With the rise of China from a developing country to that of a superpower status, countries across the globe have undoubtedly been feeling the shifts in the atmosphere of international politics. The current hegemon, the United States (U.S.), has been most sensitive to these changes as China is challenging the U.S.’s influence globally. To contain the rise of China, the U.S. has chosen to strengthen old ties between itself, Australia, Japan, and India, an alliance called the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, commonly referred to as the Quad. Many view this rising alliance as the one rival to China which will equal its power; but so far, it is unclear whether this organization will end up as a paper tiger or a strong alliance against China.
According to a brief of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a U.S.-based think tank, the Quad was founded in 2004 to aid the recovery of several countries from the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami. In 2017, after witnessing eight years of China’s rapid rise, the Indo-Pacific further destabilized, and the four countries’ foreign policies started to converge. The Quad, therefore, reformed as what is predicted to be a largely anti-China group amidst growing international tensions.
Avenging the Century of Humiliation
Many Chinese citizens have a strong distrust for Western powers due to a period in their history known as the Century of Humiliation. According to the U.S.-China Security Review Commission (USCC), this Century of Humiliation is what China calls their subjugation to Western powers during the 19th and early 20th century. Apparently, this event has become the basis of modern China’s founding narrative; more importantly, it is believed that many Chinese people take this event as a reminder of how Western powers have behaved and would behave towards China. In other words, the Century of Humiliation may have made the Chinese realize that strong Western powers would not hesitate to talk to China from a position of strength and enforce its demands.
Before China’s international influence and power rose significantly, it has maintained one of its former Premier Deng Xiaoping’s core policies, “Tao Guang Yang Hui.” Deng’s policy, in essence, was that China should bide for time until the day that it rises to prominence in world affairs, accumulating strength while staying low under the superpowers of the Cold War. Since the beginning of Premier Xi Jinping, however, China has changed this policy and is now challenging the U.S openly.
Lee Yaechan, Global Economic Governance Initiative Predoctoral Research Fellow at the Global Development Policy Center, stated that China’s assertiveness is motivated by its intentions to expand its territories, one in which China is currently pursuing in order to gain the resources needed to fuel its growing economic development.
2021, in particular, has seen an increase in hostilities between China and the U.S. with the Biden administration applying more sanctions against China, followed by China’s warnings to Japan that Japan must not interfere in the dual between the “great powers,” quoting the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In short, the Chinese and U.S. governments have high animosity towards each other, to the extent that China considers the Quad as a potential threat and threatens other nations to stay out of the power struggle between the U.S. and itself.
The Rise of an Asian NATO
One problem the Quad has, however, is that its lack of a specific purpose leads only to speculation, not established facts, about what this alliance will do. The lack of specificity lies with Japan who is worried about the repercussions of transforming the Quad into an overtly anti-China organization as it can damage its relations with China. In fact, if the Quad were to openly declare anti-China tendencies, it may be devastating for all member states as China is a crucial trading partner for all the associated countries. Lee stated that the Quad’s historical inability to strengthen itself to a stronger coalition proves the high risk in antagonizing China, especially due to China’s strong influence in the capitalist bloc.
Another issue for the U.S. is Korea’s refusal to choose between either the U.S. or China. Choosing the U.S. can lead to severe consequences for South Korea economically as it is possible that China will retaliate with sanctions and embargoes on Korea. China may repeat what it did when Korea installed the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system during the regime of former President Park Geun-hye.
Choosing China, however, is also precarious as the U.S.-South Korea alliance is one forged by blood during the Korean war and one which was further strengthened by the many conflicts during which South Korea stood by the U.S. South Korea’s official stance against the Quad is that it will not join the Quad as repercussions could be severe for the Korean economy. It seems this official stance since the Trump administration will remain despite numerous strategic partners of South Korea being situated in the Quad.
The Quad, however, could be forced to become an overt anti-China coalition if the status quo resumes and not just one in practice. On March 27, *Global Times*, one of the newspapers under the auspices of the Chinese Communist Party’s *People’s Daily*, stated that China could decide to impose sanctions against members of the Quad. Member states of the Quad have refrained from antagonizing China by upgrading the abilities of the Quad but if the security risks of maintaining the status quo continues, the Quad may become an anti-China coalition.
As of this moment, it is unclear if China will pursue such an escalation to a tit-for-tat in embargoes against the U.S. However, if it chooses to do so, it may push for the first-ever establishment of an official anti-China alliance. While China is threatening the strategic interests of the U.S., it is not clear if the U.S. will use the Quad as an Asian version of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against China. Not pursuing such a path, nonetheless, may lead to a more peaceful but devastating future for the U.S. with huge repercussions for them.