Japan’s top government spokesman on Tuesday declined to comment on French President Emmanuel Macron’s reported objection to a plan to open a NATO liaison office in Tokyo, only saying that “various considerations” are taking place inside the trans-Atlantic alliance.
The Financial Times reported Monday that Macron has objected to what would be NATO’s first office in Asia, reflecting France’s reluctance to back anything that fuels tensions between the alliance and China. The plan, revealed in May, has upset Beijing.
“Various considerations are under way within NATO. At this point, I will refrain from commenting with prejudgment,” Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno told a press conference when asked about the report.
NATO has been eager to increase cooperation with Asia-Pacific countries amid concerns over Russia’s growing military cooperation with China following its invasion of Ukraine. The opening of an office in Tokyo is apparently aimed at deepening ties with Japan.
Setting up a NATO office needs unanimous approval from the organization’s decision-making North Atlantic Council, with France having the power to block the plan.
In a conference last week, Macron said NATO should not expand its reach beyond the North Atlantic and added, “If…we push NATO to enlarge the spectrum and the geography, we will make a big mistake,” according to the newspaper.
The resistance from France has complicated months of discussion within NATO over the opening of the outpost in Tokyo, it also said, citing eight people familiar with the situation.
One French official reportedly suggested that the opening of the office could undermine European credibility with China in regard to the war in Ukraine, particularly in terms of asking the Chinese not to supply arms to Russia.
Another person was quoted as saying that France was reluctant to back anything “that contributes to NATO-China tension.”
Macron made waves in April for his comments in a media interview that Europe should not be a “follower” of either the United States or China, cautioning against being drawn into a crisis over Taiwan amid the two countries’ rivalry.
Beijing claims the self-ruled democratic island as part of its territory to be brought under control, by force if necessary.
Reacting to Monday’s newspaper report, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin warned of NATO’s “outreach in Asia.”
“Asia lies beyond the geographical scope of the North Atlantic…However, we have seen NATO bent on going east into this region, interfering in regional affairs and inciting bloc confrontation,” he told a press conference on Tuesday.
He also said Japan “should make the right call in keeping with the region’s stability and development interests and refrain from doing anything that may undermine mutual trust between regional countries and peace and stability in the region.”
They can leave Nato again if they don’t like it.
Who would of thought that the country we dropped atomic bombs on would be a far more reliable ally than the country we liberated from the Germans twice.
I think it would be cool if Macron fucked off already.
Carlos Ghosn grudging payback vibe lol
if that made any sense. u treat one of ours like trash, we treat u likewise
The West is already desunited on the Chinese matter. Opening a NATO office in Japan without having a public and clear debate that delivers an agreed strategy between all the West about what we want to do with China, and how to do it, is just counterproductive at this point. Do we want an expansion of NATO in the Pacific ? If so, how do we proceed ? Are Hungary and Turkey willing to defend South Korea ? Do we want a PTO seperate from NATO ? Which country to include ? Only SK, Japan and Australia ? Because if we really want to deter China, there is a case about including the Philippines, India or Indonesia. Would these countries defend Poland against Russia ? In the case of a reduced Pacific included NATO (NATO + Japan + SK + Australia), would Japan defend Greece against Turkey if push comes to shoves ? None of these questions has been asked nor collectively answered.
It is easy to say we should include every Western leaning nation in NATO but a defense collective is only as strong as its credibility to opponents. For China, a Japan in NATO doesn’t change much. Only the UK and France, apart from the US of course, have the ability to do meaningful operation in a tight timing halfway around the world. Similarly, an Australia in NATO doesn’t change much for Russia if it wants to invade Estonia. On the one hand, you have a collective aimed at a specific threat and in which all members are directly concerned with that threat and focused on it. On the other hand, you have a collective aimed at two threats in which all members are not directly concerned nor focused on them, diluting responsabilities and the credibility of article 5. Which one deters more ? I don’t have the answer to it but if we want to be honest, it is not as clear cut as some argue.
The Indian minister of foreign affairs said it best: Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the worlds problems, but the worlds problems are not Europe’s.
Japan took a risk in supporting the west and Ukraine. I don’t know if a lot of Europeans even know this but part of the reason why America was able to send so much LNG to Europe in your time of need was thanks to Japan. A lot of those shipments were supposed to go to Japan and instead were rerouted to Europe. The Japanese risked their own energy security for Europe.
The response these articles have gotten is pretty disgusting. And I feel bad for Japan. They should have been selfish, protected their own interests first, and stayed out of the Ukraine mess.
This should also be a lesson to any other non NATO country. Stay out of Europe’s drama because there will be no reciprocity.
6 comments
Article:
Japan’s top government spokesman on Tuesday declined to comment on French President Emmanuel Macron’s reported objection to a plan to open a NATO liaison office in Tokyo, only saying that “various considerations” are taking place inside the trans-Atlantic alliance.
The Financial Times reported Monday that Macron has objected to what would be NATO’s first office in Asia, reflecting France’s reluctance to back anything that fuels tensions between the alliance and China. The plan, revealed in May, has upset Beijing.
“Various considerations are under way within NATO. At this point, I will refrain from commenting with prejudgment,” Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno told a press conference when asked about the report.
NATO has been eager to increase cooperation with Asia-Pacific countries amid concerns over Russia’s growing military cooperation with China following its invasion of Ukraine. The opening of an office in Tokyo is apparently aimed at deepening ties with Japan.
Setting up a NATO office needs unanimous approval from the organization’s decision-making North Atlantic Council, with France having the power to block the plan.
In a conference last week, Macron said NATO should not expand its reach beyond the North Atlantic and added, “If…we push NATO to enlarge the spectrum and the geography, we will make a big mistake,” according to the newspaper.
The resistance from France has complicated months of discussion within NATO over the opening of the outpost in Tokyo, it also said, citing eight people familiar with the situation.
One French official reportedly suggested that the opening of the office could undermine European credibility with China in regard to the war in Ukraine, particularly in terms of asking the Chinese not to supply arms to Russia.
Another person was quoted as saying that France was reluctant to back anything “that contributes to NATO-China tension.”
Macron made waves in April for his comments in a media interview that Europe should not be a “follower” of either the United States or China, cautioning against being drawn into a crisis over Taiwan amid the two countries’ rivalry.
Beijing claims the self-ruled democratic island as part of its territory to be brought under control, by force if necessary.
Reacting to Monday’s newspaper report, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin warned of NATO’s “outreach in Asia.”
“Asia lies beyond the geographical scope of the North Atlantic…However, we have seen NATO bent on going east into this region, interfering in regional affairs and inciting bloc confrontation,” he told a press conference on Tuesday.
He also said Japan “should make the right call in keeping with the region’s stability and development interests and refrain from doing anything that may undermine mutual trust between regional countries and peace and stability in the region.”
They can leave Nato again if they don’t like it.
Who would of thought that the country we dropped atomic bombs on would be a far more reliable ally than the country we liberated from the Germans twice.
I think it would be cool if Macron fucked off already.
Carlos Ghosn grudging payback vibe lol
if that made any sense. u treat one of ours like trash, we treat u likewise
The West is already desunited on the Chinese matter. Opening a NATO office in Japan without having a public and clear debate that delivers an agreed strategy between all the West about what we want to do with China, and how to do it, is just counterproductive at this point. Do we want an expansion of NATO in the Pacific ? If so, how do we proceed ? Are Hungary and Turkey willing to defend South Korea ? Do we want a PTO seperate from NATO ? Which country to include ? Only SK, Japan and Australia ? Because if we really want to deter China, there is a case about including the Philippines, India or Indonesia. Would these countries defend Poland against Russia ? In the case of a reduced Pacific included NATO (NATO + Japan + SK + Australia), would Japan defend Greece against Turkey if push comes to shoves ? None of these questions has been asked nor collectively answered.
It is easy to say we should include every Western leaning nation in NATO but a defense collective is only as strong as its credibility to opponents. For China, a Japan in NATO doesn’t change much. Only the UK and France, apart from the US of course, have the ability to do meaningful operation in a tight timing halfway around the world. Similarly, an Australia in NATO doesn’t change much for Russia if it wants to invade Estonia. On the one hand, you have a collective aimed at a specific threat and in which all members are directly concerned with that threat and focused on it. On the other hand, you have a collective aimed at two threats in which all members are not directly concerned nor focused on them, diluting responsabilities and the credibility of article 5. Which one deters more ? I don’t have the answer to it but if we want to be honest, it is not as clear cut as some argue.
The Indian minister of foreign affairs said it best: Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the worlds problems, but the worlds problems are not Europe’s.
Japan took a risk in supporting the west and Ukraine. I don’t know if a lot of Europeans even know this but part of the reason why America was able to send so much LNG to Europe in your time of need was thanks to Japan. A lot of those shipments were supposed to go to Japan and instead were rerouted to Europe. The Japanese risked their own energy security for Europe.
The response these articles have gotten is pretty disgusting. And I feel bad for Japan. They should have been selfish, protected their own interests first, and stayed out of the Ukraine mess.
This should also be a lesson to any other non NATO country. Stay out of Europe’s drama because there will be no reciprocity.