Illustration: Liu Rui/Global Times

With NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg having concluded a four-day trip to South Korea and Japan, the bloc's attempt to extend into Asia has been a topic of many international affairs observers. There is even discussion on Twitter whether the NATO should become NAPTO - the North Atlantic Pacific Alliance, and bring in Australia, Japan, India, New Zealand and many more.

The US-led military group's current bid to expand into Asia is actually Washington's attempt to revise the post-war international order. In the original so-called international order, NATO does not have any military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, let alone a military structure. Today, in addition to eastward expansion, the NATO is also extending its functions far eastward, characterized by enhanced cooperation with the US' allies and close partners in Asia.

The fundamental logic of their cooperation is the globalization of the so-called collective security system, the NATO's core value and foundation. Under such an arrangement, an aggressor against any one state is considered an aggressor against all other states. 

The concept of the collective security system was born in the context of the Cold War. As a result, when NATO is trying to extend its collective security arrangement to the Asia Pacific, it is to extend Europe's Cold War architecture here, threatening to the security of the region.

The NATO is trying to add its Asian allies and close partners, such as Japan and South Korea, into its collective security arrangement by stepping up their cooperation. This would split the Asia Pacific, one of the most diverse region in the world, into two groups - one is under NATO's such arrangement, and another is not. 

The so-called collective security is essentially selective security. When some of US allies and close partners in the Asia Pacific are included into such an arrangement, the selected group and the non-selected ones will be fallen into a deeper security dilemma.

That is to say that no matter what beautiful rhetoric the NATO uses as a pretext to ramp up cooperation with Seoul and Tokyo, it will mean insecurity for Asian countries which are not under NATO's collective security system.

Asia is standing at a crossroads. All regional countries should mull whether they head toward a path of grave security dilemma where contests in terms of security between two groups escalate, or solidify to avoid the region splitting into two and pursue their shared security.

To shun the treat of security dilemma triggered by potential NATO's expansion to Asia, it is critical for all regional countries, including China, Japan, South Korea, as well as countries in the Southeast and South Asia, to pursue shared security, instead of collective security.

The lessons of the Cold War are worth learning. Asia should not repeat the same mistakes. The Europeans have suffered a lot from the escalating security dilemma. The ongoing Ukraine crisis is the fresh example, in which the whole Europe is in the grip of an energy crisis and surging prices. There is a Chinese saying that "Do not do unto others what you would not want done unto you." It is hoped that NATO will not bring their suffering to the Asia-Pacific region. 

All Asia-Pacific countries should proceed from the whole situation and take a long-term perspective to pursue their shared security, rather than the so-called collective security which is propagandized by NATO for immediate interests. The prospect of collective security must be a less secure region. And this is a security trap set by the US-led group. All Asia-Pacific countries should stay vigilant toward NATO's attempt to impair the regional security.

The article was compiled Global Times reporter Lu Yuanzhi based on an interview with Yang Xiyu, a senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn