The QUAD meeting in March was the first where all four national leaders attended – signalling a new higher level for the group which is India, Australia, Japan and the USA.
China will see this meeting as “containing China”, an attitude likely to harden stances between China and the countries of the region. Although it is far from being another NATO, there is no doubt this meeting moved the QUAD in that direction.
Since its creation in 2004, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue has striven to be a loose cooperation and has tried not to become an overtly security group along the lines of NATO. It is a fine line to tread, as the increasing focus of the QUAD has been China.
Although the word “China” does not appear in the recent statement, all the language points to it – promote free, open rules based order, international law, counter threats, freedom of navigation and overflight, democratic values and meet challenges to the rules based maritime order in the East and South China Sea.
The US did not hold back in its language – US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, who sat in on the summit, declared “these four leaders made a massive joint commitment today”.
“We have taken the Quad to a new level,” Mr Sullivan said from the White House.
Yet the QUAD partners have diverse perspectives and perhaps very different reasons for coming together. Certainly, Chinese belligerence has been a big motivation.
Australia has been bruised and somewhat taken by surprise by the recent Chinese trade war which has seen massive decline in Australian products in China – at the same time as Covid has hit the high paying international education market from China. When Prime Minister Morrison went public and alone in calling for an inquiry into the Chinese origins of Covid19, the diplomatic lines of the two countries went blank and the trade war “punishment” from China rolled out – the two countries have not been speaking for some time.
India on the other hand has close commercial and personal (leaders) ties with Japan, plus it has experienced border clashes with China in the Himalayan region.
For India and Australia, the meeting adds to their increasing close relationship with Japan, boosted by recently creating a three-country working group to improve supply chain collaboration. Further bad news for China.
In another step up, the Foreign Ministers will meet at least once a year.
It’s all about – in the QUAD’s own words – “leveraging our partnership to help the world’s most dynamic region respond to historic crisis, so that it may be the free, open, accessible, diverse, and thriving Indo-Pacific we all seek.”
China will not like what it has seen from this meeting.
China’s “close the doors” diplomacy (as seen with India and Australia) and punitive actions have certainly added urgency to the QUAD dialogue and might in the end be regretted in Beijing. But of course, how would we know? When the doors are closed, there is no diplomacy or discussion with China.