Introduction

China has long been an interesting case in international landscape. There are very few countries that can be classified as a ‘Civilization State’. China being one of the key civilization states has distinctive history, ethics, moralities, mechanisms, and practices when it comes to foreign policy (Jacques, 2009). May it be Qin, Han, or comparatively modern dynastic era of Qing dynasty until right before the spark of Maoist communism. China has always been a key player in global socio-cultural, geo-political, and most importantly economic landscape (Jacques, 2009). All the way from propagating trade via silk routes with Europe to establishing sophisticated sea trade, China has explored ways to penetrate the global market with its hegemonistic and monopolistic economic approach.

Having drawn its roots from its civilizational values, having been socially deprived during colonial era, and then having transformed into a strong, bolstering, yet hegemonic communist society, China is a paradigmatic instance of theory of realism (Qin, 2011). China displays various shades of realism, mainly classical realism, neo-realism, and offensive realism.

With its latest belt and road initiative (BRI), China is aiming to resuscitate its long-vanquished historical utterance during colonial era. Realism in general emphasizes on the pursuit of a state mainly driven by power, security, and a national self-interest (Mearshieimer, 2001). The neo-realistic approach that communist China displays is a derivative of a classical realism deeply rooted within the individuals that run the state. This individual character enriched with classical realism comes from the ancient Confucian philosophical values (Yu, 1997) in inclination with traditional Chinese approach of connecting national pursuit with individual human nature. Although, with the initiatives like BRI, China’s realism also slightly inclines towards being offensive realism where the state uses force to assert its position in international landscape (Mearshieimer, 2001).

On the contrary, while being civilization states like China, the states like India and Japan are more liberal in their approach towards foreign policy (Jaishankar, 2024). Their liberal advocacy of ideology inclines them more towards states like United States of America and Australia. This gives rise to the institutions like Quad which act as an alter-ego for the Chinese realism and their expansionist methodologies like the belt and road initiative (BRI).

This composition further outlines the contradiction between two types of establishments based on two different theoretical frameworks in international relations.

Belt And Road Initiative Through China’s Realist Lens

China’s belt and road initiative (BRI) is a polyvalent foreign policy with various economic and strategic dimensions (ChinaPower, 2024). The motivation, tactics, and implications of the evolving landscape of international relations for China starts getting clearer as we look the belt and road initiative through different viewpoints of realism.

Classical realists such as E.H.Carr and Hans Morgenthau establish that the states are driven by a relentless and endless quest for power, security, and national interest (Carr, 1946). China has been prominently investing in Asia, Europe, and Africa as a part of BRI. This clearly reflects on China’s ambition of expanding and asserting its sphere of influence. Alongside that, this also displays how China wants to secure its markets, resources, and economic security. Classical realist theory would classify this as a display of great power politics (Morgenthau, 2006), where China is competing with other states like the USA, India, and Japan for dominance and security using an anarchic system and aggressive foreign policy.

Neo-realists such as Kenneth Waltz outline the power distribution among states and how that impacts their behaviour (Waltz, 1979). From the neo-realist lens, it is clear that the belt and road initiative are an attempt to shift the balance of power. China seeks to dent the international order to better suit its interests and allow to assert regional and potentially global dominance in the shadow of ‘securing’ their markets and resources. This also allows them to counterbalance their western counterparts, especially USA, alongside their regional competitors like Japan, Australia, and India. This behaviour gives China a neo-realist shade in its attitude towards international relations.

China with its cultivated hegemonistic approach after the Maoist communist transcendence, shows signs of offensive realism. As defined by John Mearsheimer, offensive realism is a theory that outlines how a state would go out of its way and use force to maximize power, even at the expense of its rivals (Mearshieimer, 2001). Chinese belt and road initiative is a designed mechanism to secure economic flow for the state. Although, underneath lies a motive to extend its strategic reach and demine the position of its rival states in region and potentially beyond.

Regardless of the theoretical approach, China’s belt and road initiative has seen some success in what it was designed to perform. This assertion of improvement in trade is enough to establish that the initiative is heading towards right direction for China. This implies that the counterparts must take necessary actions to counter China’s BRI and stop them from following an offensive realist approach, which may cause damage to international order.

This is where the liberal institutionalization comes into play. The derivative of this institutionalization is Quad.

Quad’s Liberal Counterbalancing Framework

The quadrilateral security dialogue or simply Quad, comprises of India, Japan, Australia, and United States of America. This is a strategic partnership between four democratic states that fit best under liberal framework (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2021). QUAD represents an orchestrated effort to counter China’s belt and road initiative. The sole reason that brings together these four states is their liberal approach in their foreign policy and a will to uphold their principles that cater for free and open international order, especially the economic order in Indo-pacific region.

Liberal theorists like Immanuel Kant and Woodrow Wilson emphasize on the importance of law, institutions, and cooperation to achieve shared security goals (Kant, 1983). From a liberal lens, Quad projects itself as an alliance that shares values like human rights, democracy, and rule of law among its member states. Quad’s primary goal is to improve regional maritime security to facilitate free trade, promoting economic network, and nurturing law based democratic governance in the Indo-pacific region (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2021). Unlike the Chinese BRI that has faced reluctance due to lack of transparent set of rules around its operations, Quad is trying to establish a process framework that respects sovereignty and promotes economic development.

Neo-liberal thinkers like Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye highlight how the states are economically interdependent and hence must adhere to free trade and policies that support such free flow of trade (Keohane & Nye, 1977). Furthermore, Ernst B. Haas also focuses on the multi-pronged nature of international relations where the states are politically, socially, culturally, and economically interconnected (Haas, 1968). Quad’s approach towards preserving such open markets via a variety of sub-initiatives bolsters their liberal approach. Quad promotes development of infrastructure, and that too in a sustainable manner with initiatives like the one with Blue Dot Network (U.S. Department Of Defense & Panda, 2020). This approach offers a good alternative to China’s belt and road initiative as Quad’s methods project transparency, sustainability, and liberal structure.

However, alongside the positives of their liberal approach, Quad also faces various challenges that come with it. While the Quad states share same vision of countering China, they are also competing economies and hence have varying degrees of strategies (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2021). Additionally, the Quad states also need to navigate the critical regional geopolitics by considering the interests of institutions like BRICS, ASEAN, and EU. China’s unilateral nature holds an edge when it comes to enforcing the policies as they do not need to form a consensus.

Conclusion

Realist China and its belt and road initiative (BRI) is a unilateral initiative lead by China with its expansionist and infiltrative mindset in its foreign policy. Even though it lacks transparency for the participating states, it is built on a very strong and astute set of rules and regulations that China follows to execute this initiative. China’s BRI cannot be distinctly classified as an institution. Although, its modus of operandi is very institutionalized.

On the contrary, the quadrilateral security dialogue is more of a defensive countermeasure lead by four states to mitigate Chinese hegemony and propagate the liberal framework by upholding the principles of democracy, free trade, and law. Quad either is not institutionalized and at this stage, it is nothing beyond a security dialogue to maintain regional maritime security.

If the Quad aims to counter-balance China’s belt and road initiative, it will need to make an institutionalized effort to build a legal framework that delivers similar objectives as BRI but with improved transparency, sustainable infrastructure, legal structure, and inclusivity for the participating states.

This will help the states involved in Quad to uphold its liberal principles over the Chinese approach of realism.

References

1. Carr, E. H. (1946). The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939, An Inroduction To The Study Of International Relations. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd.
2. (2024, 04 29). How is belt and road initiative advancing China’s interests? Retrieved from China Power.
3. European Parliamentary Research Service. (2021). The Quad: An emerging multilateral security framework of democracies in Indo-Pacific region. Europe: European Parliamentary Research Service.
4. Haas, E. B. (1968). The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social, and Economic Forces 1950-1957. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
5. Jacques, M. (2009). When China Rules The World. London: Penguin Books.
6. Jaishankar, D. (2024). India, the Quad, and the Liberal International Order. In H. Yuichi, & H. Kundanani, The Transformation of the Liberal International Order: Evolutions and Limitations (p. 81). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
7. Kant, I. (1983). Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company Inc.
8. Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. In Keohane, Robert O.; Nye, Joseph S.; (pp. 158-165). Massachusetts: Little, Brown.
9. Mearshieimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
10. Morgenthau, H. (2006). Politics Among Nations: The Struggles For Power And Peace. New York: McGraw Hill.
11. Qin, Y. (2011). Development of International Relations theory in China: Progress Through Deabats. Beijing: Oxford University Press.
12. S. Department Of Defense, & Panda, D. (2020). India, the Blue Dot Network, and the “Quad Plus” Calculus. New Delhi: Journal Of Indo-Pacific Affairs.
13. Waltz, K. M. (1979). Theory Of International Politics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
14. Yu, L. (1997). The Analects Of Confucius. New York: Oxford University Press.