Australia, India and the Asian Quad

By Sumantra Maitra
0 Comment(s)Print E-mail China.org.cn, August 11, 2018
Adjust font size:

Sydney, Australia [Photo by Xu Lin / China.org.cn]


Why is India more reticent over having an aggressive foreign policy while showing no intentions of forming any coalition or being a part of an alignment? This is the question that has been baffling foreign policy analysts in Europe and the U.S. 

After all, India was supposed to be a pillar of the democratic Quad in the Indo-Pacific. The Quad itself is supposed to be an alliance of liberal democracies, to promote democracy and free trade but also to balance any rising power in the Asia Pacific. The fundamental goal was, therefore, realpolitik, despite the economic underpinning and humanitarian rhetoric. Incidentally, last time the idea of such a realpolitik alignment was scuttled by Kevin Rudd of Australia, out of fear of antagonizing a rising China. 

This time, it is different. While the Quad has met twice recently, Australia, the U.S. and Japan are separately planning to build a trilateral partnership in the region, and invest in Indo-Pacific projects to address infrastructure and development and connectivity. According to a briefing by the Australian government, the partnership has one goal in mind, that is to enhance the peace and prosperity of the region. 

Employing the local workforce, this economic blitz is aimed to "attract private capital and build a framework of cooperation....The United States, Japan, and Australia have formed a trilateral partnership to mobilize investment in projects that drive economic growth, create opportunities, and foster a free, open, inclusive and prosperous Indo-Pacific," the Australian government briefing read, with the key words being free, open and inclusive. 

Getting on with the program, Mike Pompeo has pledged a new 300-million-dollar security fund for Asia. "As part of our commitment to advancing regional security in the Indo-Pacific, the United States is excited to announce nearly $300m in new funding to reinforce security cooperation throughout the entire region," he was quoted to say. 

The new security assistance is intended to tackle "transnational threats" as well as U.S. economic commitment to a region to bolster a "free and open Indo-Pacific." Again, the focus is on Indo-Pacific being a region which is considered "free." The implication is clear; the U.S. is opposed to militarization of Asia and is determined to stop that from happening. 

However, three important structural barriers remain. Number one, the scale of investment is heavily tilted towards the Chinese. The comparison between the U.S. investing in Asia and China investing in Asia is incomparable. IR theory dictates, that small countries prefer local powers to invest and safeguard rather than bandwagoning with faraway powers. If that is correct, in the future, we will see more bandwagoning behavior from ASEAN and other Asian countries with China, inviting Chinese investment, and even military cooperation.

Which brings me to India. As I have written before, the Indian strategic circle faces a security dilemma. India is the only country to share an actual border with China. India and China are also both nuclear powers which means India doesn't have to depend on any external great power to provide security, and the power in the maritime domain is equally balanced, with India being more favorable towards its own base, and China being more favorable in the rest of the Indo-Pacific region. It is understandable why India would want to avoid giving the impression that India is determined to side with any coalition or aligning with any power, on either side. 

Second, the foreign policy history of India suggests that India prefers to remain non-aligned. It can be stated as its cultural DNA. 

Third, and most importantly, the Indian strategic community is independent in the way that it prefers to retain strategic autonomy. Indians don't trust any great power, and that means, it will be loath to join any side. If one can argue that India could be theoretically on the side of democracies, it needs to be stated that Indian democracy is a conservative, majoritarian, nationalist democracy and not a liberal democracy, more similar in character with Israel and Hungary, than Australia or Japan. That makes Indian foreign policy narrow. 

Australia is not India, and Australian domestic policy is very different than India's. Australia has to choose between Chinese investment and American security, a choice, India won't have to make, given Indian strategic and military autonomy. It is therefore unlikely that India will join any side, a luxury Australia cannot afford and a reality it will soon have to reckon with. 

Sumantra Maitra is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:


http://www.ccgp-fushun.com/opinion/SumantraMaitra.htm


Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors only, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.

Follow China.org.cn on Twitter and Facebook to join the conversation.
ChinaNews App Download
Print E-mail Bookmark and Share

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)

No comments.

Add your comments...

  • User Name Required
  • Your Comment
  • Enter the words you see:   
    Racist, abusive and off-topic comments may be removed by the moderator.
Send your storiesGet more from China.org.cnMobileRSSNewsletter
主站蜘蛛池模板: 刺激videoschina偷拍| 极端deepthroatvideo肠交| 国产乱码免费卡1卡二卡3卡四 | 8av国产精品爽爽ⅴa在线观看| 好男人视频社区精品免费| 亚洲一级毛片免费观看| 潦草影视2021手机| 国产人妖在线观看一区二区| 97精品伊人久久久大香线蕉| 日产精品久久久久久久性色| 亚洲日本久久一区二区va| 老师你的兔子好软水好多作文高清 | 四虎影视1515hh四虎免费| jizzjizz丝袜老师| 小宝贝浪货摸给我看| 五月开心播播网| 爱搞视频首页在线| 免费成人在线观看| 陪读妇乱子伦小说| 国产色产综合色产在线观看视频| 中文字幕亚洲区| 日本亚洲精品色婷婷在线影院| 亚洲成人免费在线观看| 精品国产午夜肉伦伦影院| 在线播放亚洲第一字幕| 中文字幕日韩人妻不卡一区| 欧美人善交videosg| 亚洲欧美在线观看视频| 污视频在线网站| 午夜时刻免费实验区观看| 国美女福利视频午夜精品| 国精品无码一区二区三区在线 | 国产精品无圣光一区二区| 一二三四在线观看免费高清视频 | 又大又黄又粗又爽的免费视频| 国产精选之刘婷野战| 国产禁女女网站免费看| avtt天堂网手机资源| 国产精品99久久精品爆乳| 亚洲欧美另类中文字幕| 在线精品国精品国产不卡|