Policy Alert #226 | March 18, 2021
The leaders of the Quad – a security dialogue that includes the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia –held their historic first summit level meeting on March 12. The summit is the latest signal indicating the Quad has gained considerable momentum amid the rising influence of China in the Indo-Pacific region. As the summit drew international attention, South Korea and the United Kingdom both expressed interest in joining the Quad.
According to U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, the four leaders discussed “the challenge posed by China, and they made clear that none of them have any illusions about China.” The Quad summit also covered a wide range of security issues including the East and South China Seas, cyber security, and the recent coup in Myanmar. Moreover, the U.S. and Japan both promised financial support to India’s vaccine production through the Quad Vaccine Partnership, while the four countries planned to establish closer cooperation in climate change and technological development through the Quad Climate Working Group and the Quad Critical and Emerging Technology Working Group.
After the summit, the leaders of the Quad issued a rare joint op-ed for the Washington Post, in which they pledge to “ensure that the Indo-Pacific is accessible and dynamic, governed by international law and bedrock principles such as freedom of navigation and peaceful resolution of disputes, and that all countries are able to make their own political choices, free from coercion.” Without referencing China, the leaders acknowledge that such a vision “has increasingly been tested,” but they agree that “those trials have only strengthened our resolve to reckon with the most urgent of global challenges together.”
In this Policy Alert, we examine how the Rising Powers are responding to the outcome of the first Quad summit.
China
After the Quad summit, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian responded to Sullivan’s comment in a regular press conference: “For quite some time, certain countries have been so keen to exaggerate and hype up the so-called ‘China threat’ to sow discord among regional countries, especially to disrupt their relations with China. However, their actions, running counter to the trend of the times of peace, development and cooperation and the common aspirations of the countries and peoples in the region, will not be welcomed or succeed.”
- In an op-ed for South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong-based newspaper, Richard Heydarian, a Professorial Chairholder in Geopolitics at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, foresees that an Asian NATO is becoming more likely under President Joe Biden’s multilateral approach, but U.S. long-term U.S. foreign policy remains unpredictable: “there are lingering doubts as to the trajectory of American foreign policy, especially if Biden ends up as a single-term president and Washington reverts to Trumpian unilateralism…There is also China’s ability to entice US allies with massive trade and investment initiatives, especially amid the post-pandemic economic fallout.”
- An editorial from the state-run China Daily accuses the U.S. and its allies of reviving their Cold War strategies against China: “[A]lthough the Biden administration has vowed to avoid conflict and misjudgment with China, it seems intent on continuing the previous administration’s ‘maximum pressure’ strategy… [The U.S.] proclaimed itself the winner of the Cold War in the 1990s, declaring the end of history. Now it seems intent on copying an upgraded version of the mixture of its strategies against Japan and the Soviet Union in its dealings with China.”
- In an op-ed for the nationalist state-run tabloid Global Times, Cheng Xiaohe, an associate professor with the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China and a senior researcher with the Pangoal Institute, suggests that South Korea’s strategic ambiguity over joining the Quad is changing: “[I]n order to persuade South Korea, the US will definitely include the signature of agreement on defense cost-sharing into the package deal and make Seoul believe that it will gain benefits…South Korea’s attitude toward the Quad used to be negative, and the major reason is that it was concerned about China’s reactions. Now, Seoul has changed its attitude because it may also enjoy balance between Beijing and Washington.”
India
During the summit, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated: “Our agenda today – covering areas like vaccines, climate change and emerging technologies – makes the Quad a force for global good. I see this positive vision as an extension of India’s ancient philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, which regards the world as one family. We are united by our democratic values and commitment to a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific.”
After the summit, Indian Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla said that the vaccine initiative “is the most pressing and valuable” takeaway and added that “India welcomes this initiative as it recognizes our own manufacturing capacities and capabilities. We look forward to wholehearted participation in this endeavor. This vaccine supply chain is built by trust and being built to convey trust.”
- In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, Akhilesh Mishra, CEO of Bluekraft Digital Foundation, argues that India’s rising level of manufacturing capability offers strategic value for the Quad: “The strategic case for the Quad has, however, always faced a tactical hurdle. China was the factory of the world. It had become an almost indispensable cog in the global supply chain…As long as there was no equivalent manufacturing destination to rival China, the case for an ‘arc of democracies’ would remain confined to concept papers in think tanks…what has changed between 2007 and 2020 that Quad 2.0 has become viable? The answer is the globally visible rise in India’s manufacturing ability.”
- In an op-ed for The Print, Rajesh Rajagopalan, a professor in International Politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, expects closer U.S.-India relations would push Russia toward China while nudging Russia away from India: “The source of divergence between Indian and Russian interests lies in the continuing problems that Russia faces in its relations with the US…Moscow has increasingly leaned on China both for support as well as a way to undermine American power. The military relationship between the two has become increasingly close…As the latest Quad summit demonstrates, despite Moscow’s opposition, India clearly sees the grouping as a necessary response to China.”
- An editorial from pro-government The Pioneer questions whether the Quad has done enough to contain China’s growing influence and whether Washington will sustain the current policy in the long-run: “But the moot question is whether such docile attempts are enough to counter China? Will it work as a real deterrent to Beijing? What will be its repercussions…Biden hinted to it in his first diplomatic address when he pledged to counter China’s economic abuses and human rights violations but, on the other hand, asserted that he is ready to work with Beijing if it is in the US’ interest…India must also play its game cleverly else it would end up serving the interest of the superpower in the Indo-Pacific region at the cost of its own gains.”
Japan
During the summit, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga stated: “In October, last year, we reached the stage of holding the foreign ministers meeting here in Tokyo. Less than half a year since then, we are now holding this first leaders’ summit…With the four countries working together, I wish to firmly advance our cooperation to realize a free and open Indo-Pacific and to make visible and tangible contribution to the peace, stability, and prosperity of the region, including overcoming COVID-19.”
- An editorial from the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun sees the Quad advance beyond security dialogues and become a greater platform of international cooperation: “It is highly significant that the leaders of Japan, the United States, Australia and India, which share such values as democracy and rule of law, have agreed to tackle various problems that the world is facing. The four countries should work together to solve issues in the international community, not only those involving security but also in consumer-related fields.”
- An editorial from the progressive Asahi Shimbun suggests that too much emphasis on the containment of China could escalate the tension and lead to more instability in the region: “[The Quad’s] cooperation would be pointless if it aggravates regional tensions and invites divisiveness… [S]hould the shift be seen as greater efforts to contain China and if China reacts in retaliation, the conflict will only escalate… The Quad will defeat its own purpose if it comes out too strong against China and creates internal dissent as a result. The group must maintain dialogue with Beijing and seek coexistence through cooperation while curbing China’s actions in defiance of the existing order.”
- In an op-ed for center-right The Japan Times, Kuni Miyake, president of the Foreign Policy Institute and research director at Canon Institute for Global Studies, predicts that South Korea’s plan to join the Quad and influence U.S. policy toward North Korea may end up unfruitful: “Seoul may consider joining the Quad and hopefully influencing, if not convincing, the Biden administration to review its North Korea policy… If South Korea is interested in joining the Quad, it must first understand the concept of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific…South Korea may be destined to fail if it only tries to use the Quad for the purpose of persuading the Biden administration to accept and support [South Korean President] Moon’s personal agenda.”
