Russian–Chinese Relations

through the Lens of the SCO

Stephen Aris

September 2008

Russia/NIS Center
 Ifri is a research center and a forum for debate on major international
political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its
founding in 1979, Ifri is a non-governmental and a non-profit organization.

As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing
its findings regularly for a global audience.

With offices in Paris and Brussels, Ifri stands out as one of the rare French
think tanks to have positioned itself at the very heart of European debate.

Using an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and

economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned
experts to animate its debates and research activities.

The opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ alone and do
not reflect the official views of their institutions.

Russia/NIS Center
© All rights reserved – Ifri – Paris, 2008
ISBN

IFRI IFRI-Bruxelles
27 RUE DE LA PROCESSION RUE MARIE-THERESE, 21
75740 PARIS CEDEX 15 – FRANCE 1000 BRUXELLES
TEL. : 33 (0)1 40 61 60 00 TEL. : 32(2) 238 51 10
FAX : 33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 FAX : 32 (2) 238 51 15
E-MAIL : ifri@[Link] E-MAIL : [Link]@[Link]

WEBSITE : [Link]
 [Link]

[Link] is an electronic collection dedicated to Russia and the

other new independent states (Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia,
Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan
and Kyrgyzstan). Written by leading experts, these policy-oriented papers
deal with strategic, political, and economic issues.
This collection guarantees Ifri’s quality standards (editing and
anonymous peer-review).
If you wish to be notified of upcoming publications, please send an
e-mail to: [Link]@[Link]

Previous issues

– Andrei Kortunov, “Academic Cooperation Between Russia and the US.

Moving Beyond Technical Aid?” [Link], No. 33, August 2008;
– Kerry Longhurst, “Injecting More Differentiation in European
Neighbourhood Policy: What Consequences for Ukraine?”
[Link], No. 32, July 2008;
– Adrian Dellecker, “Caspian Pipeline Consortium, Bellwether of Russia’s
Investment Climate?” [Link], No. 31, June 2008.

1
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

Author

Stephen Aris is a PhD candidate in the European Research Institute at the

University of Birmingham, UK. He is preparing a thesis entitled “Regional
Cooperation in Central Asia Shanghai Cooperation Organization.” He
conducted extensive fieldwork interviews with officials, policymakers and
analysts in Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and China between April and
September 2007.

2
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

Contents

SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 4

THE SCO: BAROMETER OF RUSSIAN-CHINESE RELATIONS ............................ 5

ANDIJAN: A TURNING POINT .....................................................................................6
THE SCO: A RUSSIAN-CHINESE ANTI-WESTERN VEHICLE?.......................................7

THE PLACE OF THE SCO IN RUSSIA-CHINA RELATIONS................................... 8

BILATERAL COOPERATION IN MULTILATERAL FORMAT ................................................8
THE NORMATIVE AND DIPLOMATIC ROLE OF THE SCO ...........................................10

TENSIONS IN RUSSIA-CHINESE RELATIONS ................................................... 12

DIFFERENT VIEWS FOR THE FUTURE ......................................................................12
RUSSIAN FEARS OF PROGRESSION MARGINALIZATION .............................................14
THE SCO AS A MECHANISM FOR COOPERATION ....................................................15

CONCLUSION............................................................................................... 17
NEW OBSERVERS? ...............................................................................................18

3
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

Summary

Since 2001, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has played an

important role in the improvement of Russian-Chinese relations. It has
proven valuable for the expression of Moscow and Beijing’s common
interests at a regional level. However, the SCO is not insulated from
potential difficulties in the Russian-Chinese relationship. Therefore, both
countries hope that the organization can become a mechanism to manage
tensions stemming from their sometimes divergent interests in Central
Asia. However, to develop fully as an organization it must remain relevant
to all its members, not just Russia and China.

4
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

The SCO: Barometer of Russian-

Chinese Relations

At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow’s relationship with
China was at an impasse.1 However, over the intervening years, the two
states have gradually improved their relations and now refer to them as a
“strategic partnership.”2 Nevertheless, many analysts remain skeptical
about the viability of a Russian-Chinese partnership, arguing that their
interests will collide in the medium to long term.3 It has been highlighted
that competition between the two countries is inevitable: Russia attempting
to maintain its influence and China looking to expand its leverage in its
rapid development to superpower status. Moscow, in particular, fears that
the growing economic disparity between China and Russia will force
Russia to play a subordinate role to China.4
At present, however, Russia and China share a number of common
interests, not least in post-Soviet Central Asia. Beijing and Moscow are
seeking to increase stability in the region and reduce the threat of
separatism, notably in Xinjiang Province and the North Caucasus.
Additionally, they both want to limit the growing US presence in the region.5
In the economic sphere, both China and Russia want to increase ties in the
region and ensure markets for their exports in the Central Asian
economies. However, there are also sources of contention. Beijing is very
interested in gaining direct access to Central Asian energy resources, while
Moscow wants to maintain its dominant influence over the routes of energy
supplies in the region. Although rival economic interests are a potential

1
J. L. Wilson, Strategic Partners: Russian-Chinese Relations in the Post-Soviet Era,
Armonk, New York, M. E. Sharpe, 2004, p. 3; B. Lo, “A Fine Balance–The Strange Case of
Sino-Russian Relations”, [Link], No. 1, April 2005, p. 3,
<[Link]/files/Russie/bobolo_anglais.pdf>.
2
The Russian-Chinese Treaty on Good Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation,
Moscow, 2001.
3
N. Norling, “Russia and China: Partners with Tension”, Policy Perspectives, No.4, 2007,
pp. 33-48,
<[Link]/new/docs/publications/2007/Norling_China_and_Russia.pdf>.
S. Garnett, “Challenges of the Sino-Russian Strategic Partnership”, Washington Quarterly,
Vol. 24, No. 4, Autumn 2001, pp. 41-54; B. Lo, “The long Sunset of Strategic Partnership:
Russia's Evolving China Policy”, International Affairs , Vol. 80, No. 2, 2004, pp. 295-309.
4
B. Lo and A. Rothman, “China and Russia: Common Interests, Contrasting Perceptions”,
Asian Geopolitics, Working Paper of Royal Institute for International Affairs,
May 2006,<[Link]/files/6619_russiachinamay06.pdf>.
5
Ibid., p. 20.

5
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

source of conflict in the future, for now there is broad agreement on the
need to collaborate on enhancing political and economic stability in the
region.
A regional organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO) offers a privileged vantage point from which to examine the complex
relations between Russia and China.6 The August 2008 SCO summit in
Dushanbe was demonstrative of this point: member states expressed only
muted support for the Kremlin after the Russian military intervention in
Georgia. The day after Russia recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia,
China declared itself “concerned” by the situation in the breakaway
territories. Moscow and Beijing share similar visions of international
relations, as well as opinions on certain specific subjects, the Georgian
crisis will put the SCO to the test. This article investigates to what extent
the organization might frame the Sino-Russian relationship in the years to
come.

Andijan: a turning point

Initially the focus of the organization was limited to security issues, now it
also covers economic, cultural and humanitarian collaboration. Yet, in the
eyes of the member states’ leaders, terrorism, extremism and separatism—
the so-called “three evils”—remain the main regional threats. These
challenges are defined very loosely, encompassing the activities of a wide
range of groups considered a threat to their regimes.7 Consequently, the
pivotal security event for the organization in the last five years was the
Uzbek authorities’ suppression of an uprising in Andijan in May 2005,
following the so-called “tulip revolution” in Kyrgyzstan earlier that year. The
combination of these two events caused major disruption, and prompted a
strengthening of the regional leaderships’ security policies. Following a
month of intense criticism from the West over Andijan, the SCO’s Astana
Summit declaration emphasized support for a government’s sovereign right
to defend public order by whatever means deemed appropriate. In addition,
it called for a timetable for the withdrawal of NATO forces and bases from
the region.8 For the West, the statement illustrated the growing importance

6
The SCO grew out of the Shanghai Five mechanism (1996-2000), under which the heads
of state of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan met to discuss confidence
building, border delimitation and disarmament in border regions. The Uzbek president, Islam
Karimov, attended the 2000 meeting as a guest. At the 2001 meeting, Uzbekistan was
officially admitted to the mechanism and a joint declaration on the creation of the SCO was
signed. The organization also involves Mongolia, Pakistan, India and Iran as observer
states.
7
B. Goldsmith, “Here There Be Dragons: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization”, Center
for Defense Information, 26 September 2005,
<[Link]/program/[Link]?DocumentID=3153&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appe
ndURL>.
8
“Declaration of Heads of Member States of SCO”, Astana, 5 July 2005,
<[Link]/html/[Link]>.

6
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

of the SCO. It also underlined the rejection of Western models of

governance on the part of the summit’s participants. In the eyes of certain
Central Asian officials, this confirmed that SCO members—especially
Russia and China—were more reliable security collaborators than Western
states.9

The SCO: a Russian-Chinese anti-Western vehicle?

In the context of the Astana statement, certain Western critics furthered the
claim that the SCO was little more than an anti-Western mechanism, driven
by Russia and China to counteract America’s international interests.10
However, this is an exaggerated impression. It is true that the development
of the SCO and the improvement of the Russian-Chinese relationship are
linked. Yet, it is not true to say that the SCO is the foundation of a future
Russian-Chinese alliance. There are four other members of the
organization, and four official observer states.11 The framework of the SCO
enshrines informal, consensus-based decision-making, so the leaderships
of the Central Asian Republics are able to veto or opt out of any decision
which they consider against their interests. In principle, therefore, they are
not hostage to the decisions of their two much more powerful neighbors.
The SCO has worked hard to establish its own agenda, focussed on
addressing common security challenges and developing areas of common
interest between its members. Thus, its identity goes beyond simple
resistance to US attempts to gain a foothold in the region.
Moscow and Beijing’s decision to create a regional organization
stemming from their improved bilateral relationship is a good indication of
how far their relations have come since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Indeed, it is possible to interpret the SCO as a barometer of the Russian-
Chinese rapprochement, as up to the present the SCO’s development has
mirrored the evolution of their bilateral relationship. In the mid-1990s border
demarcation dominated the agendas of both bilateral relations and the
Shanghai Five mechanism. In 2001 the full institutionalization of the SCO
and the signing of the main treaty of cooperation between Moscow and
Beijing coincided. Currently, both bilateral relations and the SCO have
entered periods of consolidation. If this synergy continues, the SCO will
really have contributed to the improvement of Sino-Russian relations.

9
C. P. Chung, “China and the Institutionalization of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization”, Problems of Post-Communism , Vol. 53, No. 5, September-October 2006,
pp. 3-14.
10
See A. Cohen, “The U.S. Challenge at the Shanghai Summit”, Heritage Foundation,
13 June 2006, <[Link]/Research/RussiaandEurasia/[Link]>.
11
See note 6.

7
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

The place of the SCO in Russia-China

relations

Russian-Chinese cooperation is undoubtedly the driving force behind the

SCO’s development.12 However, that does not prevent their interaction
within the SCO will having an impact on their bilateral relationship.

Bilateral cooperation in multilateral format

Moscow and Beijing have found the SCO a useful vehicle for their bilateral
relationship at a regional level, avoiding the need for ad hoc bilateral deals,
“which are difficult to balance politically.”13 A number of essentially bilateral
Russian-Chinese programs are now found under the umbrella of the SCO.
The proposed SCO Energy Club can be interpreted at least partially as a
key Russian-Chinese project to promote the smooth development of their
relationship as energy provider and consumer, respectively. Such a
development would also bind the energy policies of the Central Asian
Republics into the Russia-China orbit.14 Furthermore, “Russian-Chinese
security cooperation paradoxically manifests itself as bilateralism within
SCO multilateralism.”15 A prime example being the SCO “Peace Mission”
military exercises in 2005 and 2007, which most analysts interpreted as
Russian-Chinese exercises camouflaged as SCO collaboration.16
The main reason Russian-Chinese cooperative projects are often so
prominent in the SCO is that the organization has only meager financial

12
For conflicting views see: S. L. Yom, “Power Politics in Central Asia: The Future of the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization”, Harvard Asia Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2002; R. Allison,
"Regionalism, Regional Structures and Security Management in Central Asia”, International
Affairs, Vol. 80, No. 3, 2004, p. 480.
13
A. Bailes and P. Dunay, “The Shanghai Cooperation Organization as a Regional Security
Institution” in A. Bailes, P. Dunay, P. Guang and M. Troitskiy, The Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Policy Paper No. 17, 2007,
p. 16.
14
S. Luzianin, “Chinese ‘Roots’ and Russian ‘Branches’ in Central Asia (On the Correlation
of Chinese and Russian Policy in the Region)”, Central Asia and the Caucasus, No.3, 2007,
<[Link]/journal/2007-03-eng/[Link]>.
15
F. Tolipov, “Multilateralism, Bilateralism and Unilateralism in Fighting Terrorism in the
SCO Area”, China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 2, May 2006, pp. 153-169,
<[Link]/new/docs/CEF/Quarterly/May_2006/[Link]>.
16
R. McDermott, “Rising Dragon: SCO Peace Mission 2007”, Occasional Paper, Jamestown
Foundation, <[Link]/docs/[Link]>.

8
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

resources at its disposal. Its budget is relatively small for an international

organization, supporting only administrative functions.17 As a result, policies
are implemented through contributions from member states on a program-
by-program basis. Thus, while numerous bilateral, trilateral or multilateral
projects are listed within the jurisdiction of the SCO, the reality is that “none
of these projects is being implemented by the SCO proper; they […] would
be implemented even if the SCO did not exist at all.”18
Programs are often inspired by Russia, China or both as they are
the most capable of financing implementation. In addition, financial
contributions to the SCO budget are proportional to the strength of each
state’s economy. Thus Russia and China each contribute 24 percent of the
budget, followed by Kazakhstan (21 percent), Uzbekistan (15 percent),
Kyrgyzstan (10 percent), and Tajikistan (6 percent); posts at the SCO
Secretariat are apportioned on the same basis.19 Resultantly, Russia and
China’s greater contribution may afford them more influence within the
organization than the other member states. This organizational model
serves to provide fertile ground for Russia and China to realize common
projects and enhance their relationship beyond bilateral ties.
In the twentieth century, the Chinese government pursued a
relatively solitary foreign policy. However, it has begun to play a more
active role in its surrounding regions. Notably, President Hu Jintao officially
adopted the so-called ”good neighbor” policy, in 2003.20 As a result, China
has become increasingly active in regional cooperative mechanisms, for
example through joining the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Plus
Three (ASEAN Plus Three). However, the SCO represents China’s first
attempt at establishing a regional organization from its inception. For
China, the SCO is not just a tool for developing positive relations with the
states of Central Asia and Russia. It is also an experiment in a new
approach to conducting foreign policy.21 China “has an interest in showing
that it can build an international bloc independent of the West and
organized on non-Western principles.”22 Bearing this in mind, the Chinese
leadership has understood that it can only benefit from Russia’s experience
in multilateral diplomacy.23 To this extent, Russia is a valued partner
because it is an established regional actor. In addition, they share a broadly

17
A. Lukin gives a figure of 4 million US dollars. See A. Lukin, “The Shanghai Cooperation
Organization: What Next?”, Russia in Global Affairs, Vol. 2, July-September 2007,
<[Link]/numbers/20/[Link]>. Matthew Oresman states that in 2004 the
SCO budget was 3.5 million US dollars, 2.16 million US dollars for the Secretariat and the
rest for the SCO Regional Antiterrorism Structure. M. Oresman, “SCO Update: The Official
Launch of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization”, China and Eurasia Forum
Quarterly, January 2004, <[Link]/new/docs/CEF/CEF_January.pdf>.
18
A. Lukin, Ibid.
19
M. Oresman, op. cit. [17].
20
C. R. Hughes, “Nationalism and Multilateralism in Chinese Foreign Policy: Implications for
Southeast Asia”, Pacific Review , Vol. 18, No. 1, 2005, pp. 119-135.
21
P. Guang, “A Chinese Perspective on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization” in
A. Bailes, P. Dunay, P. Guang and M. Troitskiy, op. cit. [13], p. 45.
22
A. Bailes and P. Dunay, op. cit. [13], p. 13.
23
Interviews with analysts: Moscow (April 2007);, Almaty (May 2007); Tashkent (May 2007).

9
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

similar outlook on the international system, as opposed to a number of

leading Western states. Conversely, Russia gains from its position as
counselor within a structure which ensures its equal partnership with China,
at a time when their relative influences are changing.24

The Normative and Diplomatic Role of the SCO

Shared positions on a series of international events are an important factor

in the Russian-Chinese relationship—they demonstrate particular solidarity
over their respective problems with separatists regions, Chechnya in
Russia’s case and Taiwan and Tibet in China’s.25 Such declarations have
often been made in the context of Western criticism of their actions in
pursuit of stability in these regions, which in turn has reinforced their unity
on this issue. A complementary element is common advocacy of a multi-
polar international system, stressing the centrality of national sovereignty
and territorial integrity.
Russia and China’s shared priorities have by and large determined
the SCO agenda. Indeed, the SCO has been increasingly vocal advocating
the principle of noninterference in domestic affairs by the international
community. It expresses reservations about the West’s support for the duty
to intervene for humanitarian reasons. Much like Russian-Chinese
statements, on occasion, the SCO has criticized what it considers the
“double standards” of the West in this respect and denounced the “export”
of development models.26 The SCO has also been used to defend the
actions of its members in suppressing separatism. One such occasion was
the SCO statement in March 2008 supporting China’s suppression of
demonstrations by ethnic Tibetans in the Tibetan Autonomous Region of
China.27
On a diplomatic level, the SCO has another attraction: as a
multilateral organization, statements possess greater diplomatic weight,
and increase the credibility of a multipolar world. By extending the
statements to include four other states, Moscow and Beijing can claim with
greater legitimacy to speak for the entire Eurasian region. Furthermore, the
Russian-Chinese diplomatic agenda is also fairly coherent with the
interests of the Central Asian Republics’ governments. Indeed, they also

24
D. Trenin, “Russia and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization: A Difficult Match”, Journal
of the China-Eurasia Forum, October 2004, p. 26,
<[Link]/new/docs/CEF/CEF_Quarterly_July_2005.pdf>.
25
“Joint Declaration by the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China”, Beijing,
China, 2 December 2002,
<[Link]/[Link]/arh/9d22082391597d6443256c85005303e1?opendocument>.
26
“Declaration on Fifth Anniversary of Shanghai Cooperation Organization”, Shanghai 2006,
<[Link]/[Link]>.
27
Statement issued 21 March 2008. Found under SCO Secretariat list of main events for
2008, <[Link]/html/[Link]>.

10
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

face threats from separatist regions and have been reprehended by the
international community for their actions in addressing them.
However, Russian and Chinese control of the diplomatic agenda of
the SCO does not totally coincide with the views and interests of the
Central Asian Republics. For example, while Uzbekistan followed up the
Astana Summit declaration and asked the US to leave the Karshi-
Khanabad air base, Kyrgyzstan later distanced itself from this demand and
allowed the US base in Manas to remain. Concerns within the Kyrgyz
leadership that the expulsion of US forces may jeopardize other valuable
aspects of their relations with the US outweigh the desire to make a
common stand within the SCO.28
This diplomatic angle to the SCO represents an effort to establish
and further the Russian-Chinese normative view on international affairs,
and thus present an alternative to the current US dominated international
system. This normative dimension is aimed above all at the states of
Central Asia, which find in the SCO a set of rules for international behavior,
without being constrained by them.

28
G. Germanovich, “The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: A Threat to American
Interests in Central Asia?”, China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2008, p. 19-
38.

11
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

Tensions in Russia-Chinese relations

Although the SCO was born out of the improved relationship between
Russia and China, it is not immune from possible tensions and conflicts
between Moscow and Beijing. The way these differences are managed
may determine the long-term stability of the SCO. Some analysts argue
that the present positive dynamic is built upon unstable ground, which will
begin to crack when long-term contradictions in Russia and China’s
interests become apparent. The SCO could become an instrument in this
competition.29 Thus, “Moscow’s engagement in the SCO may be
determined by a wish to constrain the growth of China’s influence in Central
Asia as much as by a wish to develop a structure for regional balancing
against the United States.”30

Different views for the future

Initially, Russia and China were able to find common ground on their
essential security needs in the region, and considered that collaboration in
addressing these common issues was necessary in order to get the SCO
off the ground.31 Now this has been achieved, a wider and more
comprehensive agenda is necessary. This could prove a much tougher
task, because Russia and China differ over which direction the organization
should take. Russia prefers to maintain security cooperation as the
organization’s main focus and China wishes to prioritize economic
collaboration.32 While this is a broad generalization, it is fairly accurate
dependent upon the type of economic cooperation being referred to.
In the field of energy and development of infrastructure for transport
and communications, all member states are very cooperative.33 In fact,
Russia is considered to be the driver behind the creation of the SCO
Energy Club. For Russia it is useful as a means for cooperation in

29
N. Norling, op. cit. [3]; S. Garnett, “Challenges of the Sino-Russian Strategic Partnership”,
Washington Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4, Autumn 2001, pp. 41-54.
30
R. Allison, op. cit. [12], p. 480.
31
H. Zhao, “The Shanghai Cooperation Organization at 5: Achievements and Challenges
Ahead”, China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, Vol. 4, 2006, p. 105-123.
32
P. Guang, “Bishkek: SCO's Success in the Hinterland of Eurasia”, China and Eurasia
Forum Quarterly , Vol. 5, No. 4, 2007, p. 3-6.
33
Interviews with analysts: Moscow (May 2007); Beijing (June 2007). Interview with
Kazakhstani diplomat, Astana (May 2007).

12
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

infrastructure development and for coordination of its energy policies with

those of the other members.34 These large-scale economic projects suit the
interests of the Central Asian Republics. They are also of value to China,
which hopes that Russia and Central Asia can become a reliable and
significant source of raw materials.
However, on other projects the interests of Russia and China
appear to clash. Moscow is a lot less enthusiastic about Chinese interest in
low-level economic projects aimed at reducing trade barriers, and China’s
ultimate goal of an SCO common market. The rapid growth of the Chinese
economy, and its huge production levels of consumer goods, mean that for
China there is great economic benefit in preferential access to relatively
untapped markets in Central Asia. The volume of trade between China and
Central Asia tripled between 2002 and 2007.35 In particular the Chinese
government is interested in developing its Western provinces, meaning that
border trade between Xinjiang Province and neighboring Kazakhstan and
Kyrgyzstan is set to boom.
The prospect of Chinese economic domination raises strong
concerns in Moscow. For example, at the 2005 Astana Summit China
offered other member states 900 million US dollars in interest free loans.36
While Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan accepted this offer, Russia turned it
down believing “the terms of this contribution disadvantageous for
themselves,” because the conditions attached to these loans were linked
with the purchase of Chinese consumer goods.37 The Russian government
feared cheap Chinese goods flooding both their and the Central Asian
economies, thinking that the impact on national economies and societies
could have been disastrous.38
Therefore, while Russia has been active in the development of
large-scale economic projects, such as the Energy Club, Moscow has
blocked the development of a free-trade area that would open its markets
to Chinese goods.39 These concerns over Chinese economic power are
echoed in Central Asia, where it is feared that Russian influence over the
region would wane as China’s influence increased, leaving the states
dependent on China alone. At present, the SCO offers the opportunity for
the Central Asian Republics greater room for maneuver, allowing them to
play China and Russia off against each other, an advantage the states

34
M. Troitskiy, “A Russian perspective on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization”, in
A. Bailes, P. Dunay, P. Guang and M. Troitskiy, op. cit. [13], p. 36.
35
G. Raballand and A. Andrésy, “Why Should Trade between Central Asia and China
Continue to Expand?”, Asia Europe Journal , Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2007, p. 235.
36
M. Oresman with Z. Chargynov, “The Shanghai Cooperation Summit: Where Do We Go
From Here?”, China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly, July 2005, p. 8,
<[Link]/new/docs/CEF/CEF_Quarterly_July_2005.pdf>.
37
A. Lukin op. cit. [17].
38
Interviews with analysts: Tashkent (May 2007).
39
I. Oldberg, “The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation: Powerhouse or Paper Tiger?”,
Swedish Defence Research Agency, June 2007, p. 29.

13
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

concerned intend to exploit.40 Therefore, this difference in interest between

China and the other members will test the resolve of all member states to
cooperate within its structures, and whether the organization functions
independently of the Russian-Chinese bilateral relationship.

Russian fears of progression marginalization

Moscow’s concerns about Chinese economic penetration into Central Asia

are part of a larger, general fear of gradually becoming a junior partner to
China. In other terms, “Russia needs China more than China needs Russia
and Russia’s main problem in maneuvering the relation is its weakness not
China’s strength.”41 From the Russian perspective, the early stages of SCO
development were approached very pragmatically. In order to establish the
organization, areas of common interest were emphasized and differences
were ignored. However, now it is necessary to identify specifically what the
Kremlin wants from the SCO in the long term. This has reignited misgivings
about the SCO in the minds of some Russian analysts, who believe that it
is essentially a Chinese orientated organization that will ensure Chinese
dominance over Russia.42 For such analysts, Russia’s interests are
secondary, and the organization is orientated towards consolidating
China’s new position in Central Asia. In return Russia receives little of
equivalent benefit, and this will consign Russia to playing a junior role, in
the long term.43 This wariness often leads Russian policymakers to take a
more cautious approach towards the SCO than their Chinese counterparts,
attempting to temper Beijing’s enthusiasm for certain elements of SCO
cooperation.
Russia also seeks to safeguard itself from excessive Chinese
control of the SCO through its involvement in other regional organizations,
in which it does not have concerns about playing a secondary role to
China. Russia is the predominant power in the Collective Security Treaty
Organization (CSTO), which also includes all the Central Asian republics
except Turkmenistan, plus Belarus and Armenia. The same is true of the
Eurasian Economic Community (EurAzEC), which includes Russia, the four
Central Asian republics of the SCO and Belarus. These are organizations
that are heavily influenced by Russian interests. While the CSTO is
designed as a traditional defense arrangement, the SCO has renounced
any form of military integration. The organization restricts itself to
intelligence sharing and a small number of joint military exercises.44 So
long as Moscow retains reservations about becoming dependent on China

40
R. Maksutov, “The Shanghai Cooperation Organization: A Central Asian Perspective”,
SIPRI Project Paper, August 2006,
<[Link]/contents/worldsec/[Link]/download>.
41
D. Kerr, cited in N. Norling, op. cit. [3], p. 46.
42
Interview with analyst: Moscow (May 2007).
43
D. Trenin, op. cit. [24].
44
M. Troitskiy, op. cit. [34], p. 34.

14
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

in military and customs matters, they are unlikely to be added to the SCO
agenda. Instead, by maintaining the role of these other organizations,
Russia is sending a message to China that it is only interested in
cooperation in certain areas of policy within the SCO and that it intends to
remain an equal partner within the organization based on clear definitions
of each other’s interests.

The SCO as a Mechanism for Cooperation

As well as being an instrument for pursuing certain key interests between

Russia and China, the SCO also functions as a consolidating factor in the
Russian-Chinese relationship by offering a vehicle for managing their
affairs.
To this point, the open and flexible framework of the SCO has
already proven robust and effective. The existing difference of opinion on
harmonizing tariff controls is not proving particularly disruptive to the
organization. None of the member states have sought to make it an issue
of vital importance to the continuation of the SCO, because too many other
aspects of the SCO make it an important ingredient in their foreign policies.
This demonstrates that the SCO already acts as a forum for compromise
and agreement, either through official programs or informally. Indeed, the
SCO is already a framework in which Russia and China have reached
certain compromises on potentially prickly issues. The progression of the
SCO agenda has been interpreted as a tacit agreement between Moscow
and Beijing, whereby Russia maintains its central role in the security and
political spheres in Central Asia and China takes the lead in economic
development.45
The institutionalization of the Russian-Chinese relationship within
the structures of the SCO provides the two countries with contacts between
different levels of government, creating patterns of communication that
might successfully manage any divergence of interest.46 For this reason not
all Russian analysts are pessimistic about what Russia gains from
membership of the SCO and argue it is productive for their long-term
relations with China.47 Alongside the practical benefits from anti-terror and
economic cooperation, contacts at all levels of government are being
created between the member states through regular meetings. In addition,
the SCO is seeking to develop closer ties and greater understanding
between the populations of its members by emphasizing the similarity of
their histories. This can be seen in the official promotion of the year of
Russia in China in 2006, followed by the year of China in Russia in 2007.
This is creating interest in maintaining SCO programs across a wide

45
D. Trenin, op. cit. [24].
46
Interview with Russian diplomat: Moscow (June 2008).
47
A. Lukin, op. cit. [17].

15
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

section of the bureaucracies and the populace of member states, in areas

from security to cultural cooperation. This encourages cooperation rather
than competition, and offers the potential to deepen relations to a degree
whereby other tensions can be successfully negotiated.

16
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

Conclusion

It is likely that the SCO will continue to function as a positive element in

Russian-Chinese relations, which in turn will provide the driving force for
the organization. However, the SCO cannot and should not be regarded
simply as an organization that functions according to the agendas of only
two of its six members. If the SCO is to develop further, it must ensure that
the Central Asian Republics do not feel sidelined; indifference among the
other member states would in turn have a negative impact on the
relationship between Russia and China. This is a strong motivation for both
Moscow and Beijing to ensure the SCO remains more than an offshoot of
their bilateral cooperation.
Kazakhstan, in particular, intends to play a role commensurate to its
regional influence. The continuing growth of the Kazakh economy, fuelled
by the demand for its natural resources and its relatively stable political
climate, has assured Kazakhstan a significant role in the organization.
Astana certainly views itself as a natural leader in the region.48 Indeed,
Kazakhstan’s importance was demonstrated by the fact that Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev chose to visit Astana on his maiden visit
abroad. Kazakhstan’s enhanced standing on a regional level is the result of
the multi-vector foreign policy of Nursultan Nazarbayev’s government.49
The SCO is attractive for Kazakhstan, but only if its agenda reflects
Astana’s interests, and if Kazakhstan is afforded the respect it demands.50
For example, Kazakhstan has often made it clear that it “would prevent
China and Russia from generating anti-US policies in the SCO.”51 Thus if
the SCO took a strong anti-Western turn it is unlikely Astana would
continue to apportion much significance to it. Ultimately, Nazarbayev aims
to establish a ruling triumvirate in the SCO, thus preventing the
development of a structure that enshrines Russian-Chinese preeminence.
Working closely with both Russia and China, which both recognize it as a

48
R. McDermott, “Kazakhstan Deepens Ties with Germany”, Eurasia Daily Monitor,
Jamestown Foundation, 8 February 2007,
<[Link]/edm/[Link]?article_id=2371890>.
49
I. Oldberg, op. cit. [39]. p. 34.
50
Interview with analyst: Almaty (May 2007), op. cit. [23].
51
R. Maksutov, op. cit. [40], p. 9.

17
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

regional power, Kazakhstan intends to use the SCO to raise its

international standing.52

New observers?

Another major factor that may have an impact on the role of the Russian-
Chinese relationship within the SCO is possible expansion of membership.
The most obvious candidates are the current observer states. The
admission of Mongolia, for example, would not dramatically alter the
balance of power within the organization. Yet the inclusion of one of the
more high-profile observer states—Iran, India or Pakistan—certainly would.
Not only would such an expansion in membership raise numerous technical
issues, but the political implications would also be significant. For example,
the inclusion of either India or Pakistan would likely necessitate inviting the
other. The inclusion of any other major external power into the organization
would dramatically alter the dynamic of Russian-Chinese leadership in the
SCO and would no doubt complicate the organization’s approach to most
issues. The potential for this to destabilize the mechanisms put in place to
manage the Russian-Chinese relationship could ultimately be the reason
why the SCO will not choose to expand its membership in the near future.
However, there are other interested parties who are not official
observer states. The terrorist attacks in New York on 11 September 2001
placed Central Asia at the heart of US foreign policy: the US began to see
the region as a potential source of Islamic terrorism.53 This is evident in the
establishment of military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan during the
US led NATO operation in Afghanistan in 2002, and the US desire to
maintain them despite pressure from the SCO at its Astana Summit.
Even before 11 September, US attention to Central Asia was
growing, especially interest in the region’s energy resources. The objective
was to prevent Russia and China from gaining exclusive access to these
resources.54 Indeed, the US’s general attitude to Central Asia is driven by
geopolitics, Washington considering itself involved in a zero-sum rivalry
with Moscow and Beijing.55 As a result, the US has practically ignored the
SCO, preferring to engage the Central Asian Republics bilaterally.56 The

52
Examples of Chinese-Kazakh cooperation include the opening of the Kazakh-Chinese
Atasu-Alashankou oil pipeline in December 2005; in 2007 Russian, Kazakhstan and
Turkmenistan agreed to build a major gas pipeline along the Caspian coastline.
53
For more on US interests in Central Asia see E. Wishnick, Growing U.S. Security
Interests in Central Asia , US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, 2002.
54
N. MacFarlane, “The United States and Regionalism in Central Asia”, International Affairs,
Vol. 80, No. 3, May 2004, pp. 447-461.
55
A. Wolfe, “The 'Great Game' Heats Up in Central Asia”, Political and Interest News
Report, 3 August 2005, <[Link]/[Link]?ac=view_report&report_id=339>.
56
N. MacFarlane, op. cit. [54], p. 449.

18
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

view that the ”SCO primarily serves as a geopolitical counterweight to the

United States” is not uncommon amongst US analysts of the region.57
Despite all, the US government has, to some extent, reserved
judgement on the SCO and follows a wait-and-see policy. Indeed, one US
official admits, ”to be candid, we don't fully understand what the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization does.”58 This is perhaps prudent because if the
SCO evolves into the dominant multilateral framework in the region, then
US security interests may be best served by engaging with it. Such a
policy, however, seems unlikely at present, because the Bush
administration’s foreign policy is at odds with the key SCO tenet of
nonintervention in domestic affairs.
Central Asia is also becoming increasingly important for the EU; in
2007 the EU adopted its first comprehensive Central Asian strategy.59
Consequently, a number of analysts have argued for the EU to engage with
the SCO even suggesting it apply for observer status.60 Taking into account
the ”good governance” approach to its external policy, the EU may prefer
not to engage with an organization which is seen to defend regimes that it
finds distasteful. Yet the aims of the SCO and EU in Central Asia are in
many ways complementary. Both organizations want to stabilize the
security situation in the region. For the EU, Central Asia is the transport
corridor for a number of new security challenges, such as terrorism,
narcotics and organized crime; the SCO is the best placed regional actor to
address these challenges. Of course, there are clashes of interest on
access to economic and energy markets in the region. However, this
should not rule out dialogue with the organization. Additionally, dialogue
with the SCO would also give the EU a vector to repair its relations with
Russia, which have been deteriorating of late. If the EU does not engage
with the SCO it runs the risk of finding itself outside the regional
cooperation picture, consequently its security aims in the region would
suffer.61
For over a decade, the bilateral and multilateral tracks in the
Russian-Chinese relationship have proved mutually reinforcing. This is the
result of the SCO capitalizing on a number of pre-existing areas of common
interest over economic and security questions. The organization enables
Russia and China to pursue their respective interests and generally
accentuates the positive aspects of their relationship. The involvement of
the four Central Asian Republics, and the principle of consensual decision-

57
A. Cohen, op. cit. [10].
58
E. A. Feigenbaum, “The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Future of Central
Asia”, Nixon Center, Washington, 6 September 2007,
<[Link]/p/sca/rls/rm/2007/[Link]>.
59
European Commission, “European Community Regional Strategy Paper for Assistance to
Central Asia for the period 2007-2013”,
<[Link]/external_relations/central_asia/rsp/07_13_en.pdf>.
60
A. Bailes and P. Dunay, op. cit. [13]; O. Antonenko, “The EU Should Not Ignore the
Shanghai Co-operation Organization”, Policy Brief, Centre for European Reform, May 2007,
p. 7.
61
O. Antonenko, op. cit. [60], p. 8.

19
© Ifri
 S. Aris/ Shanghai Cooperation Organization

making help to placate Russian fears of Chinese dominance. This is having

a positive impact on Russian-Chinese relations, and vice versa: the
Russian-Chinese relationship is serving to consolidate the SCO.
However, there is potential competition on the horizon both within
the SCO and in the Russian-Chinese bilateral relationship. In order to
maintain the present positive dynamic, Beijing and Moscow must ensure
that the SCO functions as more than a vehicle for their relationship. The
other member states must feel as integral to the organization as its two
most prominent members. Without this, the SCO will become an empty
vessel, devoid of political legitimacy, and will fail to become an efficient
vector for stability in the region.

20
© Ifri