The Quad – comprising the United States, Japan, India and Australia – was set up a decade ago, ostensibly as an Asia-centered security cooperation mechanism. Funnily enough, Beijing always suspected it actually represented a containment strategy.
Last November, in Manila, the Quad met on the sidelines of the Asean and East Asia summits. Their topic of discussion: “alternatives” to China in terms of pan-Asian infrastructure financing.
Then came a recent think tank summit in New Delhi. As reported by Asia Times, the alleged star of the show was Admiral Harry Harris, soon to leave his post as head of US Pacific Command in Hawaii to become the next US ambassador to Australia.
Harris had already told Congress America must prepare for the possibility of war with China. And he insisted Australia would help “uphold the international rules-based system” in the Indo-Pacific.
In New Delhi, he said: “The reality is that China is a disruptive transitional force in the Indo-Pacific, they are the owner of the trust deficit in the region.” He was apoplectic in stressing that Beijing’s “intent is crystal clear” to dominate the South China Sea and that its military might soon rival American power “across almost every domain.”
Significantly, Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, Australia’s Chief of Navy, called for concrete action against the PLA’s Navy in the South China Sea.
This all fits into Washington’s recent terminological pivot from “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific,” with the new emphasis – inbuilt in the new Pentagon Defense Strategy – that China is a “revisionist power” bent on undermining the “international, rules-based order,” especially via “predatory economics” which will find full expression through its New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
So, the increasing perception in Beijing that the Quad is out to undermine BRI comes as no surprise.
Don’t mess with my ChAFTA
An “unnamed senior US official” was quoted in the Australian Financial Review earlier this week as saying the Quad’s strategy is “nascent” and “won’t be ripe enough to be announced” as Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull visits the US.
The Quad strategy, added the official, should be seen as an “alternative” rather than a “rival.” With Turnbull, as well as Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Trade Minister Steven Ciobo, preferring to keep mum, it’s fair to wonder what’s really goin’ on.
China is Australia’s top trading partner, as well as a crucial source of investment. After much hand-wringing, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on BRI cooperation was finally signed between Beijing and Canberra last September.
China and Australia already had a bilateral investment treaty (BIT), which has existed for three decades now. In 2015, they added a China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, known as ChAFTA. Inbuilt in this agreement is a review of BIT in 2018.
“The reality is that China is a disruptive transitional force in the Indo-Pacific, they are the owner of the trust deficit in the region”
Admiral Harry Harris
Deepening its involvement in BRI would allow Australia to attract more projects on its own soil, while also expanding the reach of its pan-Asian infrastructure investment ambitions.
According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), pan-Asia infrastructure investment must reach a staggering US$1.7 trillion a year to allow “developing Asia… to maintain its growth momentum [and] tackle poverty.”
Australian businesses are undeniably into BRI. There’s even a lively Australia-China Belt and Road Initiative – a forum established to help Australian business gain clarity on BRI opportunities. China and northern Australia have started to build particularly strong ties.
Aussies, like Indians, joke that Australia never flinches in terms of putting its national interest behind that of the US. Australia has long taken its lead from Washington; former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had the rare talent among Anglosphere leaders of being able to speak Chinese, but even his administration was not particularly close to Beijing.
But informed Australians know – just as informed Brazilians or Argentinians know – that the key issue exercising the US is the degree to which other countries’ closer commercial and investment relations with China strategically impinge on Washington’s interests.
Quad vs. BRI, the redux
Australia could perhaps use a few hints from another Quad member, Japan, on whether the Quad is likely to be just another “pivot to Asia” mechanism, replacing the Obama / Hillary version but still conceived by Washington as a vehicle for strategic containment of China.
Tokyo has pledged to come up with an ambitious US$200 billion for the infrastructure investment game. Australia could never match that.
What we have here is essentially Tokyo – and the ADB – competing head-on against Beijing and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), to extend loans around the world, including to an array of African nations (already Beijing’s clients) and even to Russia.
The key issue exercising the US is the degree to which other countries’ closer commercial and investment relations with China strategically impinge on Washington’s interests
And yet Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not even try to disguise the real purpose: “Japan will promote strategic and effective development cooperation to advance its foreign policy, including the ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy.’”
The Japanese are careful to emphasize that this ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy’ implies building “high-quality infrastructure” – a not-exactly subtle dig against Chinese competition.
So the stage is set for an “Indo-Pacific” Quad against BRI. The either-or overtones are certainly not helpful to the interests of the needy in scores of emerging pan-Asian nations.
Canberra certainly does not have what it takes – fund-wise – to splurge on regional infrastructure building. In terms of Australian national interests, BRI’s economic benefits certainly outweigh antagonizing its top trade partner. Australia should aim to be a bridge, not a wall.
BRI, as seen from Beijing, is open: you can join in any time you want, do whatever you want, and help whoever you choose. Compared to BRI, the Quad strategy looks like too little, too late. Trade and investment? Not really. More like a pumped-up South China Sea Watch.
I have lived in Sydney since 1954 and I have never heard the supposed Aussie joke about not flinching from putting our national interest behind that of the US. Granted, as an argument it has been a trope on the left since the forties, but I’ve never known those circles to laugh about it, nor indeed have they ever struck me as particularly humorous types. Then again, maybe Doc Evatt had the Labor Caucus rolling in the aisles with it prior to the Split. I was only two at the time. But Mr Escobar would reaching back a long way to come up with a joke from the Doc.
"The United States President Donald"?
I could have sworn his name was Trump. Oh well, my mistake.
Oh this is good…
China should thank this opportunity. Immediately declear support for this SEPARATE initiative and look forward to fair compeitition – I mean belt and road initiative was open to anyone but if any group want to start their own stove China should be glad- and indeed recipients too. China will hone herself in compeitition and recipients will have alternatives to look for. To ensure this work well we’ll have to make sure these are genuine separate compeititions, each side will bring their own funding, resources and best practice forward, make sure do not mix them up and let the recipients decides who offered the best in recipients interest.
It is clear there wont be any roads or belts on this initiate..but there will be bills to pay…and this is when the quad inept will look at each other.
From sublime to ridiculous, comparing Pope with a thief.
China’s BRI is principally Land based since Asia, Europe, and Africa are contiguous. Its aims to transport finished goods fast and cheap via high speed trains. It has a side Maritime component.
The quad America, Japan, Australia, UK, and India are not land connected. Their "Road" is principally a Maritime adventure more suitable for commodities. They will help feed China’s growing industries as Japan, US, UK de-industrialize.
This new misadventure is colonialism by choice, LOL.
Forget the jokes. Have you been able to recognize instances of Australian government’s surrender of your national interest when the US government so demanded?
Good article by Pepe.
None of the Quad is in good financial standing to undertake a major infrastructure project. The US is bankrupt. Trump can’t even figure out how to rebuild America’s own crumbling infrastructure, let alone those of others. Japan, as a vassal, has just seen its pension fund raided by the US to the tune of well over a trillion dollars. India has been a joke when it comes to infrastructure. Australia is a small vassal with a tiny wallet but slightly more rights (or autonomy) than Japan. So this talk of "alternative BRI" is just BS cover for a harebrained plan to counter and contain China and Russia.
It’s not ridiculous to compare figures of the Vatican to a thief. If anything, it’s sort of an unjustifed compliment.
If you have a few days to spare, get online and search "Operation Gladio."
The Vatican (City of Supreme Evil) hasn’t changed much from its evil old ways.
Pakistan govt. is very much pissed off to read the label Indo-Pacific ocean, but like to see it as Indo-Pak Pacific Ocean . They believe Pakistan is integral part of the Asian continent.
Keith: I have lived in Sydney since 1947 – my year of birth. Like you I have also never heard that joke alleged by columnist Pepe Escobar about "not flinching from putting our national interest behind that of the US." Yet ignoring this one tiny gaffe by our esteemed Asia Times pundit, I fear that Escobar may well be right. Over the past decade due largely to weak government bereft of fresh ideas; Australian foreign policy has gone into a state of drift. I find myself wondering for how much longer our political leadership will be able to cling to the delusion that they can have it both ways; Still enjoy the blessings of having China as by far our biggest overseas tradinhg partner whilst clinging to the crumbling geostrategic power of the United States as non-negotable centreiece of our foreign policy.
"The US is bankrupt."
No its not.
The US Congress just found $1.5 trillion for tax cuts for the rich, and a $94 billion INCREASE for the military budget, or 1.5 times Russia’s ENTIRE military budget. That’s a lot of infrastructure.
can’t australia has her own independent foreign policy, instead of just being a lap dog n colony of America ?
Australians know Asians, particularly Chinese, well. European Australians have always been apprehensive of the innate industriousness of Asians. Hence the White Australia policy. They had the British Empire as protectors, and now they are happy to pay protection money to the Protection Racket that is the USA. It will be long time before Australia gets used to a world where the centre of gravity is Beijing, rather than London or Washington.
Galen Linder – LOL. yeah, that’s just US Con (forget the "gress" part).
US, Japan, and EU are still resorting to printing "something" out of thin air to "finance" their tried-&-failed agenda. The BS label the central banks have been using to fool the ignorant populace, "quantitative easing", may soon be heard or read more frequently than burger orders nationwide.
China and Japan will be the biggest foreign losers (since they are the largest buyers of US treasuries). American workers and savers will be screwed till kingdom come.
We will see how long the USD can last.
Man Lee Is is not "Asians" we are wary of but Asian power politics . Especially those of aspirant great powers like the PRC. Having stated that difference between the people and then geopolitics, I basically agree with you. The relationship with the United States is something we have long had and are quite used to. A foreign power like China is an unknown quantity. If China were number one t might tuern out to be benign but we cannot count on that. We perefer the known that from experience we know that can live with rather than the unknown in which we are unlikely to experioence anything better than a much harder time.
Australians are white europeans south of SE Asia similar to Israel in West Asia. A white frontier post from the middle ages . Therefore Australia will always go along , like with the British Empire now with the American . No rocket science needed
You must be an Indian ..hehehe
"The Quad" weakest yet most essential link is India, not Australia. The Quad can only work with India aboard, but with India aboard it is also bound to fail and fail spectacularly. The importance of India maybe why Trump dubbed the Pacific ocean to the "Indo Pacific" ocean.
In an article that appeared in "The American Thinker" which is a conservative, pro Israel pro Jewish American website titled "The Trump Factor and the Pashtuns" I give some relevant quotes to how America is dealing with China and the silk roads. :
"Not only is Pakistan supporting the terrorists killing American and Afghan troops by allowing them safe haven, something a free Pashtun people say they will stop, but Pakistan also is engaged in an extensive project with China – the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor or CPEC – that would be ruinous to American and Western interests in the region if unopposed."
[CPEC is now "ruinous" to American interests???]
"How much would an emboldened Pashtun populace force Pakistan to shift its resources and concentration away from these anti-American activities? How much more would they be forced to do so if a successful Pashtun emboldened Baloch, Sindhi, Kashmiris, and other nationalities that have been complaining of Pakistani oppression for decades?"
[The above quote is promoting the dismembering of Pakistan in an identical manner of New Delhi- how does that serve the Quad?]
The writer says this:
"I have been involved in South Asia for over a decade and believe that it will be where we fight the most critical battles for our planet’s soul."
[If South Asia is where the world figts battles ‘for our planet’s soul" how does that fit into Quad? What has battles got to do with infrastructure development which Quad is supposed to represent?}
Finallly India is the weakest link for she sees development as in the CPEC or the ports in Sri Lanka as a national threat. New Delhi has gone the opposite way of Beijing in building up the neighborhood.
Australia has plenty of money: over 300 million bucks was funnelled by Yanqui asset PM Gillard, to the criminal Clinton Foundation, and now Australia’s millionaire stooge and Ambassador to the Swamp Hockey is intending to risk Australia’s $2 trillion in our superannuation fund accounts, to fund US infrastructure (no doubt to be re-paid in US petro-dollars, which will soon be toilet paper)
The difference between the Quad and OBOR is not only about geo-politics. It is the difference between China’s ‘Communism with Chines characteristics’, which lifts millions out of poverty, and the Washington Consensus on neo-liberal trickle-down DOGMA, which connives to sink billions INTO poverty.
The USA is going down the tubes, and it will rip every country off while it’s doing it. And then all the oligarchs from the US to the UK will run off with all the money to Australia and New Zealand…..haha.
Thanks Ron Chandler, you have hit if on the head. The USA and Israel are the biggest danger to the whole world.
Irene Murray-Shemaria – aren’t they already owning properties there?