Japan should not become the leading party for the "Asia-Pacificization of NATO" and the security of all countries is inseparable

Editorial: Japan should not become the leading party for the "Asia-Pacificization of NATO"

　　The situation in Ukraine and the geopolitical tragedy it has caused are not enough to satisfy the appetite of some countries in the United States and the West to extract political benefits from it.

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who is visiting the UK, and British Prime Minister Johnson reached a principled consensus on the 5th, allowing the Japanese Self-Defense Forces and the British army to achieve "mutual access".

Johnson called the move "landmark" and would strengthen "the UK's commitment to the Indo-Pacific".

Fumio Kishida sensationally declared "Ukraine today or East Asia tomorrow" and said "it is time for the G7 to consolidate its unity."

　　These fancy-sounding remarks show a dangerous trend: NATO, which has created divisions in Europe and created crises and wars in the world, is trying to replicate the set of "group politics" and "campaign confrontation" to the Asia-Pacific region.

For some time, the UK has been promoting the "Asia-Pacificization of NATO" on several occasions, calling for responding to "Indo-Pacific threats" and "helping Taiwan to defend itself".

Within the Asia-Pacific region, Japan is responding vigorously to this calculation, and seems to be bent on becoming the leading party for the "Asia-Pacificization of NATO".

　　The main force driving this countercurrent is undoubtedly the United States.

In recent years, Washington has been pushing its allies to move eastward in line with its strategic focus. Some countries are willing to lead the United States to this strategic adjustment, and at the same time, each has his own calculations.

London hopes to expand its already fading influence by helping Washington "find the way", while Japan wants to use the US's appeasement to get rid of the "shackles" of the pacifist constitution and "call the soul" for militarism.

In short, the Ukrainian crisis is a "good dish" in the eyes of some Western politicians, and for this reason, they are bound to escalate their tone and actions to create regional tensions.

　　It is particularly noteworthy that Japan is particularly excited after the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

Recently, Japan's high-level leaders, including the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of Defense, "all come together" to launch a series of diplomatic actions in neighboring countries and Europe and the United States.

However, the Asian countries he visited were generally vigilant about this, and did not sing with it. It was not until he arrived in London, which also fantasized about reviving the old dream of Asia's "suzerainty country" with the help of a group, that Tokyo could find a common language and "warmth of friends".

From the outside, it is hard not to think of the "Japan-Britain alliance" at the beginning of the last century.

　　Countries in East Asia and the entire Asian region have different political systems and cultural backgrounds. There are also some historical and realistic conflicts and disputes. However, the reason why the overall stable situation has been maintained in the past few decades is that countries in the region can seek common ground while reserving differences and transcend ideology. To overcome geopolitical differences and carry out pragmatic cooperation in the tide of economic globalization, Asia has become the most dynamic region in the world today, and the "Asian Century" has become an enduring topic for international strategic discussions.

　　Today, some people want to "cooperate with the US and the West" and forcibly introduce into the Asia-Pacific a "security model" that has proven to fail in Europe and caused serious consequences. Isn't this just trying to undermine regional peace and stability?

The "dead" in European security just shows that the NATO system headed by the United States is no longer suitable for today's era.

And those countries that talk about "Ukraine today or East Asia tomorrow" every day are overwhelmed by their own selfish interests, and their hearts are serious about replicating one or more Ukraine crises in other regions, and Asian countries must take this seriously. highly valued.

　　Historical experience has repeatedly shown that the security of all countries is indivisible, and the security of one country cannot be built on the basis of sacrificing the security of another country.

The NATO-style group confrontation mechanism forcibly divides regional countries into countries within the alliance and countries outside the alliance, which can only create greater insecurity and make countries fall into the trap of security paradox and security dilemma that raises alarms and hostility to each other.

To ease the security anxiety and tension of regional countries, NATO as a military alliance is definitely a poison rather than an antidote.

The good situation in Asia must not be destroyed by the "new cold war", and vigilance and rejection of "NATO Asia-Pacificization" should become a strong consensus and collective consciousness of the countries in the region.

　　We would also like to stress that Japan should not undermine the overall environment of regional peace and development, and its practice of "bringing wolves into the house" will harm others and itself. The lessons of history are not too profound.