Over the past three years, Chinese foreign and defence ministry spokespersons have adopted a much more negative tone toward NATO. This is striking given that the alliance maintains only a limited presence in Asia. As 2021, China has increasingly portrayed NATO as a tool of U.S. hegemony and a driver of global instability.
This discursive shift matters for the Asia-Pacific because Chinese officials now fold NATO into broader narratives of bloc confrontation and warn that the alliance is “reaching beyond its geographical confines” and exporting instability to Asia.Beijing seems to be linking European and Indo-Pacific security,and casting NATO as an increasingly prominent symbol in China’s messaging about great-power rivalry.What changed in China’s NATO Discourse As 2021
This analysis draws on all question-answer pairs mentioning “NATO” in the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) daily press conferences since 2002 and the Ministry of National Defense (mod) monthly press conferences since 2018. These transcripts offer a rare, systematic window into how China publicly represents NATO over time.
Until 2021, statements about NATO in Chinese foreign and defense ministry press conferences were few and largely neutral in tone. Negative language appeared occasionally but did not shape the overall discourse. This changes abruptly from 2021 onward. In that year, more than half of all NATO-related answers adopted a negative tone, rising to 72 percent in 2022 and 84 percent in 2023. Neutral and positive language, once the norm, became rare exceptions.the shift is also visible in the phrasing of suggestions directed at NATO: earlier “hopes” and “reminders” gave way to more confrontational formulations, including telling NATO what it “needs to do” or directly “urging” it to change course. Together, these developments mark a decisive rhetorical break, transforming China’s diplomatic posture toward NATO from restrained and procedural to consistently critical and sharply adversarial.
Shifts in tone are closely tied to changes in the topics Chinese officials emphasize when discussing NATO.From 2019 onward, spokespersons devoted more attention to conflict-laden themes, especially NATO enlargement and the war in Ukraine. In 2022, NATO’s outreach to East Asia rose to prominence. Officials increasingly warned that the alliance was “reaching beyond its geographical confines” and bringing instability to the region. Throughout this period, reactions to NATO’s identification of China as a “challenge” also remained a recurring theme. topic patterns show a clear evolution from technical, low-salience issues to sustained engagement with crises, expansion, and regional geopolitics.
With a hardening in tone and more confrontational topics, it is unsurprising that the way Chinese officials characterize NATO shifted as well. From 2002 to 2018, substantive portrayals were almost absent, and many statements contained no portrayal at all. Beginning in 2019,new portrayals emerged,including initial reactions to NATO’s identification of China as a challenge and occasional depictions of NATO as a source of instability.
By 2021-2022, this pattern had transformed dramatically. Portrayals of NATO as an instigator of global instability became dominant, replacing earlier neutral depictions of China-NATO relations. At the same time, portrayals of NATO as a tool of U.S. hegemony appeared more frequently, adding a sharper ideological dimension. Although reactions to NATO’s labeling of China as a “challenge” continued, they were increasingly overshadowed by these broader, more accusatory framings. By 2023-2024, even as the total number of statements declined, the diversity of portrayals persisted – indicating that the negative turn in China’s NATO discourse has become durable rather than episodic.Why This Shift Is Happening Now
The strongest driver behind the po
China’s Shifting Rhetoric on NATO and its Implications for the Asia-Pacific
China’s discourse surrounding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has undergone a notable shift,increasingly framing the alliance not as a direct military threat,but as a symbol of a broader,Western-led effort to establish a global bloc confrontation.This evolving rhetoric has important implications for the Asia-Pacific region, possibly hardening regional alignments and amplifying perceptions of encirclement.
The core of China’s concern, as evidenced by official statements, lies with NATO’s global role and the U.S.-aligned security structures it represents, rather than a fear of imminent military pressure. Analysis suggests this antagonism is rooted in political and ideological dynamics, rather than a genuine assessment of security danger. https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/08/29/china-s-nato-problem-pub-90448
Why This Matters for the Asia-Pacific
As 2021, China has increasingly integrated NATO into its warnings about “bloc confrontation” in the Asia-Pacific. A key driver of this shift is NATO’s limited, but growing, political engagement with Indo-Pacific partners like Japan, South Korea, australia, and New Zealand. https://www.nato.int/nato-worldwide/nato-and-the-indo-pacific/ Chinese state media and officials portray these interactions, and U.S. alliances and minilateral networks in the region (like AUKUS), not as regional arrangements, but as extensions of a perceived NATO “Cold War mentality.”
this reframing positions the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy and the security choices of its allies as part of a globally orchestrated confrontation led by the West. Consequently, routine interactions between U.S. allies and NATO are increasingly characterized by Beijing as evidence of “NATO expansion,” even in the absence of any substantive change in NATO’s posture.
China’s rhetoric creates the impression of an encroaching Euro-Atlantic presence in Asia, inflating the political stakes of otherwise limited cooperation. Even symbolic ties are being leveraged to fuel anxieties.
NATO as a Discursive stand-in
China’s evolving portrayals of NATO risk turning the alliance into a symbolic focal point of bloc politics in the Asia-Pacific, even without formal enlargement or increased military deployments. Chinese spokespersons frequently assert that NATO “brings instability,” fuels confrontation, and exports Western dominance beyond Europe. https://www.cfr.org/china/nato These narratives align with China’s broader ideological confrontation with “the West.”
By linking European security institutions to Indo-Pacific dynamics, Beijing effectively globalizes its contest with the United States. NATO, in this context, becomes a discursive stand-in for Western power generally. this allows China to criticize U.S. alliances and multilateral arrangements in Asia under the banner of opposing “NATO-like” behavior, regardless of NATO’s direct involvement. It also allows China to position itself as defending regional autonomy against external, Western-led blocs, influencing how other countries perceive emerging security partnerships.
The Risk of Escalation
The primary danger isn’t a significant military role for NATO in Asia. Instead, China’s rhetoric risks hardening regional alignments, amplifying perceptions of encirclement, and transforming largely symbolic NATO-Asia ties into potential triggers for geopolitical friction. this could lead to increased tensions and a more polarized security landscape in the Indo-Pacific.
It is vital to note that NATO has stated its intentions are not to become a military alliance in the Indo-Pacific, but rather to cooperate with partners who share its values. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/nato-says-not-seeking-establish-presence-indo-pacific-2023-07-11/ However, China’s narrative continues to frame the situation differently, highlighting the potential for miscalculation and escalation.
Related reading