“Quad 2.0”:
Quadrilateral Dialogue for Counterbalancing China in the Indo-Pacific


Khudaykulova A.V.,

Associate Professor, Department of Applied International Analysis, MGIMO University, Alexandra_77@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 252042 | ORCID: 0000-0003-0680-9321 | RESEARCHER_ID: E-5661-2017

Ramich M.S.,

postgraduate student, Department of Theory and History of International Relations, RUDN University, ramich_ms@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 1042878 |


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.03.03
For citation:

Khudaykulova A.V., Ramich M.S. “Quad 2.0”: Quadrilateral Dialogue for Counterbalancing China in the Indo-Pacific. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No. 3. P. 23-43. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.03.03


The reported study was funded by RFBR and EISR according to the research project No. 19-011-31389 “Traditional and emerging powers: discussions on sovereignty and conflict management”.


   Buy a digital version in Polismag

Abstract

“Free and Open Indo-Pacific” (FOIP) is a US foreign policy concept. Its implementation started with President Trump’s administration coming to power and is being actively promoted now. The concept has a strong geostrategic orientation and relies on the largest regional powers of Japan, Australia and India, – the closest partners of Washington in the region. Despite the ongoing differences in setting the priorities of a new regional security structure, members of “Quad” are mostly concerned about China’s growing economic influence and potential military dominance, not only in the Asia-Pacific region, but also in the Indian Ocean. Therefore, the general basis of the Quadrilateral security dialogue in the Indo-Pacific region would be the deterrence of Chinese power and the maintenance of the regional balance of power. The IPR concept is currently at the institutionalization stage. At the same time, the stable trend for strengthening economic, military and political interaction between “Quad” members is continuously developing, regardless of their vision of the framework and the pace of its implementation. In such conditions, the issues of the development of the Indo-Pacific region and the prospects for the further formation of this “Security Diamond” will remain the highest agenda, especially as there are no clear prerequisites for easing U.S.-Chinese tensions. This article analyzes the formation of the IPR as a new geopolitical region, examines changes in doctrinal documents and the dynamics of bilateral relations among “Quad” members, and proposes a forecast for the design of a new regional security system. 

Keywords
Indo-Pacific region, APR, Quad, USA, Australia, India, Japan, security community, balance of power, federated defence, minilateralism, Maritime Silk Road, strategic deterrence.


   Buy a digital version in Polismag
References

Brummer Ch. 2014. Minilateralism. How Trade Alliances, Soft Law and Financial Engineering are Redefining Economic Statecraft. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buzan B., W.ver O. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cha V.D. 1999. Alignment Despite Antagonism: The US–Korea–Japan Security Triangle. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Chacko P. 2014. The Rise of the Indo-Pacific: Understanding Ideational Change and Continuity in India’s Foreign Policy. – Australian Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 68. No. 4. P. 433-452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2014.891565

Choong W. 2019. The Return of the Indo-Pacific Strategy: An Assessment. – Australian Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 73. No. 5. P. 415-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2019.1639134

Clinton H. 2011. America’s Pacific Century. – Foreign Policy. 11.10. URL: https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/ (accessed 25.03.2020).

Gopal P. 2017. Maritime Security in the Indo-Pacific: The Role of the US and its Allies. – Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India. Vol. 13. No. 1. P. 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09733159.2017.1321208

Green M., Hicks K., Cooper Z. 2014. Federated Defense in Asia. Report. CSIS, December 2014.

Green M., Shearer A. 2012. Defining U.S. Indian Ocean Strategy. – The Washington Quarterly. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 175-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2012.666925

Hosoya Y. 2019. FOIP 2.0: The Evolution of Japan’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy. – Asia-Pacific Review. Vol. 26. No. 1. P. 18-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13439006.2019.1622868

India and Japan. Assessing the Strategic Partnership. 2018. Ed. by R. Basrur, S.N. Kutty. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8309-9

International Disaster Response. Rebuilding the Quad? 2019. Ed. by Tatsumi Y., Li J. Stimson Center. URL: https://www.stimson.org/wp-content/files/file-attachments/Quad-R4-WEB.pdf (accessed 20.04.2020).

Ishibashi N. 2017. Japan’s Policy Toward India Since 2000: For the Sake of Maintaining US Leadership in East Asia. – The Pacific Review. Published online. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09512748.2017.1396355

Ishihara Y. 2013. Japan-Australia Security Relations and the Rise of China: Pursuing the “Bilateral-Plus” Approaches. – UNISCI Discussion Papers. No. 32. P. 81-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_UNIS.2013.n32.4479

Kaplan R. 2010. Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power. New York: Random House.

Khilnani S., Kumar R., Mehta P.B., Menon P., Nilekani N., Raghavan S., Saran Sh., Varadarajan S. 2012. NonAlignment 2.0. A Foreign and Strategic Policy for India in the 21 century. Center for Policy Research.

Khudaykulova A.V. 2019. China as an Emerging Actor in Conflict Management: From Non-Interference to “Constructive Engagement”. – Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 580-602. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2019-19-3-420-431

Khurana G.S. 2007. Security of Sea Lines: Prospects for India-Japan Cooperation. – Strategic Analysis. Vol. 31. No. 1. P. 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/09700160701355485

Kitaoka Sh. 2019. Vision for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific. – Asia-Pacific Review. Vol. 26. No. 1. P. 7-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13439006.2019.1618592

Korybko A. 2018. The Competition Between China and India in East Africa As Expressed Through the Rival Silk Road and Asia-Africa Growth Corridor Projects. – The Turn of Africa to the East and Russia’s interests. Moscow: Institute of African Studies. P. 97-112.

Medcalf R. 2014. In Defence of the Indo-Pacific: Australia’s New Strategic Map. – Australian Journal of International Affairs. Vol. 68. No. 4. P. 470-483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2014.911814

Pant H.V., Rej A. 2018. Is India Ready for the Indo-Pacific? – The Washington Quarterly. Vol. 41. No. 2. P. 47-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2018.1485403

Patrick S. 2014. The Unruled World. The Case for Good Enough Global Governance. – Foreign Affairs. Vol. 93. No. 1. P. 58-73.

Rai A. 2018. Quadrilateral Security Dialogue 2 (Quad 2.0) – a Credible Strategic Construct or Mere “Foam in the Ocean”? – Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 138-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/09733159.2019.1572260

Roy-Chaudhury R., de Estrada K.S. 2018. India, the Indo-Pacific and the Quad. – Survival. Vol. 60. No. 3. P. 181-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2018.1470773

Satake T., Hemmings J. 2018. Japan–Australia Security Cooperation in the Bilateral and Multilateral Contexts. – International Affairs. Vol. 94. No. 4. P. 815-834. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiy028

Security Communities. 1998. Ed. by E. Adler, M. Barnett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598661

Scott D. 2012. The “Indo-Pacific” – New Regional Formulations and New Maritime Frameworks for US-India Strategic Convergence. – Asia-Pacific Review. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 85-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13439006.2012.738115

Thakur R., Sharma A. 2018. India in Australia’s Strategic Framing in the Indo–Pacific. – Strategic Analysis. Vol. 42. No. 2. P. 69-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2018.1439328

Thankachan Sh. 2017. Japan’s “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy”: Reality before the Rhetoric? – Maritime Affairs: Journal of the National Maritime Foundation of India. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 84-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/09733159.2017.1414831

Tyler M.H.C., Bhutoria A. 2015. Diverging Australian and Indian Views on the Indo-Pacific. – Strategic Analysis. Vol. 39. No. 3. P. 225-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2015.1022314

Walt S. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. London: Cornell University Press.

Waltz K. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.


Bogaturov A.D. 1997. Velikie derzhavy na Tikhom okeane. Istoriya i teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii v Vostochnoi Azii posle Vtoroi mirovoi voiny (1945-1995) [Great Powers in the Pacific. The History and Theory of International Relations in East Asia After the Second World War (1945-1995)]. Moscow: Konvert-MONF. (In Russ.)

Chugrov S.V. 2008. Japan: Hybridization and Harmonization. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 3. P. 59-67. (In Russ.) URL: https://www.politstudies.ru/article/3987 (accessed 04.02.2020).

Istomin I.A. 2017. Western Theory of International Military Alliances. The State of the Discipline. – International Trends. Vol. 15. No. 4. P. 93-114. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2017.15.4.51.6

Istomin I.A. 2019. Politika SShA v Indo-Tikhookeanskom Regione: Posledstviya Dlya Rossii. Rabochaya Tetrad’ RSMD № 49 [US Policy in the Indo-Pacific Region: Implications for Russia. RIAC Workbook No. 49]. Moscow: NP RIAC. 44 p. (In Russ.)

Kanaev E.A., Shumkova V.A. 2017. ASEAN-led Multilateral Security Dialogue: Eurasian

Priorities. – Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. Vol. 17. No. 3. P. 458-468. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2017-17-3-458-468

Kaplan R.D. Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power. (Russ. ed.: Kaplan R.D. Musson: Indiiskii okean i budushchee amerikanskoi politiki. Moscow: KoLibri, Azbuka-Atikus).

Karimova A.B. 2019. Connecting the Indian and the Pacific, or Influence Tools Modernization. – World Economy and International Relations. Vol. 63. No. 6. P. 13-24. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-6-13-24

Kistanov V.O. 2018. Japan’s Anti-China Strategy in the Indo-Pacific Region. – Actual Problems of Modern Japan. No. 32. P. 31-44. (In Russ.)

Kupriyanov A.V. 2018. IBSAMAR: India’s Imperatives, Transformation Prospects. – Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 628-641. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2018-18-3-628-641

Kupriyanov A.V. 2019. Geopolitics of the Sea: the Idea of Ocean Control in the Political Discourse of Independent India. – Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 234-246. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2019-19-2-234-246

Lebedeva N.B. 2018. Indiiskii okean: vyzovy XXI v. i Indiya. Ocherki mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Indian Ocean: Challenges of the 21st Century and India. Essays on International Relations]. Moscow: IV RAN. (In Russ.)

Leksyutina Y.V. 2019. China in D. Trump’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy. – Vestnik RUDN. International Relations. Vol. 19. No. 1. P. 22-34. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2019-19-1-22-34

Lokshin G.M. 2018. Trump’’s Doctrine as a Course to Create a New Bloc in Asia. – Problemy Dal’nego Vostoka. No. 3. P. 4-16. (In Russ.)

Panov A.N., Nelidov V.V. 2018. Japan’s Foreign Policy in the Context of Military-Political Situation in North East Asia. – Japanese Studies in Russia. No. 4. P. 78-91. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24411/2500-2872-2018-10029

Patrick S. 2015. Vybor a la carte: novyi mir global’nogo upravleniya. Valdaiskie zapiski № 22 [A La Carte Choice: A New World of Global Governance. Valdai Notes No. 22.]. (In Russ.) URL: https://ru.valdaiclub.com/a/valdai-papers/valdayskaya-zapiska-22/ (accessed 04.02.2020).

Reformatting the System of International Relations in Pacific Asia: Vectors and Dynamics of Changes (Part I). 2018. – World Economy and International Relations. Vol. 62. No. 12. P. 100-108. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2018-62-12-100-108

Reformatting the System of International Relations in Pacific Asia: Vectors and Dynamics of Changes (Part II). 2019. – World Economy and International Relations. Vol. 63. No. 1. P. 112-122. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-1-112-122

Strel’tsov D.V. 2018. Indo-Pacific Region as a New Reality of the Global System of International Relations. – The International Affairs. No. 9. P. 65-74. (In Russ.) 

Content No. 3, 2020

See also:


Dobransky S.,
The formation of a Black sea community. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No1

Arbatov A.G.,
China and Arms Control: Not Utopia, but a Reality. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No4

Arbatova N.K.,
Strategic Autonomy of the European Union: Reality or Good Intention?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No6

Novikova O.O.,
European Union in the System of International Security: New Instruments of Crisis Settlement. – Polis. Political Studies. 2008. No4

Zamyatin D.N.,
Space and (In)security: ontological models of imagination. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No3

 

   

Introducing an article



Polis. Political Studies
1 2004


Busygina I.M.
What Values Are Up in Price?

 The article text
 

Archive

   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991