Quad and Indo-Pacific: The counterterrorism strategy

In the smoky aftermath of the Taliban’s quick retaking of Afghanistan, Quad members India, Japan, Australia met for the first time in person in September this year, discussing a wide range of agenda items. While cybersecurity, a growing menace from China, was one of the main issues discussed, it was surprising that counterterrorism was not. The return of the Taliban has raised new questions about how to respond to violent non-state actors in Central Asia and beyond and there is considerable confusion on the strategy to move from a conventional “war on terror” to one based on the current security calculus.

Beyond the Quad’s popular reputation as a grouping that seeks to balance China, the gradual expansion of the Quad’s declared mandates cannot be missed. Among other issues, the latest addition has been cooperation on counterterrorism. In the joint statement, Quad leaders declared they would closely coordinate their “diplomatic, economic and human rights policies” towards Afghanistan and deepen their counterterrorism and humanitarian cooperation there in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolution 2593. This resolution was passed on August 30 this year under the Presidency of India in the Security Council. The resolution seeks a negotiated settlement in Afghanistan and calls for the country not to be used as a base to nurture terrorism.

Terrorism is a genuine concern for all Quad members. Each member of the Quad has suffered at the hands of terrorist groups, with India being the most affected member. It is difficult to forget the coordinated series of attacks in Mumbai that killed 175 people and wounded more than 300. The impact of terrorism has made its way into Indian popular culture. Terrorism, which scars the lives of many Indians every year, has also changed the way Quad members interact with each other.

In Japan, for example, Japanese Prime Minister Junchiro Koizumi worked to assist the United States after September 11, contributing heavily to the international state-building effort in Afghanistan. The Shinzo Abe government pushed the boundaries of its traditional security relationship with Washington, enacting national security laws that allow its self-defence forces to offer logistical help to multinational forces.

The question for the Quad is how to move an Indo-Pacific strategy forward, which was a major agenda item back in March 2021. Within the Quad, who has the requisite expertise? While combined counterterrorism efforts within the Quad may face structural constraints, there are existing mechanisms that could facilitate smooth incorporation in the short to medium term. For the grouping, there are members that can contribute expertise in matters of counter-terrorism and members who are lacking.

Japan is the easiest example. Long sheltered from the extremes of terrorism, only rarely being the victim of home-grown attacks, Japan’s contributions to counter-terrorism have been mostly in the form of financial contributions. Its pacifism and isolation have also resulted in a less than enthusiastic public who are not willing to allow the government to deploy the SDF as a tool in combating terrorism. Only after losing two of its nationals to Islamic State militants in Syria did Japan launch an initiative to increase public safety and collect intelligence. To say the least, Japan would likely be a beneficiary of any strategy developed by the Quad.

It’s not that India was always prepared. In its response to the Mumbai attacks, India had a string of failures, from intelligence, surveillance, response time delays, inadequate counter-terrorism training for police and coordination between agencies. Some integrative efforts towards improving inter-agency coordination have been tested in the past. For instance, India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) hosted the first counterterrorism table-top exercise (CT-TTX) for Quad members.

Single agency

While the improvements haven’t been perfect, India has created the National Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC) as a single agency to respond to terrorism incidents as well as the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) which coordinates inputs from other agencies. The grid is expected to finally come online soon.

The other main question concerns where to direct resources of the Quad in an Indo-Pacific counter-terrorism strategy. Interoperability, where states act in a coordinated fashion to address a common problem, is a decent place to start. Closer bilateral engagement with regional partners in South and Southeast Asia can reduce friction that arises from state rivalries. The US has worked closely with Indonesia and the Philippines on intelligence and reconnaissance.

The Quad’s counter-terrorism assertions find both bilateral and multilateral resonance. The US and India, for instance, are already working on shared counter-terrorism mechanisms such as the US-India Counter-Terrorism Joint Working Group and Designations Dialogue. The Group has already conducted 18 meetings and has a clear roadmap going forward. This is complemented by the India-Australia Joint Working Group on Counter-terrorism which has held 12 meetings so far. As such, the bilateral mechanisms running within the set of Quad countries provide a strong plank for improving and consolidating capacities in counterterrorism as a group.

The inclusion of counterterrorism in Quad’s agenda is significant for two reasons. First, the step is in line with the broad basing that Quad has sought over the last few years vis-à-vis combining the capacities of member countries and the expansion of their regional and global roles. Second, the decision comes in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Kabul, which has left open many questions on regional and global security for the international community.

For New Delhi, as for other members of the Quad, the inclusion of counterterrorism means a mainstreaming that would mandate commitments for resources, combining capacities and enhancing regional and global roles. For Australia, the US, and Japan, the counterterrorism commitments through the Quad would allow the multi-lateralisation of their interests in the Indo-Pacific, which would blend their Pacific interests in regional security with the counterbalancing needs that the pan-Asian expanse wants in the aftermath of the asymmetric rise of China.

(Cogan is Associate Professor, Peace and Conflict Studies, Kansai Gaidai University, Osaka, Japan. Mishra is Research Fellow, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi)

Check out the latest videos from DH: