The Quad is wobbly. As a piece of diplomatic furniture, four legs imply steadiness, and that is certainly what the leaders of Australia, India, Japan and the United States hope to convey as they prepare for a summit (September 21-23) in U.S. President Joe Biden’s home State of Delaware on Saturday.
A united group of democracies, standing firm in the face of regional challengers. Subtext, read: China.
Timing when change is in the air
But such is the nature of democracy that two legs will soon be yanked away — at least in the persons of Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and Mr. Biden himself.
Australia’s Anthony Albanese also faces an increasingly tight race in an election due by next year.
Only one of the current four leaders, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, looks guaranteed to be at the next gathering in 2025, as host for an anticipated meeting in India.
Such changeover at the top will inevitably raise questions about the focus of the Quad. This is billed as a leader-level grouping, after all, and leaders want to leave their mark.
It also means that the Delaware summit will present an agenda which could be out of date within a matter of weeks should Donald Trump retake the White House.
While not carrying as dramatic a risk of change, Japan’s leadership contest, expected to be decided within days of the podiums being packed away this weekend, could see a new Prime Minister recalibrate the country’s foreign policy in a bid to break with what is increasingly considered a stale government at home.
These impending leadership moves raise a question as to why this Quad meeting is going ahead, at this time.
Having already delayed a Quad summit that was expected in January in New Delhi, and cancelled a planned gathering in Sydney last year to instead meet on the sidelines of the G-7 in Mr. Kishida’s hometown of Hiroshima, the countries could have waited.
These are not mere scheduling problems but point to a deeper challenge in explaining what the Quad hopes to achieve, and, more importantly, justifying why it is worth putting demands on the precious time of leaders to meet annually.
No compelling agenda at present warrants the effort required to bring four busy heads of government to the table for discussions that could be better delegated to Ministers and officials.
The irony is that China’s bad behaviour is the best motivation to bring the Quad leaders together, and it is China’s behaviour that determines how often they need to meet.
Playing it safe, differing interests
The Quad, in its present incarnation, was first dubbed a “security dialogue” but soon shifted back to topics that had less explosive potential.
A “practical agenda” became the mantra. Cooperation on humanitarian relief, technology, scholarships, health policy and climate change — important issues, no doubt, but also safe, and not quite the binding partnership to stare down an aggressive China.
The upcoming talks will reportedly feature a plan for joint coast guard patrols in the region, but the outcome will be limited by those same practicalities.
The work of Australia’s civilian Maritime Border Command, for example, is supplemented by navy ships, and is dedicated to sensitive areas, including stopping boats with asylum seekers arriving on local shores. Any diversion of resources would carry a big political risk in the run-up to an election.
Former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who attended the inaugural in-person leader’s meetings in 2021, remarked that the Quad could only move as fast as its slowest member. His was a subtle reference to India’s wariness about becoming entangled in anything resembling a military alliance.
Even so, the problem is the credibility of the alignment.
Early Quad statements by the leaders came loaded with references to “democratic values” and support for the “territorial integrity of states”. This offered important reassurance at the time, given the pressure on India along the Himalayan border with China, and Beijing’s campaign of economic coercion against Australia. Anger at China’s lack of transparency in the COVID-19 pandemic helped rally the grouping.
Then followed Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The four partners could not agree on a simple form of words to condemn this blatant act of aggression.
True, this conflict falls outside of the “Indo-Pacific” region where the Quad professes a focus. India has rested heavily on this geographic caveat in not wanting to complicate the Quad discussions by drawing in Ukraine.
But this ignores that Russia also presents itself as a power in Asia, thanks to its eastern ports, its renewed alliance with North Korea, and having declared a “no limits” friendship with China.
And photos of Mr. Modi visiting Moscow for a bear hug with Russian President Vladimir Putin sit uncomfortably with the Quad vision to see disputes settled “free from intimidation and coercion”, even if balanced by Mr. Modi’s subsequent trip to Kyiv.
The last word
Leadership meetings can send a powerful signal of resolve. But they are best reserved for the moments when countries need to display common determination. Solidarity is undermined by forcing a gathering out of habit, only to have differences exposed.
Sitting around a table to farewell a President and a Prime Minister is not an effective use of leadership time. Quad leaders should meet only when there is something important to say.
Daniel Flitton is with the Lowy Institute in Australia, and is a former intelligence analyst and journalist
Published – September 19, 2024 02:14 am IST
