China has strongly criticized NATO, calling what it sees as “Cold War thinking and ideological bias” after the Western military bloc said Beijing posed “serious challenges” to global stability.
NATO allies have agreed for the first time to include the challenges and threats posed by China in a strategic plan at their last summit in Madrid this week. The alliance’s previous document, issued in 2010, did not mention China.
In its new strategic concept, NATO said that tackling “the systemic challenges posed by the People’s Republic of China to Euro-Atlantic security” and “deepening the strategic partnership” between China and Russia would now be among its top priorities.
Beijing was angry at NATO’s decision. “Who is challenging global security and undermining world peace?” Are there wars or conflicts in the years in which NATO is not involved? “China’s mission to the EU said in a statement Thursday.
“NATO’s so-called strategic concept of Cold War thinking and ideological bias is maliciously attacking and denigrating China. We strongly oppose this, “the statement said. “When it comes to actions that undermine China’s interests, we will give firm and definite answers.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China has repeatedly pointed the finger at the United States and NATO. But NATO’s attention to the China-Russia partnership began even before Moscow’s military operations in the neighborhood. China has also been talked about openly for some time.
At its annual summit in Brussels last June, the traditionally Russian-focused military alliance said for the first time that it must respond to Beijing’s growing power. The language used by the bloc at the time also reflects the EU’s phrase “systemic rival” and “systemic competitor” of the United Kingdom when describing China.
Beijing’s response was just as strong. In response to a remark by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on China-Russia military ties last year at a summit in Brussels, a foreign ministry spokesman called on the alliance to “give up the Cold War mentality and ideology”. – a language similar to that used this week.
This week, NATO wanted to add a touch of nuance to its descriptions of Russia and China. “China is not our adversary, but we need to be aware of the serious challenges it poses,” Stoltenberg said on Wednesday, adding that NATO was still “open to constructive engagement” with Beijing.
The language contrasts with Vladimir Putin’s NATO view of Russia. “The Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to Allied security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area,” NATO’s Strategic Concept said, promising “to continue to respond to Russian threats and hostilities in a united and responsible manner.”
Still, the alliance clearly feared Beijing’s close ties with Moscow. “The deepening strategic partnership between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undermine the rules of international order run counter to our values and interests,” the plan said.
It is not immediately clear what the talks on China mean in its latest NATO operational strategy. “We know that there will be greater cooperation with the EU in areas of Chinese policy in which the EU has more experience, such as sustainability and economic coercion,” said Maya Nowens of the London-based think tank International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
She added: “The concept mentions that the Alliance will work with existing and new partners in the Indo-Pacific region. But we do not know which new partners NATO is looking for – perhaps some countries in Southeast Asia or India.
Some experts have called for NATO to set up a “Chinese Council” to coordinate NATO’s policies towards China, but this was not discussed in Madrid this week. And in the last few days, there have been reports that France and Germany have objected to describing China as a “threat” as it could jeopardize Europe’s trade and technology interests.
“Interestingly, after three years of talks on China and agreement on the challenges it poses to the alliance, the Allies still do not fully agree on how to shape this discussion and how to respond,” Nowens said.
Add Comment