The SCO Comes Out Of The Shadows – OpEd
Group photo of the heads of delegations participating in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Heads of State Council Meeting in Bishkek. Photo Credit: Kremlin.ru
September 10, 2026
By Michael Harrison
Key Takeaways:
The author says the Sept. 1 SCO summit in Bishkek did not create an anti-Western alliance, but the enlarged group (now 10 members, including India, Pakistan, Iran, Belarus) looked more intent on turning talk into tools—AI and port centers, 100 tech projects, charter changes, new security and anti-drug bodies.
War in Ukraine, Iran’s sanctions and conflict with the U.S. and Israel, and doubts about U.S. staying power have made those tools more useful. The Bishkek Declaration condemned strikes on Iran and criticized sanctions, while India’s Quad ties keep the SCO from being a simple anti-U.S. bloc.
Weaknesses remain: consensus vetoes, India–Pakistan and India–China rivalry, no SCO development bank, and most real economics still running through China’s Belt and Road. The group’s value is hedging—cheaper ways to say no to Washington—not replacing NATO or the dollar.
For most of its 25-year history, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization was easy to underestimate. Founded by China, Russia, and four Central Asian states, it gave Beijing and Moscow a forum for managing security concerns and expanding ties across Eurasia. But on economics and institution-building, the SCO often lived in the shadow of the overlapping BRICS group—of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—which produced a development bank and a more visible platform for emerging powers.
That is what made the SCO summit in Bishkek on September 1 different. The SCO did not suddenly become a cohesive anti-Western alliance this month. But it looked less like a diplomatic holding pen and more like an organization trying to turn political convergence into practical cooperation.
The change comes from two directions at once. The SCO itself has expanded and begun building new mechanisms. Meanwhile, the geopolitical environment around it has made those mechanisms more valuable.
From Forum to Infrastructure
The organization that met in Kyrgyzstan is much larger than the one created in 2001. It now has 10 members, including India and Pakistan, which joined in 2017, Iran, which became a full member in 2023, and Belarus, which joined in 2024. Last year’s Tianjin summit also approved a 2026–2035 development strategy and new cooperation platforms in energy, green industry, the digital economy, science and technology, education, and vocational training.
Bishkek added another layer. Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed an international center for artificial-intelligence applications, a China-SCO port-economy cooperation center in Tianjin, and 100 joint technology projects over the next three years. The summit also approved 28 documents, including amendments to the SCO Charter and regulations for new security and anti-drug bodies.
These measures are modest compared with the European Union or even the New Development Bank of the BRICS. Still, they matter because they suggest movement from declarations toward an infrastructure of cooperation.
Geopolitics Gives the SCO New Weight
The external environment has changed even faster. Russia’s rupture with the West as a result of the war in Ukraine pushed Moscow toward Asian markets and institutions. Iran entered the SCO after years of U.S. sanctions and now participates while fighting a direct conflict with the United States and Israel. Donald Trump’s return to the White House has reinforced doubts in many capitals about the durability of U.S.-led economic and security arrangements.
That context gave the Bishkek Declaration more significance than a routine summit communiqué. SCO members condemned military strikes on Iran and criticized sanctions on member states. The statement did not transform the group into a military alliance, but it showed that governments with very different relationships with Washington could still agree on limits to U.S. coercive power.
India is the most important caveat—and the clearest reason not to label the SCO an anti-American bloc. New Delhi works with Washington in the Quad, competes strategically with China, and has resisted efforts to turn non-Western institutions into explicitly anti-Western coalitions. Its participation instead reflects a broader pattern of multialignment. Major powers want room to work with the United States where interests overlap while preserving alternatives when they do not.
The Limits Are Real
Those alternatives should not be exaggerated. The SCO’s biggest weakness is institutional. Its charter requires decisions to be made by consensus, which gives every member a potential veto. India and Pakistan remain rivals; India and China have unresolved strategic disputes; and Russia and China do not always support the same economic architecture in Central Asia. The long-running failure to establish an SCO development bank is a reminder that slogans about integration are easier than pooled money and shared rules.
Even the economic case for the SCO requires nuance. China’s Belt and Road Initiative, bilateral trade corridors, and national payment systems do much of the practical work often attributed to the organization. A recent Carnegie assessment of the Bishkek summit argues that strategic rivalries and weak cross-border institutions still obstruct meaningful regional integration.
In other words, the SCO may be becoming more useful without becoming strong.
A More Plural Order, Not a Replacement Hegemon
That distinction is precisely why Washington should pay attention. The SCO does not need to replace NATO, the World Bank, or the dollar to alter the balance of power. It only needs to make it easier for member states to hedge—to find diplomatic backing, trade routes, technology partnerships, security forums, and payment channels that reduce the cost of saying no to the United States.
For U.S. policymakers, the lesson from Bishkek is not that American power has vanished. The United States still possesses unmatched military reach, deep alliances, and enormous financial influence. The lesson is that coercion now operates in a more crowded institutional landscape. Sanctions, tariffs, asset freezes, and military pressure can still impose costs, but they can also increase the value of organizations designed to provide political and economic alternatives.
For two decades, the SCO could be dismissed as a talking shop whose ambitions exceeded its capacity. Bishkek did not erase those weaknesses. It did, however, show an organization trying to convert its enlarged membership and a favorable geopolitical moment into practical relevance.
The SCO has not emerged as the new center of world order. It has simply come out of the shadows. In a more fragmented international system, that may be consequential
enough.
This article was also published at FPIF
About Michael Harrison
Michael Harrison is an independent writer focusing on politics, history, and global affairs. His work offers a critical perspective that goes beyond headlines, exploring the deeper forces shaping international events and public discourse. He can be reached on X at @M_Harrison93
View all posts by Michael Harrison →
Michael Harrison is an independent writer focusing on politics, history, and global affairs. His work offers a critical perspective that goes beyond headlines, exploring the deeper forces shaping international events and public discourse. He can be reached on X at @M_Harrison93
View all posts by Michael Harrison →
.png)
.png)
