directly or indirectly threaten
missions in Afghanistan under the mandate of the NATO and interfere with certain major strategic
United Nations. On the other hand, to establish decisions of NATO in the Middle East. Third, it will
and strengthen security cooperation with its Asian continue to combat traditional and non-traditional
partners through multiple mechanisms, for instance, security threats in the Middle East and eradicate the
the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council mechanism, breeding ground for terrorism, refugee problems,
the Mediterranean Dialogue mechanism, the illegal immigration and piracy from the source. In
Istanbul Cooperation Initiative mechanism and the other words, to eliminate the various conflicts in
Global Partnership Mechanism (Dong, 2020Dong (2020). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). the Middle East.
For the Greater Middle East, NATO has proposed For the greater Central Asian region, NATO’s
the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul policy can be concluded as such: to actively combat
Cooperation Initiative. It was because the Middle various terrorist forces in Central Asia, to form a
East has historically been the greatest source of strategic hold on Russia, to form a deterrent to Iran,
instability along the Mediterranean coast, the and to form a strategic constraint on the western
Arabian Peninsula and the Eurasian continental region of China. Therefore, NATO’s Central Asia
plate. It is also the region with the highest number policy is more out of geopolitical consideration
of conflicts globally. Particularly since the Arab than a real threat and focuses on two aspects. On
Spring, the Middle East has been plagued by refugee the one hand, it has started a war against terrorism
problems, illegal immigration, terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and cooperated with Central Asian
and international criminality. The above problems countries to combat various extremist and terrorist
directly affect peace and stability in the Middle East forces. On the other hand, it has used the war in
and indirectly constrain NATO’s efforts to build a Afghanistan to establish military bases in many
Euro-Atlantic regional security order. Therefore, Central Asian countries and maintain a long-term
NATO needs to contain the contradictions and military presence in Central Asia.
Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea were invited to the NATO Summit held in Madrid in June 2022. (China Daily, 2022China Daily (2022). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.)
For the Asia-Pacific region, as it is far away It is clear from the above that NATO’s
from NATO and NATO’s core security interests, Asian policy is still fragmented and does not
its previous policy towards the Asia-Pacific form a complete and mature system but only
region is more cautious and restrained. Rather a complement to the Euro-Atlantic regional
preventive security policies are formulated due security policy. Nonetheless, although NATO’s
to this reason. For one thing, Japan, South Korea, Asian policy ostensibly advocates political and
Australia and New Zealand were included in the security cooperation, it has always emphasized
“Partnership for Peace” program, making them competition and confrontation. The policy and
NATO partner countries. These countries have its practice have had a certain impact on Asia’s
also interacted frequently with NATO and have political and security landscape and, to a large
gradually become the driving force behind the extent, have contributed to the continued local
implementation of NATO’s Asia-Pacific security adjustment of the Asian strategic landscape.
strategy. Their actions have made a difference in
the strategic shape of the Asia-Pacific region. On “China as Primary Rival” and the Creation
the other hand, NATO has also established close of an Asian Version of NATO
cooperation with China’s neighboring countries,
such as supporting Mongolia to become a NATO Since 2010, Sino-US relations have been
partner country and holding military exercises characterized by ups and downs, with more
with Mongolia, with the obvious intention of competition than cooperation. The Obama
exercising strategic restraint against China and administration launched a series of strategies
Russia. to contain China, including the “Return to
Asia-Pacific” and “Asia-Pacific Rebalance”. It challenge to the rules-based international order
had given the cold shoulder to China’s proposal and security-related areas of the alliance”. In
for a “new type of major power relationship an interview, NATO Secretary General Jens
between China and the US”. A major debate Stoltenberg reiterated that countries, including
took place in the US about the threat of China China, are challenging NATO interests, security,
and how to contain its rise, and an anti-China and values. He also stated that Beijing uses
strategic consensus gradually emerged in the economic leverage, coercion, and mixed means
US. After taking office, Donald Trump launched to advance its regional interests (Wei, 2022Wei (2022). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). On
a new wave of accusations and attacks on 11 April 2023, Jens Stoltenberg also said that
China, launching a trade war and introducing China refused to condemn Russia, responding
documents and bills that explicitly refer to to Russian “propaganda” and helping Russia
China as the main threat to the US. It has been boost its economy. This is a tendentious political
trying to position China as a “revisionist state” discourse that attempts to equate China with
and treating the US-China relationship as a Russia and ties it to Russia, NATO’s “main rival
strategic rivalry (US Department of Defense, for the decade”.
2019). Under the new Biden administration, the With a strategic retreat from the Middle
US launched a concerted campaign of repression East and a hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan
against China, with a four-pronged approach: in August 2021, the US is focusing on creating
human rights, security, economy, science and an Asian version of NATO to contain China. In
technology, further continuing the competitive contrast to the previously fragmented nature of
dynamic between the US and China (Feng & NATO’s involvement in Asian affairs, the current
Hua, 2022). process of NATO’s Asianization has entered a
phase of organization building. Since 2020, the four-nation security dialogue
With a strategic retreat from organized by the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue
(QUAD) has been escalating. Interactions at the Middle East and a hasty the level of foreign and defense ministers were
withdrawal from Afghanistan in established and gradually extended to bilateral
August 2021, the US is focusing and multilateral coordinated military exercises
on creating an Asian version of in the security field. The aim is to highlight the
NATO to contain China. military presence and deterrence and gain more
geopolitical benefits by bringing the Philippines
The deterioration of US-China relations as a and Vietnam into the South China Sea and
tool for the US pursuit of world hegemony has establishing the “QUAD+” mechanism. In non-
also led NATO to increase its hostility towards traditional security, especially in science and
China. In June 2021, NATO members listed technology security and bio-pharmaceuticals,
China as a security threat for the first time in they are trying to establish supply chains and
a communiqué, saying its “overt ambitions industrial chains that exclude China (Xing,
and overconfident behavior as a systemic 2022).
On March 5, 1946, the United States and the United Kingdom signed the UKUSA, known as the Five Eyes Agreement, which includes electronic intelligence cooperation between the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. (U.S. Department of Defense, 2023U.S. Department of Defense (2023). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.)
The Australia-UK-US “Trilateral Security their 5G communications networks and pressured
Partnership” (AUKUS) program claims that the US, UK other countries to make similar decisions. At one
and Australia will strengthen cooperation in nuclear point, there was talk of the intelligence-sharing group
submarines and promote information and technology forming a “three-eyed alliance” between the US,
sharing in high-end military areas. This regards Japan and South Korea in East Asia (Beijing Daily,
areas such as hypersonic weapons, cyber capabilities, 2023). It was reported that the president of South
artificial intelligence, quantum technology and other Korea and the Unwited States will sign a document
undersea technology cooperation (The Chinese in Washington on April 2023 to strengthen cyber
Embassy in the UK, 2023). The US, UK and Australia’s security cooperation between the two countries, build
submarine program clearly intends to provide an a U.S.-Korea intelligence alliance, and discuss the
underwater blockade of China’s maritime power inclusion of Japan in the future. This means a “three-
against China’s increased influence in the Pacific and eyed alliance” between South Korea, the United
Indian Oceans. This is a breach not only of the Treaty States, and Japan is on the agenda, according to South
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Korean media. If the US succeeds in mobilizing the
but also of maritime peace in the Asia-Pacific region. intelligence agencies of Japan and South Korea to
It is no coincidence that the Five Eyes Alliance serve the US strategy and form an alliance with them,
has a clear anti-China bias in information security. the first thing they will investigate is the confidential
For example, the US, UK, Canada, Australia and information of the neighboring Asian countries, and
New Zealand have all banned Huawei and ZTE from the implications for China are self-evident.
The essence of the United States trying to establish The main factors posing a shock to NATO’s
the “Asian version of NATO”, or “NATO Asia”, is to security are the following: First, the rise of China
require the relevant countries and regions to serve is driving the shift of global power from the Euro-
its own strategic planning. Furthermore, it allows Atlantic region to the Indo-Pacific region. Second,
the United States to intervene in their internal affairs accelerating scientific and technological innovation
and interfere with their sovereign independence. will affect NATO’s collective defense capabilities.
The most common means of achieving this are Third, climate change, food security and other non-
exploiting Japan’s fear of the Chinese threat, Taiwan’s traditional security challenges impact NATO’s crisis
desire for independence, the hostile dynamics management. Fourth, the Russia-Ukraine conflict
between North and South Korea, and establishing has led to various complex challenges facing NATO.
military cooperation agreements to tie more Asian For this reason, NATO has the drive and demand to
countries to the US chariot. globalize, especially in Asian affairs, and has formed
For example, the “factual list of U.S.-Taiwan many small groups, such as QUAD and AUKUS.
relations” on the US State Department website has However, following this, the question becomes, will
been substantially updated to remove phrases such the US be able to do what it wants with an “Asian
as “Taiwan is part of China” (Lei, 2022Lei (2022). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). It also version of NATO”? There are several factors to
promotes the deepening of relations between Japan consider when answering this question.
and Taiwan. In addition, it has used the Sino-Indian First, European countries lack a unified view
border dispute to draw India into confrontation of dealing with the situation in the Asia-Pacific
with China and renamed its Asian strategy the region, especially on issues related to China
“Indo-Pacific Strategy”, highlighting the importance (Ming & Zheng, 2020Ming & Zheng (2020). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). Unlike the strategic rivalry
of India. In the end, South Korea and Singapore are between China and the US, China and Europe
seen as potential allies and a “new NATO” in Asia is cooperate more closely and share many common
established with the US allies as the core. interests. China is an important market and major
trading partner for Europe, and the two economies
Will the “Asian Version of are highly complementary. In the context of its
NATO” be Successful? sluggish economic growth, the ongoing crisis
and the UK’s exit from the EU, closer economic
At the Madrid summit in June 2022, NATO cooperation with China is important for Europe.
leaders formally adopted a new Strategic Concept, In addition, China and Europe have common
which is second in importance only to the North interests in maintaining stability in the Middle
Atlantic Treaty. The document states that the core East, nuclear non-proliferation, cyberspace and
assumptions underlying the 1991, 1999 and 2010 other international security issues, as well as in
NATO Strategic Concepts have been broken down. upholding multilateralism, combating climate
In particular, the view that the Euro-Atlantic change and providing international public goods.
region is at peace, that there is no global power More importantly, Europe also advocates strategic
competition and that the international security autonomy from NATO and US control, which is
order is predictable and cooperative no longer fits crucial for Europe to become a strategic force in the
the current security environment (Cai, 2022Cai (2022). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). international landscape.
Secondly, changing the US “Asia-Pacific Strategy” development in a peaceful and stable environment.
to the “Indo-Pacific Strategy” signals that relying It will not willingly agree to US attempts to target
on previous allies alone will not achieve the goal of China, increase regional tensions and thus weaken
containing China and that India must be brought into ASEAN’s central position (Han, 2021Han (2021). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.).
the picture. However, India is precisely the shortest Furthermore, Japan, India and Australia, whose
part of the US Indo-Pacific strategy, and Russian- number one trading partner is also China, have no
Indian relations constitute an important constraint real fears of military invasion by China. Japan and
if it is to truly pursue the goal of “Breakaway from India have historical territorial disputes with China,
Asia and stand with the US” (Juan, 2022Juan (2022). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). and it is more in their national interest to manage
their differences than to confront China (Global Times, 2021Global Times (2021). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). From China’s perspective, it will also
Japan, India, and Australia, whose strengthen its full cooperation with ASEAN, Japan,
number one trading partner is India and other Asian countries, contrasting with
the US pressure on Asian countries. China, have no real fears of a Fourth, the multiple sub-groups the US uses
military invasion by China. to contain China, such as the Five Eyes Alliance,
AUKUS and QUAD, may link up and create a
Besides, India’s views and interests do not coincide mutually offsetting effect (Xiang & He, 2023Xiang & He (2023). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). The
with those of the United States, Japan, Australia and NATO alliance system is hierarchical, of which the
other countries on many issues. India is not deeply Anglo-Saxon states, namely the UK and the US,
involved in issues such as the South China Sea are the core. The UK and the US can help Australia
and Taiwan. Regarding climate change, India and develop nuclear submarines, but not India, Japan
China, both developing countries, have very similar and South Korea, reminding them that they are not
positions. On high-end technologies, while India is the core force but merely helpers or fighters. For
reluctant to adopt Huawei’s 5G technology, it is also India, Japan and Australia, the fundamental reason
unwilling to see US technology dominate the Indian for their participation in the US-led “Asian version
market. More importantly, India still has a tradition of NATO” is also to contain China, whose rise has
of non-aligned diplomacy. Although the US has substantially changed the distribution of power in
brought India into the “four-nation mechanism”, the region. In time, if China’s strength far exceeds
there are conflicts between the US and India around the overall strength of these countries, it may be
economic and arms deals, which will also impact the time for the four-nation mechanism to end.
US in building alliances.
Thirdly, China’s growing economic and trade Conclusion
cooperation with neighboring countries means
the US will face greater resistance to the so-called The international environment facing China is
“Asian version of NATO” in this region. ASEAN, not ideal, especially as the competition between
which has overtaken the EU as China’s largest China and the United States is intensifying. This
trading partner, is no longer the ASEAN of the 1998 is fundamentally due to the “zero-sum game”
financial crisis and has achieved rapid economic mentality of the US in dealing with relations
with the rising powers. In the face of Western Feng, Z. & Hua, N. G. (2022). The Situation and Dilem-
ma of Biden Administration’s Strategic Competition
repression, China cannot retreat and must “dare towards China. Asia Pacific Security and Ocean Rese-
to fight and fight well”. Therefore, China’s attitude arch. (1), 1-18.
towards NATO is clear: it considers NATO to be a Han, L. Z. (18 October, 202118 October (2021). The source article does not provide a separate full bibliographic entry for this citation.). Will the United States ac-
hieve its wish to launch the “Asian version of NATO”?. product and remnant of the Cold War, a military People’s Daily Overseas Edition.
and political bloc under US hegemony, and one of Juan, H. (2022). NATOization of the Indo-Pacific and
the cornerstones of the US-dominated world order. QUAD Cooperation: The Limits of India’s Participati-
on. South Asia Studies. (3), 33-35. China opposes NATO’s eastward expansion and Lei, Z. (2022). Beware of US Attempts to Build an “Asi-
its constant squeezing of Russia’s security space, an Version of NATO” around the Taiwan Issue”. Cross
which it sees as the root cause of the outbreak of the Strait Relations. (6), 30-31.
Russia-Ukraine conflict. China is concerned that Ming, C. X. & Zheng, L. Y. (2020). The Practical Difficul-
ties and Future Prospects of Strategic Coordination
NATO wants to include Mongolia as an alliance under the US-Europe Transatlantic Alliance.World
partner, which would increase the possibility of Politics Studies, (3), 81-83.
Western countries conducting military training US Department of Defense (2019). Indo-Pacific Strategy
ReportPreparedness, Partnerships, and Promoting a
close to China’s borders. China has expressed Networked Region. https://media.defense.gov/2019/
misgivings about NATO’s military presence in the Jul/01/2002152311/-1/-1/1/DEPARTMENT-OF-DE-
Middle East and Central Asia, which threatens the FENSE-INDO-PACIFIC-STRATEGY-REPORT-2019.