Recently the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has resurfaced in the South Asian region. SCO today is discernible. While the world supported sanctions against Russia in the wake of the Russian Ukraine Crisis, some countries maintained their neutrality despite the pressure imposed by the West and United Nations which includes, Pakistan, India, China, and Bangladesh. These SCO countries have come out as a major collation bloc, becoming a lot more noticeable in the ongoing crisis (Russia-Ukraine War). Alongside, elevating the regional congruency.
As a consequence, the grey zone states (Saudi Arabia, China, Iran) have begun to scrutinize the West’s response to the warfare. Sanctions, banning products, freezing assets of Russian elites, silencing Russian voices by banning the Russian media channels in the coverage of the conflict. The picture is quite clear if you dare to be uncooperative with the West (even when your sovereignty is being marginalized) it can rip apart your entire economic stability in the international order. Which is, very unfair and hand in hand very concerning.
Where do India and US stand?
Take the example of India and United States relations. Amid this political chaos, India and United States stand at a very unfortunate place.
For the last seven decades, India cultivated an overwhelming nonaligned movement policy. Upfront, they didn’t ally with anyone but Russians. The prime example is India’s military equipment is around 80% that comes from Russia.
However, we have seen a tilt in Indian policy towards Americans. In the last 2 decades, India has opened its economy to the U.S. which includes major investments. The nearness between the United States and the BJP government especially during the Trump administration has shoved India more towards the American side.
Yet, the problem persists. The institutional linkage of the Indian government is still substantially linked to the former USSR now Russia. Much of the up-gradation of the defense equipment banks on the Russians. Hence, the consequences of India choosing a camp remains dire.
In the wake of the Russia Ukraine war, when India maintained its neutrality with respect to sanction imposition on Russia. India understood the fact that friendship with the U.S. is not going to be a piece of cake. While razing India to choose a specific side, the complete discourse coming from the U.S. was based on shaming India for how it’s incapable of being a superpower, lacking a moral compass to sustain itself in the international political system.
Risking India’s standing in contemporary times, the present U.S. behavior is provoking India towards Isolationism. India cannot be isolated from Russia, China, Pakistan, and other countries in the South Asian region and likewise cannot be the sole partner in the Region supporting pro-U.S.
A clear example of how superpower’s can raze you out simply because you refrained in supporting their version of right.
Is SCO The NATO of the East?
Bringing China and Russia together the SCO with four Central Asian countries Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and two South Asian countries India and Pakistan. The group has four observer states interested in acceding to full membership (Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran, and Mongolia) and six “Dialogue Partners” (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Turkey).
Looking at SCO, the member countries of SCO represent almost half of the world states. The eight-member states of SCO embody 50% of the world population. Embracing two of the top economies (China and India) in the world. So the geopolitical significance of SCO remains vigilant both in economic and security provisions. The impact is not just limited to the region but at the global level.
SCO has alleged that it’s not a military alliance with treaty obligations. Concerns persist that, Is SCO the NATO of the East, masked under the label “cooperation”? The SCO was set in motion, poles apart from the idea of NATO. The founding member namely Russia, China, and four of the central Asian states wanted to create a newfangled international organization. Diversifying from zero-sum thinking and hegemonic design, centralizing the principles of cooperation and respect for diversity. Where members do not have to relinquish their sovereignty for protection, members do not overstep or even step into one another’s internal affairs. Decisions are formed through consensus in place of majority, the case with NATO. SCO does not believe in collective defense, a fundamental variation from NATO, embodied in its Article 5. Unlike NATO, SCO does not have a force where member countries contribute their troops.
NATO is a product of the Cold War, an imaginary enemy of the socialist camp led by the Soviet Union. Since NATO’s manifestation, it has taken repeatedly offensive acts turning down the idea of being a defensive organization as it claims to be. Conversely, China’s leadership has enunciated it does not desire to forge any military alliance with or countries or establish a sphere of influence. Since its beginning, SCO has upheld its morals and values based on mutual trust, mutual respect, equality, respect for diverse civilizations, and the pursuit of shared development.
SCO does not seek any confrontation or fabricate any enemy to keep itself alive or for the sake of relevancy. The organizations pursue cooperation for common security and development among its members and the West. This vision is also promised in the new model of relations among countries by China, based on mutual respect and building a human community of a shared future. This diversity in SCO makes it unlikely to become a military alliance opposing NATO members who share a commonality in the political system, religious beliefs, values, and high requirements. SCO believes in diversity as an asset and not a liability.
A way of reforming the existing new international order into a better more inclusive one, SCO members deem might is not always right but rather sovereignty matters and confrontation poison the international peace by disrupting the international relations. Amplifying the voices of member states to influence global governance.
In the Russia Ukraine crisis scenario, rather than West against East, it’s more of NATO against SCO. Where states in the East and South maintained their neutrality towards the ongoing Russia Ukraine War, opposing harsh sanctions imposed by the West as a reaction. West response took the rest of the world, the non-western region by surprise. Punctuating, the lack of international order, the lack of a true supreme international principal. Which helps defines the international political structure in the international system.
So if a situation like this continues to happen again, what is happening right now (Russia Ukraine crisis), the countries on the periphery will face the consequences. A plain realization that we are living in a very unfair world, a very biased world. The world that is only on one side tends to be the West. Making the stability of other states (the non-western) fragile and open to questions.
The reliance on the West has become evidently precarious to the other part of the world (the grey zone states). Here SCO has become more influential, Especially for the under-developing countries. The SCO collation will not only help de-escalating the regional tensions among member states but also bring down the pressure from the West.
