The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit has ended in Madrid and the danger of a global war has become greater. NATO has shown the world over June 29鈥30 that the war in Ukraine will drag on and worsen in intensity. It has also deliberately broadened its scope to threaten global security and peace.
狈础罢翱鈥檚 new makes it plain that it views China as an enemy and a regional and global security risk.
The document declared: 鈥淭he People鈥檚 Republic of China鈥檚 (PRC) stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values.鈥
It also said that China 鈥渦ses its economic leverage to create strategic dependencies and enhance its influence鈥 and alleged that there is a 鈥渄eepening strategic partnership between the People鈥檚 Republic of China and the Russian Federation鈥 that seeks to 鈥渦ndercut the rules-based international order run[ning] counter to our values and interests鈥.
The statement pledged to 鈥渋ndividually and collectively deliver the full range of forces, capabilities, plans, resources, assets and infrastructure needed for deterrence and defence, including for high-intensity, multi-domain war fighting against nuclear-armed peer-competitors鈥.
狈础罢翱鈥檚 decision to classify China a 鈥渟ecurity threat鈥 is a serious one. There is no longer any masquerading behind ambiguous language. The Strategic Concept, 狈础罢翱鈥檚 policy and program for the next decade, has declared that China is a real enemy.
China, for its part, reacted swiftly and predictably. The urged NATO 鈥渢o stop provoking confrontation by drawing ideological lines, abandon the Cold War mentality and zero-sum game approach鈥.
The Chinese statement continued: 鈥淪ince NATO positions China as a 鈥榮ystemic challenge,鈥 we have to pay close attention and respond in a coordinated way. When it comes to acts that undermine China鈥檚 interests, we will make firm and strong responses.鈥
At a stroke NATO, and by implication the United States, has made the world an even more dangerous place.
Australia鈥檚 Prime Minister Anthony Albanese repeated the refrain that the Western world was and that the NATO Summit had been successful. If success can be measured by raising global tensions, then Albanese is correct. His words have done little to mend bridges with the country鈥檚 most significant trading partner.
Following the election of the Labor government, there was talk of a 鈥渢haw鈥 in relations between the two countries.听As recently as the June 18, 鈥檚 foreign affairs and defence correspondent Daniel Hurst was talking of how 鈥渢he new Albanese government is embarking on a grand experiment鈥. He posed the question about whether a 鈥渄ifferent tone鈥 would be 鈥渆nough to get the relationship onto a better footing鈥.
That question has been answered.
Less than two weeks later, the editorialised on June 29 that 鈥渢he take-away from his [Albanese鈥檚] words then is that while he might talk of wanting to improve his country鈥檚 relations with China, he is either going to have to make dedicated efforts to better understand the issues that have led to bilateral ties deteriorating precipitously or be more diplomatically astute. 鈥淯nfortunately, the NATO Summit is not conducive to that 鈥斕齬ather the opposite,鈥 it said.
Such a ramping up of rhetoric bodes ill. But it is inconceivable that the government could behave in any other way. While China may be Australia鈥檚 biggest trading partner, it is the in Australia 鈥 25% 鈥 that ensures听the 鈥渁ppropriate鈥 line is taken.
The future of the region looks bleak: China has been declared an enemy and听NATO is globalising. Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia have been willingly co-opted into this defacto military bloc.
The war in Europe continues. Russia, the other declared enemy, is, as a consequence of its invasion of Ukraine, seeing its already weak economic base shrink and its military capacity is being degraded.
Russian President Vladimir Putin鈥檚 domestic legitimacy is being shredded. The winner, if such a term can be used, will not be the people of Ukraine. It will be the US administration, whose NATO allies are waging a proxy war on a Western front.
We are witnessing the birth of an expanded, globalised NATO, with the US leading a coalition of Asia-Pacific states听including Australia, intervening听politically, economically and potentially militarily in another proxy Eastern front against that other 鈥渆nemy鈥 鈥斕鼵hina.
狈础罢翱鈥檚 听takes us to a future where the unthinkable is being consciously considered.
NATO, the US and Australia might speak of 鈥渄emocratic鈥 values and of defending a 鈥渞ules-based order鈥 in the world. The reality is different: for them economic power is all that really matters.
Wars are fought when one side becomes convinced that the benefits outweigh the costs, or when one side believes that it is facing an existential threat. The US, as the world鈥檚 capitalist hegemon, may well believe that the benefits outweigh the costs. There is a threat 鈥 the loss of total control of the capitalist economy. The NATO Summit has shown us how the world might be shaped and what lengths the US is prepared to go to.