AUKUS and the US planning to annex of Australia and Japan to the NATO’s alliance


The American planning has actually emerged during the last years in the era of “Trump”, by seeking to (the annexation and inclusion of “Australia and Japan” to the list of new members of NATO, especially after the signing of the new Aukus defense agreement led by Washington and before it the “Quad Quartet agreement” with Japanese participation), although this basically contradicted the charter and constitution of the alliance since its inception, and made it limited  mainly around the (concentrated Atlantic Ocean members), this was not the only American precedent for violating the constitution of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) by including new members, but was preceded by several precedents and other evidence, This can be analyzed, as follows:

The extent of these American pressures on Europe and NATO and the extent of (the subordination of the NATO’S security agenda to the American administration itself), which began with the recent developments of the global agenda, specifically with the (New NATO Security Document of August 2019), which NATO announced that: (NATO has expanded the scope of its security operations, to include the Asia-Pacific region). This is despite (this is inconsistent with the alliance charter), by restricting it only to the countries of the Atlantic Alliance.

 Of course, the logical result of this increase in the number of NATO members is (the increasing scope of financial burdens to meet the defense, security and military needs of containing China in many other regions and regions that are geographically far from NATO interactions), especially with the entry of Russia as a major actor in the interactions of NATO’S members, as well as China.

The most important point that stopped the Egyptian researcher is that (the American attempts to expand the number of NATO members and include Australia with them and then Japan later after the signing of the Aukus agreement), and this can be fully understood even before the signing of “Aukus”, after the visit of the US Secretary of Defense  The former “Mark Esper” and the former Foreign Minister “Mike Pompeo” to Australia from 3-6 August 2019, and the joining of the Secretary-General of NATO to them based on an American invitation to him, and everyone in the Australian capital “Canberra” discussed opportunities for Australia to join the alliance, and discussed (the possibility of Australia joining NATO).

In my personal analysis, Washington’s success in its plan with its Asian allies such as Japan, South Korea and others, as well as the Australian side, and I mean specifically here, in the event (the success of the American planning for Australia and Japan to join the list of NATO members to expand the security and military scope of the alliance against China). This is enough to cause a “disruption in the Asian regional and global security”, especially after Washington’s invitation to the Asian partners, namely: “Japan, Australia and South Korea”, to join NATO, and they are not allies of NATO in the first place, but rather to achieve Washington’s ambitions, and to participate in the security file in the region for further actions and confrontation to China.

The Egyptian researcher analyzed the previous dangerous point about Australia joining NATO, from the danger that (the possibility of Australia joining the alliance will lead to a profound change in the composition and meaning of the NATO alliance, which is limited to countries on both sides of the Atlantic), and perhaps if the attempt to include Australia in NATO succeeds, it will follow (an attempt to open the way for Japan’s membership later as an ally of Washington as well), and perhaps for other distant countries based on narrow individual American interests, which empties the alliance of its content and the charter of the goals of its first establishment.

We find here, that (the recent American attempts to include other new countries in NATO were not the first precedent in the history of NATO, but were preceded by three other actual attempts to include dozens of countries for membership in the alliance). Hence, the process of NATO expansion has become capable of bringing (more crises for the alliance from within, i.e. from within its network of members), especially in light of the tense relations with the Russian side with NATO countries in Eastern Europe, with (NATO being forced to defend them, because they are from its network of members).

We find that (the first phase of NATO expansion) began through the process of expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on March 12, 1999, by including (the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland), with a great symbolism for the state of Poland, given that its capital is “Warsaw”. It was previously (the headquarters of the Warsaw Pact of the eastern bloc of the Soviet Union), as a major military alliance for the eastern bloc led by Moscow in the face of the United States of America and the policies and interests of the West and Europe.

While (the second phase of NATO expansion) included the beginning of the second expansion phase of NATO member states, on March 29, 2004, which led to the inclusion of countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia), which resulted in the atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust towards the “the return of Russia to threat the West”, with the escalation of voices claiming that the American hostility to Russia is caused by the fact that it is the heiress of the Soviet Union, the sworn enemy of the Americans for decades.  This American hostility to Russia is linked to the “historical hostility” between the two Western blocs led by Washington and the Eastern bloc led by the Soviet Union before its fall and disintegration in 1991 into several small states and countries on the borders of Russia.

These grave strategic, security and military mistakes in the face of NATO increased, especially with the start of the (third phase of NATO’S expansion), which is the stage that started from April 2009 to June 5, 2017. The third expansion of NATO took place after the end of the cold war, by the annexation of (Albania, Croatia, and Montenegro), which was interspersed with the events of Ukraine, and Russia’s annexation of the Crimea in 2014, which Russia considers as a return to it and not an annexation of it, in addition to the worsening relations between the Russian and Ukrainian countries, to the point of their almost collapse,  this is due to (the aggravation of the crisis with the intervention of “NATO” in defense of Ukraine as a new member of NATO), which led to the provocation and anger of Russia, especially after the imposition of US and European sanctions on it as a result of its annexation of NATO member Ukraine.

Here, many argue that the cause of the exacerbation of crises in (the Eurasian region, or the post-Soviet countries), contributed to their making by American policies, which motivated Russia and the hard-line nationalist voices to take the lead again to confront the American influence within Russia’s own spheres of influence in order to prevent its dismantling from  New, in a re-memorial of the “Cold War scene” in the international community.      

What the Egyptian researcher confirms about this previous analysis is (the increase in the wave of American hostility to Russia, with the emergence of revolutions against Moscow with American support). It is noted that all the revolutions and uprisings of countries close to the Russian borders came almost simultaneously, which confirms (the theory of supported colored revolutions by the USA directed against Russia from its border areas), which is what Russia called, that what is happening is (a wave of color revolutions in the face of Tsarist Russia with American support and assistance), revolutions that affected several former Soviet countries on Russia’s borders.

Perhaps this explains the reasons for (the opposition of the most prominent American and international figures to the American intervention within Russia’s borders and areas of influence, and even their rejection of the annexation of countries from eastern Europe to NATO), and their far-reaching vision of its impact on the security of the United States of America, and the increasing military burdens on NATO. In addition to (the increasing severity of the Russian threat to US national security in response to US attempts to provoke it on its territorial and geographical borders).

We find that the most prominent of those American personalities who led the scene of rejecting Washington’s annexation of Ukraine and countries from eastern Europe to NATO, and thus interfering on its behalf in security and challenging Russian influence, is the one who is called the architect of the Cold War, “George Kennan”, who described the first stage of expanding  NATO in 2004, as (the worst decision made by the United States of America and the main NATO members in their history).

We can notice here that the American diplomat “William Burns” has agreed on the same opinion of “George Kennan”, notifying that “William Burns” isthe former American diplomat and intelligence man, he is as well (the current director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the former American diplomat), who criticized this expansion, and even (William Burns) warned against to include Ukraine in NATO on American national security. In his book “Back Channel”, issued in 2019.

In light of the tense atmosphere between (Moscow, Kiev, Tbilisi) on the one hand, and their Western allies on the other hand, and after holding a (red lines Summit) between Presidents “Biden and Putin” at the beginning of 2021, the state of “regional strategic instability of Eurasia has increased”,  and its impact on global security.

  Through the previous analysis of the Egyptian researcher, we understand (the USA is leading the regional and international scene by trying to expand the scope of NATO members, and despite its success in this, it has negatively affected NATO and its members).  At the present time, this also coincided with the increase in the ceiling of American ambitions and expectations to confront China, with its attempt to include (Australia and Japan), especially after signing the “Aukus Defense Agreement”, which ultimately led to the weakening of the alliance, and the failure of its operations with (the conflicting agendas of the alliance with the goals of its member states are facing each other).

Dr.Nadia Helmy
Dr.Nadia Helmy
Associate Professor of Political Science, Faculty of Politics and Economics / Beni Suef University- Egypt. An Expert in Chinese Politics, Sino-Israeli relationships, and Asian affairs- Visiting Senior Researcher at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES)/ Lund University, Sweden- Director of the South and East Asia Studies Unit


Religious leaders strive to become peacemakers, not warmongers

This article incorporates remarks by the author at the...

The BRICS status and role in global governance

Many people compare BRICS to NATO or the UN,...

Pakistan’s Contribution in UNESCO acknowledged

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)...

DPR Korea: Military satellites, ‘serious risk’ to civil aviation and shipping

The recent launch of a reconnaissance satellite by the Democratic People’s Republic...