USA to Form Digital NATO Against China
Trump’s Strategy to Contain China (Part-V)
By: Qamar Bashir
Macomb, Detroit, Michigan
Witnessing the U.S. Senate Committees on Finance, Defense, and Treasury confirmation hearings was an eye-opening experience. The hearings provided a unique insight into the mindset of U.S. lawmakers. It became evident that the U.S. considers itself entitled to maintain global dominance, and any perceived threat—whether real or fictitious—is met with the full force of its military and economic power to sustain its hegemony. Often, this is justified by creating largely unfounded reasons to designate a nation as an adversary and using all means to undermine it.
These hearings reflected a stark reality: the U.S. has now declared China its ultimate adversary and is prepared to use all available means to obstruct China’s progress and development. During the discussions, senators explicitly acknowledged China’s expanding dominance in digital infrastructure, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and cloud computing. While citing reports—albeit without tangible or logical evidence—the committee raised concerns, framing China’s investments in these technologies as serious threats to U.S. national security, economic stability, and global technological leadership.
A notable aspect of the discussion was the committee’s acknowledgment of China’s alleged ability to infiltrate various U.S. government agencies, financial institutions, and corporate databases. They cited the December 8th cyberattack on the U.S. Treasury Department as an example, claiming it highlighted Beijing’s capacity to breach critical infrastructure. However, no conclusive evidence was presented to prove that China or any of its companies were responsible for the attack. Investigations did not rule out the possibility that U.S. companies, Russia, or even a European entity could have been involved. Moreover, given that China’s exports to the U.S. are already at an all-time high, there would be little incentive for China to resort to illegal cyber activities, making such accusations appear politically motivated rather than factually substantiated.
The committee also admitted and acknowledged the dependence of the U.S. and its allies on Chinese cloud computing and artificial intelligence infrastructure, particularly recognizing the dominance of Chinese tech giants such as Huawei, Alibaba, and Tencent over a significant portion of global cloud services.
The hearing also highlighted China’s aggressive investments in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and blockchain technology, aimed at positioning China as a global leader in digital innovation. The committee specifically noted China’s advancements in AI systems, particularly in facial recognition and predictive analytics, acknowledging their exceptional capabilities.
Furthermore, the committee acknowledged China’s dominance in 5G infrastructure, particularly praising the expertise of Chinese firms like Huawei and ZTE in mastering cost-effective and high-standard 5G technology. Additionally, lawmakers addressed the potential for these platforms to exercise digital censorship and manipulation to influence global digital platforms, suppress political discourse, and spread disinformation. While expressing admiration for their technological advancements, the committee also voiced concerns that data stored on these corporations’ controlled systems could potentially be used for surveillance, espionage, data theft, and digital manipulation.
‘‘Finally, the committee discussed the formation of a “Digital NATO,” involving collaboration with European, Japanese, and Australian partners to create secure data-sharing agreements, strengthen cyber defenses, and forge a coalition with like-minded nations. The goal would be to establish international standards for cybersecurity and prevent the expansion of Chinese-controlled digital networks.
If these arguments are accepted, then the same logic would also apply to American and European companies, which have been providing similar technological solutions to many countries worldwide. Committee members were well aware that any technology developed anywhere in the world inherently possesses dual-use potential. However, this does not mean that, based on such unfounded fears, technology-providing countries should retreat into isolation and cease sharing technological advancements with the rest of the world.
The reality is that the U.S.-based GPS, internet, communication, and social media platforms have penetrated nearly every corner of the globe and also possess dual-use capabilities. At any given time, these technologies could be leveraged to undermine the security and sovereignty of other nations. Therefore, singling out China’s technological infrastructure while ignoring the broader global context appears to be a selective and politically motivated stance rather than one rooted in objective security concerns.
Though the members of the committee expressed strong hostility toward China’s unprecedented rise, many of the fears they articulated lacked logical reasoning and were based on unfounded concerns. They overestimated China’s capabilities, as well as its aims and objectives. In reality, China’s track record presents a starkly different picture.
China’s rise in economic, financial, technological, and innovation sectors has been driven primarily by the goal of improving the living standards of its people and those of its partner countries. It has focused on providing cost-effective technological solutions to its own citizens and the rest of the world. Historically, Chinese leadership has demonstrated no intent or compulsion to undermine any other country—particularly the United States, which remains China’s most significant and valuable economic partner.
China’s engagement with the global community is rooted in a vision of mutual benefit, aiming to create win-win outcomes for itself and its partners without questioning their intent or objectives. China’s strength does not lie in forming alliances against other nations but rather in fostering cooperative relationships that drive the best possible outcomes for all parties involved. Unlike NATO or the European Union, where strict membership conditions apply, China’s platforms remain open and inclusive, welcoming any country willing to collaborate without imposing rigid prerequisites.
Perhaps China’s only “crime” is that it has developed a level of industrial, economic, and technological strength that was previously assumed to be the exclusive domain of the United States and its European allies. It may be time for the U.S. to reconsider its approach of creating adversaries—especially when other nations have no inherent desire to be positioned as enemies. The U.S. has often forced nations into adversarial roles by artificially constructing conflicts, leaving them with no choice but to engage in rivalries they did not seek. While such confrontations may provide momentum to the U.S. system—which thrives in opposition—it has historically been counterproductive to both America and the countries it designates as threats. The U.S. should consider dissolving NATO, which has historically played a significant role in waging wars that could have been avoided, rather than creating a “Digital NATO.”
By: Qamar Bashir
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former MD, SRBC
