The increasing value of Quad | HT Editorial

Opposition to China provides the strategic glue. But a lot more needs to be done

The degree of interest in a meeting of foreign ministers is evidence of how important the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) has become as a mode of geopolitical signalling. Its relevance was accentuated by the foreign ministers meeting in person in the backdrop of the Covid-19 pandemic, of Indian and Chinese troops facing each other, and of the United States (US) president getting infected by the disease. Critics are not wrong to grumble that the dialogue remains informal; that it fails to produce a joint statement; and that its only tangible accomplishment is its existence. The real measure of the Quad, however, is to look at its trajectory.

The original Quad was a disaster-relief exercise. It broke up, came together again, and then struggled to find convergence among its members (PTI)

The original Quad was a disaster-relief exercise. It broke up, came together again, and then struggled to find convergence among its members. The present meeting strengthened four important elements of the Quad’s present stage of evolution. One, all the member-states represent a domestic political consensus on the Quad and its importance in balancing China in the Indo-Pacific. This was not true in the past. Australia, for example, changed its Quad policy when there was a change in government. Two, though most members prefer to not name China, the expanded areas the members have agreed to work together, from the maritime realm to cyberspace, are aimed at countering China’s influence and capabilities. Three, the foreign ministers’ agreeing they would meet at least once a year and upholding the importance of Southeast Asia indicates that both institutionally and in terms of geographic spread, the Quad is set to deepen and widen. And finally, the language of the participants indicates that Quad has already assumed a quasi-formal status.