Old playbook makes NATO destabilizer: China Daily editorial

As the two-day North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit starts in Ankara, Turkiye, on Tuesday, the internal fractures within the transatlantic alliance are already apparent. Just days prior to the summit, US President Donald Trump took to social media to describe the relationship between the United States and the other NATO members as "ridiculous" and "not reciprocal".

His repeated complaints of the US' NATO allies free-riding on defense issues and his threats to reconsider the US' security commitments have cast a shadow of uncertainty over a summit that was supposed to showcase unity.

At last year's summit in The Hague, almost all member states — under US pressure — agreed to increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP by 2035; a military spending goal unprecedented since the Cold War. Under the agreement, 3.5 percent would be spent on "core defense" and 1.5 percent on security-related initiatives. The Ankara summit will supposedly review the implementation of this commitment.

Many NATO member states have acknowledged that they face significant challenges achieving the 5 percent goal due to problems with funding allocation and fiscal sustainability. Spain has opted out of the spending goal, while Italy plans to take a detour by reclassifying a mega bridge project as defense expenditure to meet NATO's spending target. The Ankara summit, therefore, is expected to face severe tests in terms of making any progress related to the defense spending plan.

Adding to the rift between the US and other NATO members is Trump's expressed disappointment with some NATO allies' refusal to support the US in the military campaign it launched with Israel against Iran.

Analysts have noted that the US wants Europe to contribute more financially and follow its instructions. Europe, while aiming to keep the US engaged in the NATO framework, seeks autonomous decision-making for its own benefit. These diverging demands are making it difficult to bridge the rifts in the alliance, leaving the summit's prospects fraught with uncertainty.

Despite the internal challenges, in a move to show the bloc's vitality, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has extended formal invitations to the defense ministers of the alliance's four "Indo-Pacific" partners — Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia and New Zealand — to join summit-related events in Ankara. The move underscores NATO's deepening engagement with the region, raising serious concerns about the potential consequences for Asia-Pacific stability.

NATO claims that the "Indo-Pacific" is important for the alliance, given that developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security. This approach will only further complicate the security situation in the Asia-Pacific. Regional countries can manage their own affairs using their own wisdom and methods without external intervention. The involvement of NATO will only make the security situation in the region more unpredictable.

In the process, the Sanae Takaichi government of Japan has disgracefully flirted with NATO and facilitated its entry into the region, using the alliance as a vehicle to fast-track Japan's remilitarization and to enhance Japan's profile as the US' linchpin bridging its Asia-Pacific and transatlantic military architectures.

NATO should be wary of serving as a stepping stone for Japan's neo-militarists. It is time for the bloc to reflect on its own behavior and abandon the flimsy pretexts for its eastward expansion.

Today's world is not that of NATO's founding. Resorting to old playbooks to survive is not just anachronistic — it is dangerous.

If NATO were truly committed to peace and stability, it would embrace common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security — not the narrow, exclusive security it peddles for one of its members.

The alliance should respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations. Military, technological and economic prowess does not equal moral ascendancy.

Unless NATO learns to recognize the importance of noninterference, mutual respect and diverse development paths as pillars of security, it will remain trapped in Cold War thinking, unilateralism and bloc rivalry — a war machine forever trading others' security for its own.