Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit: More pomp, less utility

❐ International Desk

The recent summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was held in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, where three of the world’s most influential leaders—Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi—were seen on the same stage.

Despite this, no major agreements or groundbreaking declarations emerged from the conference, and there was little sign of it having a major impact on world politics.

The SCO, founded under the leadership of China, includes China, Russia, India, several Central Asian states, Pakistan, Iran, and Belarus. Together, these countries represent about half of the world’s population.

The organization also allows other states to join as observers and partner countries. This year’s conference was held on the 25th anniversary of the organization’s founding.

According to Temur Umarov, a fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, SCO summits are largely focused on image-building rather than actual decisions. The rate of implementation of agreements or commitments that have been signed over the years is relatively low.

In his words, the organization is a tool for member countries to protect their image within themselves and in the international arena, where visible presence is more important than tangible results.

However, Umarov believes that this framework could be a potential model for other countries as well—one where they can project their importance and diplomatic standing in the international arena without the burden of fulfilling real commitments.

According to analysis by Ava Sharett, a senior analyst at Marcus and author of a book on the SCO, many countries in the so-called Global South are interested in joining or becoming partners in the SCO, which gives China an opportunity to showcase the popularity of its own multilateral framework.

According to analysts, leaders of countries like Russia and Iran are also keen to appear on this stage and present themselves to the world as not isolated but surrounded by strong allies.

Xi Jinping’s speeches have repeatedly emphasized that the world is facing the greatest change in a century—a message that analysts believe signals the decline of Western influence.

He gave the same message to Putin three years ago.

According to analysts, by holding the SCO summit in parallel with the G7 summit, Chinese state media often tries to portray the organization as more effective than Western alliances.

The summit is an important platform not only for major powers but also for small and medium-sized countries. For the host country, Kyrgyzstan, this is one of the largest international events in their history.

Such platforms are an important way to create new international connections for the countries of Central Asia, which are located in a geopolitically complex position between Russia, China, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Analysts say the most significant achievement at this summit may have been India’s. Prime Minister Narendra Modi called for an end to the war in Ukraine in his meeting with Putin, which is consistent with the Kazakh president’s previous position.

According to analysts, India is using the SCO as an important tool to balance its foreign policy in the Eurasian region.

The growing Sino-Russian rapprochement is a geopolitical concern for India, especially in the context of India’s adversarial relationship with China.

Therefore, maintaining a stable and reliable relationship with Russia—especially for the import of military equipment—is an important part of India’s strategic priorities.

Immediately after the summit, Xi Jinping visited Egypt and is scheduled to visit Delhi two weeks later for the BRICS summit.

In addition, Xi Jinping is scheduled to meet with US President Donald Trump in Washington in about three weeks.

Analysts believe that Modi may try to go beyond a mere symbolic presence and achieve real diplomatic progress during his visit to Delhi.

Overall, analysts believe that the SCO still functions primarily as an “image-building” platform, where diplomatic visibility and a display of symbolic unity are more important than real policy change.