Quad countries are right. The region does not want a China-centred order. Yet, the Quad’s language and that of its member countries – promoting a “free and open Indo-Pacific” – does not resonate with the region or many in India, due to the perception that the existing global and regional orders are fundamentally unfair.
We propose adding “fair” to the Quad’s language to make the quest for a “fair, free and open Indo-Pacific” to address these concerns. This does not solve inequality in the global economic order, but at least nudges the rhetoric in the right direction.
The annual State of Southeast Asia survey, conducted by ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, reveals that the People’s Republic of China has been long mistrusted. In 2024, around 50% of the respondents had “little confidence” or “no confidence” that China would do the right thing to contribute to peace, security, prosperity, and governance. These results are similar to the 2019 survey.
In contrast, respondents have become substantially less negative towards the United States. In 2024, only 37.6% of respondents said they had “little confidence” or “no confidence” in the United States on the same question, down from 50.6% in 2019 (although views towards the United States in 2024 are more negative than 2023, likely due to war in Gaza).
Japan continues to be the region’s most trusted major partner by a wide margin. In 2024, India was less trusted than the United States, but more trusted than China on that same question.
Despite relatively positive views on Quad members (compared to China), only 40% of 2024 respondents saw the Quad as beneficial. This was a yes/no question, so 60% do not see it as beneficial.
Regional countries already frequently highlight the lack of fairness in the current system, so perhaps acknowledging their concerns would be a positive step.
The Quad is not seen as a threat. Very few respondents said it would force countries to choose sides.
The perceived lack of benefits could be interpreted in two ways – the Quad hasn’t done enough and, therefore, is no longer seen as a threat to regional stability as it was initially, or it is slowly cementing itself as a quiet anchor of stability in the region and a sizeable minority (40%) see benefit in that.
Whichever interpretation is chosen, the Quad at least needs to make its rhetoric regionally relevant by publicly discussing economic benefits and fairness.
Quad statements emphasise a “free and open” order and region, focusing on human rights, the rule of law, and democratic values. While these are important, for most countries, economic development takes precedence. Quad statements relegate messages about economic development to the lower sections of the text.
This is not just a regional ask. Within the Quad, there are differences in the interpretation of rules-based order. For example, as Professor Ian Hall points out, “India’s vision of the rules-based order is distinct from the American, Australian and Japanese versions.” For Hall, the “most obvious point of difference is the insistence that the order must not just be ‘free and open’, but also ‘equitable’ and ‘inclusive’.”
In fact, the 2014 election manifesto of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party stated that India must create “a peaceful and egalitarian world order”. Modi and his government have expressed this desire on repeated occasions. India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has written about the need to change “the current anachronistic” order and “its outdated agenda”. In its first term, the Modi government hoped that one way of bringing this change was through an India-Russia-China pivot. However, the PRC is no longer a viable partner for Delhi, with India facing the PRC’s strategic bullying along its northern and northeastern borders, and Russia is now a pariah due to its war on Ukraine.
As a result, India has slowly moved from challenging to shaping (sometimes very assertively) the existing order towards being more respectful of the exigencies of the Global South.
The term “fair” carries risk for the Quad. Regional countries will point out aspects of the current order they consider unfair. For example, countries bearing the brunt of climate change are not the ones responsible for it. Intellectual property rules are not always equitable. Free trade, when imposed too liberally at an early stage of development, often results in negative outcomes for developing countries. Moreover, wealthy liberal democracies have now abandoned many of the free trade principles, which they previously imposed on others, in the face of competition with China.
Regional countries already frequently highlight the lack of fairness in the current system, so perhaps acknowledging their concerns would be a positive step.
Of course, in the long term, there will need to be some level of delivery on the promise. This will be the defining factor in competition with China: What development opportunities do you deliver? That is the hard graft of modern Indo-Pacific competition. It is not easy. But improving the language is relatively easy. So, let’s get that right first.
