When considering the pace of creating a more just world
order after the SCO summit, remember that a peaceful path cannot be fast, but
it avoids immense human casualties and suffering.
This week, the center of global politics shifted to China.
The series of events and working meetings there vividly illustrates how the
West's ability to control the world around it has diminished.
Whether you like it or not, as long as the United States
remains the planet’s most important power, countries will continue to measure
the scale of global changes in relation to it. This will continue for some
time, but not forever. Whatever we, as Americans do, it will still lead to a
reduction in our influence on international affairs. The government in
Washington is now faced with a choice between bad and worse options.
Even if the U.S. were to cater to India's every whim, New
Delhi would still not abandon its rapprochement with Russia and China. The same
applies to those two great powers. Moscow and Beijing objectively assess the
situation and see that cooperation beyond the West's reach already offers them
more than any form of privileged relationship with the U.S. or Europe. This is
because the West's resources, which it could once share in exchange for
recognition of its dominance, have sharply dwindled.
Although the 26 heads of state and government gathered for
the end of World War II commemorations in Asia are not all of one mind, they
are united by a fundamental desire for the future of global politics: to make
their own decisions. Even if these decisions might displease the West, or even
Moscow or Beijing, whose cooperation has become the foundation of the new
international order.
Therefore, in the group photo of the political events'
participants, the heads of Russia and China are at the center, bringing other
participants together. But they do not lead them. The Western model of
international governance - through the leadership of one, the strongest and
most aggressive - is impossible anywhere outside the West.
The Practical and the Symbolic
Global politics, like all politics, has both practical and
symbolic dimensions. While the former is about pursuing specific national
interests, the latter is a way of pointing to the shared values that unite
countries, even with tactical differences.
In this sense, the events in China also hold both practical
and symbolic significance. The working meetings of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) preceded the celebrations in Beijing, the purpose of which
was to highlight the attendees' shared view of a turning point in the history
of international relations. It is no coincidence that the U.S. and almost all
European countries, not to mention Japan, ignored the ceremonies, as their
vision of the most important events of the last century is sharply different
from ours.
When we talk about the SCO, BRICS, or other non-Western
blocs, we must understand that they emerged in a world where no alternatives to
the U.S. were expected. They were not expected in global politics, since the
West controls everything there, from the UN Secretariat to financial
organizations. They were not expected in the global economy, where the dollar
still dominates and the vast majority of transactions occur through U.S. and
EU-controlled mechanisms.
Such dominance could be quickly dismantled, but there is
only one way to do it: world war. Attempts to topple the most powerful from
their pedestal have been made throughout history. Sometimes by the forces of
progress, as with the USSR, which single-handedly stood against the West. And
sometimes by the forces of atavistic nationalism, whose final defeat is being
celebrated these days in Beijing.
But the result has always been the bloodiest armed conflicts
and world wars. We are now witnessing history's first attempt to change the
international order peacefully. This is the key point to grasp when discussing
the scale of what is happening and the pace of creating a more just world
order: a peaceful path cannot be fast. But it avoids colossal human casualties
and suffering, especially since, with nuclear weapons, the traditional military
way of reshaping the world order would inevitably lead to the death of all
humanity.
The declaration adopted by the SCO summit is not a
document outlining a clear plan to overthrow the West's global dominance or one
that obliges signatories to rigidly adhere to their commitments. That would be
a plan for a military alliance led by an undisputed leader.
Instead, the heads of state of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization agreed on a very broad list of measures, some of which resemble
mere platitudes. Some, like the initiatives on combating terrorism, have very
practical significance. They are equally important for all member countries,
especially considering the West's habit of using religious radicals to achieve
its foreign policy goals and destabilize regimes in "unfriendly" or
"borderline" countries. The countries of Central Asia - the
"core of the SCO" - could soon face this type of threat, as Western
intelligence services may move various extremists toward their borders.
Other measures, for example in the field of finance and
payment systems, can be implemented depending on circumstances. No SCO country
will harm its own economy for the sake of political slogans. This is what
differentiates the organization from NATO, where political subordination to the
U.S. forces Europe to literally destroy its own industry. For Germany, for
instance, the conflict with Russia means huge losses. But it is not a sovereign
country. There are no countries in the SCO that have surrendered their
sovereignty to other states.
I cannot imagine a situation where Russia or India, or even
smaller countries, would act to their own detriment to make it easier for China
to confront the U.S. The respect for sovereignty, which these days is
completely absent in the West, is enshrined in the SCO's foundational
documents. This means that everyone recognizes the central place of individual
government responsibility for the security and prosperity of their citizens.
At the same time, we should not overlook that the
declaration's "platitudes" directly contradict the West's fundamental
views on the world order. Now, the global community has alternative solutions
to those offered by the U.S. and its European satellites. I'll emphasize this
again: the main significance of the goals outlined by the SCO is not only the
novelty of the tasks but the existence of a non-Western view of the world,
agreed upon by a significant group of major countries.
Another dimension of the summit, already noted by observers,
is its function as a platform for bilateral meetings among an ever-expanding
circle of participants. This includes both SCO countries and states close to
them. Within the framework of past organizations, such opportunities simply did
not exist without the risk of being overheard by American intelligence
agencies. The point here is not that all bilateral problems are solved at the
SCO summit - no one is chasing a Nobel Peace Prize here - but that such
meetings are possible outside the view of the all-seeing eye of the U.S.
To summarize, the events in China this week, both ceremonial
and working, will not change the world of international politics overnight. But
they don't have to; by their scale and the ability of the participants to work
together, they are a result of the massive changes already underway. We may not
see their full effects immediately, but we will constantly feel their consequences.