In Japan on May 20th, the “third in-person Quad Leaders’ summit” took place. Australia, which now chairs the organisation, was planned to host the summit, but US Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to the area necessitated postponing it. This was due of the political situation surrounding the need to increase the country’s debt limit at home, which kept him preoccupied with other matters. Biden could only afford to stay away from Washington for a few days because the Republican party is being tough. To take part in the G7 conference, he travelled to Japan. Instead of requesting that the Quad summit be postponed until Canberra could host it, Australia graciously offered to hold it there.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made a prudent and practical decision by calling for swift action by the Quad group consisting of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia to counter China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific. The organization’s goal is to deter China from expanding its influence in the Asia-Pacific region. That’s bad news for all four countries. By not letting the summit be postponed due to protocol or internal obstacles, the group sent a message to the nations of the Indo-Pacific that they would not allow such issues prevent them from making significant decisions. Even still, the reality that China’s decision-making mechanisms are united under President Xi Jinping while those in the United States are polarised and in disarray cannot help but send a message to nations in the Indo-Pacific.
The world’s leading state is a severely divided politics and society, whereas China is sending a signal that it is a growing and confident force that can be depended upon. That begs the question of how trustworthy United States choices really are. Indeed, trust in and confidence in the judgements made by nations are the bedrock of the international system. This doesn’t imply governments never shift their stances when their interests need it, but they also don’t do it lightly. This is why new administrations honour the commitments made by their predecessors, despite the fact that they may not agree with the terms. This is true for bilateral agreements as well as multilateral and international pacts.
The political establishment in the United States has proved over the last decade that it does not adhere to the traditional practise that allows the international community to have some clarity about the country’s position. When the world is facing environmental challenges as well as geopolitical ones, this becomes even more important. There are two that come to mind. The first concerns global warming, and the second, the nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran. In both instances, immediately after Trump became president in January 2017, he abandoned Obama administration policy and brokered accords. He abandoned the climate accords reached in Paris and the nuclear agreement backed by the Group of Five and Germany. President Joe Biden returned the United States to the Paris Accords on his first day in office in January 2021, but discussions between the United States and Iran for a nuclear agreement with Iran have stalled.
Given the internal strife in the United States, all of the Quad nations, but India in particular, need to carefully and independently analyse how much faith the countries of the Indo-Pacific region are putting in the group’s choices. How come India “in particular”? This is due to the fact that Japan and Australia are staunch US allies with little room to manoeuvre in charting policies that significantly diverge from US stances. India stands apart because it has maintained its strategic independence throughout history. This idea has been shown during the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
An assertive China is taking intentional attempts to undermine American hegemony, and it can be claimed that the whole US class embraces this. Consequently, nations in the Indo-Pacific would be reassured that the United States would not quit the region since security cooperation with the Indo-Pacific is in the United States’ critical self-interest. Perhaps this is why, on May 22nd, Papua New Guinea and the United States signed a major defence and security deal. Even so, countries across the Indo-Pacific, particularly those in the northern Pacific and its associated seas, the southern Pacific, and the Indian Ocean rim, will continue to have lingering doubts about the reliability of the United States and, as the most important Quad country, the group itself.
As a result, it is crucial that the choices made by Quad in the Leaders Statement issued after the summit be carried out as soon as possible. The Leaders also issued a vision statement, in which they reaffirmed their support for a peaceful and prosperous Indo-Pacific region in which all nations’ rights to self-determination are upheld. Clearly, China was being criticised, since it has been actively striving to implement infrastructure projects in the Indo-Pacific area as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. The timely implementation of projects related to connectivity, clean energy, health care, education, and containing the impact of climate change, which poses an existential challenge especially for Indo-Pacific Island countries, is what the Indo-Pacific countries will look for more than the eloquence of the vision statement. Quad must deliver there if it is to properly limit the Chinese threat.
The author expresses his or her own ideas and opinions in this piece, so take what you will from it with a grain of salt. The article’s contents, including its facts, analysis, assumptions, and viewpoint, do not represent those of GK.
