International Relations
in THE AGE OF EMPIRE
Shanghaied -
Shanghai Cooperation
Organization & the US
Suzanne Nossel in
the New Republic
[Suzanne Nossel writes for the blog
http://democracyarsenal.org/
]
30 April 2007
 "...the
Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) - has emerged as a potential rival to Western groups.
Formed in June 2001 as a regional coalition between Russia, China,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, the group endeavors to
become "a mature and confident regional force" focused on counter-terrorism,
trade, and other economic policies. Its influence may ultimately extend far
beyond its current member states... While the United States has chosen to
stand aloof from bodies like the ICC and HRC, at the SCO the tables are
turned: In 2006 the SCO denied America's request for observer status,
though India, Pakistan, Mongolia, and Iran all got the nod the previous
year. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal have lined up to participate next.
Such alliances are telling..By fostering collaboration on the exploitation
of the region's rich energy resources, the SCO could be in a position to
ensure China's privileged access to oil and gas. Cambridge academic David
Wall judged that its members' control over oil and gas reserves could make
the SCO into an "OPEC with bombs.""
Comment by tamilnation.org
"Look back over the past, with its
changing empires that rose and fell, and you can foresee the
future, too." -
Marcus Aurelius,
1800 years ago - [see also
1.
The unipolar moment of US
supremacy has passed - Timothy Garton Ash, 24 January 2007 and
2.
Vladimir Putin, President of Russian Federation
on the Unipolar World, 10 February 2007]
A mong the lessons emerging from the Iraq war is a
growing consensus among American policy thinkers that Washington
needs to reinvigorate multilateral organizations, treaties, and
relationships. Recent studies by the Princeton Project on National
Security and others have concluded that the United States should
work with other groups to reform the United Nations, give NATO new
purpose, update the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, build new
regional coalitions in the Middle East and Asia, and forge a new
alliance of the world's democracies.
But restoring America's place atop the international order may not
be so simple. While American analysts are spelling these plans out
on paper, the international system has been evolving in ways that
could complicate America's ability to reengage multilaterally.
Not only has the go-it-alone ethos of the Bush years strained
relations with our allies, but rival nations have begun to wield
increased influence over organizations like the World Bank. Now,
too, a different breed of multilateral partnership - the
Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO) - has emerged as a potential
rival to Western groups. Formed in June 2001 as a regional
coalition between Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, the group endeavors to become "a
mature and confident regional force" focused on
counter-terrorism, trade, and other economic policies. Its
influence may ultimately extend far beyond its current member
states.
It's natural for Americans to envisage themselves at the helm of
a spiffed-up set of international institutions. After all,
Washington designed the United Nations and the financial
institutions conceived at Bretton Woods after World War II. Despite
all its grousing, the United States remains the U.N.'s largest donor
and loudest voice.
But multilateral organizations have not stood still since Bush
took office in 2001. For all the criticism of the U.N. from
conservatives, the body has won new credibility in the eyes of the
rest of the world for taking a stand against its most powerful
patron by refusing to authorize the Iraq war. The
International Criminal
Court (ICC) and the U.N.'s newly constituted
Human Rights
Council (HRC) have also moved ahead, led by other countries and
without U.S. participation.
While the United States has chosen to stand
aloof from bodies like the ICC and HRC, at the SCO the tables
are turned: In 2006 the SCO denied America's request for
observer status, though India, Pakistan, Mongolia, and Iran all
got the nod the previous year. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal
have lined up to participate next.
Such alliances are telling. Chinese President Hu Jintao declared
that the SCO is focused on "separatism, extremism and terrorism,"
problems that are of concern everywhere from Africa to Europe to
Washington, and it has brought together military leaders to plan
counter-terrorism exercises.
But, in practice, the organization has behaved as a front for
authoritarian regimes. Uzbekistan violently suppressed a political
demonstration in May 2005, massacring hundreds of unarmed
protesters. But, although the SCO's charter commits members to
"promote human rights and fundamental freedoms," the SCO's secretary
general rejected calls from human rights advocates to condemn the
bloodshed, declaring that the organization does not involve itself
in the internal affairs of its member states.
Thereafter, as tensions rose with Washington over the issue, the
SCO called (albeit indirectly) for the withdrawal of U.S. forces
stationed in Uzbekistan. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has
also used SCO gatherings as a rallying point for anti-American
sentiment, urging that the organization's members and observers draw
closer to one another and ward off foreign influences.
The SCO is likely to make its presence felt in other arenas as well.
By fostering collaboration on the exploitation of the region's rich
energy resources, the SCO could be in a position to ensure China's
privileged access to oil and gas. Cambridge academic David Wall
judged that its members' control over oil and gas reserves could
make the SCO into an "OPEC with bombs."
While the alarmism seems premature, it is clear that the SCO is
expanding its reach. It has also convened a conference of top judges
from member countries to discuss cross-border legal cooperation and
has even held a meeting with the European Union to talk about
partnership opportunities.
As it evolves, the composition of the SCO has the potential to
complicate U.S. efforts at alliance building. Among American
proponents of an alliance of democracies, for example, India is
viewed as a critical player whose support could help build
legitimacy for such a body outside the West. But Russia has been
courting Delhi heavily through a series of trilateral meetings
including Beijing in an effort to shape a more multipolar world less
dominated by Washington. If Delhi were to become a full member of
the SCO, that might signal its intent to align more closely with its
neighbors rather than casting its diplomatic lot with other
democracies.
If enough countries join the SCO, China and Russia will enjoy
increased political leverage. Some of the U.N.'s critics in the
United States have argued that beefing up and creating alternative
forums will provide an outlet by which the United States can
sidestep politically motivated vetoes in the U.N. Security Council
and nevertheless obtain international approval for, for example,
humanitarian interventions in places like Kosovo or Darfur. But as
the SCO grows, the United States will not be the only world power
that can play at this game. Beijing or Moscow could turn to their
organization to skirt a U.S. veto and secure at least the semblance
of an international imprimatur to, for example, crack down on
separatist groups.
For the last 60 years, the world's prominent multilateral
institutions have, at least on paper, reflected norms such as
transparency, respect for human rights, and democratic
participation. With China, Russia, Iran and other non-Western
countries stepping up to create and shape such institutions,
however, different sets of norms may prevail.
None of this suggests that Washington should back away from a push
to reinvigorate multilateral institutions or reassert its place
within them. But it does mean that doing so will require careful
attention to how dynamics have shifted while the Bush administration
looked the other way.
|
