“Key to the defense of the free world”: the past, present and future relevance of NATO for US allies in the Asia–Pacific

  • Stephan FrühlingEmail author
Original Article


Between 2004 and 2014, NATO developed a range of global partnerships as it redefined its role in the post-9/11 world, leading some to suggest it become a global alliance. NATO’s relevance for its Asia Pacific partners in fact long pre-dates this period, as NATO is a locus of global strategic–political exchange; the world’s closest and most institutionalized political–military alliance; a focus of US strategic attention and leadership; the centre of the Euro-Atlantic security system; and a provider of interoperability and capability. Still, NATO partnerships have catalysed opportunities for greater exchange than existed during the Cold War, and their value goes beyond technical and operational cooperation. In an era of renewed great power competition, NATO and US allies in the Asia-Pacific should look to their shared interests, values and need for functional cooperation as the main benefits of their partnership, with particular focus on using the North Atlantic Council as a forum for political–strategic exchange between European and Asia-Pacific allies.


NATO Japan Australia New Zealand Cooperative security Asia Pacific Indian Ocean Partnerships 



  1. 1.
    Asmus, R. 2008. Rethinking NATO Partnerships for the 21st Century. NATO Review, March 19. Accessed 13 March 2019.
  2. 2.
    Asmus, R.D. (ed.). 2006. NATO and Global Partners: Views from the Outside. Washington, DC: The German Marshall Fund of the United States.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aznar, J.M. 2006. NATO—An Alliance for Freedom. RUSI Journal 151(4): 38–40. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brands, H.W. 1987. From ANZUS to SEATO: United States Strategic Policy towards Australia and New Zealand, 1952–1954. The International History Review 9(2): 250–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brzezinski, Z. 2009. An Agenda for NATO: Toward a Global Security Web. Foreign Affairs 88(5): 2–20.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burton, J. 2017. NATO’s “Global Partners” in Asia: Shifting Strategic Narratives. Asian Security 14(1): 8–23. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Claxton, K. 2014. Defence Funding: Three Cheers for 2%. The Strategist, May 9. Accessed 13 March 2019.
  8. 8.
    Daalder, I., and J. Goldgeier. 2006. Global NATO. Foreign Affairs 85(5): 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dean, P., and A. Carr. 2013. The Funding Illusion: The 2% of GDP Furfy in Australia’s Defence Debate. Security Challenges 9(4): 65–86.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dennis, P. 1990. Major and Minor: The Defense of Southeast Asia During the Cold War. In The Cold War and Defense, ed. K.H. Neilson and G. Ronald, 137–151. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dubnov, A. 2018. Reflecting on a Quarter Century of Russia’s Relations with Central Asia. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frühling, S. 2018. Is ANZUS Really an Alliance? Aligning the US and Australia. Survival 60(5): 199–218. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frühling, S., and B. Schreer. 2010. Creating the Next Generation of Nato Partnerships. The RUSI Journal 155(1): 52–57. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frühling, S., and B. Schreer. 2010. Nato’s New Strategic Concept and US Commitments in the Asia–Pacific. The RUSI Journal 154(5): 98–103. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frühling, S., and B. Schreer. 2011. The ‘Natural Ally’? The ‘Natural Partner’? Australia and the Atlantic Alliance. In NATO: The Power of Partnerships, ed. H. Edström, J. Haaland Matlary, and M. Petersson, 40–59. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fry, D. 2013. NATO’s Role in a Shrinking World. Sydney Morning Herald, October 29. Accessed 13 March 2019.
  17. 17.
    Gwertzman, B. 1986. Shultz Ends U.S. Vow to Defend New Zealand. The New York Times, June 28. Accessed 13 March 2019.
  18. 18.
    Hankewitz, S. 2018. Australia is Joining the Tallinn-Based NATO Cyber Defence Centre. Estonian World, April 23.
  19. 19.
    Hemmer, C., and P.J. Katzenstein. 2002. Why is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism. International Organization 56(3): 575–607. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herd, G.P., and D. Knight. 2007. Future Visions of NATO Partnerships and Cooperation Programs. Connections 6(3 Fall): 1–9.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hornung, J. 2015. Modeling a Stronger US–Japan Alliance: Assessing US Alliance Structures. Washington, DC: Center for International and Strategic Studies.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hrbernik, M. 2013. The Path Ahead for NATO Partnerships in the Asia–Pacific. Atlantic Voices 3(8): 2–9.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ilves, T.H. 2017. We Need a Global League to Defend Against Cyber Threats to Democracy. Washington Post, October 5. Accessed 13 March 2019.
  24. 24.
    Jones, D.T. 1990. Post-INF Treaty Attitudes in East Asia. Asian Survey 30(5): 481–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones, M. 2004. The Radford Bombshell: Anglo-Australian–US Relations, Nuclear Weapons and the Defence of South East Asia, 1954–57. Journal of Strategic Studies 27(4): 636–662. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kamp, Karl-Heinz. 2006. “Global Partnership”: A New Conflict for NATO?. Berlin: Konrad-Adenauer Foundation.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee, D. 1993. Australia and Allied Strategy in the Far East, 1952–1957. Journal of Strategic Studies 16(4): 511–538. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maher, R. 2016. The Rise of China and the Future of the Atlantic Alliance. Orbis 60(3): 366–381. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Medcalf, R. 2014. In Defence of the Indo-Pacific: Australia’s New Strategic Map. Australian Journal of International Affairs 68(4): 470–483. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mehta, A. 2017. Mattis Reportedly Threatens Swedish Defense Cooperation Over Nuclear Treaty. Defense News, 1 September. Accessed 13 March 2019.
  31. 31.
    Moen, A. 2016. How NATO’s Values and Functions Influence Its Policies and Actions. Rome: NATO Defense College.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mukhtorova, U. 2018. Central Asia and NATO Against a Backdrop of Changing Geopolitical Realities? Rome: NATO Defence College.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nelson, B. 2013. Address to the National Press Club. Canberra: National Press Club.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nicholson, B. 2008. Australia Kept in the Dark by NATO. The Age, February 11. Accessed 13 March 2019.
  35. 35.
    Petersson, M., and H. Lunde Saxi. 2013. Shifted Roles: Explaining Danish and Norwegian Alliance Strategy 1949–2009. Journal of Strategic Studies 36(6): 761–788. Scholar
  36. 36.
    R.A.A.F. Wing in Arduous, Revealing Ruhr Exercises. Sydney Morning Herald, 4 August 1953: 2.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roberts, B. 2016. The Case for US Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Santoro, D., and J.K. Warden. 2015. Assuring Japan and South Korea in the Second Nuclear Age. The Washington Quarterly 38(1): 147–165. Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schliebs, M. 2016. Fiji Looks to Russia for Arms as Aid Flows. The Australian, March 7. Accessed 13 March 2019.
  40. 40.
    Scott, T., and A. Shearer. 2017. Building Allied Interoperability in the Indo-Pacific Region: Command and Control. Washington, DC: Centre for International and Strategic Studies.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Simon, L. 2015. Europe, the Rise of Asia, and the Future of the Transatlantic Relationship. International Affairs 91(5): 969–989. Scholar
  42. 42.
    Smith, A. 2017. Australian Defence Force on Alert After Russian Military Exercise. The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 December. Accessed 13 March 2019.
  43. 43.
    Spender, P.C. 1952. NATO and Pacific Security. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 282: 114–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thankachan, S. 2018. Japan’s “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy”: Reality Before the Rhetoric? Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India 13(2): 84–91. Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tsuruoka, M. 2011. NATO and Japan. The RUSI Journal 156(6): 62–69. Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tsuruoka, M. 2013. NATO and Japan as Multifaceted Partners. Rome: NATO Defense College Research Division.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tsuruoka, M. 2015. Why the NATO Nuclear Debate is Relevant to Japan and Vice Versa. Washington, DC: German Marshall Fund of the United States.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yoon, S.-W., A. Jamiyandagva, V. Vernygora, J. Burton, B. Luguusharav, and M. Dorjraa. 2017. Views on NATO from Mongolia and the Republic of Korea: Hedging Strategy, and “Perfunctory Partnership”? Asian Security 14(1): 51–65. Scholar
  49. 49.
    Young, T.-D. 2003. Cooperative Diffusion through Cultural Similarity: The Postwar Anglo-Saxon Experience. In The Diffusion of Military Technology and Ideas, ed. E.O. Goldman and L.C. Eliason, 93–113. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor of the Journal 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, ANU College of Asia and the PacificAustralian National UniversityActonAustralia

Personalised recommendations