The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (N.A.T.O.) Summit in Washington which marked 75 years of the military alliance, was noteworthy for two key reasons: the participation of Asian leaders and the opening of a N.A.T.O. office in Amman, Jordan. While the participation of non-N.A.T.O. members as guest invitees is nothing new, these developments reflect the growing debate regarding the future role and purpose of N.A.T.O.

During the Cold War, N.A.T.O. was created to form a collective defence alliance against the Soviet Union. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the existence of N.A.T.O.  was questioned and some advocated (and continue to advocate) to disband the organization for a very brief period, with there being rhetoric of Russia joining N.A.T.O. Nevertheless, the group persisted and expanded its membership by welcoming many Eastern European countries such as Poland, Hungary, the Baltic states.

In 2014, After Russia annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine in February 2022, it emerged as the primary threat and the group expanded to include Finland and Sweden. 

Consequently, as tensions with Russia escalated, the rhetoric of N.A.T.O.’s role in the Indo-Pacific accelerated. In 2022, N.A.T.O. officially designated China as a security challenge and in 2023, during a visit to Japan, N.A.T.O. Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that “the security of the Euro-Atlantic and of the Indo-Pacific is closely connected.” Likewise, Stoltenberg wrote for Foreign Affairs that “N.A.T.O. will deepen ties with its global partners—most notably in the Indo-Pacific.” Stoltenberg also emphasized that Russia’s war is sustained by its “authoritarian partners” in Asia, such as North Korea.

However, despite the rhetoric, it is highly unlikely that N.A.T.O. will further embroil itself in the Indo-Pacific. Within N.A.T.O., while Lithuania has advocated for a tough approach in China, Hungary seeks close ties with Beijing. In fact, on July 8, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban met Xi Jinping in China as part of a “peace mission.” Likewise, France blocked the opening of a N.A.T.O. liaison office in Tokyo, insisting that N.A.T.O. should remain central to Europe.

Additionally, many Asian countries perceive N.A.T.O.’s entry into the region as further inflaming tensions and the legacy of colonialism makes them weary of Western intervention. For example, Kishore Mahbubani, Singapore’s former ambassador to the UN said that the danger of N.A.T.O. includes exporting its “militaristic” culture to East Asia. Countries such as Indonesia and India have a rich tradition of nonalignment and avoidance of any military alliances.

While South Korea and Japan have security interests to increase security cooperation with N.A.T.O., American commitment towards the alliance is ambiguous, as the prospects of Trump getting reelected in 2024 grow. While a Trump presidency would likely prioritize Asia over Europe, at the same time, as demonstrated in his first term, Trump is unpredictable. Just recently, during an interview with Bloomberg, Trump insisted that Taiwan should pay for U.S. defence and accused the country of taking America’s semiconductor industry.

Regarding the Middle East, N.A.T.O.’s new office in Jordan wouldn’t change much. Before this office, N.A.T.O. already had a presence in the Middle East since Türkiye has been a member since 1952. Ankara played a critical role during the war on terror after 9/11, with its involvement in Afghanistan.

Additionally, even though Iranian assistance to Russia in its war has made Europe’s Iran policy more hawkish against Iran, it is highly unlikely that N.A.T.O. would get involved in any conflict against that country. Notably, Türkiye’s Iran policy is much different from the rest of N.A.T.O. as it maintains cordial relations and a Turkish bank was charged with violating sanctions against Iran. Likewise, other regional countries, such as Jordan, have insisted that it will not be a battleground for any conflict against Tehran.

Most importantly, in light of the ongoing War in Gaza, the Palestinian cause has reemerged as the most important issue for the public across the Middle East, which has only reinforced the deep unpopularity of N.A.T.O. and Western intervention in the region.

As the future role of N.A.T.O. is debated, it is tempting to link conflicts in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East to one another. However, while these regions have many linkages in a globalized world, these linkages should be used to pursue “stability rather than for militarization, and for the advancement of ..development, not the creation of confrontational blocs.”