A geopolitical and geostrategic blueprint for NATO’s China challenge

Abstract

How will the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) respond to China’s rise? At the heart of NATO’s China challenge is the need for allies to grasp the magnitude of Beijing’s emerging geopolitical challenge to the Euro-Atlantic area. Utilizing geopolitical theories developed by Halford Mackinder and Nicholas Spykman, the article argues that China is evolving into a transatlantic challenge on the Eurasian “maritime periphery.” Consequently, NATO can play a significant role in putting pressure on China’s continental direction and its efforts to extend its strategic reach into the “far seas.”

Notes

1 Matthew Kroenig, The Return of Great Power Rivalry: Democracy versus Autocracy from the Ancient World to the U.S. and China (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020).

2 U.S. Mission to NATO, “Intervention by Secretary of Defense Mattis, Session One of the North Atlantic Council,” February 15, 2017. https://nato.usmission.gov/february-15-2017-intervention-secretary-defense-mattis-session-one-north-atlantic-council/

3 White House, “Remarks by President Biden on America’s Place in the World.” Washington, DC. February 4, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-sremarks/2021/02/04/remarks-by-president-biden-on-americas-place-in-the-world/

4 Michael Crowley and Steven Erlanger, “Biden’s Plan to Link Arms with Europe against Russia and China Isn’t So Simple,” New York Times, February 18, 2021.

5 Sten Rynning, NATO’s Futures: The Atlantic Alliance between Power and Purpose (Rome: NATO Defense College, 2019), 2.

6 Colin S. Gray, “The continued primacy of geography,” Orbis 40, no. 2 (1996): 247–59.

7 Paul Kelly, Classical Geopolitics: A New Analytical Model (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2016), 23.

8 Martin D. Mitchell, “Using the Principles of Halford J. Mackinder and Nicholas John Spykman to Reevaluate a Twenty-First Century Geopolitical Framework for the United States,” Comparative Strategy 39, no. 5 (2020): 408.

9 Robert S. Ross, “The geography of the Peace: East Asia in the Twenty-First Century,” International Security 23, no. 4 (1999): 82.

10 Jacub J. Grygiel, Great Powers and Geopolitical Change (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006).

11 Robert D. Kaplan, “The Geography of Chinese Power: How Far Can Beijing Reach on Land and at Sea?,” Foreign Affairs 89, no. 3 (2012): 22–41; Toshi Yoshihara and James Holmes, Red Star over the Pacific: China’s Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Maritime Strategy, 2nd ed. (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2018).

12 R. Gerald Hughes and Jesse Heley, “Between Man and Nature: The Enduring Wisdom of Sir Halford J. Mackinder,” Journal of Strategic Studies 38, no. 6 (2015): 900.

13 NATO, “Remarks by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on launching #NATO2030 – Strengthening the Alliance in an Increasingly Competitive World,” Brussels, June 8, 2020, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_176197.htm

14 NATO, NATO 2030: United for a New Era. Analysis and Recommendations of the Reflection Group Appointed by the NATO Secretary General, 25 November 2020, 17, emphasis added. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/12/pdf/201201-Reflection-Group-Final-Report-Uni.pdf

15 Philipp Blenkinsop and Robbin Emmott, “EU Leaders Call for End to ‘Naivety’ in Relations with China,” Reuters, March 22, 2019.

16 Denny Roy, “Assertive China: Irredentism or expansionism?,” Survival 61, no. 1 (2019): 51–74; Yves-Heng Lim, “How (dis)satisfied is China? A Power Transition Theory Perspective,” Journal of Contemporary China, 24, no. 92 (2015): 280–97.

17 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, 1988-2019, https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex

18 Michael Cox, “Not just ‘Convenient’: China and Russia’s New Strategic Partnership in the Age of Geopolitics,” Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 1, no. 4 (2016): 317–34; Jacob Stokes and Julianne Smith, “Facing Down the Sino-Russian Entente,” Washington Quarterly 43, no. 2 (2020): 137–56.

19 Meia Nouwens and Helena Lagarde, “China’s Rise as a Global Security Actor: Implications for NATO,” IISS-MERICS Research Paper, 21 December 2020, 202.

20 Geoffrey Sloan, “Sir Halford J. Mackinder: The Heartland theory then and now,” Journal of Strategic Studies 22, no. 3 (1999): 15–38; Hughes and Heley, “Between Man and Nature,” 900.

21 Colin S. Gray, “In Defence of the Heartland: Sir Halford Mackinder and His Critics a Hundred Years On,” Comparative Strategy 23, no. 1 (2004): 20.

22 David N. Livingstone, The Geographical Tradition: Episodes in the History of a Contested Enterprise (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 195.

23 H. J. Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction (London: Henry Holt, 1919), 194.

24 Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, 277.

25 H.J. Mackinder, “The Geographical Pivot of History,” The Geographical Journal 23, no. 4 (1904): 437.

26 Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality, 203.

27 Nicholas John Spykman, The Geography of the Peace, edited by Helen R. Nicholl (New York: Hartcourt Brace, 1944), 43.

28 Colin S. Gray, “Nicholas John Spykman, the Balance of Power, and International Order,” Journal of Strategic Studies 38, no. 6 (2015): 892.

29 Gray, “Nicholas John Spykman, the Balance of Power, and International Order,” 892.

30 Rynning, NATO’s Futures, 12. Italics in the original.

31 Jon Sumida, “Alfred Thayer Mahan, Geopolitician,” Journal of Strategic Studies 22, nos. 2-3 (1999): 39–62.

32 Andrew S. Erickson, “China’s Strategic Objectives at Sea,” in Asia-Pacific Regional Security Assessment 2017: Key Assessment and Trends, edited by Tim Huxley and William Choong (London: IISS, 2017), 37–50.

33 Yoshihara and Holmes, Red Star over the Pacific.

34 Eric Heginbotham and Richard S. Samuels, “Active Denial: Redesigning Japan’s Response to China’s Military Challenge,” International Security, 42, no. 4 (2018): 128–69.

35 Toshi Yoshihara and Jack Bianchi, Seizing on Weakness: Allied Strategy for Competing with China’s Globalizing Military (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, 2021), 85–86.

36 Mitchell, “Using the Principles of Halford J. Mackinder and Nicholas John Spykman to Reevaluate a Twenty-First Century Geopolitical Framework for the United States,” 418.

37 Lanxin Xiang, “China’s Eurasian experiment,” Survival 46, no. 2 (2004): 118.

38 David S. Markey, China’s Western Horizon: Beijing and the New Geopolitics of Eurasia (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020).

39 Jonathan Holslag, “China, NATO, and the Pitfall of Empty Engagement,” Washington Quarterly 42, no. 3 (2019): 140.

40 Peter Ferdinand, “Westward ho – The China Dream and ‘One Belt, One Road’: Chinese Foreign Policy under Xi Jinping,” International Affairs 92, no. 4 (2016): 955.

41 Nadegé Rolland, China’s Eurasian Century? Political and Strategic Implications of the Belt and Road Initiative (Seattle, WA: National Bureau of Asian Research, 2017), 178.

42 Yoshihara and Bianchi, Seizing on Weakness, 55.

43 Jordan Calinoff and David Gordon, “Port Investments in the Belt and Road Initiative: Is Beijing Grabbing Strategic Assets?,” Survival 62, no. 4 (2020): 59–80.

44 Christopher Woody, “NATO Is Finally Talking about China, and There Are 3 Big Problems It Has to Address,” Business Insider, December 6, 2019.

45 Ann-Marie Brady, China as a Polar Great Power (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).

46 People’s Republic of China, ‘Full Text: China’s Arctic Policy,” January 26, 2018. http://english.www.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2018/01/26/content_281476026660336.htm

47 David Auerswald, “China’s Multifaceted Arctic Strategy,” War on the Rocks, May 24, 2019.

48 Torbjorn L. Knutsen, “Halford J. Mackinder, Geopolitics, and the Heartland Thesis,” The International History Review 36, no. 5 (2014): 835–57.

49 Michael Cox, “Not just ‘Convenient’: China and Russia’s New Strategic Partnership in the Age of Geopolitics,” Asian Journal of Comparative Politics 1, no. 4 (2016): 317–34.

50 U.S. Department of Defense, Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2020. Annual Report to Congress (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2020), 128.

51 Ryan D. Martinson, “China as an Atlantic Power,” RUSI Journal, 164, no. 7 (2019): 18–31.

52 Holslag, “China, NATO, and the Pitfall of Empty Engagement,” 140.

53 See also Jacub J. Grygiel and A. Wess Mitchell, Unquiet Frontiers: Rising Rivals, Vulnerable Allies, and the Crisis of American Power (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016).

54 Yoshihara and Bianchi, Seizing on Weakness, 104.

55 Ibid., 38–9.

56 Alexander Cooley and Daniel Nexon, Exit from Hegemony: The Unravelling of the American Global Order (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 177–8.

57 Robert D. Kaplan, “The Geography of Chinese Power: How Far Can Beijing Reach on Land and at Sea?,” Foreign Affairs 89, no. 3 (2010): 29.

58 Henry Kissinger, Does America Need a Foreign Policy? Toward a Diplomacy for the 21^st Century (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 52.

59 Gray, “Nicholas John Spykman, the Balance of Power, and International Order,” 884.

60 Rynning, NATO’s Futures, 12.

61 Stokes and Smith, “Facing Down the Sino-Russian Entente,” 144.

62 C. Raja Mohan, “India Romances the West,” Foreign Policy, March 19, 2021.

63 Evan B. Montgomery, “Competitive Strategies against Continental Powers: The Geopolitics of Sino-Indian-American Relations,” Journal of Strategic Studies 36, no. 1 (2013): 76–100.

64 Abdurrahman Utku Hacioglu, “The Case for NATO’s Global Partnership with India,” NDC Policy Brief, no. 3 (Rome: NATO Defence College, 2020).

65 On the later see, NATO, NATO 2030, 60.

66 NATO, NATO 2030, 57.

67 Ian Brzezinski, “NATO’s Role in a Transatlantic Strategy on China,” Atlantic Council, June 1, 2020.

68 Yoshihara and Bianchi, Seizing on Weakness, 50.

69 Jeffrey W. Hornung, Allies Growing Closer: Japan-Europe Security Ties in the Age of Strategic Competition (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2020), 91.

70 John Mair and Colin Packham, “NATO Needs to Address China’s Rise, Says Stoltenberg,” Reuters, August 7, 2019.

71 Yoshihara and Bianchi, Seizing on Weakness, 99.

72 Yoshihara and Bianchi, Seizing on Weakness, chapter 6.

73 Andrew A. Michta, “As China Surges, Europe is on the Menu,” The American Interest 15, no. 3 (2019).

74 U.S. Army, Regaining Arctic Dominance: The U.S. Army in the Arctic, Headquarters, Department of the Army 19 January 2021, https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2021/03/15/9944046e/regaining-arctic-dominance-us-army-in-the-arctic-19-january-2021-unclassified.pdf

75 Duncan Delpedge, “NATO and the Arctic: The Need for a New Approach,” RUSI Journal, 165, nos. 5-6 (2020): 87.

76 NATO, “NATO Begins Cooperation with Danish Joint Arctic Command in Greenland,” October 1, 2020, https://mc.nato.int/media-centre/news/2020/nato-begins-cooperation-with-danish-joint-arctic-command-in-greenland

77 Mark D. Faram, “Why the US Navy Has 10 Ships, 130 Aircraft and 9,000 Personnel in the Mediterranean,” Navy Times, April 24, 2019.

78 Jamie Dettmer, “NATO Boosts Black Sea Presence,” VoA News, February 3, 2021.

79 Xiaoyu Pu and Chengli Wang, “Rethinking China’s Rise: Chinese Scholars Debate Strategic Overstretch,” International Affairs 94, no. 5 (2018): 1019–35.

80 Grygiel, Great Powers and Geopolitical Change, 8.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Benjamin Schreer

Ben Schreer ([email protected]) was a Professor of Strategic Studies at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia at the time of writing this article, he is now the Executive Director, IISS-Europe, Berlin, Germany.