The NATO logo dominated meetings at the anniversary conference in Washington. The logo includes a reversed rendition reading OTAN. The final communique at the anniversary conference had some wondering if OTAN was an acronym for Oriental Territory Attack Node.

The final communique was unrestrained in its attack on China across a range of issues and the double standards of the West were on full display. The summit declaration also says NATO allies “remain open to constructive engagement” with China, but the subtext is that this requires China’s compliance with Western demands.

Notably missing from the discussion and commentary was any condemnation of the United States, and its European allies, for the continued provision of weapons to Israel in defiance of the binding ICJ genocide rulings that oblige UN members not to do this.

Also missing from the commentary was any mention of the sanctions-busting activity of India, which is now one of the largest buyers of oil from Russia. This is in defiance of the policy position adopted by NATO and the west. India’s purchase of Russian oil provides much needed foreign currency for Russia. India’s Prime Minister Modi meeting with President Putin coincided with the NATO meeting.

Instead, the NATO communique singled out China for criticism.

The concluding communique is an example of the selective application of the so-called global rules based order. Whilst it has long been the case that individual countries like the US and the UK would ignore UN rulings, this is the first time that the major powers of the West have collectively decided to ignore a binding ICJ ruling. In the case of the United States, this goes as far as enabling Israel’s Prime Minister to travel to the United States to address Congress despite being arraigned by the ICJ for his role in enabling war crimes in Gaza.

Similar ICJ rulings against President Putin are fully enforced by the United States.

What is significant is the consistent thread that undermines the authority of the United Nations and the legitimacy of the global rules based order. The selective application of rulings add significantly to regional and global insecurity as it confirms contempt for the rule of law.

Despite evidence to the contrary, the meeting persistently promoted the idea that the situation in the Ukraine is somehow comparable to the situation in Asia and the South China Sea and as such called for a military response from NATO/OTAN.

The NATO collective agreement is an artefact of the Cold War and predicated on the idea of Europe in particular coming under attack. The mooted expansion of NATO – and its morphing into OTAN – is also based on the idea that China will attack its neighbours. It’s an idea that suits the domestic political agenda of Biden, Trump and the American economy which relies on a bedrock of defence industries which in turn rely on continuous conflict.

European support for a NATO expansion into Asia comes primarily from the former colonial powers, the UK, France along with the Dutch and Germany. This lusting after vanquished empires is an unwelcome assertion of outdated colonial thinking. Much of the region has achieved independence from colonial rule and has no desire to see their return. Those islands and countries still under colonial-style rule, particularly the French possessions, are actively re-assessing the benefits of these arrangements and finding them wanting.

The rise of the Global South in the Indo-Pacific is evidenced by an increasing level of unrest in response to persistent failures to acknowledge and address long term unresolved social issues. This is not welcomed by former colonial masters so they become willing participants in NATO’s Asian expansion by incorrectly attributing to China their own imperial desires. The world viewed through the NATO lens is a world of threat, territorial expansion and conflict. The NATO anniversary conference communique applies this militarised perspective to the ASEAN region and denies China the legitimate right to respond to their increased military activity in the South China Sea band close to China’s territorial borders.

The NATO conference was promoted as a collective effort to strengthen international peace and security but the language and agenda of the meeting is a direct contrast to the language and agenda of the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meeting where the emphasis was on The Five Principles of Peaceful Co-Existence. The principles are mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non- interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.

Any NATO expansion East will have a formal name but the cynics may be correct in identifying OTAN - Oriental Territory Attack Node – as a precursor of intent. The Washington meeting, with the strong support of Japan, nurtured the idea of NATO becoming a broader instrument of US foreign policy applied outside of the European context and covering physical, cyber and economic theatres. That is a future risk to China’s legitimate interests.

An earlier version was published by CGTN, July 14, 2024