This year the leadership of the SCO countries met in the historic Samarkand city of Uzbekistan, at a time when the West and the East seem increasingly divided on issues of preserving European peace, ensuring energy security, responding to climate change and managing future pandemics. Pakistan, which is one of the eight permanent members of SCO alongside China, Russia and India, was also represented at the highest level at the summit, with the PM and his top ministers attending the Eurasian platform.
The Western media is portraying the SCO as an alternative bloc promoted by China and Russia to counter US and its allies’ domination in global groupings (such as the G7 and the G20). The US officials have also reportedly given the suggestion lately that China and Russia wish to create a platform of authoritarian countries in order to create a new world order that suits their interests. Then there is another side to it as well. Apparently, the US-backed world order has lost its aura for folks in the developing countries ever since the Iraq war, 2008 global financial crisis, and the election of Donald Trump.
Considering how Russia stands increasingly isolated after its Ukraine invasion and how China is being treated as a major rival instead of a partner by the West, there is cause for these countries to create a strong separate bloc. If indeed they are being forced to join forces with like-minded nations, the objective could be to defeat Western pressure that has lately intensified through wide-ranging financial sanctions, protectionist policies to favor domestic manufacturing, etc. Hence, the spotlight on the SCO summit.
However, SCO itself is Exhibit-A in how difficult it can be to rally countries with divergent economic interests, competing territorial claims, and complex geopolitical postures. For instance, while India is firmly aligned with the USand has border disputes with SCO members China and Pakistan, it also has significant energy and arms purchases from Russia. On one hand, Pakistan is sold on China as an economic and defense partner, but then, because of the former’s perennial BOP woes, it has to walk a diplomatic tightrope by remaining engaged with the US and West-backed IFIs. Then there are other SCO member states from Central Asia that also have active border issues.
Some recent opportunities amidst crises were also missed. For instance, SCO leaders could have stepped up and provided a forceful pandemic-related assistance (e.g. initially PPE supplies and later on Covid-19 vaccines) to other member countries and beyond. SCO also stayed on the sidelines as border disputes intensified between powerful members in recent years. Now, with a third of Pakistan submerged in floodwater and losses mounting, the response from the SCO nations has been less than satisfactory.
Still, for all its contradictions and complexities, SCO has been intactbeyond the two-decade mark. Going forward, the challenge for SCO (and other regional platforms elsewhere in the world) is a fundamental one: how can a multilateral platform derive its mandate and play a leading role in regional security and economic development when member nations prefer to settle matters bilaterally, without third-party interventions? The US has historically been adept at achieving meaningful progress in different parts of the globe through its multilateral diplomacy; maybe others can learn a thing or twofrom that experience.
Comments
Comments are closed.