Tattered Western Order

The great power competition between the United States and China is in full swing. Both the countries are embroiled in major issues of international affairs, and none of the international issues remains immune to their influence. 

Trade war, ideational war, and forging alliances are new forms of strategies crafted by Washington and Beijing. Arguably, the world no longer solely is dominated by the West materially and ideationally. The material and ideational decline by and large is contributing to enfeebling the Western hegemony.

The democratic crises in the West and the rise of China in terms of economy, becoming the world’s largest export market, and rapid rise in technology caused a great deal of consternation for the West. The deeply embedded crisis in the Western-led liberal order, ostensibly, leaves a vacuum for China.

The old Western-led liberal order looks more troubled today than at any time since the 1930s. 

Over a decade, Western free societies endured polarization, corruption, populism, inequality, and illiberal threats to the rule of law. The former US president Donald Trump's rhetoric of “America First” was not only symptomatic of attacks on liberal internationalism but also challenged US exceptionalism.

An exclusionary approach of Trump created a deep rift in international politics. The US exit from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and threat of the World Health Organization (WHO) astonished many experts. 

Joseph Nye accurately assessed Trump’s self-destructive approach and argues “I am not worried by the rise of China I am more worried by the rise of Trump” His populism, reactionary nationalism, an assault on the rule of law and openness of US society badly tarnished the American image.

Anne-Marie Slaughter states “Four years of erratic, personality-driven leadership in the United States under President Donald Trump have left the liberal order in tatters”. 

To improve the tarnished image of the US, the incumbent president Joe Biden promised to “rebuild the nation, revitalizing our democracy, and winning the future for America”.

In competition with China, the US must rebuild the social purpose of liberal democracy at home and improve the damaged image of liberal democracy abroad. The work appears to be a daunting task for the Biden administration to improve its triple crises, crisis of democracy, crisis of leadership, and crisis of multilateralism. 

The US is extremely likely to weaponize ideology in its strategic rivalry vis-à-vis China. The battle of democracy vs. autocracy will gain further momentum. Biden advises his countrymen “I predict to you your children or grandchildren are going to be doing their doctoral thesis on the issue of who succeeded, autocracy or democracy, because that is what is at stake”.

The relative rise of China in terms of economy and changing distribution of global wealth in parity between the West and East would go in favour of the East in the coming decades. The diffusion of power and transfer of global wealth will make the hegemonic decline of the West irreversible. 

The Chinese vision, a community of shared future for mankind first emerged in 2011 as a rhetorical slogan in Chinese diplomacy gained content and substance. The phrase in October 2017 after the 19th National Congress was incorporated into the Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and subsequently into the Chinese Constitution in March 2018.  

A community of shared future for mankind is aimed at building an inclusive, open, clean and beautiful world contributing to lasting peace, common prosperity and universal security, providing instructive answers to addressing the fragmentation and turbulence in international politics. China has actively advocated the phrase in public diplomacy. The Chinese vision was accepted in different UN resolutions as far as the peace and security of the world are concerned.

To be fair, the Chinese vision would confront innumerable challenges in a politically divided world community. Nadège Rolland terms the Chinese vision “looks more like a list of what Beijing advocates for its own needs, security, and position than an innovative contribution for the future of the world”.

Meanwhile, China initiated the Global Civilizational Initiative GCI. The initiative is believed to have been promoting diversity, plurality and dignity among nations challenging the idea's imposition and discouraging the exploitation of communities and resources that will prove instrumental for diversity, mutual understanding, and the world's economic growth.

China under GCI is trying to undermine Western democracy which is coupled with populism, polarization, racism and xenophobia. The contemporary world is going through tremendous changes, power is shifting from the West to the East. 

The Western dominance in terms of material and ideational seems to be declining. The Saudi-Iran détente brokered by China was a momentous occasion in Middle Eastern politics that caused a huge setback to the US interest. The inclusion of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran Egypt, Ethiopia and Argentina in BRICS would cement China’s ideational, and material strength vis-à-vis the US. 

The prevailing battle of democracy vs. autocracy will further accelerate. The United States promotes Quadrilateral Security Dialogue Quad comprised the democratic countries like the US, India, Japan and Australia in a bid to contain China.

The Ukraine crisis has brought China and Russia closer together. The US domestically and internationally faces dual challenges in the projection of democracy. Domestic crises such as populism, racism, and xenophobia pose severe threats to democracy. In the international arena, China and Russia are causing significant obstacles in the advancement of US democracy.     

 

United States extends undue favor to India

The US House of Representative has passed a legislative amendment that would protect India from punitive sanctions for buying missiles from Russia.

The India-specific amendment, passed on Thursday afternoon, still has to go through the Senate before it’s signed by President Joe Biden.

Authored and introduced by Indian-American Congressman Ro Khanna, urges the Biden administration to give India a waiver to the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), which can bring immediate sanctions against New Delhi for buying weapons from Moscow.

The amendment argues that such a waiver is needed to deter China’s influence in the region. It was passed by voice vote as part of an en bloc amendment during floor consideration of the US defence bill for 2023.

US law deems waiver ‘necessary’ to counter China’s growing global influence

The United States views India as a key ally in its effort to counter China’s growing global influence and has also included it in the alliance known as ‘Quad’ that aims to counter China in the Pacific region.

Enacted by the US Congress in 2017, CAATSA provides for punitive actions against any country engaged in transactions with Russian defence and intelligence sectors.

CAATSA became a sticking point in India-US ties after New Delhi inked a deal to secure the S-400 missile defence system from Moscow, in the midst of the Russia-Ukraine war. India has also violated US sanctions on buying oil from Russia.

In May, Senator Bob Menendez, who heads the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, pointed out at a congressional hearing that the Indians “go buy oil from Russia. They buy the S-400 anti-missile system. They abstain at the United Nations on votes criticizing Russia and yet they were never punished for these violations.

Khanna, who is Vice Chair of the India Caucus in the US Congress, however, urged Washington to “stand with India in the face of escalating aggression from China”.

The Reuters news agency reported this week that India’s oil imports from Russia surged to a record of around 950,000 barrels per day (bpd) in June, as Indian refiners snapped up Russian oil sold at hefty discounts.

India shipped in about 4.8 million bpd of oil in June, about 23 per cent higher than a year earlier, the report added.

QUAD slams coercive attempts to alter status quo in Indo-Pacific

In unprecedentedly strong language, the leaders of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) expressed opposition to coercive, provocative or unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo in the Indo-Pacific.

The joint statement, issued after the leaders of Japan, Australia, India and the United States met for a summit in Tokyo on Tuesday, did not mention China by name, but the finger-pointing was clear.

The leaders were less clear when it came to Russia. The joint statement avoided blaming Russia directly for the war in Ukraine and only described the situation there as a ‘tragic crisis’.

The nuanced position reflected the difficult position of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has so far avoided tarnishing India's long-standing friendship with Moscow. In his opening remarks, Modi said a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific is a shared objective of all of us, but did not mention Russia or Ukraine.

US President Joe Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, new Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Modi met for two hours at the Japanese Prime Minister's office for the fourth summit of the group and their second in-person meeting, after one in Washington last September.

The attendance of Albanese, sworn in just a day earlier, reflected how prominent a platform the QUAD has become since the four countries formed an unofficial core group to lead the international assistance after the 2004 Sumatra earthquake.

"Since we last met in person in September, an incident that overturns the rules-based international order has happened the Russian invasion of Ukraine," Kishida said in introductory remarks. "It is a blatant challenge to the principles set in the United Nations charter. We must not allow the same thing to happen in the Indo-Pacific."

Albanese, who was offered the opportunity to speak first after Kishida, said, "My government is committed to working with your countries and we are committed to the Quad.

"The new Australian government's priorities align with the QUAD agenda, taking action on climate change, and building a stronger and more resilient Indo-Pacific region through better economic security, better cybersecurity, better energy security and better environmental and health security," Albanese said.

Biden said that the world is navigating a dark hour in our shared history, in reference to the Ukraine war. This is more than just a European issue. It's a global issue.

"As long as Russia continues the war, the United States will work with our partners to help lead a global response because it's going to affect all parts of the world," Biden said.

Meanwhile, Modi commended the group's coordination in areas such as coronavirus vaccine delivery and climate actions, and said: "The QUAD has a constructive agenda for the Indo-Pacific, which will further strengthen its image as a force for good."

A joint statement issued after the meeting indirectly slammed China's actions in the East and South China seas.

"We strongly oppose any coercive, provocative or unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo and increase tensions in the area, such as the militarization of disputed features, the dangerous use of coast guard vessels and maritime militia, and efforts to disrupt other countries' offshore resource exploitation activities," it said.

The leaders agreed to hold the next in-person summit in Australia next year.

India's role in the regional security landscape is becoming more critical, after the border clashes of June 2020 made India's military one of the very few to have faced the Chinese People's Liberation Army on the field in recent years.

The QUAD summit comes three months after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which has raised concerns in Asia about unilateral changes to the status quo.

India has historically had strong defense ties with Russia and abstained from United Nations votes against Moscow, taking a stance distinct from other QUAD members. As such, how the four QUAD nations will unite and align over the pressing security issues will be closely watched.

Shamshad Ahmad Khan, an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the BITS Pilani Dubai Campus, said the QUAD summit is taking place at a time when the Russian onslaught in Ukraine continues, North Korea is planning another missile test, experts in strategic circles are speculating on a Ukraine-type invasion of Taiwan by China, and Beijing's expansionist designs are a cause of security concerns for Japan and India.

Khan said China remains the biggest geopolitical challenge for India but added that given the economic interdependence of the two countries, they are involved in a dialogue to resolve their boundary issues.

"India is not likely to aggressively counterbalance China, and that is visible when you see the QUAD taking up softer security issues, climate change, vaccine diplomacy, while the newly formed AUKUS alliance of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States aims to take up increasing defense cooperation to counterbalance China, he told Nikkei Asia.

Srikanth Kondapalli, a professor of Chinese studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, agreed that India sees Beijing as its biggest geopolitical challenge but took a different view on economic interdependence.

The professor said that India - which is estimated to grow at a rate of about 8% in the ongoing financial year - has received only US$8.2 billion investment from China. "That is quite a ridiculous amount," he said, observing that in contrast Beijing has invested a whopping US$52 billion in Pakistan, whose economy is going through a crisis.

At the QUAD, the leaders discussed a new maritime initiative called the Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness (IPMDA), which will connect existing surveillance centers in India, Singapore, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu to share information and monitor activities on the sea.

"This addresses a real need and something that the administration has heard a true demand signal from almost across the region ... The ability to know what is happening in countries' territorial waters and in their exclusive economic zones," a senior US administration official told reporters.

After the summit, the leaders held an event to open applications for the Quad Fellowship, which will sponsor 100 American, Australian, Indian, and Japanese students to study in the US for graduate degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The QUAD meeting came on the last day of Biden's five-day Asia trip, which will likely be remembered for the president's bombshell statement on Monday that the US would be willing to use force to defend Taiwan.

On Tuesday, Biden was asked by a reporter if the policy of strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan was dead. He responded, "No."

Asked to elaborate, the president said "No," again.

Asked whether he would send troops to Taiwan if China invaded, Biden only noted, "The policy has not changed at all. I stated that when I made my statement yesterday."

 

Buying more Russian oil not in Indian interest, United States tells India

US President Joe Biden has told Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi that buying more oil from Russia was not in India's interest and could hamper the US response to the war in Ukraine.

Talking about an hour-long video call, the US officials described it as "warm" and "candid", Biden and Modi both publicly expressed growing alarm at the destruction inside Ukraine, especially in Bucha, where many civilians have been killed.

Biden stopped short of making a "concrete ask" of Modi on Monday, an official said, noting India has concerns about deepening ties between Russia and China.

But Joe told Modi, India's position in the world would not be enhanced by relying on Russian energy sources, US officials said.

"The president conveyed very clearly that it is not in their interest to increase that," said White House spokesperson Jen Psaki.

India's External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, at a news conference later on Monday, pushed back against a question on India's energy purchases from Russia, saying the focus should be on Europe, not India. "Probably our total purchases for the month would be less than what Europe does in an afternoon."

Broad talks between the world's two largest democracies took place as the United States seeks more help from India in condemning, and applying economic pressure on, Russia for an invasion Moscow calls a "special military operation."

"Recently, the news of the killings of innocent civilians in the city of Bucha was very worrying," Modi said during a brief portion of the meeting open to reporters. "We immediately condemned it and have asked for an independent probe."

Modi also said he had suggested in recent conversations with Russia that President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy hold direct talks.

The South Asian nation has tried to balance its ties with Russia and the West but unlike other members of the Quad countries - the United States, Japan and Australia - it has not imposed sanctions on Russia.

Biden recently said that only India among the Quad group of countries was "somewhat shaky" in acting against Russia.

Lured by steep discounts following Western sanctions on Russian entities, India has bought at least 13 million barrels of Russian crude oil since the invasion in late February. That compared with some 16 million barrels for the whole of last year, data compiled by Reuters shows.

Psaki did not disclose whether India had made any commitments on energy imports but said Washington stands ready to help the country diversify its sources of energy.

Noting Modi's statements about the war on Monday, Psaki said, "Part of our objective now is to build on that and to encourage them to do more. And that's why it's important to have leader to leader conversations."

A US official added, "We haven't asked India to do anything in particular." The official said "India is gonna make its own judgments" following "a very candid conversation."

Talks in Washington on Monday took place between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and their Indian counterparts Jaishankar and Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh.

Blinken said India's ties with Russia developed over decades at a time when the United States was not able to be a partner to India, but that times had since changed.

"Today we are able and willing to be a partner of choice with India across virtually every realm," Blinken said at a joint presser following the talks.

India's modernization needs on defense were a key topic the two sides have discussed at length, the ministers said.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the two countries had signed a bilateral agreement to support sharing information and cooperation in space.

Biden told Modi he looked forward to seeing him in Japan for a Quad meeting "on about the 24th of May" and the two leaders also discussed a range of other issues, officials said.

China and Russia to lead a new economic bloc

The news that Sinopec, Chinese state-run oil refiner, has canceled plans for US$500 million investment in Russia’s energy sector does not portend a general decoupling of the economies of China and Russia.

On the contrary, it signifies a temporary halt to an economic partnership that is likely to grow in size and complexity as world powers regroup into new, rival blocs in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the massive sanctions that aligned nations have levied on the aggressor.

That’s according to Ross Kennedy, a senior fellow at the Securities Studies Group and founder of Fortis Analysis, who spoke to EpochTV’s “China Insider” program on April 02, 2022.

A few weeks prior to Russia’s invasion, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a “no limits” partnership, a relationship that has not shown signs of diminishing even as Moscow becomes a pariah on the world stage over its ongoing assault on Ukraine. But Beijing has not yet rushed in to provide significant economic help to Moscow, cautious about being impacted by Western sanctions in the process, according to Kennedy, a logistics and supply chain expert.

“Beijing, despite declaring pretty forcefully and openly that there are no limits on ties between Moscow and Beijing, still also has to take into consideration what the impact of sanctions may be. And right now there’s a bit of a gray area concerning how capital flow is going to work between the two countries, particularly on the investment side,” Kennedy said.

Calling China a “consumption powerhouse” that continues to need enormous amounts of energy and raw materials, Kennedy said that the availability and ease of goods produced in the Black Sea region and the eastern part of Russia still holds significant appeal for Beijing. Though China’s rulers are wary for the moment about what contravening the sanctions on Russia might mean for China’s economy. Hence Kennedy is skeptical about the long-term significance of Sinopec’s decision.

“I don’t think this is an indicator that China is cooling its support of Russia. I don’t think that it is really reflective of anything other than Sinopec, and other companies, being instructed by Beijing to just be a little bit more cautious right now and make sure that state-owned enterprises don’t have exposure to Western sanctions,” he said.

Despite the Sinopec decision, trade is still ongoing at a high volume between the two powers in such product groups as animal feed, vitamins and trace minerals, amino acids, building and construction materials, and other longstanding components of the Russia-China trade relationship, Kennedy said.

Rather than a decoupling, Kennedy sees the likelihood of Chinese state-owned enterprises ramping up their purchases of energy products and grain from Russia. In Kennedy’s analysis, China, India, and possibly other powers will take advantage of the lower prices of energy products available to be shipped by tanker from Russia as the latter power increasingly finds itself shut off from Western markets. A marked increase in non-dollar- and non-Euro-denominated transactions is highly likely, he added.

“It’s pretty clear that Moscow and Beijing and even some of the other countries of the world, like India and Iran, are working and collaborating pretty closely on having the ability to settle transactions among themselves,” Kennedy said.

The increasing reliance on transactions that do not involve Western currencies or banking systems takes place under the rubric of BRICS, the group of powers composed of Russia, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. Kennedy sees BRICS as the nexus of this growing consolidation and formation of a bloc rivaling Western democracies.

Besides the devastation of Ukraine and the imposition of massive sanctions, Russia’s invasion of her neighbor has helped start to usher in a new geopolitical landscape. The new bloc will not emerge overnight. Rather, it is in nascent form, Kennedy said.

“We are seeing the emergence of Russia-China-led sphere of economic and geopolitical cooperation that will stand in contrast to what is more of an Anglosphere, or a transatlantic type of alliance among Canada, the US, and our NATO partners,” Kennedy said.

“I think as we look back in three years, five years, ten years, we’re going to see that it’s really two fully formed economic blocs that have some level of cooperation between them where necessary,” he continued.

To the extent that trade and cooperation occur between the rival blocs, it will depend on facilitators that have a presence in both blocs, such as India, Saudi Arabia, and possibly the United Arab Emirates, Kennedy predicted.

He called the new geopolitical configuration unprecedented since the days of the Cold War, when the world broke down largely of the Soviet Union, Western powers led by the United States, and a number of developing countries loyal to one or the other.

 

China: Wildcard in Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Washington is focused on Chinese President Xi Jinping as President Joe Biden grapples with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s violent military campaign against Ukraine.  

Biden administration officials are calling on Xi and his government to join other nations in condemning Russia, while warning China of consequences if it tries to evade export controls on Moscow. 

China is viewed as a key player because of its influence with Russia, which is expected to grow as Moscow finds itself further isolated by Western sanctions. 

“If there’s anybody that could make a difference, it’s Xi Jinping,” said Charles Kupchan, who served as Senior Director for European affairs at the National Security Council in the Obama White House. “China is Russia’s lifeline right now, and if the Chinese discover the gumption to tell Putin that it’s enough, I think the impact would be very considerable.” 

“I do not yet see any signs that China is going to head down the road,” he added.  

CIA Director William Burns told Senate lawmakers on Thursday that Xi has been unsettled by the war playing out in Ukraine and the unity it has inspired in the West. Burns assessed that the Chinese leader is worried about global economic consequences as well as damage to his reputation from being associated with the ugliness of Russia’s war.  

“I think the Chinese leadership, President Xi, has invested a lot in partnership with President Putin and Russia. I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon. It’s for a lot of very cold-blooded reasons. I do, however, think that President Xi is unsettled by what he has seen transpire in the last 15 days in Ukraine,” Burns told the Senate Intelligence Committee.  

“That’s raised some question marks in the minds of Chinese leadership as they look at what is going to be an enduring partnership but maybe with a few more concerns than they had 16 days ago,” he said.  

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Wednesday pointed to a handful of actions China has taken that were viewed positively by the West, including Beijing’s decision to abstain from voting on a UN Security Council resolution condemning the Ukraine invasion. Some believed China would vote against it in a nod to Russia. 

Psaki also said that China has largely abided by sanctions the administration has imposed on Russia thus far. 

“I would note, though, that if any country tries to evade or work around our economic measures, they will experience the consequences of those actions,” Psaki said. 

“Our assessment right now is that they’re abiding by the requirements that have been put in place, but we would continue to encourage any country to think a lot about what role they want to play in history as we all look back,” she said. 

The administration has stepped up its rhetoric with China in recent days. 

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told the New York Times in an interview published Tuesday that the US would penalize Chinese firms that violate US export controls imposed on Russia by preventing them from using American software. 

“They have their own self-interest to not supply this stuff to Russia. So they’re not doing it out of the goodness of their heart. It would be devastating to China’s ability to produce these chips,” Raimondo told the Times. 

Days earlier, Secretary of State Antony Blinken urged China to use its voice to condemn Russian aggression during a call with his Chinese counterpart.  

“They have an opportunity for leadership here and we are all urging them to take it,” Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.  

The White House failed to convince China to avert a Russian invasion of Ukraine before it happened.  

Xi and Putin celebrated their close relationship in an in-person meeting ahead of the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing. The two sides released a joint statement declaring the China-Russia relationship had no limits.   

Burns on Thursday described that as the “most sweeping expression of their commitment to partnership” that the US has seen but noted that the war has since unsettled Beijing. At one point during his testimony, Burns said China’s own intelligence didn’t appear to foresee Putin’s attack. 

The US is also watching China closely over concerns that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will embolden Xi to launch a military takeover of Taiwan, the self-governed democratic island that Beijing views as a rogue territory.  

The administration in early March sent a high-level, non-governmental delegation to Taiwan in a show of American solidarity. The United States is required by law to provide Taipei with the military means and assistance necessary to repel a possible Chinese invasion. 

It’s unclear whether Biden will seek a call with Xi about Ukraine. The two leaders last spoke one-on-one during a virtual meeting in November. The White House made clear after Russia began its invasion that Biden was open to a call with Xi.  

“China is not going to reassess its view on the China-Russia relationship fundamentally on this alone,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “But we can make it more painful for China.”  

O’Hanlon noted that China would be the key to putting pressure on Russia to agree to some kind of diplomatic solution to the crisis in Ukraine. 

The Chinese leader earlier this week spoke jointly with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. In its readout of that call, China said that Xi expressed support for peace talks between Ukraine and Russia and warned that sanctions were not in the global community’s interest.  

The relationship between the US and China has grown more confrontational in recent years, as former President Trump waged a trade war with Beijing. Biden has since made competition with China a centerpiece of his domestic economic agenda.  

Still, China maintains robust trade relations with the West and Europe in particular. A close association with Putin threatens to disrupt that.  

“They still find the international system useful to them. They are not risk takers the way that Vladimir Putin is,” Evelyn Farkas, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, said of the Chinese. “If they stand with Russia, the world will condemn them.”  

Russia-Ukraine conflict: Indian dilemma

Russian war in Ukraine has exposed Indian strategic vulnerabilities as few other things could, raising fundamental questions about the country’s position in the world, its regional security and the wisdom of its long-term relationships.

India abstained in a succession of United Nations votes—in the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council—condemning the Russian invasion. In its initial explanation of vote, India didn’t even mention Russia or deplore the invasion. Instead, India merely urged a de-escalation of the conflict by those involved, as if both countries were belligerents, when in fact there is an obvious aggressor and a clear victim. India didn’t even object to Russia’s earlier recognition of the independence of the separatist Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

In subsequent statements, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has at least reiterated India’s longstanding principles, while calling for ‘concerted efforts from all sides to return to the path of diplomatic negotiations and dialogue’. In the face of mounting casualties—including an Indian student killed by Russian fire while queuing for food in Kharkiv—Modi’s government continues to call in vain for peace, while ensuring that no criticism, let alone condemnation, of Russia passes official lips.

The reasons for India’s reticence are easy to discern. For starters, Russia supplies India with about 50% of its weapons and defence equipment. And while India’s other commercial ties with Russia are much more modest than those it has with the United States, diplomatic relations with the Kremlin have been close since the days of the Soviet Union. Soviet vetoes at the UN frequently shielded India on Kashmir, and the Kremlin’s protection was indispensable during the 1971 Bangladesh War of Independence, when the US and China supported Pakistan.

Russia’s increasing closeness to, and geopolitical affinity with, China has therefore been worrying Indian policymakers for some time. The Kremlin has also been visibly warming to Pakistan, China’s client state. Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was in Moscow on the day Russia invaded Ukraine, and continued with his meetings, including with President Vladimir Putin—a clear sign that Russia’s calculations in the subcontinent have shifted. India seems to feel that it needs to cling to Russia’s goodwill in order to avoid losing it altogether.

But India has also been looking west in recent years, building a strategic partnership with the US that includes increasingly significant defence ties. It has embraced the US-led Quad (an informal four-country grouping that also includes Japan and Australia) as a useful counter to China. But Indian leaders realize that their continuing failure to join their Quad partners in opposing Russia’s invasion could jeopardize these links. The government thus finds itself on a tightrope, anxious not to fall to either side.

The war in Ukraine poses another strategic challenge for India. Until the crisis began to escalate late last year, the US seemed to be focusing on the global threat posed by China, and on the Indo-Pacific rather than Europe. But America may now revive its adversarial obsession with Russia. That could reduce US hostility towards China, India’s menacing northern neighbor, which has repeatedly encroached on Indian Territory along the two countries’ disputed Himalayan border, even killing 20 Indian soldiers in an unprovoked attack less than two years ago.

All this is happening at a time when the security threat from Afghanistan is at its greatest since the Taliban were last in power two decades ago. China’s build-up of military infrastructure in the region, its financial patronage of the Taliban, its opening to Iran (which cooperated with India in countering the previous Taliban regime) and an increase in Pakistani-supported militancy in Kashmir have put India on the defensive. Russia, China and Iran recently conducted joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean.

India’s traditional allies in the region can sense which way the wind is blowing. Nepal has allowed China to build major railway lines and highways across its northern border areas. Bhutan signed a border agreement last October that surrenders territory coveted by China, giving the Chinese an advantage in any future conflict with India. Most of India’s other South Asian neighbors have signed up to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which India strenuously opposes.

China’s increasing influence over these countries undermines India’s diplomatic position in its own backyard. And to the east, the ruling junta in Myanmar has declared a ‘special kinship’ with China, whereas its predecessor had come to see India as a valuable counterbalance to China.

In short, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has placed India in an unenviable position. Ideally, India would have liked to continue strengthening its partnerships with Western democracies, especially Australia, France, Japan, the UK and the US, while maintaining its traditional closeness to Russia, in the hope of deterring China from further encroachment on India’s core security interests. Instead, India finds itself between a rock and a hard place. It could antagonize the West while still losing Russia to China’s embrace, even as Pakistan—with friendlier Afghan and Iranian neighbors—feels emboldened in Kashmir.

The conflict in Ukraine is posing a profound challenge to Indian grand strategy. Non-alignment is hardly an option for a country with antagonistic neighbors seeking to violate its borders. India’s traditional reluctance to choose sides on major international issues could prove highly costly in the not-too-distant future, when it wants other countries’ support. It will be either Hobson’s choice, or Modi’s.

 

United States interested in working closely with Bangladesh

The newly-appointed Ambassador of United States to Bangladesh, Peter D. Haas has said he looks forward to working with Dhaka to further advance the relationship between the two countries. 

He was speaking at an interaction session with the officers of the Bangladesh Embassy in Washington DC. Haas is expected to arrive in Dhaka in early March to assume charges.

The new envoy was received by the Bangladesh Ambassador to the United States, M. Shahidul Islam and other officials of the Mission.

During the discussion, the ambassadors of the two countries expressed their resolve to work closely to further strengthen the friendly relations between Bangladesh and the United States.

They also laid emphasis on greater engagements of the two sides and undertaking mutually beneficial program and actions to celebrate the 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties between Bangladesh and the United States.

Bangladesh’s location holds significant strategic value for Beijing. China relies on the Strait of Malacca, a narrow waterway between Malaysia, Singapore, and the Indonesian island of Sumatra, to import energy and goods from the Middle East and Africa via the Indian Ocean.

The Strait of Malacca could become a high-risk passageway in the event of a potential conflict either in the South China Sea or the India-China border. Consequently, China has taken a number of initiatives to build alternative routes aimed at reducing dependence on the Strait of Malacca. Seeking port facilities in the Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal region along with overland connections to them is one of the efforts in this direction.

It may be recalled that Chinese Ambassador to Bangladesh Li Jiming recently expressed concerns that China-Bangladesh relations will suffer if Dhaka joins the Quad, an informal grouping that aims to counterbalance Beijing.

Though China shares no border with Bangladesh, the distance between the two countries is only about 100 kilometers. Beijing hopes to bridge this distance through infrastructure that would link the two countries closer.

The Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor is one of the six proposed economic corridors of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Bangladesh enjoys a strategic location in Beijing’s strategic advances in the Indian Ocean.

India faces sanctions under CAATSA

Moscow has started supplying New Delhi with S-400 air defense missile systems said Dmitry Shugayev, the head of the Russian military cooperation agency. The deal between Russia and India, worth around US$5.5 billion was signed in 2018 for five long-range surface-to-air missile systems. New Delhi believes it is crucial for countering China.

The deal attracts attention of the experts to the US legislation called Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). It is the US Federal Law signed on August 02, 2017 that requires the US President to sanction Russian, North Korean and Iranian, punishing direct or indirect support of them. The three sections of CAASTA are aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program, reducing Russian growing influence in Europe and Eurasia and curbing North Korean weapons of mass destruction.

The US applied CAASTA on Turkey in January 2021 after it bought S-400 systems from Moscow. But sanctioning India under CAATSA appears to be a herculean task for Washington. New Delhi is not bothered about CAATSA, being considered a US law, and not one by the United Nations. In March 2021 Lloyd Austin, US Secretary of Defense raised concerns over India’s planned procurement of the S-400 air defense missile. He had accentuated that the US allies and partners ought to shun “any kind of acquisitions that will trigger sanctions”.

Austin soon after clarified that the question of sanctioning India was not under consideration as New Delhi had not taken delivery of the system; sanctions would be applied only when deliveries took place, Austin added.

Interestingly, India has purchased S-400 air defense missile systems from Russia. A few queries remain unanswered. Will the US impose sanctions against India under CAATSA? If sanctioned are applied what would be the Indian reaction?

India, arguably, is a robust bulwark of the US against the containment of China sanctioning would loss a strategic ally in the Indo-Pacific region. Meanwhile, India and Russia have a long history of military relations since the era of the Soviet Union.

Currently in the military services of India nearly 86% of the weapons, equipment, and platforms are of Russian origin. The US started selling weapons and equipment to India in 2001 after easing its relations with New Delhi.

Russian air defense system is extensively used in the Indian military; the latter is unlikely to compromise on the former’s sophisticated weapons. Sanctioning India will reduce Indian military buttress vis-à-vis China and will swing New Delhi to Moscow that the US never wants to happen. The US is fully cognizant of the fact that if sanctions are imposed will alienate India resulting in losing Indian arms market damaging the US military-industrial complex.

The fact of matter is that instead of sanctioning and alienating India, the US presumably will occupy the Indian arms market by competing with Russian weapons and equipment in terms of performance and price. 

On the other hand, there is a great deal of likelihood that CAATSA will bypass India, under the Act’s “modified waiver authority” for “certain sanctionable transactions’ granted by the US president Joe Biden. India has already been lobbying in Washington for CAATSA waiver over the S-400 air defense missile systems.

Indian diplomats and security officials reassured the US that both India and the US had a comprehensive global strategic partnership and both were having a threat from China and S-400 air defense missile systems were attributed to countering China. New Delhi had also guaranteed the protection of the US materiel and the US “technical and operational secrecy”.

India predominantly reassured Washington that the former was willing to reduce its dependency on the Russian defense equipment in the foreseeable future. India, as a result, was backed by three Republican senators presented an amendment in Congress to the National Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 with the aim of making obstacles for the U.S. in the imposition of CAATSA on India.

The latest US legislation, called the Circumspectly Reducing Unintended Consequences Impairing Alliances and Leadership (CRUCIAL) Act, 2021 maintains that CAATSA will only weaken the US security in the Indo-Pacific region.

Ted Cruza a Republican senator argues that “Now would be exactly the wrong time for President Biden to undo all of that progress (in partnering India) through the imposition of these sanctions”.

S-400 obviously ushers a path to a diplomatic crisis for the Biden administration. Applying CAATSA on India will dilute the strategic coherence of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue QUAD in the Indo-Pacific undermining US diplomatic ties with India in the containment of China.

Moscow also looks forward to taking advantage of the sanctions reclaiming its role as an Indian bona fide military partner. Applying of sanctions would remain a geostrategic victory of Russia damaging the US Indo-Pacific strategy overwhelmingly.

Beijing remains a prime adversary of the US and India that forces both countries to be strategic allies in the region. However, the S-400 air defense missile somewhat caused a rift in the diplomatic ties of the US and India.

It can be argued that the irresponsible US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the non-inclusion of India in the AUKUS compelled India to move towards Moscow in a bid to pressurize the United States.

The US certainly hangs in the balance as far as CAATSA is concerned. On one hand, sanctioning India will bring New Delhi and Moscow further closer, weakening the US containment policy of China and the credibility of the Quad. On the other, non-imposition of CAATSA would tarnish the US image globally, showcasing its selective approach in punishment of the countries. 

United States-China rivalry intensifies after withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan

The withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan last month finally put an end to the 20-year mission sparked by the terrorist attacks on US soil on 11th September 2001. But the move has also set the stage for Washington to turn its attention and refocus its energies and resources on continuing and even intensifying its strategic rivalry with China.

President Joe Biden alluded to it as much when he acknowledged that the withdrawal will give the US the opportunity to focus on countering Russia and China, particularly in meeting the “stiff competition” from “an increasingly assertive China”.

Afghanistan has already emerged as the latest arena for the rivalry, with China pledging to donate US$31 million dollars worth of aid, including food and coronavirus vaccines, to the war-torn country. 

Apart from the possibility of sending a peacekeeping force to Afghanistan if the security situation worsens, Beijing also made clear that it was ready to maintain communication with the Taliban.

China used what it calls the US “abandonment” of Afghanistan to remind America’s allies in Asia, especially Taiwan, not to rely on the US for protection, arguing that the island is merely used as a card to contain China.

Not to be outdone, the US has promised to continue humanitarian aid to the Afghan people through United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations, including providing a further US$64 million in new humanitarian assistance.

US Vice President, Kamala Harris headed to Singapore and Vietnam to offer reassurance that Washington remains committed to the region, and she outlined the Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy, which in recent months has become a buzzword for countering China.

The Americans also sailed the USS Kidd guided-missile destroyer and Coast Guard cutter Munro through the Taiwan Strait last month, and over the weekend deployed the littoral combat ship USS Tulsa and Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group, said to be a tit-for-tat move after four Chinese warships were spotted sailing in the waters off Alaska late last month.

In a brazen flexing of its military muscle, the US joined forces with its three allies in the Quad security grouping - India, Australia and Japan - in holding joint naval exercises off the coast of Guam, featuring anti-surface, anti-air and anti-submarine warfare drills.

The US is even considering the possibility of allowing Taipei’s US office to change its name from the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office to the Taiwan Representative Office, prompting Beijing to issue a terse warning to Washington not to challenge the one-China principle.

The relations between the world’s two highly disagreeable powers are so tense that cooperation in other areas, most notably in climate change, has taken a beating, with Beijing mincing no words when it declared that China would follow its own plan rather than bow to US pressure.

As both nations face pressure to improve ties, Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed in their first phone call in six months to manage the growing rivalry and to stop it from devolving into a conflict. While Biden focused on the way forward for the troubled bilateral relationship, Xi said “getting the relationship right is not optional, but something we must do and must do well”.

These are the most reassuring words that the world has heard in a while, but under the “new normal” in US-China relations, few concessions are likely, relations will remain hard-nosed, while hostile and prickly impulses will continue to undermine mutual interactions.

US, UK and Australia forging military alliance against China

The United States, Britain and Australia have forged a historic security alliance to strengthen military capabilities in the Pacific, allowing them to share advanced defence technologies and giving Australian forces nuclear submarine technology. The move, announced on Wednesday, extends Washington’s drive for military cooperation.

To begin the “Aukus” security partnership, naval officials and technical specialists from the three countries will work together over the next 18 months to give Australia the nuclear technology that will allow it to deploy submarines “to improve deterrence across the Indo-Pacific”, said a senior official from US President Joe Biden’s administration.

“We undertake this effort as part of a larger constellation of steps, including stronger bilateral partnerships with our traditional security partners in Asia – Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines – and also stronger engagements with new partners like India, Vietnam and new formations like the Quad,” the official said, referring to the security grouping of the US, India, Japan and Australia.

“This is an historic announcement. It reflects the Biden administration’s determination to build stronger partnerships to sustain peace and stability across the entire Indo-Pacific region.”

The three countries will also cooperate on integrating artificial intelligence, quantum computing and undersea capabilities into their military operations.

At a joint press conference with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and British leader Boris Johnson, Biden said the initiative was needed to ensure the US and its allies had the “most modern capabilities we need to manoeuvre and defend against rapidly evolving threats”.

“We need to be able to address both the current strategic environment in the region and how it may evolve because the future of each of our nations, and indeed the world, depends on a free and open Indo-Pacific enduring and flourishing in the decades ahead,” Biden said.

The nuclear-powered submarines will be built in Adelaide with “in close cooperation” with Britain and the US, said Morrison.

Johnson called the undertaking “one of the most complex and technically demanding projects in the world”.

“Only a handful of countries possess nuclear-powered submarines,” he said. “And it is a momentous decision for any nation to acquire this formidable capability, and perhaps equally momentous for any other state to come to its aid.”

While all three leaders cast the initiative as an effort to bring “stability” to the Indo-Pacific region, none made any explicit mention of China.

Asked whether the formation of Aukus was meant to counter China’s military build-up, the US official said the move “is not aimed or about any one country”, adding that “it’s about advancing our strategic interests, upholding the international rules-based order and promoting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific”.

The official said that Biden did not mention the Aukus initiative specifically when he spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping last week, but that the US leader “did underscore our determination to play a strong, strong role in the Indo-Pacific”.

Asked on Wednesday about the new security alliance, Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said that countries “should not build exclusionary blocs targeting or harming the interests of third parties”.

“In particular, they should shake off their Cold War mentality and ideological prejudice,” Liu said.

While Beijing may seek to downplay the new pact by calling it an outdated ideological move, there was “no doubt” about the initiative’s significance, said Oriana Skylar Mastro, an expert in Chinese military and security policy at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

“Not only for the content of the deal, but it shows innovation in how US allies and partners are thinking of working together,” she said. “It’s more than the usual exercises and air shows.”

News of the trilateral alliance comes as China’s People’s Liberation Army steps up aerial drills near Taiwan and in the South China Sea, where China’s territorial claims have been contested by Washington and other countries in the region.

Against this backdrop, Beijing will not buy the Biden administration’s assertion that Aukus is not a specific reaction to China’s military rise, said Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

“Beijing will see this as part of US efforts to forge coalitions aimed at pushing back against China, and they aren’t wrong,” she said. “The Chinese need to recognize that this assertive behavior is drawing democratic countries to cooperate in new ways to defend their interests.”

Charles Edel, an expert in Indo-Pacific security issues, viewed Wednesday’s announcement as the latest example of Biden’s rejection of the go-it-alone approach that characterized his predecessor’s China policy, and “a signal that the United States is willing to invest more responsibilities into its allies than it has in the past”.

 “The bet that’s clearly being placed here is that, in response to increasing Chinese capabilities and the turn to a more threatening Chinese foreign policy, more allies are going to become more capable, and that that will serve as a greater deterrent to the Chinese, both militarily and politically,” said Edel, a global fellow at the Wilson Centre in Washington and senior fellow at the University of Sydney’s United States Studies Centre.

At Wednesday’s press conference, Morrison stressed that the submarines would be nuclear in propulsion only, rather than carrying nuclear weapons. “We will continue to meet all our nuclear weapons,” he said.

But nuclear power alone carried with it significant tactical advantages that had obvious applications when it came to countering China’s military presence in the Indo-Pacific, said Edel.

Besides increased payload capabilities, nuclear-powered submarines had greater endurance and could remain in deep waters for longer periods of times, said Edel. “They are, at depth, less detectable, so that’s a deterrent,” he said. “When we think about the extraordinary production of Chinese ground-based missiles that basically blanket the entire South China Sea – without necessarily a counterbalancing force other than the US – this then, I think, is a partial answer to that.”

Biden’s other geopolitical initiatives since taking office, including his efforts to bolster ties with NATO and the G7 and the shaping of the QUAD, have specifically included language about countering China’s growing influence.

The administration official cited Biden’s planned in-person meeting with Morrison and the other Quad leaders next week at the White House, and suggested that the presence of British aircraft carriers in the South China Sea in recent months figured into the strengthening military alliance.

“You have just seen the substantial deployment of British forces throughout the Indo-Pacific very successful deployments of the aircraft carriers, supporting ships, lots of valuable port engagements,” he said. “Our strategic discussions … transcended several months of very deep, very high level engagements with both our military commands, our political leadership and the people closest to our leaders in order to chart a common path on the way forward.”

The establishment of Aukus follows a warning on Tuesday by Glaser, former US National Security Council, Deputy National Security adviser Zack Cooper and other military analysts that the US needs stronger military partnerships in region.

“China’s modernizing military … poses the greatest challenge in the world,” they said in a white paper on how Washington should respond to challenges posed by Beijing. “China is not a global military peer competitor of the US … but it has developed a robust capability to fight effectively in the areas within the first island chain, which runs north to south from Japan in the East China Sea, to Taiwan, to the Philippines in the South China Sea.”

“Long-term success will depend on the US making significant advances in its regional diplomacy with new partners who feel threatened by Beijing’s military modernization and grey zone assertiveness, even as many have strong trade, investment and financial ties with China,” they said.

But in the wake of Wednesday’s announcement, it remains a possibility that Beijing will respond to Washington’s growing alliances with increased assertion, said Ali Wyne, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group and an expert in US-China relations.

“A big question is whether China will recalibrate, recognizing that it is engendering greater resistance among advanced industrial democracies or instead adduce that resistance as evidence that it needs to double down on its current course of diplomacy.”

US-Indian cooperation against China

According to South Asia Journal, the top diplomats of India and the United States have pledged to expand their multilateral security partnership, underscoring the deepening of ties between two countries concerned over China’s growing influence in the region.

US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken and Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar met in New Delhi and sought to strengthen a regional front against Beijing’s assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific and their cooperation in Afghanistan.

They also lauded each country’s help in fighting the coronavirus and said their vaccine partnership is an effort to end the pandemic. Blinken also announced a US$25 million fund to support India’s COVID-19 vaccination program.

“There are few relationships in the world that are more vital than one between the United States and India. We are the world’s two leading democracies and our diversity fuels our national strength,” Blinken said at a joint news conference.

Washington has made no secret of its desire for India’s help in isolating China. The two countries have steadily ramped up their military relationship and signed a string of defense deals.

The US and India are part of the Quad regional alliance that also includes Japan and Australia and focuses on China’s growing economic and military strength. China has called the Quad an attempt to contain its ambitions.

Blinken’s India visit comes just days after the No. 2 U.S. diplomat, Wendy Sherman, was in China.

Blinken said he and Jaishankar also discussed regional security issues including Afghanistan, where the US is expected to complete its military withdrawal in August. He called India’s contribution to the stability of Afghanistan “vital.”

Blinken said there was no “military solution” to the conflict in Afghanistan and that the country would turn into a “pariah state” if the Taliban takes control by force.

“We will continue to work together to sustain the gains of the Afghan people and support regional stability after the withdrawal of coalition forces from the country,” Blinken said.

Jaishankar said the world wishes to see an “independent, sovereign, democratic and stable Afghanistan at peace with itself and with its neighbors,” and cautioned that the country’s “independence and sovereignty will only be ensured if it is free from malign influences.”

 New Delhi has often expressed concern that a Taliban takeover could lead to security threats against India.

India has provided Afghan security forces with operational training and military equipment, even though it has had no troops on the ground. It has also provided more than US$2 billion in development aid to Afghanistan.

In June, India’s Foreign Ministry said it was in contact with “various stakeholders” in Afghanistan to discuss its future. More recently, officials from the two countries have increased mutual visits.

“New Delhi is clearly stepping up its game on the Afghanistan front,” said Micheal Kugelman of the Asia Program at the Washington-based Wilson Center. “Its decision to engage more in regional diplomacy on Afghanistan signifies a desire to be more of a player than it has in the past.”

In a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi later Wednesday, Blinken discussed the pandemic, security and defense cooperation, including Quad, and “shared values and democratic principles,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price said.

Earlier during his visit, Blinken spoke to civil society leaders and said fundamental freedoms and rule of law are “tenets of democracies” like the US and India.

Opponents of Modi’s governing Hindu nationalist party have accused it of stifling dissent and introducing divisive policies that discriminate against Muslims and other minorities. Modi has also been accused of trying to silence voices critical of his administration’s handling of the pandemic.

India routinely denies criticism of its human rights record. It has also rejected criticism by foreign governments and rights groups that civil liberties have contracted in the country.

 “We believe that all people deserve to have a voice in their government, to be treated with respect, no matter who they are,” Blinken said.

But experts say human rights concerns are unlikely to fundamentally affect the US-India relationship.

“For all the rhetoric trumpeting the shared values that drive partnership, it really boils down to shared interests,” Kugelman said. “At the end of the day, so long as China’s rise continues to be a common concern, the relationship will have no trouble operating on all cylinders.”

Can joining Quad help India fight Himalayan war against China?

The ambiguity over officially announcing China as its adversary, the lack of overlap between the geographies or the issues of its members with China, and the military disadvantages before a well-prepared Chinese puts a question mark over Indian inclusion in the Quad.

India has maintained that it perceives the Quad as not aimed against anyone, “denied it is an Asian NATO”, stressed on broader issues from vaccine collaboration, to resilient supply chains, and framed its language that avoids irking China. But the belated adoption of broader goals such as climate change and vaccines in the 12th March Quad Leaders’ Summit, to make it more acceptable to other countries, suggested that the target is Beijing.

Only India and Japan have territorial disputes and are geographically close with China, while the US and Australia’s opposition stems from Great Power contest, China’s socio-political system and policies in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, the South China Sea and Taiwan.

The only tangible dispute Australia has with China was the trade war where the latter’s tariffs cost Australia US$3 billion ‑ themselves in response to Australia backing a global inquiry into the COVID-19 origins in April 2020.

While India’s territorial disputes with China are in the Himalayas, Japan contests the Senkaku Islands (or Diaoyu in Chinese) in the East China Sea. Thus, the lack of a contiguous land or maritime geography with China does not allow a ‘united front’ per se — like Egypt and Sudan against Ethiopia, or Egypt, Greece and Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean against Turkey. Moreover, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga on 22nd April refused intervening in a Chinese invasion of Taiwan itself, while clarifying 17th April joint statement with Biden in the Japanese Parliament.

India is not likely to join Quad members to collectively confront China in the South China Sea, as China can be expected to retaliate with severe backlash in Ladakh. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is already limiting the disengagement only to the Pangong Tso, with the standoff becoming a year old.

Beijing initiated the standoff because of India’s rising military dalliance with the US and tacitly joining former US President Donald Trump’s COVID-19-origin charge in early 2020. China perceived it as a threat to its sovereignty and India and US exploiting its vulnerability. Moreover, India’s reconciliatory statements at the beginning of the standoff reflected an unwillingness to go to war.

Giving up the Kailash Range plateau that had stunned the Chinese, has also left India with little military options. Add to it its obsolete military equipment and structure, India can only fight a defensive war. In the South China Sea against the US Navy that is stretched thin, the Chinese have a home advantage.

In the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), the Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) knows it faces the ‘away’ disadvantage and, therefore, will not challenge the Quad or India.

Retired US Navy Admiral Dennis Blair also discredits the ‘String of Pearls’ theory, saying it is “not possible for any navy to encircle a country (like India) with a few ports.” Since international law would permit India to strike regions it faces attacks from, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Pakistan will not host Chinese military facilities aimed at India.

A China policy independent of the US geopolitical rivalries that objectively addresses Indian issues with Beijing and avoids the destabilization that Washington’s military alliances effect would inspire a positive response from China. Moreover, banking on military alliances against China would harm the current government’s muscular, nationalistic image.

Should Bangladesh join QUAD or not?

Ever since I have created this blog site in 2012, one of my observations is that super powers in a bid to establish their hegemony in a region follow different polices. The sole objective remains making weaker countries subservient. 

First these countries are lured, in case the objective is not achieved super powers go the extent of creating internal turmoil and then demand regime change. 

It is known to all and sundry that United States and China are witnessing growing hostility in South China Sea area. Following cold war era policy, United States creates proxies. The strategy paid off in the Middle East and now it is being replicated in South China Seas. To achieve its motive, United States has joined hands with Australia, India, and Japan. Now efforts are being made to include Bangladesh in the alliance. It was expected that persuading Bangladesh would be easy because India has been godfathering since independence. It also appears that China would also use its strategic tools to keep Bangladesh under its influence.

Lately, Chinese ambassador to Bangladesh Li Jiming said Bangladesh’s relations with China will be ‘substantially damaged’ if Bangladesh joins the US-led initiative, Quad. China considers Quad — a strategic alliance of the US, Japan, India and Australia — as a minor group with anti-China motives.

Bangladesh Foreign Minister A K Abdul Momen was prompt in responding and said that China has crossed the line while talking about Quad. Momen said Bangladesh is yet to take any decision regarding Quad. Besides, Bangladesh is fully sovereign and will take the decision which is good for the country.

Momen said we set our foreign policy. Any country can express its opinions. But we’ll decide our course of action based on the fundamental principle we follow for the welfare of our country.

The minister further said generally China does not interfere in the affairs of other countries. I never heard them talking so aggressively to anyone. This is a matter of regret that another country is trying to dictate what we should or should not do. We’ll do whatever is beneficial for the country.

The desperation of United States became evident when Ned Price of the US State Department Spokesman said at a briefing “Well have taken note of that statement of the Chinese Ambassador to Bangladesh.” He also said, “We respect Bangladesh’s sovereignty, and we respect Bangladesh’s right to make foreign policy decisions for itself.”

He said the US has an incredibly strong relationship with Bangladesh and both the countries work closely with partners on a range of issues, from economic growth to climate change to humanitarian issues.

“We’ve said this before, the Quad, is an informal, essential, multilateral mechanism that right now conveys – convenes likeminded democracies – the United States, India, Australia, and Japan – to coordinate in the Indo-Pacific, and fundamentally, to push forward our goal of a free and open Indo-Pacific region.

Quad seeking collaborative defence arrangement to counter China

The effectiveness with which Russia and China have been able to exploit situations to make territorial gains has exposed a chronic vulnerability for collective defence regimes. Collective defence risks are becoming weaker for an era of strategic competition in the grey zone. The Quad implicitly acknowledges this and has developed as a collaborative defence arrangement that has the capacity to respond to the sorts of threats China poses.

For the Quad to succeed, Australia, India, Japan and the United States need to work together using force—or tactics that is either above or slightly below the threshold of armed conflict to block Chinese attempts to seize territory. They members need a coherent strategy to counter China’s other activities below the threshold of armed conflict.

This requires broad understanding of the defence using different elements of national power to counter a range of coercive threats. Each member needs to understand which levers should be pulled at what times in a coherent strategy that thwarts Beijing’s ability to achieve its political objectives at each stage of competition or conflict.

The more coercive the power China mobilizes, the fewer levers of national power the Quad members would need to pull. In a hypothetical example in the first part of this series, let us explore how Quad members might develop an effective military response to a Chinese attempt to seize Pratas Island from Taiwan. In that case, the four members of the Quad would be pulling down heavily on the military levers of national power—albeit at different stages of the conflict and in different theatres.

Responding to the most coercive of China’s threats is the easiest part of the Quad’s job. It gets harder if China mobilizes less coercive power when threatening the Quad’s interests in the Indo-Pacific. This is where the distinction between collective defence and collaborative defence becomes the key.

Over time, China has reclaimed land and transformed islands into military facilities that have increased its ability to project power across the Western Pacific. This has raised the costs for the US to defend its treaty allies, which undermines its presence in Asia.

For Japan and Australia, China’s South China Sea facilities pose a threat to the freedom of navigation each relies on for trade.

In India, the stakes may not be as high, but any erosion of international norms in the South China Sea would set an unwelcome precedent as the Chinese military increases its presence in the Indian Ocean. The differing stakes for each country in the Quad have made a collective response impossible.

However, an effective response to China’s grey-zone coercion need not be ‘collective’. In 2017, Ely Ratner, Biden’s top China adviser at the Pentagon, argued in Foreign Affairs that the US should ‘abandon its neutrality and help countries in the region defend their claims’.

Ratner suggested that the US help treaty allies such as the Philippines with joint land-reclamation projects, increased arms sales and improved basing access. Other Quad members would also need to draw upon their own bilateral partnerships to help claimant states build resilience to Beijing’s grey-zone operations. The Quad would be a subtle means of helping Southeast Asian claimants defend their sovereignty against China’s creeping expansionism.

Ratner’s proposal shows collaborative defence in action with the aid of the Indo-Pacific’s established great power. While Washington is laying the groundwork to compete with China in the grey zone, Australia could strengthen its maritime capacity-building initiatives and joint naval exercises with Malaysia and Indonesia in archipelagic Southeast Asia.

India and Japan could each increase the frequency of their bilateral naval exercises with Vietnam. The Quad could agree to conduct Exercise Malabar in the South China Sea, while members of the ‘blue dot network’ could jointly finance critical infrastructure projects in littoral states. An effective strategy would require each Quad member to use a mix of diplomacy, aid, military exchanges, arms sales, joint exercises and new basing infrastructure.

None of these initiatives will achieve results immediately, but nor did China’s island-building campaign. Over time, each initiative will shift the burden of escalation back to China. With each Quad member working independently and collaboratively to embolden claimant states to defend their maritime rights, Beijing will incur new risks when rotating new fighters on Fiery Cross Reef or contemplating further incursions into the Natuna Islands.

Collaboration will allow each Quad member to find out how best to draw on its bilateral partnerships to embolden claimant states to defend their interests. The Quad will be invisible, but omnipresent in Southeast Asia. That’s precisely the threat that Beijing doesn’t want to deal with.

To succeed as a collaborative defence arrangement, the Quad needs to be guided by three principles. Its members need to work independently on their bilateral relationships to improve claimant states’ ability to defend their interests; they must exercise together whenever strategic circumstances require it; and they need to share notes on regional strategy, knowing it will be much harder for China to secure further territorial gains if it’s on the back foot.

Biden administration sees Quad as fundamental foundation to build US policy on Indo-Pacific

The new Biden administration sees the Quad grouping comprising of the United States, India, Japan and Australia as a fundamental foundation upon which to build a substantial American policy in the strategically-vital Indo-Pacific region. National security advisor Jake Sullivan said at an event organized by the US Institute of Peace, a Congress-funded think-tank that the US will build on and carry forward the four-nation Quad grouping.

Quad and the Indo-Pacific policy of the Trump administration are one of the few policies that the Biden administration has said it will continue to build on, besides the Abraham Accords, Sullivan said.

“Those are in two different theaters in the world and two initiatives that you will see continuity and an effort to reinforce and carry forward steps that have been taken by the previous administration,” he said.

"When the first Accords with the UAE, Bahrain were announced, it was in the heat of a political campaign, a presidential campaign, and then candidate Biden made no bones about coming out saying: ‘I think this is a good thing. I think this is a positive thing',” he said.

Biden said consistently over the course of the last several months that he would like to carry forward this initiative, deepen the cooperation between the countries that have signed the accords, make real normalization that has taken root and add more countries, he said.

“He (Biden) sees that as being positive for security in the region, positive for economic development, in the region, and positive for America's national interest for many of the reasons that Robert laid out,” Sullivan said.

“So, one of the things that we will be doing in the coming weeks and months is thinking about how we make sure that the seeds that have now been planted actually grow into the full kind of cooperation across multiple dimensions and these relationships can move forward and how that can really help the United States advance our interests,” he said.

In November 2017, India, Japan, the United States and Australia gave shape to the long-pending proposal of setting up the "Quad" to develop a new strategy to counter China's aggressive behaviour in the strategically-vital Indo-Pacific region.

The evolving situation in the Indo-Pacific region in the wake of China's increasing military muscle flexing has become a major talking point among leading global powers. The US has been favouring making Quad a security architecture to check China's growing assertiveness.

China is engaged in hotly contested territorial disputes in the South and East China Seas. Beijing has also made substantial progress in militarizing its man-made islands in the past few years.

Beijing claims sovereignty over all of the South China Sea. But Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei and Taiwan have counterclaims. In the East China Sea, China has territorial disputes with Japan.

The South China Sea and the East China Sea are stated to be rich in minerals, oil and other natural resources. These are also vital to global trade. Although, the US lays no claims to the disputed waters, it has challenged China's growing territorial claims in the South China Sea by deploying warships and fighter jets to assert freedom of navigation and over flight patrols in the strategically-vital region.