Abstract
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is the largest regional origination in which Russia and China are founding members and recently Iran’s bid for full membership has been approved during the 21st summit of the SCO. These countries are against American hegemony and covertly and overtly demonstrate their concerns. SCO has been conducting military exercises regularly since 2002. Improving Strategic partnership between China and Russia, the presence of Iran, and military exercises of the SCO are matters of concern for the West. Some western scholars labeled it as “NATO of the East” and assessed it as an emerging military bloc. According to official documents and statements, SCO is a political and security organization based on cooperation and partnership and follows a non-interference policy. Does SCO contain components of a military alliance? Is SCO a military bloc or on the way to becoming in the future? This paper evaluates the SCO according to the theoretical concept of a military alliance besides comparative analysis of the SCO with NATO.
Highlights
Shanghai Cooperation Organization was formed on 15 June 2001
Russian and Chines stance on multipolarity, Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)’s military exercises, SCO’s proclamation for setting a deadline for withdrawal of foreign forces from central Asian bases, rejection of U.S application for an observer of the SCO, the presence of Iran in the SCO, promotion of new world order by SCO charter and RussoChinese deepening strategic partnership created an anti-West perception of the SCO in the West
The analysis infers that SCO has no component of a military alliance and has no intentions to become in the future
Summary
Shanghai Cooperation Organization was formed on 15 June 2001. The SCO was transformed from “Shanghai Five”. The United States and other Western countries called for an international inquiry of the event(Andijan massacre) which was rejected by the Uzbek Government considering it as a violation of her sovereignty; European Union Council banned visa for 12 Uzbek officials (who were blamed for direct responsible for using indiscriminate force in the event and for obstructing an independent inquiry) and embargoed arms export to Uzbekistan (Nichol, 2013). These actions sored U.S relations with Uzbekistan.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
