US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to meet with his counterparts from India, Australia and Japan in New Delhi on Tuesday. The meeting is intended as preparation for a summit of the Quad leaders in November. However, the prospects of that have diminished due to changing geopolitical dynamics and strained relations stemming from differences among the group's members. The Quad foreign ministers' meeting therefore appears more symbolic than substantive.

Since its inception in 2007, the so-called Quadrilateral Security Dialogue has been much like a choir seeking harmony but never quite achieving it, leaving the group struggling to find its voice. While it operates under the banner of promoting a "free and open Indo-Pacific" — a dubious notion given that the region has been free and open — its core function is often perceived to be containing China. By fostering bloc politics, this exclusionary approach directly contradicts the region's need for openness and inclusiveness.

The Quad's vulnerabilities have become increasingly evident. The United States' unilateral foreign policies, prioritizing US interests, appear to have eroded the political support essential for the Quad's cohesion. The US administration's imposition of high tariffs on India has strained ties between the two countries. This transactional attitude toward allies seems to have destabilized the Quad's already fragile framework.

Additionally, each Quad member's separate economic ties with China further complicate the group's dynamics. The recent visit by the US leader to China helped to stabilize the bilateral relationship. And China has again overtaken the US to become India's largest trading partner, with bilateral trade surpassing $155 billion last year. Moreover, China-Australia trade has entered a renewed growth phase after several years of tension.

Divergences among the four nations on security, economic and geopolitical fronts present challenges to forging a unified strategy within the Quad. Each country has different national interests and priorities, which often lead to conflicting approaches. The US' shifting strategic priorities, including its skepticism toward multilateral institutions and security alliances, have also diluted its commitment to the Quad. Meanwhile, India's emphasis on maintaining its strategic autonomy and its historical nonalignment policy sometimes result in hesitance to fully commit to collective security measures that might compromise its "independent stance". Even if the Quad manages to continue in some form, it risks becoming a symbolic presence.

The very existence of the Quad runs counter to the peace and stability that are in the fundamental interests of regional countries. The peace and prosperity of the region do not require, nor can they rely on, exclusionary mechanisms. Genuine regional development is driven by cooperation and mutual benefit, not confrontation and division. In light of the Quad's dilemma, the international community should recognize that any mechanism attempting to divide the world will ultimately fail.

The Quad is a relic of a bygone era — one that prioritizes geopolitical maneuvering over genuine multilateral engagement. Yet special attention should be paid to Japan, a country eager to promote neo-militarism and skilled at hyping up regional tensions. The Sanae Takaichi government has been actively seeking cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and alignment with the Philippines in the South China Sea. It would come as no surprise if Japan attempts to reinvigorate the Quad.

Japan's defense expenditure increased by 9.7 percent in 2025, reaching a record high. Its weapons imports have grown by 76 percent over the past five years. Although Japan's defense budget has been rising for 14 consecutive years, right-wing forces in the country continue to clamor for even greater military spending. This once again reveals that Japan's "nation of peace" mask is slipping, as the country drifts toward neo-militarism.

In this context, the Quad stands as a ready-made zombie — one that the Takaichi government might be interested in reanimating to revive its militarist ghost. Should Tokyo indeed play a major role in breathing life back into this geopolitical tool, its ulterior motives would undoubtedly warrant regional caution.