Before the Bishkek summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), an argument was repeated in a number of articles that this organization was losing its strengths. The opinion reiterated in various publications was that the SCO had been ready for a global role, but had failed to realize its potential. For instance, Alexander Knyazev argued that the reason for the SCO’s “failure” had been the low level of political and economic development of its member-states. According to him, this can explain the “historically predetermined level of the organization.”
It is hard to agree with these articles, as well as with such views. They are based rather on perceptions and aspirations regarding the SCO than on this organization’s actual documents, which are the result of a consensus between its member-states. The SCO has never had ambitions to be a military alliance like the Warsaw Pact or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Neither did SCO ever have plans to build a common economic and political space similar to the European Union. It is thus pointless to speak of a global agenda of the SCO.
The role of the SCO is different. It helps to create a spirit and network of cooperation in many fields, primarily in economics and security. Thanks to its structure, the SCO can find responses to emerging security challenges through its transformation process and via the dialogue in the region and beyond. This is the SCO’s input into building a united system of international order based on the unconstrained will of the world’s states and collectively adopted principles.
No doubt there are many problems in the SCO. Yet the low representation of its member-states and observers at the Bishkek summit, emphasized by Knyazev and others, is clearly not among those problems. If some countries do not see reason to send their leaders to the summit, it means that there is either a lack of understanding of the values of the SCO in these countries or an inability to use the opportunities of this organization. In other words, this is rather a problem of the current leadership of respective countries than of the organization itself.
Ambassador Vitaly Vorobiev clearly explains the unique opportunities of the SCO:
• “Cementing solidarity in the political sphere, with a focus on combining national state interests and those of the SCO;”
• “Broadening the foundations of co-development in the economic field, with emphasis on the SCO’s adaptive capacity;”
• “Strengthening the feeling of community in the cultural and humanitarian dimension, which has a great potential of ‘unity in diversity’ that is essential for strengthening public support for the SCO.”
According to him, “Russia could contribute to the formation of the matrix of the SCO of the future by showing more initiative… this is where experts in SCO affairs could pool their approaches, ideas, and proposals.” This perspective is far more constructive than the allegations that the SCO has failed to become a global organization.