Deep Dive
Shownotes Transcript
I'm Bonnie Glaser, Managing Director of the Indo-Pacific Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Welcome to the China Global Podcast. Founded in 2001, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is a Eurasian political, economic, and security forum led by Russia and China. And on July 4th this year, the 24th summit of the SEO was convened in Astana, Kazakhstan.
And the summit resulted in the Astana Declaration that reaffirmed cooperation among the member states. This year's summit was particularly notable due to Belarus' accession as the SCO's first European member state and the 10th member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
The continuous enlargement of the SEO seems indicative of the organization's maybe shifting role, evolving from a regional cooperative forum to a broader, perhaps counter-Western bloc.
Today, we are going to discuss China's strategy in the SEO, its intentions, its objectives. And I'm very pleased to have with me Dr. Ava Seiwert, who is an analyst at the Mercata Institute for China Studies, known as Merix. And her research interests include China-Russia relations, China-Central Asia relations, and China's behavior in international organizations. So thanks so much for joining us, Ava.
Thanks so much for having me, Bonnie. So let's talk a little bit generally about where you see the Shanghai cooperation as going. How has it evolved? Originally, the focus was very much on the security concerns of China and Russia in Central Asia and the wider region. Do you think the focus of the SEOs changed over time? And if so, in what way?
So I'd say that officially the SEO focus remains on common security collaboration, but also on economic cooperation, political cooperation, cultural and also financial collaboration. So it's a very broad field of cooperation between the member countries.
But the geographical focus has definitely changed. So as you said, the SCO has expanded since it was founded in 2001. And in the beginning, it was really a narrow Central Asian focus group. So it included four Central Asian members and then China and Russia. And the countries mostly discussed issues that were to do with shared security concerns.
With India and Pakistan joining in 2017, the SCO shifted its focus to South Asia. Then last year, Iran joined. So it again broadened its focus into the Middle East. And now with Belarus joining as well this year, it's even...
moved a bit into Europe. So of course with this changing geographical focus, or at least with the broadening of the geographical focus, it's also more difficult maybe to focus on shared security concerns and finding agreement in these topics. And that's why the SCO currently is doing a lot more on political and economic collaboration, and maybe will be doing a bit less on security in the future.
How do you think that this enlargement of the organization is viewed by Beijing? Is this seen by China as advantageous? Does it advance China's interests? And is it really China or Russia or both of them that are pushing for the enlargement of the organization? Mm-hmm.
For a long time, it was more Russia than it was China that was pushing for the enlargement. In the beginning, the first few years, China was quite opposed to enlarging because it wanted the organization to remain narrowly focused on its neighborhood. And also it wanted its member states to first find more cohesion amongst themselves, so the founding six members.
I'd say that this has changed with this changing focus and also ambition of Beijing. So after a few years, Beijing realized or recognized that the SEO wasn't doing everything that maybe it first wanted it to do, especially in the economic realm.
And this made Beijing also maybe overthink its vision for the SEO. And with this came Beijing's willingness to also accept enlarging the organization to include India and Pakistan. And this
then again made the SEO become the largest regional organization worldwide, encompassing over 40% of the world's population and a quarter of global GDP. So really becoming a major geopolitical actor
which now is something that China very much likes and is often emphasizing when it speaks about the SEO. So I'd say China has also kind of shifted its ambition and focus on the SEO, but it's very much in line with what China wants to get out of these institutions. How does the SEO fit into China's foreign policy agenda and objectives? What are the specific goals that it advances? And
And has the SEO met China's expectations? Are there areas that's exceeded them or maybe even areas where it's fallen short?
I think the SEO is particularly important to China just as a platform where it can find supporters for its own norms and its own worldviews. It's the first multilateral institution that was ever, or organization that was ever initiated by China. And because of this in itself is already very important to the country. China also plays
tries to promote its own vision of a so-called democratic international world, international order through the SCO. And again, here can find more and more supporters that endorse this vision to then also show on the world stage that there are already a lot of countries that are in favor of its own vision of international relations.
In terms of where it might not have met Beijing's expectations, I again would probably say economically speaking. So in the beginning, China really was pushing much more for economic collaboration. So for example, an SEO development bank or even a free trade area. And this was blocked by Russia and partly also by other member states.
So China ended up going in different directions, doing these closer economic collaboration in different settings than the SCO and again then shifted its focus within the SCO more on political cooperation. But I'd say that in the beginning, China was looking for closer economic collaboration, which didn't end up happening.
So talk a bit about the summit that just took place. What were the major topics that they talked about that at least we know from public reporting? And are there some specific outcomes that you think are really important for us to pay attention to?
Yeah, really importantly, you're already mentioning that there's not so much publicly available, especially so quickly after the summit. So usually we don't have any meeting records or anything similar to this. Of course, there is the Astana declarations and there's also always some news about some documents that were signed. So we have the names of 25 strategic documents, but not yet the documents. And it's also not clear. Sometimes some of them are made public, sometimes they're not.
So what I can say is that the documents that were signed included closer collaboration on energy, on security, on environment and also on finance, amongst other things. And of course, two major topics were on top of the agenda, which was first of all Belarus, with Belarus joining the organization this year.
And in connection to this, there's also a roadmap for development of cooperation with dialogue states that was adopted. So apart from full members, the SCO also has other associate states, which are either observer states or dialogue partners. And in the past few years, quite a lot of countries have joined. So at the moment, I think we have 14 dialogue partners or observer states altogether on top of the 10 full member states.
And I'd say with this roadmap, we can kind of see that the SEO is definitely looking to make sure it integrates these new associated countries and full members into the workings of the organization in the coming months.
And then the next topic, of course, is security, which again isn't really surprising given that the organization is a security organization. But here it should be seen especially against the background of the recent terrorist attacks in Russia and the SCO's focus on countering terrorism in the region.
and a new cooperation program to fight the so-called three evils of terrorism, separatism and extremism was also adopted.
If you look back at the agreements from prior years, do you find that these agreements are implemented and that they lead to positive outcomes? Or do you find that some of these are just words on paper? So in other words, is the cooperation, is it substantial? And another part of that question, sorry for so many of them, is, yeah,
Is China driving the agenda and the forms of cooperation? I would say that, like you said, many of the
of the agreements stay on paper as much as we can tell from outside of the organization. There is a lot of agreements that are being signed. And I think it's also important to note that even these agreements often are important in themselves. So for example, also common definitions of terrorism or separatism and extremism, that's also something that helps China, for example.
But in terms of really substantive cooperation, I mean, this is really also something that a lot of observers criticize about the SCO, that there's actually not so much happening. There is the regional anti-terrorist structure, again, looking at fighting terrorism. This is a permanent structure in Tashkent, which amongst other things, organizes joint military exercises.
But yeah, most of the cooperation within the SCO still happens on a bilateral or trilateral level. And there the SCO basically just acts as a coordination platform for the different members to meet, to discuss, sometimes also on the sidelines of these summits, but not so much the SCO itself acting as one unified actor.
There was one notable aspect of this summit, which I assume happens at all of them, that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin met yet again. They had just met six weeks earlier in Beijing, but of course they took the opportunity to have another meeting at the SEO summit.
Based on reporting what you've heard about that meeting, I know there's a lot of interest in China-Russia relations. Anything significant that came out of that meeting? To be honest, I'm not aware of anything really of significance that came out of the meeting. I
I'd say this also isn't really that surprising or not normal, given that it was happening at the sidelines of the summit. So these meetings usually then are just a way for the leaders to meet once again. And of course, Xi and Putin emphasizing their close relations, also calling for even deeper partnership, and of course, emphasizing the important and useful role of the SCO in the region.
But like, there's no joint statements or anything similar that came out of this meeting. And here, of course, Putin's visit to China in May, definitely is much more important to look at, especially because there was a I think 7000 word long joint statement that was published, which really gives us quite a lot of insights into the relationship and also how the two countries and state leaders view the world.
Many people have focused on Central Asia as an area of competition between China and Russia. Some have even predicted that that competition could force the relationship to be less close, more contentious than it is today. So if you look at the China-Russia relationship just within this sort of SCO context,
Do you see more cooperation, coordination? Do you see evidence of competition between them for like agenda setting or leadership within that organization?
So the SCL was always primarily a Chinese initiative rather than a Russian one, even though of course unofficial leadership is shared by both countries. There has always been competition in terms of agenda setting, especially what I've mentioned already, China wanting to push economic collaboration, whereas Russia was much more interested in security cooperation.
Russia was also quite uninterested in the organization for a long time, though, which made it possible for China primarily to, yeah, kind of like
build its focus and structure and all that. Of course, China became more interested in closer collaboration with SEO members, first with its annexation of Crimea in 2014, and then, of course, following its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. But by that time, the power balance between China and Russia had also already shifted. And I'd say that China does have more influence now than it had 10,
10 or even 20 years ago. And all in all, even though the two are coordinating within the SCO, I think this is working quite well overall. The SCO is and always has been considered by all member states primarily a Chinese organization more than a Russian one.
Soon after the summit closed, there was a joint military drill that took place between China and Belarus and apparently took place in the part of Belarus that borders on Poland. And that has really attracted a lot of attention.
What do you think that China is trying to signal in conducting that military drill? And is this in any way connected to its broader goals in the SCO?
Well, I would see this military exercise as quite unrelated to the SCO, to be honest. It was also not the first military exercise between China and Belarus, and it wasn't directly connected to the SCO. I also don't think it was really that directly or there was a close relationship to the fact that Belarus just joined the organization and the timing of the military exercise right now.
The fact that it took place so close to NATO territory definitely is remarkable and something to pay attention to. And I think it should be understood as a response to NATO's growing interest in the Asia-Pacific.
China has only recently, I think it said that NATO was bullying other countries on the world stage. And of course, at the recent NATO summit, also Japan and Korea were participating, which China was unhappy about. So I view this military exercise so close to Poland's border as a signal that China can also become more involved in Europe, just as NATO is thinking about becoming more involved in the Asia Pacific.
The SCO joint statement did not mention the Ukraine war. I didn't have a chance to look back at prior years. I wonder if it has been mentioned since the February 2022 invasion, full-scale invasion by Russia of Ukraine.
But I was thinking that probably Russia would have liked to have seen a reference to NATO causing the war. And that's a position that Beijing shares as well. I wonder if you have thoughts on why it wasn't mentioned and whether the members of the SCO diverge on this point. Is that why it wasn't included?
So the Russia-Ukraine war hasn't been included in any of the statements since the full-scale invasion, so this really wasn't surprising this year.
Russia, of course, has always wanted member states to more openly and publicly support it. We could also see this when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and also with its annexation of Crimea in 2014. So Russia during that time also tried to get the other members to publicly support it, which didn't happen.
And it makes sense that it didn't happen because Russia's actions clearly contradict the SCO's core norms, which include sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in other states' internal affairs.
So I would say that even Beijing wouldn't have liked to include this in the statement, considering that even on the bilateral level, Beijing doesn't officially support Russia's war in Ukraine. So actually, this is something that all other member states, as far as I can tell, agree on, that this is not something to really be included in these kinds of declarations. I read reports that it was discussed, but we don't know more than that.
Yeah, but usually SEO countries agree, apart from Russia probably, that they want to stay out of these conflicts and they do not want to take a side. What are the most controversial issues among the SEO members? What are the kinds of things that they really differ on?
I mean, of course, there is the Russia question and having a full scale war on a different country. This, of course, is something that especially the Central Asian states, especially Kazakhstan with a long border to Russia, are looking at very closely. There is also quite a lot of still territorial and water disputes amongst Central Asian countries.
And this is something where the SEO hasn't really been involved. Again, the SEO and all SEO members claim that this is not part of its mandate. But I would argue as a regional security organization, it would actually be quite helpful or this would be a useful way to be doing more substantial cooperation if this was necessary.
wanted by the different member states. And then maybe a third elephant in the room is India and Pakistan, which are both members. They became members at the same time, but of course they are not close countries at all. And this at times also has made it even more difficult for the SEO to work together, especially on controversial issues such as terrorism.
It's interesting that Prime Minister Modi did not attend this meeting of the SCO,
Do you think that's primarily due to the friction in relations between China and India or is something else going on? Well, officially, of course, it's not. Officially, it's only connected to domestic issues, not even issues, but domestic timings. But I would believe so, that it's mostly connected to current tensions between China and India. And India's overall...
Not maybe this interest is too strong a word, but I would say that India hasn't been very active in the SEO as of late, which I'm sure has several reasons, but also amongst them would be the tensions between India and China. And it seems that India really is spending less and less or making less and less of an effort to be active within the SEO.
Do you think that any other countries will join in the future, or you think we'll see the SCO stop at this 10 for a while, or is there already discussion of adding new members? Mm-hmm.
So interestingly, SEO countries and also when you read Chinese language literature, there is quite a lot of discussion about Mongolia always coming up. But Mongolia has been an observer state and I think even was the first observer state of the SEO joining in 2004, if I'm not mistaken.
And SCO members would all be quite happy for Mongolia to become a full member. But interestingly, Mongolia doesn't want to. So this keeps coming up as one potential full member state, but it doesn't seem like this would happen. Another country that I think will be quite interesting to look at is Turkey.
So Turkey has been a dialogue partner of the SCO and Erdogan has repeatedly voiced his interest in making Turkey a full member. I think it started even in the mid 2010s, but also recently at the Astana summit. And this, of course, is especially important because Turkey is also a member of NATO. So here, even though I don't think that Turkey
Turkey will join anytime soon. I also don't think that other countries will become full members in the near future, so meaning in the next few years. I think it's still important to really especially consider the Turkey case because it would have a direct impact on NATO. Some people have seen the SCO as an example of China's alternative to the US-led international order.
that it is an example of China institution building and the BRICS sometimes cited in that context as well. Do you agree with that assessment? And if so, do you think that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization really is an attractive enough proposal to demonstrate that China can be a global leader?
I do agree that the SEO promotes itself as some sort of alternative to a US-led international order, especially considering that from the beginning it has been, I think in almost every summit declarations, there is talk of this new democratic international order. So the SEO countries do have a shared...
vision of how international relations should be more democratic, more equal. Of course, there should be a lot of emphasis on state sovereignty and so on. So this is something that the SCO promotes, and it's definitely something that China, of course, also promotes outside of the SCO.
I would also say that the SEO as an organization has become quite attractive amongst countries of the global south, especially when looking at the different dialogue partners. And here we really have quite a long list of other states that also want to join, at least as quite loosely affiliated dialogue partners.
I think this is especially because there is a general unhappiness with the current international order, but also because China's vision of an international order remains really like fluffy and blurry. So it's quite easy to sign up for it because everything sounds quite nice, but it also isn't very concrete. So of course, it's easy to say, of course, we agree.
with win-win cooperation, mutual benefit,
state sovereignty, democratic international relations, and that all states are equal. But of course, it's not really so clear what this would mean then in practice. So I think that's why the SEO in itself is attractive. But I can't really say I'm not so sure to what extent different states would actually choose China over the US, for example, if they actually had to choose one of the two as their premium partner.
So my final question, zooming out a little bit, is whether we should all care or how much about the SCO. Is this somehow a threat to Europe, to American interest? Does it really have any impact?
on Western countries. I remember in early years, there was discussion about the possibility of the United States even becoming an observer, but obviously that didn't happen. So should Europe and the United States pay greater attention to the SEO and why does it matter?
I think Western states should definitely pay greater attention to the SEO, especially also considering that until a few years ago, hardly anyone really knew about the organization that's changed now, but still there's really not much knowledge about it. And given that it's,
the largest regional organization in terms of population, for example, and the first multilateral organization that China initiated and thereby really important to China, I think it's definitely worth paying closer attention to it.
At the same time, I would say that it also shouldn't be overhyped or overemphasized. So I don't see any threat that's coming out of the SCO. Of course, the SCO is posing a challenge to other Western organizations in that it presents an alternative. And there are countries that now maybe are moving towards the SCO and see an alternative there.
But it doesn't directly threaten these countries. But here again, I mean, maybe the case of Turkey, which is both a NATO member state and a dialogue partner of the SCO is worth considering and looking at in the future. Because here we could actually see where there is some overlap already and how this could play out in the future if Turkey actually wanted to become a member state.
Yeah, yes, that's a great point. Well, important to watch the evolution of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization going forward. Thank you so much for joining us. We've been talking with Dr. Eva Seiwert, who's an analyst at the Mercator Institute for China Studies. Again, thanks for joining us, Eva. Thank you so much for having me. Thank you.