By Kumar Sanjay Singh
At the conclusion of the10th Quad Foreign Ministers in Washington, D.C., on 1 July 2025, the Secretary of State of the United States and the Foreign Ministers of Australia, India, and Japan released a joint statement, which has been widely reported in the Indian print and electronic media as the reaffirmation India’s status as a strategic partner of the US led west to check the growing influence of China in the Indo-Pacific region. The statement on Pahalgam has been highlighted as the coming of age of Indian diplomacy. Reportage on the 10th meeting of Quad foreign ministers is, however, silent on the unique geopolitical context of the meeting; that the Quad meeting was held in the backdrop of increasing pressure on India, both by Russia and USA to firm up its relation with their respective block. The joint statement gives the first decisive indication of India preferring the Western alliance over the Russia proposed Russia-India-China troika.
The pressure on India from the rival block gathered momentum since Russian army entered Ukraine on 24 February 2022, it reached a crescendo in 2025. In June 2025, US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said that certain Indian policies rubbed US the wrong way. “For instance, you generally buy your military gear from Russia. That’s a way to kind of get under the skin of America… Being a part of BRICS, which is, oh, let’s move to not support the dollar and dollar hegemony — that’s not really the way to make friends and influence people in America.” In contrast Russia was insisting on Indian participation in Russia-India-China troika and critiqued the western policies, including Quad, as an attempt to drive a wedge in this troika. Sergey Lavrov stated during a summit,”What is happening right now in Asia-Pacific region, the West has begun to call it the Indo-Pacific region in order to give its policy a clear anti-Chinese direction. Hoping to thereby additionally gain the opportunity to pit the great friends and neighbors India and China against each other.” He further added, “Recently, President (Vladimir) Putin said it’s simply a divide and rule policy.”
Indian signature on the joint statement that included a substantial paragraph critical of North Korea and its allies, comes in the wake of its stand on de-dollarization and BRICS currency. Since December 2024, i.e., shortly after Trump’s threat to the BRICS members to refrain from creating a new BRICS currency or back any other currency to replace “the mighty Dollar”, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has repeatedly stated Indian opposition on de-dollarization and a common BRICS currency. In this light Indian signature on a statement criticizing North Korea and its allies underscores Indian preference for western alliance on significant economic and political concerns.
Paragraph on N Korea states, “We condemn North Korea’s destabilizing launches using ballistic missile technology and its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs). We reaffirm our commitment to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula consistent with relevant UNSCRs, and we urge North Korea to abide by all its obligations under the UNSCRs. We also express grave concern over North Korea’s malicious cyber activity, including cryptocurrency theft and use of workers abroad to fund North Korea’s unlawful weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.” India has consistently criticised Korean nuclear programme as it is beyond the oversight of IAEA, yet it has never become a party to the US led effort to diplomatically isolate North Korea. In spite of its reservations on North Korean nuclear programme India and North Korea have had a full diplomatic relationship stretching over half a century. Both the countries are members of NAM. They have embassies in Delhi and Pyongyang. The two countries have had science and technology co-operation agreements. North Korean diplomats have attended courses for foreign diplomats in Delhi. India has sent food supplies to Pyongyang and North Korea donated $30,000 when the tsunami struck India in 2004. In the aftermath of North Korean nuclear test in September 2017, India resisted the pressure by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to diplomatically isolate North Korea by withdrawing staff from Indian embassy. This is a far cry from the current identification of Indian foreign policy to the American interest of bolstering its allies South Korea and Japan, who are in conflict with North Korea.
Identification with American diplomatic goals reacts on the Russia proposed Russia-India-China troika. The paragraph on North Korea also targets its allies, stating, “We urge all UN Member States to abide by their international obligations under the UNSCRs to implement sanctions, including the prohibition on the transfer to North Korea or procurement from North Korea of all arms and related materiel. We express deep concern about countries that are deepening military cooperation with North Korea…” This is an obvious reference to China and Russia. That China has been the principal benefactor of North Korea is well known and need not detain us here. Importantly, economic and military alliance between North Korea and Russia have been witnessing a significant upswing. The warming of ties can be traced back to 1996 under President Boris Yeltsin. However, Ukraine conflict boosted their political and military alliance. Media has been rife on supply of missiles, artillery shells and troops to aid Russian military operations in Ukraine. However, US led collective west is most concerned at what North Korea will get in return. It is being speculated that North Korea may acquire military technology, ranging from surveillance satellites to submarines, plus possible security guarantees from Moscow. This concern is singled out for criticism in the joint statement of Quad. Evidently, India has forsaken its ‘strategic neutrality’ on North Korea and its allies (esp., Russia), that it cherished as recently as the Ukraine crisis and purchase of Russian oil despite sanctions.
Reaffirmation of India’s status as a strategic ally of the west against a strident China has been a significant talking point. Interestingly, China is not mentioned even once in the text, yet the concerns highlighted in the statement are clearly aimed at China. A close reading of the joint statement makes it abundantly clear that India has been recruited to bolster US strategic goals, even as none of Indian concerns vis-à-vis China have been mentioned. The joint statement states, “We remain seriously concerned about the situation in the East China Sea and South China Sea. We reiterate our strong opposition to any unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo by force or coercion. We express our serious concerns regarding dangerous and provocative actions, including interference with offshore resource development, the repeated obstruction of the freedoms of navigation and overflight, and the dangerous manoeuvres by military aircraft and coast guard and maritime militia vessels, especially the unsafe use of water cannons and ramming or blocking actions in the South China Sea. These actions threaten peace and stability in the region.” Evidently, these are issues of Sino-US rivalry in the Pacific region that also impinge on American allies such as Taiwan, Philippines, etc. Indo-Chinese land dispute along the LAC has not been mentioned. Nor is increased Chinese presence in Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal and the Arabian sea that has led to security concerns in India.
Interestingly, India has gained nothing substantial in return of diluting it ‘strategic neutrality’ and its recruitment to bolster US agenda in the Pacific region. There are two issues that are being touted as recognition of Indian concerns; Pahalgam and rare earth elements. On Pahalgam, the joint statement states, “The Quad unequivocally condemns all acts of terrorism and violent extremism in all its forms and manifestations, including cross-border terrorism, and renews our commitment to counterterrorism cooperation. We condemn in the strongest terms the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir on April 22, 2025, which claimed the lives of 25 Indian nationals and one Nepali citizen, while injuring several others.” It does not mention the role of Pakistan, which was the claim that resulted in ‘Operation Sindoor’ in retaliation to the Pahalgam attack. Interestingly the phrase cross-border terrorism in used in a generic sense and not to describe the Pahalgam attack. While condemning the terrorist attack in Pahalgam the phrase cross-border terrorism is curiously absent. This statement, therefore, falls short of adequately supporting Indian position on the Pahalgam attack.
Given the near monopoly of China on supply of processed Rare Earth Elements (REE), the recent control on its trade, as a fall out of Trump’s tariff war, has created shortages for electronic, automobile and defence industry. All members of Quad are suffering from this global shortage. The joint statement criticises the imposition on control of exports on processed REE, stating, “We are deeply concerned about the abrupt constriction and future reliability of key supply chains, specifically for critical minerals. This includes the use of non-market policies and practices for critical minerals, certain derivative products, and mineral processing technology.” It seeks to remedy it by, “We underscore the importance of diversified and reliable global supply chains… We are launching today the Quad Critical Minerals Initiative, an ambitious expansion of our partnership to strengthen economic security and collective resilience by collaborating to secure and diversify critical minerals supply chains.” The statement is woefully short on details.
It needs to be emphasised that Chinese monopoly over global supplies of processed rare earth components is not because of its monopoly over the mining of Rare Earth Elements. Despite its nomenclature Rare Earth Elements are not exactly rare, several countries such as Vietnam have vast reserves of rare earth, ranking third globally in terms of potential. However, its sole REE processing facility, Vietnam Rare Earth JSC has been closed since 2024. This has given a near monopoly to China over global supplies of REE. China mines 60% of world’s REE and processes almost 90% of the REE. Chinese advantage in processing is a result of technological developments in electrokinetic mining which revolutionized both the extraction and processing of REE. This technology achieves almost 95% recovery of REE, while reducing mining time by 70% and electricity by 60%. Chinese dominance is a result of these cost cutting innovations which has enabled them to lower the price of REE and outcompeting other producers. Out competing China will, therefore, require much more than ensuring diversified supply chains. The joint statement, however, spells nothing on the technological aspects of processing of REE. Evidently, it will require years of investments in improving mining and processing technologies to catch up with China, thus questioning the wisdom of signing this statement even as India and China are involved in trade negotiations.
In sum by signing on this joint statement India has sacrificed much more by diluting its ‘strategic neutrality’ while gaining nothing tangible in return. By identifying with the US led global west, India faces the possibility of isolation in the global south. This may militate against Indian interests, as an isolated India will be prey to US tariff threats etc. Senator Lindsey Graham’s proposed bill to impose 500% tariff on countries that purchase sanctioned Russian oil, is a case in point. Even the events of 2024 and 2025 suggest the unpredictability of US as an ally. In August 2024 the pro-India government of Sheikh Hasina was toppled in Bangladesh, increasing Indian vulnerability around the Siliguri corridor. Subsequent to the toppling of her government Sheikh Hasina’s statement leaked to certain segments of media accused US for the toppling of her government. More recently, subsequent to ‘Operation Sindoor’ US pivoted towards Pakistan much to chagrin of Indian policy formulators. Indian diplomacy is in a very choppy sea, forcing us to recall Henry Kissinger’s aphorism, “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.”
Kumar Sanjay Singh, Associate Professor, Department of History, Swami Shraddhanand College, Delhi University.
4 July 2025
Source: countercurrents.org