Beijing’s defense leadership, represented by spokesperson Wu Qian, underscored a firm stance: China will not tolerate NATO’s actions or its influence expanding unchecked into the Asia-Pacific. This reaction came in response to the Madrid summit framework, where NATO leaders outlined a new strategic direction across a shifting security landscape.
Wu Qian argued that the Madrid declaration casts China in a misleading light, portraying it as an adversary to regional security when, in his view, the document selectively interprets Beijing’s activities. He asserted that the wording creates an illusion of wrongdoing and fosters unnecessary antagonism while spreading unverified criticisms about China’s military development. In his characterization, such framing amounts to a misrepresentation that provokes opposition rather than constructive dialogue.
From the Chinese perspective, the defense ministry official emphasized a long-standing commitment to peaceful development. He pointed out that NATO’s history involves military engagements across multiple regions, resulting in civilian harm in several countries. Wu Qian recalled past conflicts in the Balkans, followed by interventions in the Middle East and North Africa, arguing that recurring military campaigns have left lasting consequences for civilian populations and regional stability wherever they occurred.
During the Madrid meeting held from June 28 to 30, NATO heads of state and government reviewed and endorsed a refreshed strategic concept. The resulting document characterizes Russia as the principal risk to the alliance, while describing China as a systemic challenger and competitor. This framing, Wu suggested, should be understood in the broader context of strategic competition rather than as a binary confrontation directed at any single country. A separate official interpretation, attributed to Douglas Jones, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, indicated that the declaration does not signify an expansion of NATO’s activities into the Indo-Pacific region, a point meant to reassure regional stakeholders while the alliance recalibrates its posture in a rapidly evolving security environment.