Follow the leader: U.S. hegemonic leadership and the approval of the NATO-Asia-Pacific partnership by Central and Eastern European countries

Abstract

NATO’s recent partnership expansion into the Indo-Pacific region came as a surprise in the sense that it implies a strategic opening that is not easily explained considering the strategic preferences of CEE countries and their interest in keeping the strategic focus of NATO in Europe. Despite this, these countries approved the partnership framework. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate why CEE countries supported NATO's initiative. This thesis aims to determine the reasons for CEE countries' approval of NATO's shift towards strategic opening towards Asia. To answer this question, the thesis relies on the realist literature on hegemonic leadership within alliances, from which it derives the hypothesis that smaller allies are willing to agree to alliance strategies that are not in their direct interest if there is hegemonic leadership in the context of strategic choices. In the studied case this means that U.S. hegemony inside NATO might account for why CEE states approved the partnership although it contradicts their strategic interest in NATO focusing on Europe. To empirically test this explanation in the context of the CEE approval of NATO's adoption of the Asia-Pacific partnership, a qualitative content analysis was conducted using strategic concepts, statements, interviews, and press releases of policymakers regarding the approval of the partnership framework and the U.S. role in the ap-proval process in three selected CEE countries - Estonia, Poland, and Hungary. The analyses revealed that Estonia, Poland, and Hungary approved the strategic opening of NATO towards Asia-Pacific and the presence of U.S. hegemonic influence that is seen in considerations and accommodations of U.S. interests, following them, and keeping the US involved in their de-fense, in the calculations of Estonia and Poland. However, the analysis revealed that the Hungar-ian example showed that there was no US hegemonic influence. Still, there was Chinese influence in the calculations of strategic choices, therefore suggesting that this topic needs further investiga-tion. However, this cannot be considered a hegemonic influence, since did not involve intra-alli-ance dynamics due to the absence of China in NATO. I conclude that hegemonic influence could explain the approval of alliance strategies by small countries that are not in their direct interest.