Earlier this year, NATO allies finally agreed that China presents a challenge. What this means is anyone's guess. The challenge now facing NATO officials in the 30-member NATO is to turn an endlessly malleable term into an actual plan. So far, progress has been modest - at best.

On the one hand, the U.S., trying to reconcile NATO's goals with its own desire to contain Beijing. On the other hand, softliners such as Hungary want to engage Beijing. There is also a vast and shifting middle ground: hawks who do not want to irritate Beijing excessively; softliners who still worry about economic dependence on China, Politico reported.

U.S. Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith insisted that U.S. and NATO strategies can be compatible. “I see tremendous alignment between the two,” she told POLITICO. But, she acknowledged, translating the alliance’s words into action is “a long and complicated story.” 

Indeed, hanging over the whole discussion is the question of whether China now deserves such attention. War is raging in NATO's backyard

“NATO was not conceived for operations in the Pacific Ocean — it’s a North Atlantic alliance,” said Josep Borrell, the EU’s top diplomat, in a recent interview with POLITICO. “Certainly one can consider other threats and challenges,” he added. “But [for] the time being, don’t you think that we have enough threats and challenges on the traditional scenario of NATO?”

This issue will be discussed this week in Bucharest, where alliance foreign ministers will sign a new report on the response to China. Although officials have agreed on several basic issues, the talks will still be a preview of the tough debate that is expected to plague NATO for years to come.

“Now,” said one senior European diplomat, “the ‘so what’ is not easy.” 

In a key section of the alliance's new strategic plan, the leaders wrote that "we will responsibly work together as allies to address the systemic challenges" that China poses to the military alliance.

In many ways, it was a historic moment, hinting at NATO's future and reflecting the skillful coordination between the 30 members, who have long maintained very different relationships with Beijing.

The U.S. went to great lengths to draw NATO's attention to China, arguing that the alliance should limit Beijing's influence, reduce dependence on the Asian power, and invest in its own capabilities. Numerous allies have supported this effort, including Canada, Britain, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic.

China is the only competitor with both the intent to change the international order and the increasing economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to do so, the U.S. wrote in its own national security strategy, published last month.

But NATO is a broad-based alliance. Many Eastern European countries lean toward the hawks but want the alliance to focus on the Russian threat. Some fear angering China and the possibility of pushing Beijing further into Moscow's embrace. Meanwhile, a number of Western European powers are concerned about China's role in sensitive parts of the Western economy, but still want to maintain economic ties.

"There is a risk that we endlessly debate the adjectives that we apply here,” said David Quarrey, the United Kingdom’s ambassador to NATO.  “We are very focused on practical implementation,” he told POLITICO in an interview. “I think that’s where the debate needs to go here — and I think we are making progress with that.” 

For Quarrey and Smith, the U.S. ambassador, this means that NATO must look at several components: strengthening cyber defenses, an area in which China seeks to dominate; preparing to prevent attacks on public infrastructure, a vulnerability the West has identified by Russia; and ensuring that key supply chains do not go through China.

In addition, Quarrey said, NATO must also further deepen its partnerships with regional allies such as Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. While NATO allies can probably generally agree with goals such as increased cyber defense, there is some doubt about the implications of a U-turn toward Asia.

Britain, the diplomat argued, is pressuring NATO toward China because it needs some kind of multilateral structure after Brexit.

Perhaps more importantly, the pivot to China raises existential questions about Europe's own security. Europe is now heavily dependent on U.S. security guarantees, U.S. troops stationed on the ground, and U.S. arms suppliers. 

“An unspoken truth is that to reinforce Taiwan,” the European diplomat said, the U.S. would not be “in a position to reinforce permanently in Europe.”