SEOUL, South Korea — The leaders of the three key U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific did not join President Trump at this year’s NATO summit in the Netherlands.
Australia, Japan and South Korea are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but their leaders have attended the annual summits by special invitation since 2022. None accepted NATO’s invitation this year.
Each nation offered a different reason for its absence, but foreign policy experts pointed to Washington’s “America First” agenda as the common cause.
Regional strategists worry about fraying ties between democracies in the Atlantic and Pacific regions.
Angry Japan
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba had an unhappy meeting with Mr. Trump early last week at the Group of Seven summit in Canada. He was unable to win any concessions on U.S. tariffs, and a 25% tariff on Japanese goods is scheduled for July 8.
On Friday, Japan canceled a meeting with senior U.S. defense and foreign affairs officials in Tokyo. The issue: U.S. demands that Japan raise defense spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product. Japan pledged to double defense spending to 2% in 2022.
Mr. Ishiba once advocated for an “Asian NATO,” and his absence at the summit surprised many.
“There’s a lot of noise over why he made this decision,” said Ryo Hinata-Yamaguchi, an associate professor in Tokyo International University’s Institute for International Strategy. “There is the situation in Iran. The Korean president is not going, and the Australian prime minister is not going, and there is talk of domestic politics.”
Mr. Ishiba’s weak government faces an Upper House election on July 20, and cozying up to America could prove unpopular.
“Rapidly fading confidence in the U.S. among ordinary Japanese is real, and this might turn into a real crisis,” said Haruko Satoh of the Osaka School of International Public Policy. “Damage is done, and I feel bad for the two militaries who have to act in good faith.”
Japanese media reported that the opening of a NATO liaison office in Japan, supported by Mr. Ishiba, had been shelved for unclear reasons.
Uninterested Korea
South Korean President Lee Jae-myung’s NATO no-show is no surprise. A spokesperson for Mr. Lee, who took office June 4, said Monday that “a confluence of urgent domestic issues and growing instability in the Middle East” prevented his attendance.
Mr. Lee had signaled his intentions. “I’m worried whether I absolutely must attend the NATO summit, unless the summit addresses specific current issues,” he told the press during election campaigning in May.
As an opposition politician, Mr. Lee criticized U.S. troops in South Korea as an occupying force and was accused of being anti-Japan, pro-China and pro-North Korea. He has sharply reversed his stances toward Tokyo and Washington, and Japan’s leadership was impressed with his upbeat demeanor and positive messaging during his first meeting with Mr. Ishiba at the G7.
However, Mr. Lee has never been pro-NATO or pro-Ukraine.
During a televised debate just days after Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Mr. Lee said: “In Ukraine, a novice politician of six months became president and declared accession to NATO, which provoked Russia and eventually led to a clash.”
He subsequently walked back those remarks but remained uncommitted. On June 15, his administration said no new aid for Ukraine was planned.
Overlooked Australia
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is widely reported to have turned down the NATO summit because he could not secure a bilateral meeting with Mr. Trump.
Canberra, like Tokyo, has been irked by U.S. demands. After Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth urged Australia to raise its defense spending from 2% of GDP to 3.5%, Mr. Albanese shot back, “We’ll determine our defense policy.”
Bilateral tensions hang over the most expensive defense program in Australian history: the $239 billion AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership among Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Two Australian administrations have committed themselves to the deal, negotiated under President Biden. Under the agreement, Britain and the U.S. will supply Australia with nuclear attack submarines.
U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby told The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper last year that he was a skeptic on AUKUS. In February, he wrote on X that nuclear attack submarines “are our jewel in the crown, and we have too few. It would be highly imprudent to part with them absent an ironclad guarantee they can be employed at the will of the United States.”
Given the glacial pace of U.S. shipbuilding, only one Virginia-class attack warship is produced annually.
Washington has announced a unilateral review of AUKUS under Mr. Colby’s purview.
Euro-Asia cooperation
Since Russia invaded Ukraine, new East-West links have been forged alongside long-held U.S. ties to the Indo-Pacific.
France, Italy and Britain have deployed aircraft carrier strike groups and smaller air and ground units on Indo-Pacific tours to boost military-diplomatic relations and exercise with regional forces.
Some pundits argue that European navies lack the firepower to counter China’s maritime might and should focus on containing Russia. Others say these tours prove European fleets can backfill or reinforce U.S. forces and interoperate with Indo-Pacific partners.
Defense-industrial cooperation is also underway.
Japan is jointly building a sixth-generation stealth fighter with Italy, and Australia is working with Britain and the U.S. on AUKUS. South Korea is supplying NATO countries with tanks, artillery, tactical missiles and light jets.
Whether “America First” policymakers support these initiatives is questionable.
“Biden and his advisers had completely different worldviews,” said Daniel Pinkston, who teaches international relations at Seoul’s Ewha Womans’ University. “The Trump administration doesn’t believe partnerships and alliances are a strength.”
It is not simply America’s problem; the region lacks a driver. Given its history of regional aggressions and its postwar pacifist constitution, East Asia’s largest democratic economy cannot exercise leadership.
“Japan should show leadership in Indo-Pacific,” Mr. Hinata-Yamaguchi said. “Japan cannot be an architect of a regional defense mechanism but can show a commitment to NATO and can show that NATO can help us.”
“It’s everyone against everyone,” said Yang Uk, a security expert at Seoul’s Asan Institute, who is disappointed in Seoul’s disinterest in extraregional security.
“Countries are going to have to figure out how to cooperate and coordinate without the U.S.,” said Mr. Pinkston. “It’s concerning.”
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.