Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and Global South strategic cooperation

coolgod

Major
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Great analysis on SCO by Pan Guang (director of SCO studies center). Some interesting points below.

1. SCO has veto mechanism i.e. with consensus, one unwilling member can always cause a motion to fail. This is why you always get awkward declarations with many items missing a certain member. He advocates changing SCO to a majority vote.

2. India has been playing key spoiler in SCO, Russia has too.

3. China will focus more on C5+1 and interact with the central 5 countries instead of SCO due to its lack of effectiveness.

4. SCO countries need private companies to provide security for infrastructure (i.e., pipelines, BRI projects).
 
Last edited:

Index

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Great analysis on SCO by Pan Guang (director of SCO studies center). Some interesting points below.

1. SCO has veto mechanism i.e. with consensus, one unwilling member can always cause a motion to fail. This is why you always get awkward declarations with many items missing a certain member. He advocates changing SCO to a majority vote.

2. India has been playing key spoiler in SCO, Russia has too.

3. China will focus more on C5+1 and interact with the central 5 countries instead of SCO due to its lack of effectiveness.

4. SCO countries need private companies to provide security for infrastructure (i.e., pipelines, BRI projects)
That doesn't match any info of what we have seen though?

When has India successfully vetoed something? Because there has been continued expansion and military exchanges even despite severe Indian complaints, so did India just not use veto for whatever reason?
 

coolgod

Major
Registered Member
That doesn't match any info of what we have seen though?

When has India successfully vetoed something? Because there has been continued expansion and military exchanges even despite severe Indian complaints, so did India just not use veto for whatever reason?

I'm sure he is much authoritative on SCO matters than all of us.

第一,上合组织的议事规则要改变,现在是采用协商一致原则,只要有一个成员不同意,事情就无法通过。但今后应逐步向少数服从多数这样的议事程序过渡。当然,有人认为少数服从多数也有问题,可能会在内部制造更多矛盾与分歧,但我想这可以通过一些手段来补足,比如前期可以逐步改为两种方式并行,重大问题必须协商一致,小问题则少数服从多数就可以。无论如何,首先要让上合组织实质运行起来。
First, the SCO's rules of procedure need to be changed. They now adopt the principle of consensus. As long as one member disagrees, things cannot be passed. But in the future, we should gradually transition to a deliberation procedure in which the minority obeys the majority. Of course, some people think that there are problems with the minority obeying the majority, and it may create more internal contradictions and disagreements, but I think this can be supplemented by some means. For example, in the early stage, it can be gradually changed to two methods in parallel. As for the problem, the minority can obey the majority. In any case, the first step is to make the SCO actually operational.

SCO hasn't really expanded much since India joined, only Iran and Belarus joined after. India wouldn't veto those two countries since one is Russia's major ally and the other is a neighbour India is trying to get on good terms with. India would definitely veto China's major ally joining SCO though, e.g., Cambodia.
 
That doesn't match any info of what we have seen though?

When has India successfully vetoed something? Because there has been continued expansion and military exchanges even despite severe Indian complaints, so did India just not use veto for whatever reason?
Consensus by definition means every member has a veto. It is stated in the SCO charter itself that motions require full consensus amongst all members to pass.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Great analysis on SCO by Pan Guang (director of SCO studies center). Some interesting points below.

1. SCO has veto mechanism i.e. with consensus, one unwilling member can always cause a motion to fail. This is why you always get awkward declarations with many items missing a certain member. He advocates changing SCO to a majority vote.

2. India has been playing key spoiler in SCO, Russia has too.

3. China will focus more on C5+1 and interact with the central 5 countries instead of SCO due to its lack of effectiveness.

4. SCO countries need private companies to provide security for infrastructure (i.e., pipelines, BRI projects)
It has been well known from before that Russia has played a spoiler on enchancing SCO. In fact I would argue that in comparison to Russia, India's actions have been quite mild

Initially, Russia disagreed with many initiatives or projects, such as the SCO Bank and the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan Railway, which were delayed or "killed". Regarding the SCO Bank, Russia once thought that it had already taken the lead in establishing the Eurasian Bank, so there was no need to build a similar financial institution, and the SCO could put its business in the Eurasian Bank; as for the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan Railway, on the one hand, it involved Russia's traditional "sphere of influence", and on the other hand, it might cause some competition in logistics and transportation, so Russia was reluctant to give in.

India may have vetoed some new members from joining, but in practical down-on-the-ground issues, Russia has been a far bigger spoiler. It has started to change recently, and that's only because of the Ukraine War. If not for that, Russia would have still kept on blocking important projects clinging on its imperialistic hold on Central Asian countries as being it's vassals/sphere-of-influence
 

coolgod

Major
Registered Member
It has been well known from before that Russia has played a spoiler on enchancing SCO. In fact I would argue that in comparison to Russia, India's actions have been quite mild



India may have vetoed some new members from joining, but in practical down-on-the-ground issues, Russia has been a far bigger spoiler. It has started to change recently, and that's only because of the Ukraine War. If not for that, Russia would have still kept on blocking important projects
Debatable since India actively sponsors terrorism in the region. Pan Guang alluded to it when he mentioned the bombings on China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and the need for private security companies. But ultimately Russia is to blame since they dragged India into SCO.
 

Minm

Junior Member
Registered Member
The SCO is an organisation without many institutions. It doesn't do much, it mostly provides a forum for members to talk and grow closer to each other. Regular human contact is surprisingly important for national leaders to remain friendly.

Projects like an international railway can't be spoiled by other members, they can be done under the BRI label if the partner countries wish. If Russia uses its influence in Kyrgyzstan to stop a railway, that's not an SCO problem, it's a Russia problem

It would be great if the SCO adds some EU like institutions, but what exactly should those do? The BRICS and BRI are already used for economic engagement
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
SCO was originally designed as a defensive anti terrorist organization.
They should continue promoting policies which guarantee self-defense, security, and so on.
For example they could promote the passing of laws against foreign agents, border control, and the like.
It was not meant as a de facto defensive alliance, although I think it is possible one might emerge from among its members in the future.
 

Index

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'm sure he is much authoritative on SCO matters than all of us.




SCO hasn't really expanded much since India joined, only Iran and Belarus joined after. India wouldn't veto those two countries since one is Russia's major ally and the other is a neighbour India is trying to get on good terms with. India would definitely veto China's major ally joining SCO though, e.g., Cambodia.
Why wouldn't India, which is actively opposing Russia internationally, not veto Belarus from joining? Also maybe they want better relations with Iran, but Iran is nearly fully propped up by China and carries out China's wetwork in the middle east in the campaign to drive out US.

If India doesn't spoil the Russia/Iran stuff, then what even IS India spoiling?? There's nothing else of importance going on in SCO.
Consensus by definition means every member has a veto. It is stated in the SCO charter itself that motions require full consensus amongst all members to pass.
It can also mean that a member has freedom to abstain from being affected by the motion. Which fits a lot more with what we've seen the SCO do.
 
Top