A group of scholars are busy assessing the quad summit in Tokyo on May 24. Some of them dare to portray the Quad Summit as a milestone in the development of the ‘democratic world’. The Tokyo meeting of leaders from the US, Australia, Japan and India is being hailed with unique significance in terms of collective growth, holistic development, responsible participation and the value-based world. President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi competed with each other to glorify the spirit behind the Tokyo talks. Forgetting the stances adopted in the presidential election, the two leaders exaggerated their relationship. The Quad was a crucial move for American policymakers and defense planners to continue their agenda of developing for the world’s most important geographical region. The Quad leadership renamed the Asia-Pacific region Indo-Pacific for obvious reasons. In the context of the Tokyo Summit, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework of 13 countries was formed. The Indo-Pacific region covers about 25 percent of the world’s land area. And 65% of the oceans. More than half of the world’s population lives in this region. 68% of the world’s youth live here.
The Indo-Pacific region accounts for 60% of global gross domestic product (GDP) and two-thirds of global economic growth. This area is important in the modern world and has its own significance. It is natural for countries in the region to seek income through mutual cooperation. All joint efforts will be welcomed if they focus on the challenges facing humanity. Issues such as climate change and global warming are threatening the world. Climate change is intensifying as the commitment to the Paris Agreement persists. The glaciers in South Asia are melting and the island nations are struggling to survive as sea levels rise. The threat posed by Kovid 19 is still active today. Unemployment and poverty plague the world, including in the Indo-Pacific region. The focus of the quad and the Indo-Pacific economic framework should be on understanding and prioritizing tasks. But the quad leaders focused on their political and economic goals. There is every possibility that the Quad’s platforms could be used as another tool for America’s geopolitical interests. It also looks like India is becoming a teammate in this global competition.
Read more; War does not determine who is right
Whenever conflict arises in any part of the world, the US intervenes in its own imperialist political framework. For the United States, every conflict is an opportunity to develop an arms race. Negotiating windows are closing. Including the United Nations is weak. The U.S. interest in regional conflicts was also evident at the Tokyo summit. Partners, including India, took different positions. They were on the same page with China and different on Russia. The Pentagon and the military-industrial complex are crucial to the continuation of any foreign policy formulation in the United States. In Europe, they are on the way to developing NATO. In Asia, the old Seato (South-East Asian Treaty Organization) is dysfunctional. Will the US Quad Alliance be used to fill that void? Defense deals and joint military exercises in the Pacific point to this. A document from the National Security Council states: “In the crucial decade that the Indo-Pacific region has significant promises and historic obstacles, the American role in this area must become more effective.
The question before India is simple and important. Should the country that proclaims itself a self-sufficient Bharat be an ally of the American game and world hegemonic approaches? Is it conducive to India’s quest for world leadership in the 21st century? ‘Defense’ is a key word in the White House’s Indo-Pacific Action Plan. It means strengthening the military and strengthening the collapsing American economy. But India cannot give priority in this regard. Questions of war and peace will arise in the quad and in the Indo-Pacific economic framework. In the current age of climate change, epidemics, poverty and unemployment, India should not vote for war and conflict, but for peace and progress.
