THERE should be no doubt in any quarter that the meeting of four QUAD Ambassadors to China in Beijing would evoke much interest and raise many an eyebrow around the world about what may be happening in global diplomacy. Though China has not officially responded to the envoys’ meet in its capital, its position is well-known that cooperation among countries should not target any third party ... and “engaging in group politics and bloc confrontation will not bring lasting peace and security, and is not conducive to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific and the world as a whole” (as per an earlier expression of anxiety by Beijing).

 

Though this Chinese response was already known, the four QUAD Ambassadors’ choice to meet right in Beijing needs to be interpreted seriously. Though the host -- United States Ambassador to China Mr. David Perdue -- stated that the grouping had the sole purpose of maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific, international observers would certainly wait to see the actual outcome -- howsoever silent -- of the development. Other three QUAD member-nations -- India, Japan, and Australia -- did not offer any official reaction to the Beijing meet. Yet, India has always maintained that the grouping need not be seen as against any country. Of course, China is least likely to take only a superficial look at the Beijing meet of the four QUAD Ambassadors.

 

True, the meeting in Beijing does indicate a certain open-mindedness that the Chinese locale was not an anathema to such a diplomatic activity (since China was statedly not the target). Despite this, China has always been edgy about the QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) since the grouping statedly addresses multiple issues in the Indo-Pacific (which involves Chinese interests). China also has a specific objection to using the term ‘Indo-Pacific’ and insists upon calling the region ‘Asia-Pacific’ -- which explains the Chinese anxieties about QUAD. No matter the official denials by QUAD member-nations, China -- and possibly major segments of world opinion -- believes that the grouping has a hidden anti-Beijing agenda. It has felt that the grouping’s chief (though unstated) purpose is to restrict the Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific region.

 

It is also anxious about the American approach to the issues in the South China Sea area. The Ambassadors’ meet at Beijing, thus, has to be viewed from all these angles. Though no QUAD member has expressed any open anxiety about China’s cantankerousness, the diplomatic unease in the grouping also can be sensed. In order to brush aside any Chinese apprehensions, US Ambassador Mr. David Perdue said following the meet that “the relations among the four countries continues to be stable and strong” (and describably based upon the objective of consolidating mutual interests and respect). However, international observers believe that all the QUAD member-nations are fully conscious of the Chinese anxieties and therefore keep softening the rough-edges by offering justifications about the QUAD purpose from time to time. No matter what the involved parties on both sides of the divide may have to say about QUAD and its activities and its purpose, the world would always see it as a counter-balance to Beijing’s interest in dominating the Indo-Pacific region for its aggressive purposes. The biggest problem China faces is the global trust-deficit. Everybody views China with certain suspicion in almost every matter. India, for its part, has tried its best to keep its bilateral relations with Beijing on an even keel. Yet, it has not hesitated in demonstrating to China and the World what it is capable of doing when things come to crunch. The American position vis-a-vis China is all clear, while Japan and Australia also have their own positions where China and Indo-Pacific are concerned. China is conscious of all those angularities -- which show up in its anxieties about QUAD -- which got heightened all the more with the Beijing meet.