I am aware of the US-China Conflict on trade and further on and I am kind of being remembered of the cold war, the battle between the US and the USSR. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) was formed to protect Western World from the Soviet Union. Now the US wants to form an alliance with Indo-Pacific Nations to protect themselves and other nations from China. Is this the only main reason or is there more to be included? I am grateful for every help.

References: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3099642/us-seeks-formal-alliance-similar-nato-india-japan-and-australia-state , https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2019/06/03/commentary/japan-commentary/falling-short-nato-indo-pacific/


  • 4
    Are you aware of SEATO? This is not a new development. – o.m. Sep 3 at 15:48
  • I'm sure an Indo-Pacific version of NATO would be of assistance in combating Russia as well as China, as far as the United States is concerned. – TylerH Sep 3 at 20:15
  • 2
    Referencing specific sources could help this question a lot. – Brian Z Sep 3 at 20:56
  • @o.m. The SEATO was dissolved over 40 years ago, and wasn't very relevant in the time during which it existed. – secret squirrel Sep 4 at 10:49
  • 1
    ASEAN is still standing though en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASEAN – Evargalo Sep 4 at 13:20

Disclaimer: The following is my own perspective.

China is rising as its manufacturing machine has become unstoppable. It is speculated that China will economically and militarily surpass the USA by 2050.

Now, the USA, the world's only remaining superpower, doesn't want to be toppled. So, what is the solution to its China problem?

  1. Squeeze China's economic growth as far as possible
  2. Provoke and engage China to a proxy war

#1 doesn't need any explanation.

Regarding the #2, if the USA can goad China into a proxy war, two things will happen:

  • China will bleed financially
  • The USA will be able to sell huge qualities of arms and earn loads of money (just take a look at the recent $66 billion deal with Taiwan)

Now, in order to do these things, the USA needs allies. There are several reasons for that:

  • the USA needs allies to make the financial boycott of China to be successful (check UK's banning of Huawei, India's banning of Chinese apps, Papua's capture of Chinese ships)
  • it's obvious that the USA will need some stooge or 3rd party who will be used as a pawn to run the proxy war (just take a look at what India is doing)
  • secondly, arms customers must be trusted-customers. Otherwise, the USA is at the risk of losing technology in favor of China (recall Serbia transferred F-117A Nighthawk debris to Russia), or technology theft.
| improve this answer | |
  • The thing is that Russia exports far more arms to India than the US does. (Maybe Trump dreams otherwise, I don't know... Actually, it seems India would want it otherwise cnbc.com/2019/05/23/…) – SX welcomes ageist gossip Sep 10 at 21:14
  • -1 for rather unbalanced diatribe, esp the proxy war claim. It is a sad state of affairs when the behavior of China wrt South China Sea, India, Uighurs etc still leaves everyone with the impression that the US has to be the bad guy in this affair and that there is no valid reason whatsoever to be worried about what a Chinese hegemony would look like in the 21st century. Chalk that up to the "diplomatic abilities" of the incumbent POTUS, I guess. Not that I am not cynical about US intentions, esp under this administration. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Sep 11 at 5:52
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica, I fail to recall any incident which proves that Superpowers were actually great guys ever. – user366312 Sep 11 at 18:14
  • @user366312 Well, as someone originally French, I can think of 1944-06-06. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Sep 11 at 18:39
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica, that was not a charity. – user366312 Sep 11 at 18:42

China is gradually becoming more powerful industrially, militarily and politically.

The US is used to ruling the global roost ever since the USSR collapsed and, unless it finds a way to live with China, it will find it convenient to channel local discontent and worries into an alliance to counterbalance China. Once a solid alliance exists, it ban used to either negotiate with, or contain, China. The stridency of the current POTUS in all things Chinese has very little bearing on the realpolitik behind this, only on the trust that potential allies would have in the US.

Conveniently for the US, China's increasingly assertive international behavior in recent years has been worrying many of its neighbors, who have territorial or political disputes with it:

The little green lines below? They're the limits of China's claims in the South China Sea. China's behavior in the Himalayas is also a remnant of other times.

enter image description here

The comparisons with SEATO are rather unwarranted as the locals had little interest at the time (1954-to-1977) to get involved in America's Vietnam quagmire. ASEAN already has a solid reputation as a talking shop without much stomach for actual defense so it in no way can serve as an equivalent to NATO.

If worse comes to worse and China's behavior ends up justifying another Cold War, then alliances and containment are the way to go because the US, on its own, won't manage it. China is an entirely different kettle of fish than the USSR, not least because their only real link to Communism is the insistence on a one-party state without free elections and with censorship.

Note that, in my opinion at least, China eventually superseding the US militarily is not ground for containment on its own, it's whether they intend to behave as a responsible member of the international community and, to a lesser extent, whether they oppress their own population or not. China circa 2010 looked a lot better bet than China in 2020 in that regard.

Now, whether the US will manage to do get an alliance going under the current administration is entirely another question. I assume everyone will avoid committing too much one way or another until the 2020 US elections are over.

| improve this answer | |
  • It is very hypocritical to call other countries independent politics as a "behaviour". US should itself change its behaviour. For example, de-nuke itself, or close all foreign military bases. That would be very good steps towards world's security. – user2501323 Sep 11 at 6:35
  • @user2501323 Since you insist on giving me terminology lessons: arresting Canadian citizens without charge is "international behavior". Helping refugees somewhere is "international behavior". Killing soldiers in the mountains "international behavior". Putting Uighurs in concentration camps in "internal politics". To an extent, oppressing Hong Kong would be "internal politics" , except for, you know, that treaty they signed with the UK. "Independent politics" is a meaningless term, when applied to inter-state affairs, unless you come with a lot more cogent argument. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Sep 11 at 7:04
  • We've had 3 countries with pretenses to superpowerdom since WW2: US, USSR and now China. The US is what it is, but is on the way down. The USSR/Russia is, thankfully, out of the running. China is coming up, but so far doesn't look very appetizing. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Sep 11 at 7:06
  • I understand you, and your position. "concentration camps", "human rights" - and all that terms from the city-on-the-hill. My opinion is another, but I understand you - in fact such terms are just too hypocritical for me, especially from the US, but here we are. I just consider that US is going down too slow, it needs some acceleration. And I hope China with Russia would give it enough acceleration.) – user2501323 Sep 11 at 7:11
  • See, Tovarishch, the problem is I ain't American. As a Canadian, and on the receiving end of both the US and China, the US is the devil we know. China could easily transition into global leadership without particular coercion to others, less so than the US does or has done. I'd welcome a dominant, peaceful, China, each country deserves their place in the sun. The signs however are not good at this point in time. To some extent, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when China feels coerced, but many countries besides the US are starting to question China's behavior. – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica Sep 11 at 15:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .