en
en

Media Narratives and Their Limits:the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

This article critically examines prevailing media narratives surrounding the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). While mainstream coverage often portrays the SCO as a China-led bloc, a counterweight to NATO, or a club of authoritarian states, these framings oversimplify a more nuanced reality. Drawing on media reports, policy analyses, and international relations theory, this brief argues that the SCO functions as an inclusive, non-binding, and flexible platform for pragmatic cooperation among Eurasian states, reflecting multipolarity, institutionalism, and sovereignty-based governance.

ANALYTICAL ARTICLE

stephanie Mwangaza Kasereka

9/5/20254 min read

 A. Introduction

From August 31 to September 1, 2025, Tianjin hosted the SCO summit, attended by ten member states, four observers, and six dialogue partners. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization plays a growing role in Eurasian politics, serving as a platform for regional security coordination, economic collaboration, and diplomatic engagement across Central and South Asia.

Media reporting emphasized three dominant narratives: (1) the SCO as a China-led bloc, (2) the SCO as a strategic counterweight to NATO, and (3) the SCO as an authoritarian club. While these narratives are pervasive, they obscure the organization’s core functions and flexibility, raising questions about how the SCO shapes regional security and economic collaboration.

B. Historical Background

The SCO grew out of the Shanghai Five, China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan formed it in the 1990s. The goals were to resolve border disputes and enhance regional security. In 2001, the group evolved into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, expanding its agenda to counterterrorism, economic cooperation, and cultural exchange. Uzbekistan joined in 2001, India and Pakistan in 2017, Iran in 2023, and Belarus in 2024, diversifying the organization’s membership and priorities.

C. Media Narratives
1. SCO as a China-Led Bloc

Media narratives often emphasize China’s dominant economic and diplomatic role, framing it as the organization’s de facto leader (Reuters, 2025; E-International Relations, 2013). Xi Jinping’s high-profile participation and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) investments across Central Asia reinforce this perception. At the 2025 Tianjin summit, China announced a $10 billion cross-border infrastructure fund and a regional trade facilitation plan, highlighting its influence on the SCO’s economic agenda (The Times of Central Asia, 2025).

However, the SCO operates on a consensus model, requiring agreement from all members for decisions to be adopted. This gives smaller states agency in shaping outcomes. Scholars argue that the SCO is a platform where multiple powers negotiate influence, balancing sovereignty against China’s authority (Springer, 2025a; Springer, 2024). For instance, India delayed endorsement of several trade proposals in Tianjin, underscoring the limits of China’s unilateral influence. While China’s leadership is significant, the SCO’s consensus-based structure prevents it from functioning as a purely China-led bloc.

2. SCO as a Counterweight to NATO
Some media portray the SCO as a Eurasian counterpart to NATO (AP News, 2025). Such comparisons are misleading. Unlike NATO, the SCO has no collective defense clause or binding military commitments. Its security agenda focuses on terrorism, extremism, and drug trafficking.

The organization’s internal diversity further undermines the notion of a unified bloc. India and Pakistan, or Russia and post-Soviet states, continue to manage bilateral tensions independently. Scholars describe the SCO as a functionalist institution, enabling cooperation on practical issues without requiring ideological alignment (IJORS, 2015). At the 2025 summit, India and Pakistan engaged in anti-terrorism dialogues while maintaining separate security postures, illustrating that the SCO is a coordination platform rather than a military alliance.

3. SCO as an Authoritarian Club

A third common framing casts the SCO as an “authoritarian bloc.” While many members are non-democratic, this characterization ignores India’s participation and the SCO’s pragmatic orientation (AP News, 2025). Other multilateral organizations, including the UN and the African Union, also encompass states with diverse political systems, demonstrating that regime heterogeneity is not unique to the SCO.

Some scholars argue that the SCO can facilitate authoritarian norm diffusion in areas such as internet governance and regulatory coordination (ResearchGate, 2024). Yet this does not constitute a unified authoritarian identity. Western-led institutions also cooperate with non-democracies when strategic interests align. The 2025 summit illustrated this pragmatism: Iran and Belarus pursued joint economic dialogues without altering domestic governance, which highlighted the SCO’s non-ideological flexibility.

 D. Theoretical Insights

The SCO’s structure and media portrayals can be better understood through International Relations theory. We will dive into four of them:

  1. Institutionalism 

    Consensus-based decision-making exemplifies institutionalist principles, enabling cooperation without compromising sovereignty. Smaller members and democracies, such as India, can shape outcomes, preventing domination by China or Russia. This explains why the SCO is a coordination forum rather than a hierarchical alliance.

  2. Multipolarity and Hedging 

    Regional states use the SCO to balance China and Russia while maintaining independent foreign policy options (Springer, 2025a). For example, India leveraged the 2025 summit to deepen ties with Eurasian states while preserving global partnerships. The SCO embodies multipolarity and hedging, clarifying why rival states choose to participate in it.

  3. Authoritarian Regionalism 

    Some members coordinate governance norms, cybersecurity policies, and regulatory frameworks without imposing ideological conformity. This reflects pragmatic cooperation rather than the creation of a unified authoritarian bloc.

  4. Ontological Security

    China’s early leadership helped stabilize post-Soviet Eurasia by embedding routines and practices. Annual summits, joint statements, and institutionalized processes reinforce predictability and trust among members. This reduces uncertainty and undercuts portrayals of the SCO as a rigidly anti-Western bloc.

 E. Conclusion

Global media portrayals of the SCO as a China-led bloc, a NATO counterweight, or an authoritarian club oversimplify its complexity. In practice, the SCO functions as an inclusive, flexible, and non-binding forum that enables pragmatic cooperation among diverse Eurasian states. For policymakers and scholars, the SCO illustrates how multipolar institutional frameworks can address regional challenges while preserving sovereignty.

This analysis underscores the need for media coverage to move beyond simplistic portrayals, recognizing the SCO’s role as a platform for negotiation, coordination, and mutually beneficial outcomes. Ultimately, the SCO demonstrates the utility of process-oriented multilateralism in a multipolar world, where states must pursue shared gains while navigating unavoidable trade-offs.

References

My post content

Insights

Explore diverse perspectives on global issues today.

3rdworldviewandyou@gmail.com

© 2025. All rights reserved.