The reaction of Moscow, Pyongyang and Beijing, voiced essentially in unison by states which are organisationally independent and despite the lack of any special coordination on their part, is not only not accidental, it is quite natural: it reflects a common or very similar vision of strategic threats and challenges to their own national security both in the East Asian region and in the world as a whole, Alexander Vorontsov writes.
The 75th anniversary NATO summit in Washington, which took place on July 9-11, 2024, in addition to the issues it typically addresses, paid significant attention to the expansion of the bloc’s activities to the Asia-Pacific (now called the Indo-Pacific in the West), as well as strengthening cooperation with its partners in East Asia. First of all, this applies to the well-known QUAD: Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the Republic of Korea, whose leaders have become active participants in the NATO summit for the third time. As we know, the decisions of this meeting, reflected in the “Declaration of the Washington Summit” adopted on July 10, 2024, are imbued with the spirit of increasing confrontation and deepen the dividing lines between this military alliance and those states that reject the hegemony of the West in the world.
Since East Asia currently occupies a priority place in NATO’s plans for expansion in the Asia-Pacific, let us take a closer look at the relevant current topics and states that have found themselves in the crosshairs of the North Atlantic Alliance.
The Washington Declaration stated: “Russia remains the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security…” The press secretary of the Russian president Dmitry Peskov briefly but succinctly formulated Moscow’s final assessment of this event. “We see that our opponents in Europe and the United States are not supporters of dialogue. Judging by the documents adopted at the NATO summit, they are not supporters of peace.” The expert community has noted the further hardening of the tone and uncompromising nature of NATO attacks against Russia’s Far Eastern neighbours, as well as against Iran. Let us mention some of them: “The stated ambitions and coercive policies of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continue to challenge our interests, security, and values. The deepening strategic partnership between Russia and the PRC and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut and reshape the rules-based international order, are a cause for profound concern… The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iran are fuelling Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine by providing direct military support to Russia, such as munitions and uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs), which seriously impacts Euro-Atlantic security and undermines the global non-proliferation regime. We strongly condemn the DPRK’s exports of artillery shells and ballistic missiles, which are in violation of numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions, and note with great concern the deepening ties between the DPRK and Russia. Any transfer of ballistic missiles and related technology by Iran to Russia would represent a substantial escalation.”
The immediate response from the aforementioned states, which have full sovereignty and resolutely defend it, was not long in coming. We cannot say that this phenomenon was unexpected. Nevertheless, one could not help but notice the appearance of simultaneous assessments in Moscow, Pyongyang and Beijing, issued independently of each other but very close in spirit, which were voiced in connection with the Washington meeting. Let us cite some official assessments from the three afore-mentioned capitals. The official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry emphasised the following: “The outcomes of the summit show without equivocation that the United States and its allies see NATO as a tool of choice in pursuit of global hegemony in the form of the infamous rule-based order and use every avenue in trying to prevent the formation of a multipolar world. All those who pursue independent sovereign policies and are not willing to follow instructions from Washington are declared opponents or enemies. The ambition to rule the world, as the US President stated, is wrapped in purported efforts to ‘defend democracy’ against the alleged ‘authoritarian alliance’ of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.”
On the same day, on July 12, 2024, the DPRK Foreign Ministry issued a statement which emphasised: “At the NATO summit in Washington, the US called the fair and legitimate exercise of sovereignty by independent states, included the DPRK, a ‘threat,’ revealing its vile plan to further deepen the collusion between NATO and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region. The ‘Final Declaration of the Washington Summit’, fabricated and published on July 10, proves that it is the US and NATO, which has become its means of confrontation, that are becoming the most serious threat to global peace and security.”
Beijing also strongly condemned
the authors of the statement by the heads of the North Atlantic Alliance as “full of Cold War mentality and belligerent rhetoric, and China-related content full of provocations, lies, incitement and smears.”
Representatives of China were rightly outraged by the fact that the heads of NATO countries decided to ignore in this context the obvious facts that Beijing has constantly and reasonably promoted in the international arena — “On the Ukraine crisis, NATO hyped up China’s responsibility. It makes no sense and comes with malicious intent,” as China has developed and is actively promoting its own plan for a peaceful settlement of this armed crisis, which has generated positive interest in many countries around the world.
Expectedly and absolutely justifiably, special attention in all three capitals was paid to the dangerous consequences of Washington’s plans to expand NATO’s sphere of action to East Asia, which have been actively implemented in recent years.
During the aforementioned briefing, Maria Zakharova focused on the following: “As a reminder, the issue is about the North Atlantic Alliance. What is it doing in other parts of the globe? If you hear them say again that they are strengthening security or guaranteeing something to its new members or partners, ask Brussels the following question: who has the alliance or its collective bureaucratic entities, or its individual members ever helped maintain security, prevent catastrophic developments, man-made disasters or help deal with the aftermath, perhaps, respond to new challenges or threats, or overcome international terrorism? Have you ever seen any of that ever show up on their track record? No. All we see is devastation and disaster..”
We find similar anxiety and determination to neutralise new threats in the statement of the North Korean Foreign Ministry: “Today, the US machinations to expand the military bloc are the most malignant source, seriously threatening peace in the region, extremely aggravating the international security situation and causing a global arms race…. Before claiming that security in the North Atlantic region and security in the Asia-Pacific region are linked, it should be explained who has been desperately trying to involve pro-American Asian satellites in NATO over the past 10 years. … We strictly warn that the US strategy of ‘globalising’ NATO will inevitably cause the danger of war throughout the world. … The current situation requires new forces and methods of response to disrupt US attempts to expand the military bloc, which are an upcoming challenge to global peace and security.”
The official representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Lin Jian, also spoke firmly and unequivocally on this topical issue: “We are resolutely against NATO moving away from its positioning as a regional defence organisation and heading to the Asia-Pacific region to incite conflicts and confrontations, undermine prosperity and stability in the region.”
It is obvious that the reaction of Moscow, Pyongyang and Beijing, voiced essentially in unison by states which are organisationally independent and despite the lack of any special coordination on their part, is not only not accidental, it is quite natural: it reflects a common or very similar vision of strategic threats and challenges to their own national security both in the East Asian region and in the world as a whole. This striking example confirms, among other things, the explicability and legitimacy of the desire of the countries of the World majority, refusing to put up with the continued dominance of the West and unwilling to live in a world based on “rules” rather than international law, to align their actions and search for adequate measures and forms of ensuring their legitimate interests in alternative political principles, multipolarity, and multilateralism in international affairs.
Among the numerous manifestations of this movement, it is worth mentioning the strengthening and the quantitative expansion of a number of new international organisations: BRICS, SCO, etc. The phenomenon we are considering also convincingly explains the timeliness and logic of the emergence of new legal forms that strengthen bilateral cooperation between the countries of the Global South and the Global East. Among the most recent examples of such documents is the “Treaty on a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation”, signed on June 19 by Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang.
At the same time, the aforementioned story demonstrates the relevance and demand, given the current international conditions, for the proposal put forward by the President of Russia during a meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14 of this year, about the formation of contours of equal and indivisible security, as well as mutually beneficial and equal cooperation and development on the Eurasian continent. That is, the Eurasian collective security is open to all countries of the continent. Real life provides more and more evidence (the specific example we have considered is one of them) of the desire of the states of the Global Majority to support Russia in building a multipolar system of international relations and combining efforts to protect their own national interests, as well as the receptiveness of many countries of the Eurasian continent to the prospect of building a collective security system.
The Valdai Discussion Club was established in 2004. It is named after Lake Valdai, which is located close to Veliky Novgorod, where the Club’s first meeting took place.
Please visit the firm link to site
