Follow us on social

2021-03-12t144310z_780594719_rc2q9m9iihbb_rtrmadp_3_usa-asia-scaled

China to Bangladesh: No Quad for you

Beijing downplays the US-led initiative but reacts sharply to its possible expansion.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Since the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, commonly known as the Quad, made a comeback in November 2017 after an almost decade-long hiatus, Chinese officials have remained alert to it turning into a pseudo-military alliance with an anti-China bent. They all but snarled as diplomats from the four allied countries — the United States, Japan, India, and Australia — met, maintaining that the grouping “will gain no support and will end up nowhere.”

While China has warily observed the evolution of the Quad, amidst indications that South Korea, Vietnam, and New Zealand might join the four Quad countries in a “Quad Plus” dialogue, Chinese officials have refrained from attacking the countries beyond the original four.

But the situation took a new turn in Dhaka, Bangladesh, earlier this week. It came out of the blue when the Chinese ambassador minced no words and said that bilateral relations with Bangladesh “will be severely damaged” if Dhaka joins the U.S.-led initiative. He repeated the foreign ministry’s talking points and called the Quad a “narrow-purposed geopolitical clique.”

Dhaka shot back, with Foreign Minister A. K. Abdul Momen saying, “we decide our foreign policy.”

“We did not expect it from China,” he added.    

But the war of words did not stop as the Global Times, a quasi-official Chinese Communist Party English-language media outlet, published an op-ed arguing that “the news that Bangladesh had been invited to join the Quad was possibly not ... groundless. Bangladesh either had talked with Quad members over this issue or aim[ed] to launch a trial balloon to see China’s reaction.”

Washington joined the fray as State Department spokesperson Ned Price said on Wednesday, “We have taken note of that statement from the PRC ambassador to Bangladesh. What we would say is that we respect Bangladesh’s sovereignty, and we respect Bangladesh’s rights to make foreign policy decisions for itself.”

While the Bangladeshi foreign minister said he was not approached by any of the Quad members, he reportedly discussed it in March after a White House official reached out to him. “Bangladesh will not consider joining any kind of security initiative under the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy,” the report said.

That goes in line with Momen’s earlier statements. In late 2019, he said that Bangladesh would only join the Indo-Pacific initiative if it was “economic in nature.”

The Global Times piece also added that “one of the crucial aims of both the U.S.’s and India’s Indo-Pacific visions is to counter the [Belt and Road Initiative] with a bid to contain China’s development,” and that Bangladesh will gain nothing by joining the bloc.

Interestingly, the Padma Bridge image accompanying the article is one of the largest infrastructure projects that Bangladesh has almost finished building with Chinese help.  

This latest episode reveals the extent of China’s anxiety over the Quad. Bangladesh’s geostrategic location strikes a nerve with Beijing since a key BRI project includes a deep seaport in western Myanmar and then connects it to Kunming in southern China by a highway and railways. Moreover, China has steadily built a solid relationship with Bangladesh that it does not want to be undermined.  

Bangladesh is likely to follow New Zealand’s or South Korea’s footsteps and steer clear of the Quad. But the latest episode shows the summer will be warmer in Asia as a prickly China takes issue with the Quad. Beijing is likely to continue deterring friendly countries like Bangladesh from joining it. For countries that want to maintain friendly relationships with China but not at the expense of the United States, the Quad is creating a real dilemma. Washington should empathize with them and not ask them to take a side.    

Yoshihide Suga, Japan's Prime Minister, speaks while a monitor displays U.S. President Joe Biden, Australia's Prime Minister Scott Morrison and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during the virtual Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) meeting at his official residence in Tokyo, Japan, on Friday, March 12, 2021. Kiyoshi Ota/Pool via REUTERS
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers


KYIV, UKRAINE - July 12, 2023: Destroyed and burned Russian military tanks and parts of equipment are exhibited at the Mykhailivska square in Kyiv city centre. (Oleksandr Popenko/Shutterstock)

The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers

Europe

Two years ago on Feb. 24, 2022, the world watched as Russian tanks rolled into the outskirts of Kyiv and missiles struck the capital city.

Contrary to initial predictions, Kyiv never fell, but the country today remains embroiled in conflict. The front line holds in the southeastern region of the country, with contested areas largely focused on the Russian-speaking Donbas and port cities around the Black Sea.

keep readingShow less
Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin

A woman lays flowers at the monument to the victims of political repressions following the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, in Moscow, Russia February 16, 2024. REUTERS/Stringer

Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin

Analysis

President Biden was entirely correct in the first part of his judgment on the death of Alexei Navalny: “Putin is responsible, whether he ordered it, or he is responsible for the circumstances he put that man in.” Even if Navalny eventually died of “natural causes,” his previous poisoning, and the circumstances of his imprisonment, must obviously be considered as critical factors in his death.

For his tremendous courage in returning to Russia after his medical treatment in the West — knowing well the dangers that he faced — the memory of Navalny should be held in great honor. He joins the immense list of Russians who have died for their beliefs at the hands of the state. Public expressions of anger and disgust at the manner of his death are justified and correct.

keep readingShow less
Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

ProStockStudio via shutterstock.com

Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

Military Industrial Complex

Nuclear weapons aren’t just a threat to human survival, they’re a multi-billion-dollar business supported by some of the biggest institutional investors in the U.S. according to new data released today by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and PAX, the largest peace organization in the Netherlands.

For the third year in a row, globally, the number of investors in nuclear weapons producers has fallen but the overall amount invested in these companies has increased, largely thanks to some of the biggest investment banks and funds in the U.S.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest