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
Nato Summit Trump
Top photo credit: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, President Donald Trump, at the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague (NATO/Flickr)

Did Trump just dump the Ukraine War into the Europeans' lap?

Europe

The aerial war between Israel and Iran over the past two weeks sucked most of the world’s attention away from the war in Ukraine.

The Hague NATO Summit confirms that President Donald Trump now sees paying for the war as Europe’s problem. It’s less clear that he will have the patience to keep pushing for peace.

keep readingShow less
Antonio Guterres and Ursula von der Leyen
Top image credit: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com

UN Charter turns 80: Why do Europeans mock it so?

Europe

Eighty years ago, on June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco. But you wouldn’t know it if you listened to European governments today.

After two devastating global military conflicts, the Charter explicitly aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” And it did so by famously outlawing the use of force in Article 2(4). The only exceptions were to be actions taken in self-defense against an actual or imminent attack and missions authorized by the U.N. Security Council to restore collective security.

keep readingShow less
IRGC
Top image credit: Tehran Iran - November 4, 2022, a line of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps troops crossing the street (saeediex / Shutterstock.com)

If Iranian regime collapses or is toppled, 'what's next?'

Middle East

In a startling turn of events in the Israel-Iran war, six hours after Iran attacked the Al Udeid Air Base— the largest U.S. combat airfield outside of the U.S., and home of the CENTCOM Forward Headquarters — President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire in the 12-day war, quickly taking effect over the subsequent 18 hours. Defying predictions that the Iranian response to the U.S. attack on three nuclear facilities could start an escalatory cycle, the ceasefire appears to be holding. For now.

While the bombing may have ceased, calls for regime change have not. President Trump has backtracked on his comments, but other influential voices have not. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, said Tuesday that regime change must still happen, “…because this is about the regime itself… Until the regime itself is gone, there is no foundation for peace and security in the Middle East.” These sentiments are echoed by many others to include, as expected, Reza Pahlavi, exiled son of the deposed shah.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

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.