WHY, DESPITE A RAPIDLY MILITARIZING CHINA, ARE THERE NO MULTILATERAL COLLECTIVE DEFENSE INSTITUTIONS IN ASIA?

With the return of great power and strategic competition, a renewed analysis of U.S. alliances in the Indo-Pacific is required. Competition with the Soviet Union during the Cold War elicited the formation of NATO, a multilateral collective defense institution. This thesis aims to answer why, despite a rapidly militarizing China, there remains no such institution in Asia. To that end, it examines the Chinese threat relative to that posed by the Soviet Union, then examines U.S. relations with its major partners in the region—India, Japan, South Korean, and Australia—to understand the forces that are inhibiting multilateralism. This thesis finds that the current geopolitical environment in the Indo-Pacific does not yet warrant a change to the hitherto successful hub-and-spokes system. China’s increased assertiveness in the region does not present an existential threat to the United States and its allies, and China’s economic appeal and regional clout disincentivize states from provoking it. However, parsimonious structural theories inadequately explain the lack of a multilateral institution in Asia. Domestic politics, norms, identity, and legal constructs also influence states’ desires and/or abilities to participate in such an institution. Nevertheless, a substantial Chinese transgression that severely upsets the status quo could drive states to form a multilateral collective defense institution in the region, as the appetite for defense-related multilateralism is increasing.Outstanding ThesisLieutenant, United States NavyApproved for public release. Distribution is unlimited