The article in Pearls and Irritation by Ju Hyung Kim titled “Asia must learn from SEATO and build its own NATO” is disquieting for its attempt to spearhead a disruption of peace and harmony in the East, South and Southeast Asian regions.

Instead of appreciating the quiet diplomacy of the Asian leaders that has given the region an unprecedented level of prosperity, he described their efforts as “a network of bilateral treaties and minilateral initiatives”. By implying ineffectiveness, he harks back with nostalgia to the Southeast Asian Treaty Organisation, suggesting that “it offers strategic takeaways relevant for Asia’s current security context”. Reference to SEATO is just one of the numerous contradictions in the article’s attempt to persuade the region to join the US and Japan in “defending” the region againsts “China’s military assertiveness”.

Ju admits that SEATO, a US initiative to contain the rise of communism, was a failed enterprise which attracted only three participants, Thailand, Pakistan and the Philippines. Those conversant with the history of the region know that its failure was attended in tandem by the Vietnam War which took up to three million civilian lives in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The war was waged on a trumped-up threat called the “Domino Theory”. As in other fabricated narratives, the lie was eventually exposed, but after a huge cost to human suffering and lives. This was evidenced by the fact that Southeast Asia was not overrun by communism after the US capitulated.

The article is replete with assumptions, contradictions and a lack of appreciation of relative importance. The author admits that Asia’s diplomatic ways, especially the ASEAN way, which emphasises “consensus, non-interference and informality” have contributed towards “preventing the outbreak of an all-out war”, but laments the fact that it has “limitations in dealing with crises such as the South China Sea disputes and fails to ensure a swift collective response or institutionalised response”. For addressing this weakness, he has referred to “Europe and the Middle East” as examples of appropriate “security mindset … shaped through conventional warfare”.

Europe and the Middle East are the last place to go to for ideas about keeping the peace. It is precisely the ability to set aside minor conflicts of the sorts in the South China Sea in favour of co-operation for the greater good that augurs well for Asian leaders – with the exception of those allied to the US i.e. South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. With alliances like NATO, any hot conflict between two nations draws others, obligated by the terms of their alliances, into the hostilities. Conflicts that would otherwise have involved only two parties grow and morph into major multinational conflicts. Another abhorrent nature of alliances is that it encourages and enboldens smaller powers to use the weight of their alliances to provoke adversaries, causing endless problems for those who desire peace. For geopolitical reasons, they are encouraged to “punch above their weight” because a major power has their back. We see concrete examples of such behaviour being played out from time to time today. The Ukraine War is an example of how such provocations can get out of hand.

The article has little to offer beyond using the jaded and very tiresome “Deep State” propaganda making assumptions about China’s military strength and associating it with nefarious intent. So far, to its credit, China has managed to maintain its composure. What the author forgets is that these very countries that the article encourages to set up a “NATO with Asian characteristics” have lived in perfect harmony, if not synchrony, with a very big and powerful China for the best part of 2000 years. The only time that the harmony was broken was for about 200 recent years when these countries were colonised by the West and Japan. The biggest war in the region, World War II, was perpetrated by Japanese expansionism enabled by their Meiji Restoration – learning from the West (1868-1889). It was estimated to have caused the deaths of at least 25 million people, mostly Chinese. It is also a credit to the post World War II Asian leaders that they have demonstrated the ability to avoid major conflicts. At various times, they have put aside their differences and elected to co-operate for mutual benefit. A good example is the border dispute between India and China, and the SEA/China claims to the islands in the South China Sea.

The article advocates that all the Asian countries rally behind the US, Japan and South Korea to prevent expansion by China, despite saying in contradiction, “… any regional security depends heavily on the credibility and consistency of US leadership. The Trump administration’s ambiguous and inconsistent signalling towards NATO has increased doubts about Washington’s long-term security commitments”. How would Asian leaders be persuaded to follow the US if, in the same breath, the author indicates that the US is ambiguous, inconsistent and dubious when it comes to commitment? Moreover, Chinese expansionism is an assumption fabricated to serve geopolitical purposes. History has shown that for centuries China has demonstrated a general tendency to isolate itself, e.g. the Great Wall, rather than to annex other countries even when it was well within its capacity to do so. During the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), Admiral Cheng Ho sailed through the Asian region seven times (1405-1433) with his flotilla of huge vessels without colonising any country; only to solicit tribute for the Ming Emperor, Yong Le, and to ensure harmonious co-existence among the countries along his routes.

Another issue the author introduced is China’s economic leverage, which he warns can be used as punitive trade measures. Compared to the US’ use of trade sanctions, Cold Wars and “tariffs”, such assertions lack perspective. It reminds me of the Christian saying by Matthew: “First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”

There is detectable in the article a patronising attitude towards Asian leaders and a level of malign intent pointing to fearmongering. In response to such articles, one could say with cynicism that without war, alliances like NATO, military industrial complexes, defence/security advisory organisations will have no reason to exist. Therefore, if an enemy does not exist, one has to be invented. French philosopher Voltaire said famously in 1768 that, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.