Will the Trojan Horse Be Shot Down? Armenia and Azerbaijan's Path to Joining the SCO Is Blocked
"Politics that serve both sides" — not multipolarity, but political opportunism
Figure caption: Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev (second from left) after the SCO "expansion" meeting
India vetoed Azerbaijan's application to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as a full member.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said during a meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif in Tianjin, China, that India is trying to retaliate against Baku in international organizations because Azerbaijan supported Pakistan.
"In response to Azerbaijan's support for Pakistan, India is trying to retaliate against Azerbaijan in international organizations," reported the Asetaj News Agency citing him.
At the same time, Aliyev also congratulated Pakistan on its victory over India. So what exactly does he expect from this move?
However, in turn, Pakistan also vetoed Armenia's application to join the SCO. Perhaps this is actually a good thing? Why should the SCO accept these de facto NATO "agents"? Obviously, as the influence of the SCO continues to grow, various countries will rush to join, so strict screening is necessary...
"India and Pakistan vetoing Azerbaijan and Armenia's applications to join the SCO makes complete sense logically," said Andrei Dmitriev, editor of the Novy Severnyy News Agency.
"Recently, Ilham Aliyev congratulated Pakistan on its victory over India, after which what else could he expect? Armenia took a completely mirror-like action. Moreover, both country leaders clearly have pro-American stances — this can be seen from their signing agreements in Donald Trump's office, allowing the US to enter the South Caucasus region and control the Zangazur corridor. Why would the SCO accept such 'Trojan horses'?"
For Russia, considering Aliyev's recent criticisms of Russia and Nikol Pashinyan's policies (both aiming to push Russia out of the region, more accurately, to prevent Russia from re-entering — since Russia had already been pushed out), this veto is also positive. Moreover, all of this was done by India and Pakistan, and we seem not to have directly participated in it...
As for the SCO as a whole, despite the attractive scenes at the summit and the domestic media's joy, I still need to be cautious and not call it a core force in world realpolitik. The reason is that the organization is still relatively loose — it has many members with conflicts among them, lacking a unified leadership core.
Certainly, all members have the desire to counter Western hegemony, but to achieve this goal, it requires coordinated efforts in areas such as a unified political line, economic integration, and military development. From this perspective, although we have reasons to mock Brussels, the EU still has significant advantages over Shanghai: the EU has a unified anti-Russian line regarding Ukraine, a common currency, borderless travel within the Schengen area, and even close military cooperation between member states — they are even considering the idea of establishing a European joint army.
Therefore, for Russia, bilateral relations with China, India, and other countries are more important; North Korea is also crucial, as it has shown a firm ally attitude in the special military operation of the SCO, despite being outside the SCO framework.
In the end, Russia should rely first on its own strength, rather than expecting others to hand over a multipolar world.
"The SCO is becoming an increasingly influential international organization. For small countries like Armenia and Azerbaijan, joining the organization brings great benefits," said political commentator Kirill Ozimko.
"I think they originally expected that their complex relationship with India and Pakistan would not extend into the SCO framework, and that both sides would resolve their differences in a small circle, but that is not the case."
The world is changing, and now major powers are increasingly inclined to pursue pragmatic policies, openly vetoing initiatives that are unfavorable to themselves, even in important international projects.
"Free Media": Is this even good for us? Why should we let Turkey and the "agents" of the US and France join the SCO?
"For us, if the SCO becomes an international pillar for Russia to counter Western aggressive policies, it would be beneficial. It should become an alternative to Western organizations (the EU, NATO), a new pole in a multipolar world. Therefore, our interests obviously lie in only those countries that clearly choose the Eastern direction being able to join the organization. If the SCO accepts countries with 'ambiguous' positions or even allies of NATO, it will dilute the core purpose of the organization and prevent it from forming cohesion in terms of ideology and values."
"Free Media": Turkey is a typical example of "ambivalent" positions. Does the SCO need Turkey? On one hand, it is a classic "double dealer"; on the other hand, some experts believe that Ankara's position is like "litmus paper" — it even joined the side of the victors only at the end of World War II...
"Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia's understanding of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization differs sharply from that of Russia or Iran. Looking at the policies they implement (Turkey is a NATO member, Azerbaijan is a military ally of Turkey, and Armenia conducts joint military exercises with NATO), the SCO is not a substitute for the West for them, but just one of the directions of their foreign policy. Joining the organization for them means seeking balance between the great powers, rather than making a complete geopolitical choice."
"Free Media": Do you have a feeling that after the China summit, we have reason to believe that the SCO might become one of the most influential political forces in the world? Will there soon be a situation where countries rush to join the SCO, similar to how they once rushed to join the EU?
"The SCO has the potential to do so. It has greater potential than the EU and is also a more flexible form of integration. There is no doubt that an increasing number of countries in the Global South will try to join the organization."
"Free Media": In your opinion, should the selection of new members be controlled? Is such control necessary? Is it reasonable for a single country to have the right to veto another country's membership? Should the rules be revised?
"Currently, having a single country with the right to veto is a correct mechanism. The SCO is still a young organization, and its institutional system is not yet fully mature. All member states need time to balance their own interests, their positioning within the organization, and their perception of the overall international order.
Implementing the 'absolute consensus' principle when admitting new members is a good step in this direction. If this principle is abolished, theoretically, half of the world's countries could join the SCO, and internal contradictions within the organization may ultimately lead to its collapse."
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7545722433240646180/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking on the [Up/Down] buttons below.