Bangladesh Defense
Saif
Senior Member
- Messages
- 14,792
- Reaction score
- 7,689
- Origin
- Residence
- Axis Group
Date of Event:
Jul 28, 2025
Is the US considering creating a security alliance in the Asia-Pacific region similar to NATO?
Muhammad Zamir
Published :
Jul 27, 2025 23:39
Updated :
Jul 27, 2025 23:39
While monitoring the evolving situation in the Asia Pacific region and the US signing a Strategic Civil Nuclear Agreement with Malaysia, analyst Thalif Deen has drawn attention to some interesting dimensions.
The US is apparently contemplating the possible creation -- either a formal or an informal - security alliance in the Asia-Pacific region similar to the longstanding collective defence pact of the 32-Member North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
It has been observed that if the proposal materialises, the new Alliance is expected to include Japan, South Korea, Australia, and also the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), comprising of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
In this context the New York Times recently has referred to US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth as saying:" No one should doubt America's commitment to our Indo-Pacific allies and partners. We will continue to wrap our arms around our friends and find new ways to work together. He also indicated that the Indo-Pacific is a "region where the United States favours continuity in security alliances more than disruption".
Such belief has also been observed by Ely Ratner, a former US Assistant Secretary of Defence for Indo-Pacific security issues who has suggested. in an article in "Foreign Affairs" that the US and its allies in Asia should form a collective defence pact, similar to NATO. Apparently, the proposed new alliance is primarily meant to be a protective shield against the two nuclear armed countries in the region: China and North Korea.
It may be noted here that of the world's nine nuclear powers, the only region with four nuclear-armed countries in Asia are-- India, China, Pakistan and North Korea. The others outside Asia include the US, UK, France, Russia and Israel.
Meanwhile, AUKUS, a trilateral security partnership linking Australia, the UK and the United States, is aimed at "promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and stable"
Hegseth's recent visit to the region has been followed by a visit from another senior US Official-- Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Addressing a press conference in Kuala Lumpur on July 10, Rubio recalled some interesting aspects: "You know my very first meeting - I don't know if you know this, but when I was sworn-in, I went to the State Department, I gave a speech on the steps, and then my first meeting right out of the box was with Japan, South Korea, and India. We have repeated that meeting numerous times since then with that Group. We have a running internal joke with my counterpart from Japan: I have literally now seen him about 8 to 12 times, and our joke is that we see each other more than we see our own families," he said.
Subsequently, Tammy Bruce, State Department Spokesperson told reporters on July 10 that Rubio was in Kuala Lumpur for the ASEAN-related Foreign Ministers' meetings and bilateral engagements, and reiterated the United States' enduring commitment "to a free, open, and secure Indo-Pacific".
Rubio participated in the ASEAN-U.S. post-Ministerial Conference and has also held meetings with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar and counterparts from Malaysia, Russia, Japan, and the Philippines. He has pointed out that the Indo-Pacific region accounts for two thirds of global growth and consequently remains a central focus of U.S. foreign policy.
Rubio has also signed a nuclear cooperation Memorandum of Understanding with Malaysia pertaining to-- advancing civil nuclear energy collaboration under the highest standards of safety, security, and nonproliferation. Such a development will be consistent with negotiations leading towards a 123 Agreement. Once finalised, it would permit the transfer of nuclear material and equipment for peaceful purposes, further deepening bilateral energy, security, and economic ties. Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act generally requires the conclusion of a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement for significant transfers of nuclear material or equipment from the United States.
Apparently, such Agreements, commonly referred to as "123 Agreements," facilitate cooperation in other areas, such as technical exchanges, scientific research, and safeguards discussions, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In conjunction with other nonproliferation tools, particularly the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), 123 Agreements help to advance U.S. nonproliferation principles. They establish the legal framework for significant nuclear cooperation with other countries.
It needs, however, to be noted that in order for a partner to enter into 123 Agreements with the United States, that partner must adhere to a set of strong nonproliferation requirements. The U.S. State Department is responsible for negotiating 123 Agreements, with the technical assistance and concurrence of DOE/NNSA and in consultation with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
According to the US Department of Energy, about 25 countries currently have 123 agreements in force. However, it needs to be pointed out that there is also a more militaristic perspective to the proposed security alliance.
Thalif Deen, in this context has drawn attention to observations of Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs and Graduate Programme Director, at University of British Columbia, Vancouver, has drawn reference to the fact that if it is created, this new forum will add to the already growing trend of militarisation, which will increase the risk of war, especially with China, and divert money from other urgent priorities such as dealing with climate change. Dr. Ramana has also noted that " should it be set up, the U.S. government will try to make its Members buy more expensive and destructive weapons from U.S. arms manufacturers, which will strengthen their political power over policy making in the United States, and in turn might make the social landscape in the United States even worse."
Stressing the growing new relationships in the region, Rubio has told reporters: "and so, these engagements are very important to us. We are going to continue to stay very committed, because as I said to all of our partners, this notion or idea that the United States would ever be distracted by the Indo-Pacific or even Southeast Asia is impossible. This is where much of the story of the 21st century is going to be written. This is where two thirds of economic growth are going to happen over the next 25 or 30 years."
Rubio has also indicated that many of the countries of Southeast Asia - "are not only some of the youngest countries in the world, but they are about to see an enormous expansion of their labour markets, their labour pool and number of workers. This is a historic, once-in-a-generation opportunity not just for these countries to revolutionise themselves from an economic standpoint, but further strengthen our relationship. We have over 6,000 American companies that have invested heavily in these economies over the last 20 or 30 years. We're not abandoning those relationships. On the contrary, we want to strengthen and build upon them."
Stressing the strong relationship between the US and Japan, Rubio has also said: "We obviously have very strong commitments and an alliance with Japan. We continue to cooperate very closely with them. As I speak to you now, there are active exercises going on between the United States and Japan. The idea that somehow Japan would be able to develop their own capabilities for self-defence is not only something that we find offensive, it is something we would be supportive of, obviously within the confines of their constitutional system. However, they have some limitations on what they can do, but the idea that Japan's military would become more capable is not something we would be offended by; it is something we would actually be encouraged by". So. our relationship with them will continue to exist.
Reference has also been made to some interesting observations made by Dr. Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, and until recently, Sri Lanka's Ambassador to China. Kohona has suggested that China is nuclear armed but has a no-first-use policy. Nuclear armed North Korea also has a policy centred on deterring attacks. In the circumstances to promote a NATO type arrangement in East and South East Asia as a deterrent might consequently seem excessive. He has also pointed out that China has only one base outside mainland China (in Djibouti). North Korea has none. China nor North Korea, according to Kohona, have no military personnel outside their own territories. The US has thousands of military personnel in bases surrounding China. As such, according to Kohona, the US pivot to Asia had China in its cross hairs. The best way to reduce real and imaginary tensions (some stoked intentionally), he pointed out, would be to encourage parties to enter into dialogue with each other. The world needs peace, not conflict, for human progress. Need for discussion has been underlined as the path towards peace.
It has also been underlined by Kohona that "we require alliances that promote infrastructure development for developing countries that address the threat of climate change, which strive to eliminate extreme poverty, and which will make the world a better place. In the past, US military incursions in the region did not produce peace. On the contrary, the progress of countries was dramatically curtailed, thousands of combatants and civilians have died and millions have been were injured".
Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
Muhammad Zamir
Published :
Jul 27, 2025 23:39
Updated :
Jul 27, 2025 23:39
While monitoring the evolving situation in the Asia Pacific region and the US signing a Strategic Civil Nuclear Agreement with Malaysia, analyst Thalif Deen has drawn attention to some interesting dimensions.
The US is apparently contemplating the possible creation -- either a formal or an informal - security alliance in the Asia-Pacific region similar to the longstanding collective defence pact of the 32-Member North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
It has been observed that if the proposal materialises, the new Alliance is expected to include Japan, South Korea, Australia, and also the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), comprising of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
In this context the New York Times recently has referred to US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth as saying:" No one should doubt America's commitment to our Indo-Pacific allies and partners. We will continue to wrap our arms around our friends and find new ways to work together. He also indicated that the Indo-Pacific is a "region where the United States favours continuity in security alliances more than disruption".
Such belief has also been observed by Ely Ratner, a former US Assistant Secretary of Defence for Indo-Pacific security issues who has suggested. in an article in "Foreign Affairs" that the US and its allies in Asia should form a collective defence pact, similar to NATO. Apparently, the proposed new alliance is primarily meant to be a protective shield against the two nuclear armed countries in the region: China and North Korea.
It may be noted here that of the world's nine nuclear powers, the only region with four nuclear-armed countries in Asia are-- India, China, Pakistan and North Korea. The others outside Asia include the US, UK, France, Russia and Israel.
Meanwhile, AUKUS, a trilateral security partnership linking Australia, the UK and the United States, is aimed at "promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and stable"
Hegseth's recent visit to the region has been followed by a visit from another senior US Official-- Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Addressing a press conference in Kuala Lumpur on July 10, Rubio recalled some interesting aspects: "You know my very first meeting - I don't know if you know this, but when I was sworn-in, I went to the State Department, I gave a speech on the steps, and then my first meeting right out of the box was with Japan, South Korea, and India. We have repeated that meeting numerous times since then with that Group. We have a running internal joke with my counterpart from Japan: I have literally now seen him about 8 to 12 times, and our joke is that we see each other more than we see our own families," he said.
Subsequently, Tammy Bruce, State Department Spokesperson told reporters on July 10 that Rubio was in Kuala Lumpur for the ASEAN-related Foreign Ministers' meetings and bilateral engagements, and reiterated the United States' enduring commitment "to a free, open, and secure Indo-Pacific".
Rubio participated in the ASEAN-U.S. post-Ministerial Conference and has also held meetings with Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar and counterparts from Malaysia, Russia, Japan, and the Philippines. He has pointed out that the Indo-Pacific region accounts for two thirds of global growth and consequently remains a central focus of U.S. foreign policy.
Rubio has also signed a nuclear cooperation Memorandum of Understanding with Malaysia pertaining to-- advancing civil nuclear energy collaboration under the highest standards of safety, security, and nonproliferation. Such a development will be consistent with negotiations leading towards a 123 Agreement. Once finalised, it would permit the transfer of nuclear material and equipment for peaceful purposes, further deepening bilateral energy, security, and economic ties. Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act generally requires the conclusion of a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement for significant transfers of nuclear material or equipment from the United States.
Apparently, such Agreements, commonly referred to as "123 Agreements," facilitate cooperation in other areas, such as technical exchanges, scientific research, and safeguards discussions, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In conjunction with other nonproliferation tools, particularly the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), 123 Agreements help to advance U.S. nonproliferation principles. They establish the legal framework for significant nuclear cooperation with other countries.
It needs, however, to be noted that in order for a partner to enter into 123 Agreements with the United States, that partner must adhere to a set of strong nonproliferation requirements. The U.S. State Department is responsible for negotiating 123 Agreements, with the technical assistance and concurrence of DOE/NNSA and in consultation with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
According to the US Department of Energy, about 25 countries currently have 123 agreements in force. However, it needs to be pointed out that there is also a more militaristic perspective to the proposed security alliance.
Thalif Deen, in this context has drawn attention to observations of Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs and Graduate Programme Director, at University of British Columbia, Vancouver, has drawn reference to the fact that if it is created, this new forum will add to the already growing trend of militarisation, which will increase the risk of war, especially with China, and divert money from other urgent priorities such as dealing with climate change. Dr. Ramana has also noted that " should it be set up, the U.S. government will try to make its Members buy more expensive and destructive weapons from U.S. arms manufacturers, which will strengthen their political power over policy making in the United States, and in turn might make the social landscape in the United States even worse."
Stressing the growing new relationships in the region, Rubio has told reporters: "and so, these engagements are very important to us. We are going to continue to stay very committed, because as I said to all of our partners, this notion or idea that the United States would ever be distracted by the Indo-Pacific or even Southeast Asia is impossible. This is where much of the story of the 21st century is going to be written. This is where two thirds of economic growth are going to happen over the next 25 or 30 years."
Rubio has also indicated that many of the countries of Southeast Asia - "are not only some of the youngest countries in the world, but they are about to see an enormous expansion of their labour markets, their labour pool and number of workers. This is a historic, once-in-a-generation opportunity not just for these countries to revolutionise themselves from an economic standpoint, but further strengthen our relationship. We have over 6,000 American companies that have invested heavily in these economies over the last 20 or 30 years. We're not abandoning those relationships. On the contrary, we want to strengthen and build upon them."
Stressing the strong relationship between the US and Japan, Rubio has also said: "We obviously have very strong commitments and an alliance with Japan. We continue to cooperate very closely with them. As I speak to you now, there are active exercises going on between the United States and Japan. The idea that somehow Japan would be able to develop their own capabilities for self-defence is not only something that we find offensive, it is something we would be supportive of, obviously within the confines of their constitutional system. However, they have some limitations on what they can do, but the idea that Japan's military would become more capable is not something we would be offended by; it is something we would actually be encouraged by". So. our relationship with them will continue to exist.
Reference has also been made to some interesting observations made by Dr. Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section, and until recently, Sri Lanka's Ambassador to China. Kohona has suggested that China is nuclear armed but has a no-first-use policy. Nuclear armed North Korea also has a policy centred on deterring attacks. In the circumstances to promote a NATO type arrangement in East and South East Asia as a deterrent might consequently seem excessive. He has also pointed out that China has only one base outside mainland China (in Djibouti). North Korea has none. China nor North Korea, according to Kohona, have no military personnel outside their own territories. The US has thousands of military personnel in bases surrounding China. As such, according to Kohona, the US pivot to Asia had China in its cross hairs. The best way to reduce real and imaginary tensions (some stoked intentionally), he pointed out, would be to encourage parties to enter into dialogue with each other. The world needs peace, not conflict, for human progress. Need for discussion has been underlined as the path towards peace.
It has also been underlined by Kohona that "we require alliances that promote infrastructure development for developing countries that address the threat of climate change, which strive to eliminate extreme poverty, and which will make the world a better place. In the past, US military incursions in the region did not produce peace. On the contrary, the progress of countries was dramatically curtailed, thousands of combatants and civilians have died and millions have been were injured".
Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
