Illustration: Chen Xia/GTWhen the US courted three of its allies and partners, namely Australia, India and Japan, to revive the Quad in 2017, their purpose was clear: to create a strategic bulwark against a rising China.
Among the Quad members, India has acted in a way that serves as the weakest link of this grouping.
From the very beginning, joining Quad ran contradictory to India's pursuit of strategic autonomy.
If a country feels that its national interests are being compromised by US policies, it is likely to push back against such actions.
With countering China as their objectives, small cliques created by the US are fragile.
Illustration: Chen Xia/GT
When the US courted three of its allies and partners, namely Australia, India and Japan, to revive the Quad in 2017, their purpose was clear: to create a strategic bulwark against a rising China. Now seven years have passed. It seems that this coalition is losing momentum, with an illusory ambition.Just a few days after Chinese Premier Li Qiang's visit to Australia, as China-Australia relations are getting back on the right track, former Japanese ambassador to Australia Shingo Yamagami, cited by Australian media outlets, claimed that Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has weakened the Quad as he repairs relationships with Beijing. He lamented Australia's reluctance to speak out against China.Yamagami's remarks indicate the predicament of this loose alliance: Although bound together in name, the different national interests of US allies and their different positioning on China determine that they will not simply follow the US.Despite the US' tight hold on its Asia-Pacific allies, they are weighing the benefits they can get from the US by confronting China against the harms brought about by jeopardizing their relations with China. Japan, Australia and India cannot afford to have a direct confrontation with China.The reason why Australia has chosen to repair its ties with China is that it has realized being a US pawn does not serve its interests, said Qin Sheng, a research fellow at the Center for Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). He added that the Albanese government's re-engagement with China is reconfiguration of Australia's national interests and a major readjustment of the country's diplomacy.This is obviously something Washington does not want to see as it will undermine Washington's efforts to contain China. When members of the US-led clique do not see eye to eye when it comes to China, cracks from within will emerge.Take India as another example. Among the Quad members, India has acted in a way that serves as the weakest link of this grouping. To many strategists, India behaves more like an "outlier" rather than an "insider." From the very beginning, joining Quad ran contradictory to India's pursuit of strategic autonomy. In spite of Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar's pledge that the Quad grouping is here to "stay, grow and to contribute," what India has done is far from being a US obedient.Early this year, Jaishankar subtly hit out at the US and the rest of the West for frowning upon India's relations with Russia during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, as well as for attempting to dictate what India should or should not do. This indicates that India will not prioritize the interests of the US over its own, even when faced with pressure to do so.India's attitude has raised questions about the future of the Quad, with some strategists suggesting the formation of a new group called the Squad, consisting of the US, Japan, Australia and the Philippines. This shift in alliances reflects the evolving security landscape in the region. An Indian scholar recently said in an interview with the Global Times that this could create an opportunity for India and China to start a dialogue on security that doesn't include the US, which would be a positive development. In this context, it's particularly silly for the Philippines to voluntarily jump into US' small circles, serving as a pawn for US interests.While some may view these smaller alliances as a demonstration of the US' flexible approach to dealing with China, they actually highlight the fluid nature of the relationships between the US and its allies and partners.Sun Xihui, an associate research fellow with the National Institute of International Strategy at CASS, told the Global Times that the US-led mini cliques are ultimately driven by the US' anti-China agenda, which may not align with the interests of all its partners.Each country involved in these alliances has its own unique relationship with both the US and China, based on their national interests. If a country feels that its national interests are being compromised by US policies, it is likely to push back against such actions. With countering China as their objectives, small cliques created by the US are fragile.
