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 — a reversal of their previous stances.
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 different reasons for its non-attendance, but foreign policy experts are pointing to Washington’s “America First” agenda as the common cause.
Regional strategists worry that the absence of the three Indo-Pacific leaders at the NATO summit indicates ties between democracies in the Atlantic and Pacific regions may be fraying.
Angry Japan
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s absence at the Hague follows an unhappy meeting with Mr. Trump early last week at the Group of Seven summit in Canada, where the premier was unable to win any concessions on U.S. tariffs. The issue remains unsettled, with 25% U.S. tariffs set to apply to Japanese goods on July 8.
On Friday, Japan canceled a meeting between its and the U.S.’ senior defense and foreign affairs officials in Tokyo. The issue: U.S. demands that Japan raise defense spending to 3.5% of GDP. Japan pledged to double defense spending to 2% in 2022.
The non-attendance of Mr. Ishiba — who once advocated for an “Asian NATO” — 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 at a time when 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.”
NATO also has irked Japan. Japanese media reported that the opening of a NATO liaison office in Japan — a plan 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 on 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 had criticized U.S. troops in Korea as an occupying force and stood accused of being anti-Japan and pro-China and pro-North Korea. He has sharply reversed his earlier 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 remains uncommitted. On June 15, his administration said no new aid for Ukraine was planned.
Overlooked Australia
It has been widely reported in Australia that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese turned down the NATO summit as he was unable to 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 between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Two separate Canberra administrations have committed themselves the deal, negotiated under then-President Joseph R. Biden, that will see the U.K. and the U.S. supply Australia with nuclear attack submarines.
Current U.S. Under Secretary of Defense Eldridge Colby told the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper last year that he was a “skeptic” on AUKUS. In February, he wrote on X that nuclear attacks subs “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 per year.
In June, Washington announced a unilateral review of AUKUS under Mr. Colby’s purview.
Euro-Asia cooperation vs ’America First’
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, new East-West links have been forged alongside long-held U.S. ties to the Indo-Pacific.
France, Italy and the U.K. have deployed aircraft carrier strike groups, as well as smaller air and ground units, on Indo-Pacific tours to boost military-diplomatic relations and exercise with regional forces.
Some pundits sniff that European navies lack the firepower to counter China’s maritime might and should stick to containing Russia. Others say these tours prove European fleets can backfill or reinforce U.S. forces, and can interoperate with Indo-Pacific partners.
Defense-industrial cooperation is also underway.
Japan is jointly building a sixth-generation stealth fighter with Italy, and the U.K. Australia is working with the U.K., as well as the U.S., on AUKUS. And 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 world views,” 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 post-war 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 current disinterest in extra-regional security.
“Countries are going to have to figure out how to cooperate and coordinate without the U.S.,” said Mr. Pinkston. “It’s concerning.”
