Ely Ratner on an 'Asian NATO' for Indo-Pacific Defense

The Need for a Formal Indo-Pacific Defense Pact

• ⚠️ The primary challenge in the Indo-Pacific is the growing potential for aggression from China, evidenced by rapid military modernization and unchanged ambitions.
• 💡 Current US foreign policy relies on bilateral alliances, but these are deemed too informal and incomplete for necessary planning and exercising to reinforce deterrence.
• 🎯 A more formal defense pact is required to maintain peace and prevent destabilization in the region and globally.

Evolution from Bilateral Alliances

• 🌍 Historically, bilateral alliances formed post-WWII with the US as a protectorate, when allies had limited capability and China's threat was minimal.
• 🚀 Today, allies are more capable and willing to contribute, and China poses a significant threat to the US and its partners.
• 🤝 The current system, often described as 'hub and spoke,' needs to evolve to leverage the collective capabilities, geography, and power of regional partners.

Proposed 'Asian NATO' Structure

• 🗺️ The term 'Asian NATO' is not preferred due to NATO's pan-regional scope; a more limited pact is proposed, focusing on the US, Japan, Philippines, and Australia.
• 🧩 This core group is closely aligned on the China challenge, making a collective defense pact viable and effective.
• 🚪 While the door remains open to other nations, this focused approach harnesses disparate national interests into a unified construct.

Military Capabilities and Deterrence

• 🚢 The Indo-Pacific theater requires coordination for vast distances, necessitating seamless operations between participants in naval and air power.
• 🔗 Developing this pact would allow for more integrated military cooperation, building on existing agreements like reciprocal access agreements between Japan-Australia, Japan-Philippines, and Philippines-Australia.
• 🛡️ A key feature would be Article 5-style collective defense, where an attack on one is an attack on all, significantly altering the deterrence equation against potential Chinese aggression.

Ideological vs. Strategic Alignment

• 🌐 Unlike NATO's ideological basis against communism, this pact is driven by a shared vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific, encompassing sealanes, commerce, technology, and ideas.
• 🤝 This vision is shared by Southeast Asians, Japanese, South Koreans, Indians, Europeans, and Australians, and would be disrupted by Chinese aggression.
• ✅ Success hinges on strategic alignment and existing intra-Asian cooperation, making it a natural evolution rather than a discordant imposition.