As some analysts speak of a “new Cold War” beginning between the United States and China, some have begun to compare the Quad to NATO, a military alliance that was founded to counter the rising power of the Soviet Union in Europe. While Quad leaders insist that this new vehicle for dialogue is simply meant to promote general peace and cooperation throughout the Indo-Pacific, the timing suggests that the organization’s newfound prominence is directly correlated with China’s continued rise and increasingly aggressive orientation in foreign policy. 

Despite these similarities, however, experts say that comparing the Quad and NATO does not capture the large differences between the two organizations, and that at least for now, the Quad is not a formal military alliance on the model of NATO. 

Originating from cooperation between the four countries in the aftermath of the Southeast Asian tsunami disaster, the Quad was first established in 2007. 

“The fact that things went so well after, in terms of cooperation, after the tsunami, I guess convinced the four countries that they could work together on other issues of mutual concern,” said Derek Grossman, a senior defense analyst at RAND Corporation and professor in the USC Department of Political Science and International Relations. “Its initial iteration consisted of diplomatic meetings as well as military exercises, and was especially supported by then-Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who saw it as a vehicle to promote liberal values throughout the Pacific.

Although it initially fell apart due to domestic challenges, as well as pressure from China who disapproved of the organization from its very inception, the Quad was reestablished as part of the Trump administration’s rebranding of the Asia-Pacific theatre as the “Indo-Pacific.” This brought India, the second largest country in the world and a rising superpower, into the fold with countries whom the United States has had long-standing security cooperation and arrangements with. This is notable, as India is one of the founders of the non-aligned movement, and has historically avoided involving itself in defense cooperation. 

However, after border clashes with China and China’s long-standing alliance with Pakistan, India has become more assertive. Although the country still rejects common defense arrangements, India is becoming increasingly comfortable with what its leaders have described as being “multi-aligned.” 

Other Quad countries have also recently found themselves in more challenging circumstances related to China. Australia, which was able to sustain its economy despite the 2008 financial crisis on trade with China, has become very concerned about Chinese influence in their country and consequently reversed  much of their China policy, entering into a trade war with the country that has buoyed their economy for decades. 

Japan is extremely concerned about rising Chinese assertiveness in the East China Sea, especially around the Senkaku/Diaoyu Dao Islands. The country is also wary of increased pressure on Taiwan, a strategically important island for Japan’s own security. 

The United States under former President Trump identified China as an “adversary” of the country and entered into a trade war. Although president Biden has sought to tone down the rhetoric used by Trump, he has been slow to significantly change U.S. policy, as being tough on China remains one of the few bipartisan issues in Washington.

Yet the Quad is not a military alliance in the way that NATO is. The most important difference between the two is a lack of a collective defense arrangement. 

While the US has collective defense treaties with Australia and Japan, none of the other countries are obliged to defend one another. Even when it is apparent that it is meant as a counterweight to rising Chinese power and aggression, the Quad will not name countering China as its uniting purpose, instead citing comparatively vague ideas of a “free and open Indo-Pacific” guided by “democratic values,” and citing issues as disparate as countering climate change and speeding up global vaccine distribution as important goals.

“It’s an informal dialogue,” Grossman said. “It’s not a formalized multilateral.” 

While the Quad may signify to China that there is an increasingly united sentiment among democratic Indo-Pacific nations that their actions are viewed as threatening and of concern, it cannot be said that a line in the sand has been drawn in the way that NATO’s establishment was designed to specifically halt any kind of future Soviet aggression. The Quad’s existence functions more as a vague warning than as a direct threat of war.

The Quad is young, and its future is as uncertain as the future of all countries involved and their relationships with China. It may look to include other Indo-Pacific democracies like South Korea and New Zealand in the future, though those countries also have reasons why they would be skeptical, showing the complicated ecosystem of the modern Indo-Pacific. In South Korea’s case, positive relations with China are seen as essential to any kind of future deescalation with North Korea, the top priority of South Korea’s foreign policy. South Korea is also very suspect of entering into any organizations that include Japan, as it has many unresolved issues surrounding Japanese treatment of Korean people back when Korea was a Japanese colony. 

New Zealand, a Five Eyes member often grouped with Australia, seems like a prime contender, but has recently come under fire for backing out of Five Eyes condemnations of China, possibly due to extensive economic ties between the two countries. In contrast to the days of the Soviet Union where an Iron Curtain economically divided East and West, today’s globalized world has led to even higher opportunity costs in angering powerful nations, even those with opposing values or those that threaten your own country’s security. These challenges even affect current Quad members. While the United States may be willing to start a trade war with China, and Australia desperately looking to diversify its foreign trade partners, Japan has reservations. 

Saori Katada, a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California, said that “Japan has no interest in decoupling from China,” something that might become expected if the Quad were to become more similar to a formal alliance. Other countries in the region, such as Vietnam, might be interested in joining the Quad. However, the forum would then run into the question of what principles the Quad stands for. Vietnam as an authoritarian Communist country, albeit one very concerned about China’s rise, does not fit with the supposed democratic character of the organization. 

These questions of what being a member of the Quad entails for both current and prospective members point to the larger challenges present in the Indo-Pacific. Economic ties and government goals complicate the security picture from being simply divided into pro- and anti-China camps. This in turn limits the Quad’s future ability to ever function as a united bloc.

In light of the circumstances, however, the Quad’s looseness may actually be its strength. By not requiring everything of its participants, the Quad may be able to assimilate diverse countries with diverging interests to act collectively to counter perceived Chinese aggression. 

According to Grossman, that is “the beauty of it, which is that nobody is obligated to do anything, except have discussions because they want to.” Katada also finds the Quad more “creative” than NATO.

The United States seems invested in the Quad’s future. Even as Biden has worked to reverse much of the Trump administration’s policies, he “has kept the Quad around and has actually bolstered it,” Grossman said. China may not have been directly referenced at the Quad’s White House meeting, and perhaps no formal military ties were established, but there was a clear message that these four nations are concerned about China’s rise in a way that transcends domestic politics. 

That message does not look like it will be changing anytime soon. Just don’t expect it to look exactly like the one sent from the democratic world during the Cold War. As Katada says: “This is a new challenge, and a new solution is needed.”

The post Can the Quad Become an Indo-Pacific NATO? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

However, in a polarized America, these acknowledgments of the climate crises have differed drastically. Thus, it is worth exploring how American political attitudes have impacted the United States’ crisis response and mitigation.  Do disparities in candidates’ attitudes toward climate change cause radical or influential shifts in support among voters? This article will take a closer look at rising concerns regarding climate change and its confluence with the 2020 presidential election. 

Waking Up to Devastation

In recent years, the United States has seen a rising trend of natural disasters that are exacerbated by the climate crisis. In the United States, the severity of the problem has been especially prominent. This summer alone, the Midwest experienced floods, the Southeast lived through a dramatic start to hurricane season, and the West saw the extent of dramatic wildfires that have increased over the past 40 years. 

These extreme events have taken a huge toll on citizens’ everyday life. For instance, the Midwest lost 14 million acres of fertile soil due to significant flood damage in 2019, causing massive losses in crop production. According to the U.S Department of Agriculture, farmers faced significant challenges as they were unable to plant crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat, largely due to unfavorable weather conditions. Meanwhile, the Western parts of the United States have recently experienced the devastating effects of wildfires with locals suffering from extremely poor air quality and resource devastation. The warming climate has induced and magnified the extent of extreme weather conditions as it creates a combination of low humidity, increased temperatures and as low precipitations. 

As the effects of climate change become more tangible for populations throughout the world, voters have a stronger tendency to rank climate change as one of their top issues. Voters who prioritize climate change as a key issue look to elected officials and the two major U.S. political parties for plans of action. According to a 2019 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, two thirds of U.S. citizens argue that the federal government is not doing enough to prevent further climate change. 

Public concern regarding the effects of climate change has increased compared to that of a decade ago in a January 2020 survey.These trends indicate that tackling the climate crisis should be considered as a top priority for the U.S. government. With the added local effects of climate change, it is understandable why U.S. voters are becoming more inclined to pay more attention to climate vote. Now let’s take a closer look at different positions and attitudes towards climate change by the two presidential candidates.

Republican nominee President Donald Trump has long been a firm denier of climate change. Trump has made false claims on social media platforms, such as touting a conspiracy theory that “the concept of global warming was created by the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive” and taunting climate believers by tweeting “It’s freezing in New York — where the hell is global warming.”  

In a move even more damaging, Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, the 2015 multilateral agreement that brought together a coalition of countries to tackle carbon emissions and climate change. Being the only nation that voluntarily exited the agreement, the U.S. hindered global efforts of tackling climate change by not contributing to its collective endeavors. In addition to this decision, Trump has reversed several domestic environmental protection policies and has pressed for increased oil, natural gas, and coal output. He has also stressed the significance of maintaining fossil fuels as an important energy source in order to hold down operational costs for domestic businesses . According to Rhodium Group, a climate research firm, Trump’s belief in resurrecting fossil fuels would release an excess of 1.8 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere by 2035, which would contribute to irreversible damage to the environment. 

However, Trump has recently included climate change as a talking point during one of his campaign rallies, a concession that signifies the rising importance of this issue across the political spectrum — Trump has proposed to join the tree-planting initiative. During a talk with Janet Ranganathan of the World Resources Institute, he stated that his administration is “committed to conserving the majesty of God’s creation and the natural beauty of our world.” This development in his attitude represents an alignment of his concerns along with that of the general public. However, this announcement has been met with criticism from scientists and climate experts who point out that planting too many trees may not be as beneficial as it may seem. Instead, it could become a potential hazard as there are serious risks of ecological evasion and habitat destruction. Therefore, these experts emphasize that cooperative endeavors should be made to protect existing forests. 

On the contrary, Biden has shown a much more cooperative and multilateral attitude toward climate change. Not only has he listed combating climate change as one of the four main pillars of his election campaign, but he has announced his $2 trillion green plan and his determination to bring the U.S back on track to tackle climate change alongside with the global community during the presidential debate. 

In the past, Biden has long been an advocate of environmental issues; he voted in line with environmental protection 83% of the time during his tenure in the U.S. Senate. In direct opposition to the position Trump has taken, Biden aims to win the support of young activists and pushes for a stricter deadline for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. More specifically, Biden has put forth a goal for the U.S to reach net-zero emission by 2050 and eliminate carbon pollution. Such ambition clearly contradicts Trump’s damaging and alternating attitude regarding the existence of climate change. 

While it is true that more Americans are acknowledging climate change as a major concern more than ever, this is largely split along partisan lines. There are significant political disparities between the Democrats and Republicans. According to a Pew Research Center survey there is a 20 and 27 point increase within liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats respectively in the perceived importance of tackling climate change. In contrast, climate change policy has yet to become a priority for the Republican Party, with only 21% of Republicans conceding that there should be increasing emphasis on climate policies. 

As discrepancies in the acknowledgment of climate change policies differ between Democrats and Republicans, the general public has witnessed traumatic consequences caused by climate change in different parts of the country. And despite different attitudes and the extent of general acceptance of climate change among scientists, there is a growing national consciousness in regards to include climate on the ballot due to the devastating effects of climate change. 

Climate change has become one of the top-tier issues in American politics and will continue to tug at national awareness. The outcome of the 2020 election as well as the eventual results of the Senate runoff elections in January will be instrumental in determining the political party in charge of the country and the subsequent approach to climate change over the next four years.

The post The Rising Importance of the Climate Vote in 2020 appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.