In the Asia-Pacific region, various bilateral, trilateral and multilateral alliances were formed during the early Cold War period. In particular, the U.S.-Japan and the U.S.-Philippine alliances and the Australia-New Zealand-U. S. (ANZUS) pact evolved in 1951, and the U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) and the U.S.-Republic of China (ROC) alliances and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) advanced in 1953 and 1954. Compared to the construction of the single multilateral organization of NATO, these alliances are called hub-and-spokes alliances because the U.S. plays the core role by allying with all the allies while its allies do not necessarily ally with each other.
This paper, however, focuses on various multilateral military alliances, which developed from 1949 to 1954 in the Asia-Pacific region, in an attempt to answer the question of why a single multilateral alliance like NATO did not develop in the Asia-Pacific region. Multilateral alliances such as ANZUS and SEATO were constructed in the region, but they are regarded qualitatively different from NATO, which this research tentatively calls an integrated alliance.
This research, therefore, addresses questions about significant differences between NATO and multilateral alliances in the Asia Pacific. It also tries to explore why multilateral alliances in the region were not able to evolve into a NATO-type alliance or a multilateral integrated alliance. In particular, it is important to note that evidence suggests that multilateral alliances in the Asia-Pacific had the possibility of adopting collective defense arrangements, which NATO possesses. Considering these questions, the paper finally explores the theoretical implications of designing and forming single multilateral integrated alliances.