Changes in the plans and strategies of NATO towards China in the Indo-Pacific after AUKUS
We can understand the mechanisms and dimensions of competition and conflict between China and NATO, as well as the Chinese response strategy to control NATO members economically and logistically by controlling the largest European ports facing the seas and oceans, managing these ports and operate or develop and make them a source for the management and operation of containers and giant Chinese cargo ships.
Due to the Chinese threat to the areas of influence of the (North Atlantic Pact Organization) “NATO”, according to their estimates, the demands of the alliance officials have been publicly repeated for more than a year to control the Chinese influence and the penetration into China, the main areas of the Baltic states, Europe, East -, Central and Western Europe. The NATO leaders’ responses and confrontation mechanism then came to China , as follows:
NATO Secretary General “Jens Stoltenberg” recognized the need to face the escalating Chinese threat and emphasized: “China reacts aggressively to others when any criticism is directed against it”, at the same time acknowledging the difference and some “difficult discussions” ” between the alliance countries during the period Donald Trump’s presence in the White House.
The “new Chinese containment theory” also includes “financial disagreements over the sharing of the burdens of the confrontation with China among the thirty members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which was declared by” Stoltenberg “as secretary of the alliance. Proverb:
“Trump has complained many times that other members of the alliance are not paying their fair share of the financial burden associated with common defense, to the point that he has talked about withdrawing his country from the alliance.”
Regarding “NATO’s new strategy towards China during Joe Biden’s administration”, Stoltenberg stated the following:
“We now have a new American president who is more committed than his predecessor Trump to the duties of NATO, supports the security of Europe and is ready to invest more in NATO.”
It also began (new signs of a shift towards security challenges from China and NATO’s recognition that it is at the heart of its defense and areas of influence), and this new shift towards “countering the Chinese threat” occurred during the NATO summit on in London in 2019 as the NATO secretary of the alliance. “Stoltenberg” warned its member states and said:
“Allies must face the fact that China is getting closer and closer to Africa, the Arctic, cyberspace and even Europe”
Hence we understand the increasing American influence within “NATO” and the success of Washington in creating a general anti-Chinese atmosphere among the thirty members of the NATO countries through the declaration of the “London Summit of NATO Meeting 2019” and the first-time surrender of the Final Settlement, a statement stating that:
“China poses a potential strategic threat and China’s” increasing influence in international politics “offers opportunities and challenges that we must face together as an alliance”
We have the main analysis here, which is that “NATO speeches have become identical to the same American speeches about China without providing any evidence of any allegations.” The strategic analysis remains here regarding:
What challenge does China pose to NATO and its countries, despite the seemingly geographical distance between the two sides and different spheres of influence?
Despite the lack of clarity on the “mechanism of direct threat from China to the security of Europe and NATO”, Washington confirms that the security of Europe and NATO members is at risk because China poses a whole range of challenges for NATO, what led NATO to have military leaders, in their understanding of the American point of view, insist that:
“While China does not pose a direct military threat to NATO, Beijing’s growing influence and confident diplomacy in Europe has had a significant impact on transatlantic security and the economy.”
We find here (NATO members associate China’s Belt and Road Initiative’s economic expansion with Europe and the security implications for NATO countries), and this came through a public statement in which they said:
“China’s investments in vital infrastructure projects in Europe, from telecommunications networks to port facilities, can weaken NATO’s ability to respond diplomatically or militarily to international crises if necessary.”
After the heated and incomprehensible discussions among NATO members, which I believe are an indirect repetition of the same allegations made by the United States against China, NATO stressed “the threat posed by the Chinese company Huawei to the security of NATO” by stressing:
“If some NATO allies add Huawei’s devices to their 5G networks, given the close relationship between the company and the Chinese Communist Party, questions about the security of these networks may arise.”
Here we find the military-strategic connection between NATO and the increasing Chinese influence, according to their statements with the statement:
“The NATO alliance’s sensitive military supply chains could become heavily dependent on China, as was the case recently with the F-35 fighters”
In a new attempt to change NATO’s strategy (combining NATO’s military roles with the need to assume other political roles) came the public statements of NATO Secretary General “Jens Stoltenberg”:
“NATO must take on a greater political role in world affairs, even to help the Indo-Pacific countries compete with the rise of China”
In an official commitment by NATO members to the Chinese military threat to their security, this was confirmed in the declaration of the “NATO Summit in London” (December 3-4, 2019) that:
“We should view the rising Chinese military power as a potential new enemy”
Following this explicit text on the priority of the Chinese threat in the “New Security Agenda for NATO and its Members”, this represented an impending NATO initiative that represents a major shift in the Alliance’s fundamental objectives, as well as its strategic and strategic goals defense objectives. The NATO statement confirmed this by stressing:
“We are aware that the increasing influence of China and its international politics harbors opportunities and challenges at the same time, and here we have to deal with them as an alliance.”
In a new NATO statement on the “Chinese threat and the new global security and the military imbalance” came the warning from NATO Secretary General “Stoltenberg” in an interview with the German newspaper “Welt am Sonntag” in June 2020. emphasizing that:
“The global balance of power can change tremendously, especially because China is at the gates of Europe, so NATO must warn of the recent strong and rapid rise of China.”
NATO’s new agenda to contain China is represented by the “Mechanism of Collective Union and Western Security Mobilization to Confront China,” which NATO Secretary General emphasized as follows:
“We must be united in the face of this Chinese power and new challenges posed by the Western NATO alliance”
What stopped the Egyptian researcher are the contradicting and contradicting statements made by NATO Secretary General Tess Stoltenberg about China and his assertion that “the Chinese do not directly threaten the security of NATO and these statements contradict other earlier statements” by the secretary’s statement the alliance again by saying:
“China does not pose a direct threat to any NATO country so far, but serious developments can be observed in the South China Sea and Beijing has stepped up its attempts to restrict the freedom of movement of ships in international waters.”
Through this analysis, in order to understand NATO’s new orientation towards China, the Egyptian researcher came to the conclusion that the tense relations between China and the United States, the most prominent member of NATO, cast a shadow of confrontation and escalation on relations between to throw at NATO members, especially the Europeans and Beijing.
We find many here (contradicting and diverse speeches by NATO through official statements followed by the researcher), and suffice it to point out that “NATO” confirms in a new statement: “Although the confrontation between China and the Alliance is “not desirable and not inevitable”. However, the alliance declaration warned again:
“The alliance’s failure to prepare for China and meet the challenge it poses could make a confrontation more likely over time”
Here we can simply understand the “extent of American pressure on its European partners in NATO” and try to force them to “adopt a new security agenda to confront China and share the same American ambitions”.