Follow us on social

2023-05-20t182441z_209327206_owanip156979_rtrmadp_baseimage-960x540_pol-ani

The Quad Summit report card: ‘Meh’

Interestingly, the only significant progress was in security, not in the many non-military projects the four countries are supposedly focused on.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

The third in-person Quad summit’s joint statement was a lengthy summary of initiatives new and old. The summit of the four nation grouping (comprising Australia, India, Japan, and the United States) was held in Hiroshima, Japan after the cancellation of the original plan to hold it in Australia.

The new ones were clean energy supply chains, a broader health partnership beyond the COVID crisis, a focus on undersea cables, plans for investment in critical technologies, better sharing of climate data, deployment of an Open RAN telecommunications network in Palau, and a fellowship program for infrastructure practitioners, among others. 

A new working group on counter-terrorism, announced in New Delhi during the Raisina Dialogue in March, was reiterated in the text.

The statement also repeated what have become stock phrases and themes in minilateral diplomacy in Asia that involves the United States: “rules-based international order,” “freedom of navigation and overflight,” “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity.” Also stated was opposition to “militarization of disputed features (and) the dangerous use of coast guard and maritime vessels,” and “destabilizing or unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo by force or coercion.” 

Almost all of these are, of course, clear references to China — without taking its name. This has been the standard Quad approach, reportedly in deference to India’s reservations.  

A few elements in the statement however are curious. Whereas “ASEAN centrality” is emphasized — indeed a paragraph is dedicated to praising ASEAN’s role — the text also speaks of “respect” for two additional organizations,  the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), as being at the “center of the Quad’s efforts.” Does this indicate a dilution of the ritual centering of ASEAN in previous joint statements? In comparison, the 2022 text mentioned only “support” for the PIF and contained no references to IORA. This is a space worth watching.

The statement also contains more detailed language on Ukraine, mentioning “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity,” speaking of “deep concern over the war” and recognizing “its serious impacts on the global economic system.” Russia is not named as an aggressor — in fact, as in the 2022 summit, it is not named at all. But different from the 2022 proclamation, the text also speaks of the four states being “committed to dialogue and diplomacy,” while qualifying it with support for a peace “consistent with the UN Charter.” 

Does it indicate an openness, however limited, to a diplomatic push by the Biden administration that involves India? Only time will tell.

But as a grouping supposedly dedicated to public goods outcomes, there is little information on how the torrent of the Quad’s initiatives that we have seen in recent years has performed so far and what exactly has been delivered. The Quad vaccines initiative, announced with great fanfare in 2021, fell well short of expectations. 

There appears to be some progress on the maritime domain awareness initiative, with a pilot program mentioned in the text. The first batch of Quad STEM fellowships will begin their university studies in the United States. But all this doesn’t add up to a whole lot considering that the Quad has been in existence for more than five years in its second incarnation.

Ironically, the one area where the four Quad countries may have made the most progress jointly is one that the grouping has officially distanced itself from — an explicitly security and military dimension in terms of interoperability and the four-nation Malabar exercise. The Quad’s maritime domain awareness initiative is aimed at combating illegal fishing and climate change, but also has potential military utility.

It appears that while the Quad’s verbal energies are in talking up a raft of developmental and public goods initiatives, its report card looks positive mostly in the military or potentially military-related spheres. This may reflect the deeper aims and motivations of drawing India into a Washington-led security bloc.

If the Quad is truly aimed to project the United States as a partner more attractive than China among Global South states in the region, it will need to demonstrate real actions on the ground that benefit the people of the region. Until it does that, its stated goals will remain largely aspirational.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. speaking wit… | Flickr

Why American war and election news coverage is so rotten

Media


Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

keep readingShow less
Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

Peter Thiel attends the annual Allen and Co. Sun Valley Media Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, U.S., July 6, 2022. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel'

QiOSK

The trouble with doing business with Israel — or any foreign government — is you can't really say anything when they do terrible things with technology that you may or may not have sold to them, or hope to sell to them, or hope to sell in your own country.

Such was the case with Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir Technologies, in this recently surfaced video, talking to the Cambridge Union back in May. See him stumble and stutter and buy time when asked what he thought about the use of Artificial Intelligence by the Israeli military in a targeting program called "Lavender" — which we now know has been responsible for the deaths of an untold number of innocent Palestinians since Oct 7. (See investigation here).

keep readingShow less
Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Committee chairman Jack Reed (D-RI), left, looks on as co-chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) shakes hands with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin before a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on President Biden's proposed budget request for the Department of Defense on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., April 9, 2024. REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades

Are budget boosters actually breaking the military?

Military Industrial Complex

Now that both political parties have seemingly settled upon their respective candidates for the 2024 presidential election, we have an opportune moment to ask a rather fundamental question about our nation’s defense spending: how much is enough?

Back in May, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, penned an op-ed in the New York Times insisting the answer was not enough at all. Wicker claimed that the nation wasn’t prepared for war — or peace, for that matter — that our ships and fighter-jet fleets were “dangerously small” and our military infrastructure “outdated.” So weak our defense establishment and so dangerous the world right now, Wicker pressed, the nation ought to “spend an additional $55 billion on the military in the 2025 fiscal year.”

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.