Turbowank The Quad

[Rishi]

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (also known as the Quad) is an informal strategic alliance between the United States of America, Japan, India and Australia which was initiated in 2007. What would it take to turbowank the Quad right from the start? I think China being even more militarily aggressive in the East Asian Sea (which is my name for the South China Sea) than in our timeline would supercharge the Quad from an informal strategic alliance to a formal military alliance. Then the United States of America would recruit (or at least attempt to recruit) other countries to the Quad that have tense relations with China, like Vietnam and the Philippines (for example). Then the Quad would rename itself to the INDO-Pacific Security Alliance just to dab on China.

 

[SolRon]

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (also known as the Quad) is an informal strategic alliance between the United States of America, Japan, India and Australia which was initiated in 2007. What would it take to turbowank the Quad right from the start? I think China being even more militarily aggressive in the East Asian Sea (which is my name for the South China Sea) than in our timeline would supercharge the Quad from an informal strategic alliance to a formal military alliance. Then the United States of America would recruit (or at least attempt to recruit) other countries to the Quad that have tense relations with China, like Vietnam and the Philippines (for example). Then the Quad would rename itself to the INDO-Pacific Security Alliance just to dab on China.

India prizes it's autonomy a lot. It is very unlikely to ever formally join an alliance, especially one that is dominated by the US and it's allies. Not to mention some very awkward strategic, diplomatic and operational situations that would arise should India ever join such alliance.

 

[Rishi]

India prizes it's autonomy a lot. It is very unlikely to ever formally join an alliance, especially one that is dominated by the US and it's allies. Not to mention some very awkward strategic, diplomatic and operational situations that would arise should India ever join such alliance.

You're right that India is a neutral country. As a matter of fact, India was one of the founding countries of the Non-Aligned Movement. However, I think in this case, India would willingly join a formal version of the Quad if the Quad were to engage in a policy of containing China (either explicitly or implicitly). And when you think about it, three members of the Quad are major rivals of China. Japan is a historical rival of China, America is a current rival of China and India is a civilisation-state (like China) that is sharply at odds with China (for example, India is the most vegetarian country in the world but India shares a border with China, which is the most meat-eating country in the world). Also, Australia is not a rival of China but it has recently had tense relations with China. I know this to be true because I'm an Australian and China has been noticeably belligerent to the government in this country. So all 4 members of the Quad have tense relations with China and that's basically what unites them with each other. Let's face it, the Quad was created to contain China even though the Quad will never openly admit this.

 

[marathag]

Huh, thought this might have been over this Canadian Chevrolet Quad

 

[SolRon]

Yes, the original quad's formation was in response to China's rise, but each country has different stakes and different reasons to oppose china. The Indian situation is more similar to the informal alliance between the USA and USSR against nazi Germany than the one between the USA and UK.
Besides, what would the structure of such an alliance be like? It's not going like NATO for sure, as India wouldn't be America's junior partner in such an alliance, while India taking the leadership role is even more absurd.
Also note that India is the only country with a land border with China, which means that it is disproportionately affected. Conversely, in the maritime realm, Chinese dominance in the western pacific is far more dangerous to Japan, Australia and America than it is to India, by virtue of geography.
Simply put, the present informal grouping is much better, as it keeps the relationship more flexible.

 

[naraic]

A proper break between Pakistan and America might help the quad.

America had close security ties with Pakistan for a long time.

If China and India came to blows Pakistan is considered likely to join in on the Chinese side. India can't trust a relationship with America while America is in bed with Pakistan.

I'm not saying a break with Pakistan would allow an alliance but I can't see one happening at any stage where the USA has tight ties with Pakistan.

 

[Rishi]

A proper break between Pakistan and America might help the quad.

America had close security ties with Pakistan for a long time.

If China and India came to blows Pakistan is considered likely to join in on the Chinese side. India can't trust a relationship with America while America is in bed with Pakistan.

I'm not saying a break with Pakistan would allow an alliance but I can't see one happening at any stage where the USA has tight ties with Pakistan.

I completely agree with you.

 

[Rishi]

Simply put, the present informal grouping is much better, as it keeps the relationship more flexible.

I completely agree with you about that, but is it still possible to wank the Quad even while keeping it as an informal organisation? I think it is.

 

[SolRon]

I completely agree with you about that, but is it still possible to wank the Quad even while keeping it as an informal organisation? I think it is.

IMO, something like ANZUS between the India and the other 3 members might work.