Skipping NATO Summit, 3 Indo-Pacific Leaders Show Paltry Sense of Crisis
Representatives of the four Indo-Pacific partners (IP4) ー namely Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand ー recently attended the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit in the Netherlands. They huddled with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on the sidelines. Then, on June 25, NATO and the IP4 issued their first joint statement outlining their commitment to strengthening defense industry cooperation.
We welcome the deepening of cooperation between NATO and the Indo-Pacific region. Unfortunately, the only IP4 leader in attendance was New Zealand's prime minister, Christopher Luxon. The leaders of Japan, South Korea, and Australia were absent.
Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya represented Japan. South Korea's National Security Advisor Wi Sung-lak sat in for his country's new president. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Richard Marles represented Australia.
A meeting between US President Donald Trump and the IP4 leaders had been under consideration. However, since only one leader was in attendance, the meeting was postponed. As part of the 2025 NATO Summit Meeting, representatives of the IP4 gather in The Hague. June 25, 2025 (©NATO)
Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. For four consecutive years since then, NATO has invited the four Pacific countries to attend its summit.
As former Prime Minister Fumio Kishida repeatedly stated, "Today's Ukraine may be tomorrow's East Asia." The existence of collusion among China, North Korea, and Russia constitutes a common threat to Europe and the Indo-Pacific region. Security for Europe and the Indo-Pacific region is inseparable.
It is important for NATO and the IP4 nations to demonstrate their collective commitment to tackling common threats together. IP4 leaders also need to continue attending NATO summits to demonstrate that they are essential partners for its member nations.
In 2024, leaders of three of the four IP4 attended, namely New Zealand's Prime Minister Luxon, Japan's Prime Minister Kishida, and South Korea's then-President Yoon Suk-yeol. Deputy Prime Minister Marles represented Australia.
Kishida made his mark at the summit. "We cannot tolerate the unilateral use of power or force to change the status quo anywhere in the world," he said. His statement alluded to a possible Taiwan emergency and other issues. US President Donald Trump at the 2025 NATO Summit Meeting in The Hague. June 25, 2025 (©NATO)
This year, the South Korean government explained that President Lee Jae-myung chose not to attend because he was focusing on "comprehensive consideration of the uncertainty of the Middle East situation and other issues." However, South Korean media reported that the decision was actually made to please pro-China and pro-Russia factions in his administration.
Australia is a key player in the southern Indo-Pacific region. Moreover, in the event of an emergency in Taiwan or the South China Sea, Canberra is expected to play a role in deterring China, in cooperation with Japan and the United States.
Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba also erred in not attending. His presence would have strengthened the Trump administration's engagement in Asia. Only Ishiba could speak about the threats posed to Japan and the region by China, North Korea, and Russia.
By their absence, the leaders of Japan, South Korea, and Australia showed their shared paltry sense of crisis. Without a doubt, the three major autocracies in the region were delighted by the outcome.
Author: Editorial Board, The Sankei Shimbun
このページを 日本語 で読む
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Post
26 minutes ago
- National Post
Andrew Richter: Nuclear war is still a threat to humanity
Eighty years ago this week, the world watched in awe and bewilderment as a flash of light over the skies of Hiroshima, Japan, heralded a new age in world politics. Three days later, a second flash occurred over Nagasaki. Article content Thankfully, there has been no third use of nuclear weapons. But many believe that our string of good luck could come to an end. Article content Article content On both occasions in 1945, tens of thousands of Japanese citizens were killed in an instant, and when the smoke cleared and the government in Tokyo finally realized that continued hostilities against the United States were pointless (and suicidal), the guns in the Pacific finally fell silent. Article content Article content In the war's aftermath, observers quickly speculated about what the new nuclear age would bring, and most concluded that these weapons would surely proliferate in the future. And as this occurred, the chances of their use — either accidentally or by design — would increase. Article content Article content Over the next two decades, nuclear weapons did indeed proliferate, both in terms of the number of states that had them and in terms of the total number of such weapons deployed. Article content As far as states are concerned, all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council developed them in reasonably short order after the war. The Soviet Union was the second country to do so in 1949, followed by the United Kingdom (1952), France (1960) and China (1964). Article content And in terms of the total number of weapons, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union quickly began expanding their nuclear arsenals. By the late 1960s, both sides had thousands, and a new strategy was identified that seemed to encapsulate this new reality: mutually assured destruction (MAD). It held that regardless of which side struck first, the country being attacked would have enough weapons in reserve that it could strike back decisively; both sides would be utterly destroyed in any nuclear conflict. Article content Article content And then something unexpected happened that offered the prospect of an end to further proliferation. Article content The international community came together and developed a milestone treaty, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), in 1968. Non-nuclear weapon states that became parties to the treaty agreed they wouldn't develop such weapons, while the five existing weapon states were allowed to keep their weapons but committed to the goal of nuclear disarmament over time. Just about every state in the world eventually signed on. Article content The treaty had several non-nuclear holdouts, however: South Africa and Ukraine, for example, both took until the 1990s to sign on; North Korea signed the treaty in 1985 before withdrawing in 2003; and Israel, Pakistan and India never became parties at all. Thus, a pathway opened up to further proliferation. Article content Sure enough, a second wave of proliferation took place, this time among generally smaller states that all shared one thing in common: they saw themselves surrounded by enemies, and sought a deterrent that could change their security equation. Article content Israel is believed to have joined this second wave in the late 1960s (although it never actually tested a weapon and has maintained a policy of nuclear ambiguity ever since), followed by India, which conducted its first nuclear weapon test in 1974 (which it described as 'peaceful'). Pakistan went on to detonate its first nuclear weapon in 1998, followed by North Korea in 2006. Article content So the world now has nine nuclear weapon states. Not as many as was feared in 1945, but hardly an insubstantial number. Article content Whether out of sheer luck or skillful diplomacy, since August 1945, the world has avoided an additional use of nuclear weapons. Given how close the world came to a nuclear war during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, however, I would say the former is more likely (not to mention dozens of accidents that, while rarely publicly acknowledged, often came close to total disaster). Article content Regrettably, there have been a number of NPT states that have reneged on their commitments and attempted to develop nuclear weapons, thus raising serious concerns about the effectiveness of the treaty going forward. Iraq, Libya and Syria are the most notable case studies, but the world's attention today is focused on Iran. Article content While Tehran insists it has never pursued a nuclear weapons program, most scholars believe otherwise. In any event, in the aftermath of the military strikes by Israel and the U.S. in June, the world is wondering about Iran's current plans. Will it attempt a nuclear 'breakout' and dash for a bomb (assuming that is still possible), or will it accept that the price of its program is too high, and thus decide not to rebuild it? The answer should become clear in the next few months. Article content Watching how this plays out are a number of countries that might follow Iran if it goes nuclear. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Japan and South Korea top this list. We might be on the verge of a new age of proliferation. Article content Eight decades ago, the nuclear age was born. Thankfully, these weapons have not been used since, but that hardly means they won't in the future. Article content While the world's attention has gradually moved away from nuclear weapons, the threat that they pose remains as real today as it was decades ago. Thus the challenge remains to prevent their use in a world where states still engage in conflict, and where the use of military force continues to be the preferred dispute settlement mechanism for many of them. Article content
CBC
27 minutes ago
- CBC
How the U.S. was so sure Iran was building a nuclear bomb
U.S. President Donald Trump was convinced Iran was close to developing a nuclear bomb — but why was he so sure? Andrew Chang explains. Plus, what we know about the Air India Flight 171 crash
Toronto Star
40 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Trump to meet Putin soon, the Kremlin says as a White House deadline looms on Ukraine
A meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump has been agreed, a Kremlin official said Thursday, the eve of a White House deadline for Moscow to show progress toward ending the 3-year-old war in Ukraine. Putin's foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov said a summit could possibly take place next week at a venue that has been decided 'in principle.'
