Over the past decade, artificial intelligence (AI) and critical mineral technologies have redefined global geopolitics and geoeconomics. While these advances offer transformative opportunities, they also bring about significant strategic vulnerabilities.
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) — comprising the US, India, Japan and Australia — has evolved from a maritime security grouping into a vital platform for countering China’s growing dominance and predatory practices in the domain of critical and emerging technologies.
Since the establishment of the Quad Critical and Emerging Technology Working Group in 2021, the coalition has prioritized technology cooperation as a means of achieving strategic autonomy from China. Initiatives like the Track 1.5 dialogue on Open Radio Access Network (Open RAN) signal Quad’s intent to build alternatives to China’s hegemonic role in 5G and beyond. Notably, pilot Open RAN deployments in Palau, training efforts at the Asian Open RAN Academy in the Philippines and India’s plans to open a first-of-its-kind Open RAN workforce training initiative with the US’ support mark a pivot toward a more integrated and inclusive Indo-Pacific digital infrastructure.
The Quad’s portfolio has also broadened with programs such as AI-ENGAGE and BioExplore, which aim to leverage AI for agricultural innovation and biodiversity research respectively. These efforts suggest a conscious move toward development-oriented tech diplomacy.
However, the long-term viability of these projects hinges on the Quad’s ability to decouple strategically from China’s vertically integrated tech supply chains.
China’s dominance in the critical mineral supply chain represents a central challenge to the Quad’s ambitions. The country processes 60 percent of the world’s lithium and an overwhelming 85 percent of rare earth elements — materials essential for manufacturing advanced electronics, electric vehicle batteries and military systems. Through export controls on materials like gallium and germanium, China has already demonstrated its willingness to leverage this dominance for geopolitical ends. Further compounding the issue is Beijing’s assertive push to shape global technology standards through initiatives like the “China Standards 2035” and its growing influence in bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union, the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission. Without a counterbalancing strategy, the Quad risks operating in a global ecosystem defined by China-centric standards and protocols.
Despite converging concerns over China, internal asymmetries continue to undermine the Quad’s collective tech agenda. Divergent data governance policies remain a major obstacle. India’s rejection of Japan’s Osaka Track on cross-border data flows, for instance, reveals underlying trust and sovereignty issues. Meanwhile, bilateral AI investment among India, Australia and Japan remains negligible, with each country more economically enmeshed with China than with one another.
This lack of internal cohesion is exacerbated by the disproportionate reliance on the US as the technological and financial anchor of the grouping. While the US is the primary research collaborator for all three partners, intra-Quad tech partnerships remain shallow. For instance, the bilateral AI investments between the three are less than 1 percent. Bridging this gap is essential if the Quad aims to move beyond rhetorical alignment toward actual technological synergy.
While bilateral efforts — such as US-India cooperation on mineral processing, Japan’s investments in India and Australia’s rare earth sectors, and the US-Japan Critical Minerals Agreement — are encouraging, they remain fragmented. Harmonizing these bilateral agreements under a Quad-wide strategic framework could amplify their impact. A unified Quad critical minerals pact, anchored in common standards and incentives for joint ventures, would position the coalition to reduce dependency on China more effectively.
Each Quad member has distinct technological strengths. India’s software talent, Japan’s hardware innovation, Australia’s raw material reserves and the US’ research-and-development infrastructure together form a potent value chain — if integrated effectively.
The deployment of privacy-preserving machine learning could also help overcome the data localization deadlock by enabling cross-border data analysis without compromising individual privacy — a vital step for collaborative AI innovation.
Despite the Quad’s growing momentum, dismantling China’s tech dominance will require sustained political will, coordinated investment and strategic patience. Given China’s deep integration in global supply chains, short-term decoupling is neither feasible nor desirable.
However, reducing strategic overdependence is possible and essential.
The upcoming Quad summit in India presents a timely opportunity to consolidate progress and expand collaboration. Engaging tech-forward democracies such as Taiwan and South Korea as auxiliary partners could help create a broader coalition capable of influencing global technology governance.
To outmaneuver China in the race for technological supremacy, the Quad must transition from fragmented bilateralism to a coherent multilateral framework. This requires not only pooling material resources, but also aligning values, standards and long-term objectives. Only through a combination of internal coherence and external coalition-building can the Quad shape a resilient, inclusive and secure technological future.
Rahul Mishra is a senior research fellow at the German-Southeast Asian Center of Excellence for Public Policy and Good Governance at Thammasat University in Bangkok. He is also an associate professor at the Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. Prisie L. Patnayak is a doctoral candidate at the Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS