Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) started with a low profile but was extremely focused on the goals and objectives. Since the inception of the organisation, the SCO is adhering to the principles of respect, trust and win-win cooperation. The principles led to the successful execution of plans and achievement of the most urgent objective, including border issues, which boosted the confidence of SCO members. The principle of mutual respect and openness attracted many countries to join the organisation. Thus, in recent years, the SCO underwent expansion. Pakistan and India are the most recent addition to the organisation. The inclusion of Pakistan and India highlights the core values of being open, culturally diverse and focused on common grounds.
The primary difference of the SCO from other organisations is that it was established on the code of partnership. It is not an alliance and works as a non-alignment organisation. Additionally, it does not centre around any country as an adversary or opponent. Although many experts try to compare it with NATO, EU, ASEAN, G-7, it does not have any comparison with these groups. The SCO follows the philosophy of partnership against the approach of alliance building. The partnership approach helped it avoid controversies for it demonstrated that mutual respect and trust could be alternatives to binding commitments. It worked well and turned the SCO into one of the major organisations in the world. It is also considered the emerging face of Asia.
Howbeit, the global dynamics are changing now. The process of change will be expedited after the G-7 and NATO meetings. Although both meetings are important, NATO’s communique is far more important. Whether the SCO likes it, the changing dynamics will urge it to respond to new challenges. Owing to the presence and the leading role of China and Russia, it will be under scrutiny. Already, the NATO communique has unambiguously identified Russia and China as major threats and areas of concern for the future. China has been pinpointed as a challenge to Western hegemony and interests.
The SCO follows the philosophy of partnership against the approach of alliance building
The communique has one very interesting contradiction, which highlights the confusion of the alliance. On one hand, NATO is talking about a rule-based system. Simultaneously, it is working to exclude China and Russia. Independent experts, from the G-7 and NATO meetings, have inferred that the West only recognised the values developed by the West. Moreover, the West only consider those economic activities fair and beneficial that serve its interest. Although they spend a good time highlighting the importance of diversity of culture, on the practical side, they preach the supremacy of Western perceived culture and values. Thus, the NATO communique suggested enhancing the presence of NATO and explore new partners in Asia-Pacific, Africa and Latin America to secure the interest of the alliance. The presence of NATO in Asia-Pacific through building new partnerships will be a major challenge for China, Russia and the SCO in the coming days.
Being the leading organisation of Asia with political, economic and security strengths, the SCO will be the main focus of the expansion of NATO. In addition, the emerging role of China and Russia to steer the SCO will further complicate the situation. Thus, the SCO will have to adjust to new realities and will have to refine and reform its structure and role. Asian Institute of Eco-civilisation Research and Development came up with few suggestions to reform the SCO. It is high time to suggest the reforms due to the 20-years-celebrations of success and the underway foreign ministers’ meeting.
First of all, the SCO will have to revisit the concept of partnership and non-alignment. NATO is putting forward a commitment to bind with all partners and ensure the security of all against perceived threats. In this scenario, the loose structure will weaken its capabilities and the trust of members. Thus, it is suggested that the SCO tries a hybrid model to help counter the alliances of the West and keep the independence of members intact. The proposed model mandates the organisation to make clear that it would not create conflict or threat for anyone. However, if the members are being threatened, it will reply with full force.
Second, the SCO should concentrate on common goods and challenges. It will help counter threats emerging from the non-traditional security areas, for example, climate change, food insecurity, water and climate-driven migration. For that purpose, the SCO should establish a dedicated platform, which works on non-traditional security threats and provide policy options. It should also launch a dialogue on non-traditional security threats. It will help the SCO venture into future challenges and avoid undesired interference from NATO and other Western institutions; strengthening its status.
Third, a forum should be launched under the name “Prosperity Forum”. The objectives of the forum should be to promote the well-being of people, create livelihood opportunities and acts as a shock absorber to external challenges like COVID-19. The forum should be designed to achieve the objective of a community with a shared future. The forum must have a single goal, “No One Lift Behind” as it is defined for SDGs. Fourth, the diversity of forums in terms of history, culture and civilization provides an excellent opportunity for piloting the concept of dialogue among civilisations. Thus, the SCO should turn this into its strength and launch a “dialogue among civilisations” platform. The platform should be given the task to find common grounds, where all can move hand-in-hand. It would be a landmark achievement; the success of which would pave the way for the replication of the model at a larger scale. Right now, the world is in dire need of such a platform, as the war of superiority has been launched by the West.
Fifth, the SCO is weak in engaging with non-government organizations and think tanks. Presently, only government-backed, or supported think tanks are its partners. It is not a good model as it shrinks the space for independent policy advice. The SCO should invite independent non-government organisations that can help on two fronts. First, they will provide policy, which is required, not which government want to listen to. Second, they will help mitigate the Western propaganda that civil society organisations do not have space on important platforms. The SCO should also look into options to engage the non-government and non-partisan organisations of the West.
In conclusion, the SCO should avoid the mistake of Western alliances. The most important mistakes are arrogance, self-claimed greatness and rightness. It must acknowledge the space for improvement and give respect to other organisations, without considering their strengths and weaknesses. Developing and least developing countries are desperately looking for such help. This would pave the way for a fair and rule-based system; critical for the sustainability of global order and mother earth.
The writer is a political economist.