Recently, there has been increasing discussion about the proposal to establish an “Asian NATO,” which has long been advocated by Shigeru Ishiba, the Japanese Prime Minister, over the past decade. Ishiba’s proposal comes in the context of his goals aimed at establishing collective self-defense policies in Asia, based on the necessity of expanding collective defense to include countries that share democratic values and freedom, particularly the United States’ partners in the region. This alliance – in its essence – seeks to counter China’s growing influence and North Korean threats, as well as address evolving security challenges in the Indo-Pacific region. Conversely, this initiative has faced criticism both within and outside Asia, raising concerns about provoking China and disrupting economic stability in the region, not to mention internal legal and political challenges due to Japan’s pacifist constitution and public reluctance to engage in military expansion policies.
Motivations for the Proposal
Several motivating factors encouraged Ishiba to propose the idea of establishing an “Asian NATO,” among which are:
Geopolitical Threats and Security Concerns:
Japan’s proposal to create an Asian NATO stems from the rising security challenges in the region, particularly North Korea’s advanced nuclear and missile programs, China’s growing aggressiveness, especially regarding tensions over Taiwan and frequent incursions by Chinese vessels near the disputed Senkaku Islands, along with Beijing’s militarization of the South China Sea. Ishiba has previously compared the situation in Taiwan to that in Ukraine, warning that the failure to deter China could lead to severe regional consequences. Thus, Ishiba views this alliance as a collective resistance to any potential Chinese aggression toward allied countries in the region. In an article he published in the Hudson Institute in Washington in September 2024, prior to being elected Prime Minister of Japan, Ishiba reiterated the stance of his predecessor, Fumio Kishida, stating, “Ukraine today is Asia tomorrow.”
Response to the Growing Competition between the United States and China:
China’s rise has shifted the strategic priorities of the United States, with a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific region. Therefore, it can be argued that Japan’s initiative aligns with U.S. efforts to strengthen alliances in Asia. However, it proposes a new direction that moves beyond bilateral or limited partnerships, such as the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty or the Quad alliance (Japan, India, Australia, and the United States). This integration aims to incorporate these alliances into a unified defensive network akin to NATO, while simultaneously reducing reliance on the U.S. military presence.
Attempts to Fill Regional Security Gaps:
Japan believes that the lack of a unified security alliance in Asia represents a critical weakness, leaving the region vulnerable to aggression from state and non-state actors. Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya stated that the idea of establishing an Asian version of NATO “is definitely a future idea,” but “needs to be studied carefully in the medium to long term.”
In a clear indication that such a gathering would be open for competitors like China to join, Iwaya emphasized that the ideal goal of the alliance would be to establish a cooperative security relationship across the Indo-Pacific that welcomes all countries and partners without exclusion. This is because “the stability of East Asia contributes to global stability,” he noted, describing the idea of creating an Asian NATO as “one of several methods that could help achieve that.”
Supporting Ishiba’s Foreign Security Agenda:
Ishiba’s call for the establishment of an Asian NATO aligns with his broader electoral agenda concerning Japan’s military role and reducing the constitutional constraints on defensive activities. Domestically, this shift aims to showcase strength amid political instability and to position Japan as a proactive leader in regional affairs, which also reflects public concerns about Japan’s security vulnerabilities, as evidenced by discussions surrounding the potential defense of Taiwan and the likelihood of Japan’s involvement in regional crises. Known for his support of enhancing Japan’s defensive capabilities, Ishiba pointed out that this alliance could effectively thwart threats from countries like China, Russia, and North Korea.
Developing Japan’s Military Role:
Since the end of World War II, Japan’s military activities have been restricted by its pacifist constitution, particularly Article 9, which limits collective defense operations. However, a shift toward more proactive military stances has begun to emerge in recent Japanese administrations, and Ishiba’s proposal represents a significant change in Japan’s military role as Tokyo seeks to move away from its previously held pacifist stance, which restricted the use of its armed forces for self-defense.
While Japan adheres to a constitution that prohibits war as a means to resolve international conflicts, its current activities demonstrate an increasing confidence in the need for active deterrence, stemming from Ishiba’s vision that Japan needs to play a larger role in regional defense to protect its national interests and fulfill its international responsibilities. The establishment of this Asian alliance could allow Japan to take a leading role in shaping regional security norms while building stronger military capabilities through joint exercises and intelligence sharing.
Reducing Complete Reliance on the United States:
The proposal for an Asian NATO also aims to alleviate Japan’s excessive dependence on the United States. Before assuming office last month, Ishiba called for a review of agreements regarding the presence of U.S. forces in Japan, expressing his desire to renegotiate the terms of those agreements for a more balanced approach. Despite the importance of close relations with Washington, Ishiba believes that the current alliance is unequal, especially with Japan hosting around 55,000 American troops on its territory and bearing 75% of the operational costs of the bases. This has led him to propose converting U.S. bases in Okinawa into joint bases for Tokyo and Washington, reflecting his desire to enhance Japan’s security independence and to diversify and deepen Japan’s security relationships with its allies in the region under a unified alliance.
Key Challenges
The proposal to create an “Asian NATO” is a contentious step that faces multiple challenges related to differing regional interests, rejection from major powers in the Indo-Pacific, strong condemnation from China, and a lack of clear U.S. support, which makes this idea seem distant. The main challenges can be summarized as follows:
Divergent Interests of Southeast Asian Countries: While Japan aims to unite its regional allies, many Asian countries—including major powers like ASEAN nations—remain hesitant to join an anti-China alliance. These countries prioritize neutrality and economic cooperation over military alliances, which could disrupt regional stability. This is evidenced by the fact that as the idea of an Asian NATO gains momentum, leaders from China and ASEAN announced during the 27th China-ASEAN Summit on October 10 that they had reached an agreement to upgrade their free trade area, indicating a joint effort to lead economic integration in East Asia, showcasing strong support from both sides for multilateralism and free trade, and that the pursuit of stability, cooperation, and development will remain the main unwavering current in the region.
Several officials from Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines have strongly opposed this alliance, despite the clear hostility between Beijing and Manila in recent months. For example, the Malaysian foreign minister publicly criticized the proposal, warning that an Asian NATO would heighten tensions rather than promote peace. Indonesian media echoed these concerns, alleging that ASEAN countries view Japan as a trade partner, not a military ally.
Even Taiwan, which might seem the primary beneficiary of this alliance, has shown little interest in the idea. According to former Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara, Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te saw no American support for this alliance, especially with the possibility of Trump returning to power, thus Taiwan has not been eager to pursue joining this alliance should it be established.
Opposition from Major Regional Powers in the Indo-Pacific: India, as a major regional power, has expressed its reservations about this idea, affirming its strategic autonomy doctrine based on the principle of “non-alignment.” Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar stated that “India does not agree with Ishiba’s vision regarding the establishment of an Asian NATO.” Similarly, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rejected Ishiba’s calls for creating a regional security body in Asia akin to NATO, which may explain why the idea was not discussed during the recent ASEAN summit.
Strong Chinese Condemnation of the Proposed Asian Alliance: The proposal has drawn sharp opposition from China, which views it as part of a broader strategy led by the United States to contain its rise. Chinese officials criticized Japan for exaggerating security threats and warned against military alliances that could disrupt regional peace, while Beijing has sought to leverage economic partnerships with ASEAN and other Asian countries to counter this proposal, viewing these relations as fundamental to regional stability.
Many regional powers fear that the formation of this alliance could have significant economic repercussions, especially since several ASEAN countries rely on China as a main trading partner, with China maintaining its position as ASEAN’s largest trading partner for 15 consecutive years. ASEAN has also been China’s largest trading partner for four consecutive years. As a trustworthy friend to ASEAN, China strongly supports building the ASEAN community and advocates for the bloc’s central role in regional cooperation, even urging ASEAN to play a more significant role in international affairs.
U.S. Rejection of the Japanese Proposal: The U.S. response to the Japanese proposal has been tepid; American officials have emphasized that the priority is to strengthen bilateral and multilateral partnerships instead of forming a new military alliance, noting that Washington views the concept of an “Asian NATO” as potentially complicating diplomatic efforts to manage its relationship with China. Consequently, a Biden administration official told “Nikkei Asia” that “an Asian NATO is not among the goals pursued by the United States in the region,” while National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan confirmed that Washington is not seeking to create a NATO-like alliance in the Indo-Pacific.
Constitutional and Political Constraints in Japan: Japan faces significant internal obstacles in adopting the idea of creating an Asian NATO, especially since its pacifist constitution—particularly Article 9—places restrictions on participation in collective defense. Although Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba supports constitutional reforms to enhance military flexibility, these amendments spark widespread political debate, making it challenging to garner sufficient support for them.
Despite growing public concern over national security, there remains public hesitation to abandon pacifist principles. Additionally, his reform proposal has met resistance within his political party, which may force him to pull back from promoting the idea of the alliance to avoid politically controversial issues, especially with elections approaching this month.
Complexities of Creating a Cohesive Military Alliance: Establishing a military alliance similar to NATO in Asia faces major challenges due to the differing political systems and security priorities among Asian countries—contrasting with NATO, which was founded on shared cultural and historical bases. Therefore, the success of such an alliance would require initially overcoming distrust among states and addressing concerns regarding sovereignty. Furthermore, some Asian states view NATO as a source of chaos, complicating the idea of adopting a similar model in Asia.
Many regional countries also fear being drawn into alliances that might force them to take sides in the competition between the United States and China, with most Asian countries, particularly in South and Southeast Asia, seeking to avoid regional escalation. The establishment of the alliance is likely to deepen divisions and revive patterns of bloc politics, as many Asian states consider any attempts to export a “Cold War mentality” to the region unacceptable, preferring flexible partnerships rather than rigid defense commitments that might undermine their sovereignty.
Ishiba’s Softening Stance on the Alliance: In response to the aforementioned challenges, alongside his focus on upcoming early elections for the House of Representatives on October 27, Ishiba has softened his position on the establishment of the alliance. He clarified during a parliamentary session that this project “will not be realized quickly,” and he avoided raising the issue during his first foreign trip to Laos for the ASEAN summit, adopting a more pragmatic approach to foreign policy.
However, it is also noteworthy that despite Ishiba’s retreat from stating a clear position on the alliance, the idea remains part of his electoral program that has garnered him support in the ruling party’s leadership race. Nonetheless, Japan’s foreign and defense ministries have confirmed that the project is not currently in progress due to reservations from the United States and India.
In summary: The idea of establishing an Asian NATO reflects Japan’s desire to enhance its role in regional defense amid escalating security threats, particularly from China and North Korea. However, it simultaneously faces major challenges, including divergent positions among Asian countries, Japan’s constitutional constraints, and negative reactions from China, the United States, and other stakeholder countries. This has forced Ishiba to soften his rhetoric regarding the alliance proposal and adopt more realistic and pragmatic movements, with an expected focus on strengthening bilateral and multilateral partnerships rather than pushing for the formation of a comprehensive military alliance.
