 Hello, everyone. Welcome to another International Relations Capsule for the Shankar AIS Academy. Today, the topic of our discussion is the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which held its 22nd summit meeting in Uzbekistan in Samarkand. Eight countries participated in it, but more than the discussions on the agenda of the organization itself, the meeting became significant for various other reasons. The summit had not met for three years because of the pandemic, and many things had happened between, within these three years. So the Cooperation Summit, Cooperation Organization, Shanghai Cooperation Organization was meeting after a long time, and by then, many changes had taken place. The most important thing was the Ukraine war, which brought Russia, which is a leading member of the organization, to the docks because the war was continuing and nobody in the world is happy for this to continue, except Russia and Ukraine, because both sides are hoping that they will win the war. But the rest of the world is very concerned and therefore the meeting in Uzbekistan in Samarkand became a place for discussion of this matter in an indirect manner because the war itself was not on the agenda of the conference, and the conference dealt with the usual things that they speak about, security in the region, terrorism, economic development, trade, etc. So there was a communique issued, but the communique reflected the world before the pandemic because there were the consensus positions of these countries before the pandemic and before the Ukraine war. So the real world of the conference depended on the other things that happened there. The interesting thing was Russia, China, and India were represented at the highest level. In fact, President Xi Jinping had gone out for the first time from his country after the pandemic erupted. So it was a very significant thing that he went to the summit in Samarkand. Of course, President Putin was there and India's presence was also in question because of the situation between India and China being so bad and whether Indian Prime Minister would go there in order to meet or talk to President Xi Jinping. But one important thing that happened was just before the summit there was a thaw in the relationship between India and China because of the withdrawal of Chinese troops from one more sector in Ladakh. So many people felt that China agreed to this withdrawal or disengagement in order to persuade or encourage Prime Minister Modi to go to Samarkand and therefore there was speculation that it may also happen that there might be a meeting between the Prime Minister of India and the President of China. If a meeting had taken place, many things could have happened. It could have improved our relations with China or it may have worsened because both the countries would have stood by the position that they hold today. So we do not know whether the meeting did not take place because neither China nor India asked for a meeting because bilateral meetings are special but it's not part of the conference. But it's normal that countries even when they have differences they do hold bilateral meetings on such occasions and therefore there was speculation that President Xi Jinping will meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But on the first day itself since Mr. Narendra Modi arrived rather late to the meeting there was not even opportunities for photos to be taken between them because Mr. Modi was not there on the first day and people say it was done on purpose. So the next two days of course such a meeting did not take place and that was an important development that even though India and China were present at the same place, the leaders did not meet. So obviously the reason is that neither side is happy with the other even though they're disengaged in this new sector there was no solution to the problem and there's also been criticism inside India that we compromised on this particular situation because we seem to have according to some reports we seem to have made these buffer zones in territories held by India earlier. This has not been confirmed or denied by the government of India but there is criticism that we made some undue concessions to the Chinese on this occasion. So but whatever it is this disengagement since it was not a de-escalation it was only a movement of troops backwards but many things remained as it is. So it was not considered progress enough for our primalist to ask for a meeting and naturally the President also did not ask for it and so this non-meeting was one of the most important events of the summit. So that means within the summit two major countries are not on talking terms with each other. The second most important thing that happened was a bilateral meeting between Prime Minister of India and President Vladimir Putin. This was very significant because by till now India was being considered on the side of Russia in the Ukraine war because of our abstentions in the United Nations Security Council. But on the last occasion there was a vote as to whether Zelensky should appear before the Security Council online. We voted in favour of that which was considered against Russia because Russia had proposed that he should come personally or not come to the Security Council. So for the first time on an issue relating to the Ukraine war India voted against what Russia proposed and not abstain. So this seemed to have been a little indication that we are slightly moving towards a more central position than what it appeared to be. But it has always been our position that we stand for peace, we stand for dialogue, we stand for democracy and this is not the time for war. But this was put to President Putin by Mr. Narendra Modi himself in front of the cameras. This was very significant because in front of the cameras the Prime Minister said to President Putin that this is not the time for war and he said that this is a time that we should encourage democracy, encourage negotiations, encourage diplomatic dialogue. Of course, Mr. Putin responded to it by saying that he understood India's concerns and even mentioned China's concerns on the war and he said well we will try and end the war as far as possible because you all feel that this is causing problems to the world. But he immediately followed it by saying that the responsibility of continuing the war is that of Ukraine and its friends and he also said that I'm not in a hurry to end these corporations. So he did not really respond favorably to India's comment but at the same time he did say that he will try and resolve these issues providing the cooperation from the other side that Ukraine and others. So this particular conversation between Prime Minister Modi and President Putin in public created some waves international that India has administered a rebuke. This is what the western newspaper said, a rebuke to Putin and this was significant but it has been clarified in the press and other commentaries which have appeared that it was not such a rebuke, it was simply a matter of telling him our views and we indicated the kind of problems that the world is going to face if the war continues and therefore the Shanghai Corporation organization as a whole must encourage dialogue. But it was very clear that in this group of eight countries India was the only country which openly spoke about this in a rather plain manner. So what does it indicate? It seems to indicate that the new world order is emerging now we all been talking about the old order has been disappeared and a new order is not yet born but it was became clear in the Shanghai Corporation organization that the future may well be a cold war between democratic countries on the one hand and autocratic countries on the other. So in this group of eight there was no other democracy other than India. So the responsibility fell upon India to express the feelings of the democratic world or the conscience of the world. So my interpretation is that India has served notice on the world that in the emerging world order in which perhaps the democracies will be on the one side and autocracies on the other India has to be naturally on the side of democracy and that signal has been given and I feel it was a right decision to do so because we were clubbed with China and Russia in this particular issue of the war in Ukraine. So this was also a very significant event. The third event at the meeting was that the another non-meeting that is a non-meeting between Indian Prime Minister and the Pakistan's Prime Minister who is new, Shabas Sharif is a new Prime Minister they have not met from the Pakistan side that has been expression of wanting to meet but obviously they did not seem to have asked for a meeting with Prime Minister and both sides again were waiting for the other to take the initiative but in the case of Pakistan it was not because India had already said repeatedly that India would have nothing to do with the Pakistan government whoever comes to power as long as Pakistan does not abandon terrorism. So that was a clear position of policy and therefore whether it was a new Prime Minister or old Prime Minister in Pakistan it did not matter. Pakistan's policies do not change with Prime Ministers. It is the army which takes these decisions and it was right that Prime Minister Modi decided a non-meeting. So this must have been a tough situation for three of them to avoid each other in the Tashkent. Normally these summits provide opportunities for senior leaders to talk and resolve issues but the new world order does not seem to allow that and therefore this is another indication about the conference itself. So these were the main features which attracted world attention but if you look at the conference itself and its agenda and so on much of it was the old ones. The countries that attended were Russia, China then Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and India and Pakistan. So Russia and China then the former Soviet republics three of them India and Pakistan and it was agreed that Iran will also join the SCO at the next meeting and it was also agreed that India would take on the chairmanship of SCO from now on and in 2023 the summit will be held in India because that presents its own complications because the first time that India is going to host such a meeting and the question will arise for Pakistan and China whether they will attend that if our difficulties with these two countries continue till the next year. So SCO's next meeting itself is in doubt because Pakistan is unlikely to attend and China may not attend but China and Russia indicated at this meeting that they would support India's chairmanship of SCO. We may have in just a formality but they did say that they will extend all support to India to hold the summit because it is in their interest that this meeting should be held and Pakistan did not make it very clear whether it will attend or not but they left it in vague as to whether Prime Minister Shahry will attend the meeting in India or not. Another development was that there are several observers dialogue partners and special guests. So this is what happens when a grouping becomes important. Many people want to be in it if they cannot be in it as members they like to join as observers dialogue partners and special guests. So it is growing from basically a central Asian grouping it has now become a Eurasian group greater Eurasian partnership. So and they are thinking in terms of the SCO growing into other regions other groups like SCO regions meetings then Eurasian Economic Union, ASEAN etc. So to these regional groups SCO is supposed to be joining and having more discussions. So the bilateral I just mentioned that bilateral meetings did not take place but many observers pointed out that this was a major meeting because if you look at statistics it is 40% of the world population, 30% of world GDP, 22% of the planet's land. So this grouping has really becoming a major grouping but ideologically it seems to be except for India a group of autocracies. So there's also plan for further expansion Iran will be a ninth member of the summit when the summit is held in India and there is expansion towards West Asia and South Asia also. So in fact an organization becomes stronger with more numbers but it can also become weaker with more numbers. What happened to the non-aligned movement we all know if everybody becomes non-aligned then the strength of the non-aligned movement only decreases because if it is not a select membership anybody can join a particular group then the group gets diluted rather than concentrated. So that may happen in the case of SCO and many may join the SCO simply to make it irrelevant as a regional organization that we have to see. But the agenda of course included terrorism, separatism, extremism and in the summit document which was issued none of these new issues to Iran war because of the pandemic figures but the war between Russia and the plane does not figure. So Central Asia is the core of this and there is also reports that Afghanistan may also be permitted to join in spite of the fact that many countries have not recognized Afghanistan. But in the document there was a reference to speedy settlement of the situation of Afghanistan. It doesn't say anything about the terrorist group being in power other countries not having recognized it but a very general statement that the settlement of the situation in Afghanistan was essential. Then India thought that it was prudent for it to keep away from ideas like the BRI, the Belt and Road Initiative because the Belt and Road Initiative all the other countries in SCO are members of it and there was some positive reference to that but we kept out of it. And India has to make the group more effective and so we have this responsibility in the next year to make SCO more effective and the challenges is very much there and several geopolitical dimensions are emerging. India has now taken a position in the Ukraine war which is different from before and so SCO has become more complex after this. For example the landlocked Central Asian countries and Russia and China have been competing for influence there. Then Central Asian states those who are the former Soviet Socialist Republics are seeking enhanced presence of India in this region. It's a balance against China and Russia. So India we have a lot of interest in Central Asia because as you know they have a lot of hydrocarbon and other opportunities for economic development and therefore India's enhanced presence is welcome and that is something which will and of course there is general objection to villages extremism and terrorism. So Afghanistan may be included. Some people say Saudi Arabia will come along and Turkey was actually present as a guest and Qatar. So next time we may see by the time the conference is held in India there could be more people. So but the whole atmosphere was as I said earlier was determined by various issues which has emerged since the last summit. First of course is the Russian intervention in Ukraine but with everyone is restless and unhappy but of course they could not take a position except for India. Then the Ladakh situation was a great concern though there has been some disengagement but there is no de-escalation of the conflict and there is criticism that India may have conceded some land to China which we'll have to begin discussed. Then US relations with China and Russia deteriorated in this period. US is more worried about Russia and on top of it China and Russia have joined together and that has complicated matters. So by the time the conference in India takes place we do not know in which direction US relations will go. So US and Europe also are very important if this organization has been strengthened. But in the present conflict if the war does not end this will be a kind of crisis in the SEO. The aggression against India did not figure, nobody raised it. So even in Pakistan the only demand that he made from Pakistan was that we should give greater access to each other particularly for India to send supplies to Afghanistan. Pakistan is not allowing access through Pakistan and therefore that was an issue which he raised and since there was no meeting between China and India there was no time for discussion but interestingly Prime Minister Modi met Erdogan the Prime Minister of Turkey which was a surprise but to balance the conversation on the Ukraine war President Modi tweeted after the summit after his meeting with President Putin that his meeting was wonderful that's the word he used in his tweet. So this is to probably balance the what he said about the train war and so but apparently a lot of bilateral cooperation agreements were reached. The question of India receiving oil supplies from Russia which is a controversial matter in Europe but at the same time it is going strongly and we are getting advantage and then trade, energy, defense and other areas bilateral cooperation will proceed. So that is the other development that in bilateral agreements and bilateral relations India and Russia had a food to meet. So this is the sum of the meeting in Sashkent. The conference itself was just a routine, routine matters but because of the circumstances which had developed between the last meeting and this one there were so much of repulsions of political and geopolitical repulsions of the meeting which I mentioned. So it remains to be seen what happens when SEO meets next year in India is going to be a major change in the situation because India will be hosting it and India will have to deal with all these issues and bring about some kind of progress for the future. Thank you very much. I have been recommending, I don't know you saw my article in the Hindu but I am advocating that we should focus on bilateral relations now because multilaterally nobody is willing to commit anything. Everybody is just keeping their position open because the world order, the new world order is not clear yet and therefore my suggestion is that we need to focus on our bilateral relations that when I multiply our world emerges we must have some steady and fast friends and that we cannot get through multilateral activities that's my point of view and also you may have seen Suhasini Haider's article where she talked about all alignment. India is aligning itself with all the countries in production so and that also I suppose she means bilateral not multilateral. So I think it will be good and not because bilateralism is preferable to multilateralism. I know you you know I spent all my life in multilateral diplomacy and I have great faith in that but multilateral diplomacy demands an atmosphere of compromise and consideration. If it is not there multilateral diplomacy doesn't succeed and that is why UN is ineffective because there is no cooperation there is no give and take. No but then I am going to expand. So far now if Russia and China had different views then they had a balance but since so therefore the composition is very interesting. Russia, China okay one carrier then Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Who are they? They are the ones who are seeking independence from Russia in the sense that they want to have cooperation at the same time they want to assert their independence. So they were rather quiet but it was clear that they were there in order to assert their independence. India is there because we are interested in Central Asia. All these complications we are not anticipating. So we joined because we have scope to deal with Central Asia in a collective group that's what we thought and Pakistan went there only because India went there. So but now the next one will be Iran. Iran also will be among the non-democratic participants. So India being the only democratic participant in SEO may create some problems for us because one or two meetings, ministerial meetings of SEO which were held they issued a separate declaration excluding India because India and they could not agree on the same kind of language. So here also there was no statement on Ukraine etc in the common meeting. So SEO is skin transition and which direction it will go if the Middle Eastern countries etc join in join in there may be a further balance in that and if not it may become a block that's against democratic countries and that is the risk involved but you cannot say anything about it till we come to the time of our meeting in India. No no this is how it is being interpreted and I discussed it I did not say that. What I said was that this is a likely to be an indication just like the last vote in the security council when we did not abstain. We were blindly abstaining and many times our ambassador was being asked by other countries you know you vote together with China on everything as far as Ukraine is concerned why is it so or why is how is Indian position different from the Chinese position. So I think we were waiting for an opportunity to show that we are not always voting together and so we supported the appearance of Zelensky in the security council online that is what Russia had objective. So that absolutely had centered some repulse around the UN that India is shifting and so this openly telling him that this is not the time for war which is a rather firm statement which is not just he was not just seeking dialogue etc as you said earlier and then Putin's reaction was also that you have been repeatedly saying what your difficulties so he knows that he knows that India has been saying this and so he acknowledged it but he did take in a responsibility to end the war. He said that this is not my problem those people are not right and then he went on to say I am in no hurry to resolve it as long as they don't want to resolve it. So his position has not changed but many in the western press are saying that India rebuked Russia it's not so but that is a proof of that and what I have said is that this is a good sign but we have to indicate that when there is a new world order between democracy and autocracies India has to be on the right side of this view that's my point nothing has changed. We respect the between and we will of course respect the spectacles the third also there won't be any difference in India nuclear relations in any case the crown does not make policies so the relations with the crown is kind of sentimental kind of formal kind of ceremonial and that relationship will continue because the style of the king will be different from that of the great queen but as they say according to the UK constitution the king can do no wrong because he has no authority to do anything so he can only support the government and therefore I don't expect any big change but I notice that within India there are some rumors about you know why should we be in the commonwealth why should we be recognizing the queen of the head of the commonwealth there I may agree because the commonwealth doesn't do anything much they just repeat the same agenda items of the UN and repeat the same statements you know commonwealth does not have it particularly now after the decolonization process is over the decolonization process commonwealth had a nature and the last one was in 1979 Zimbabwe so after that there is no decolonization issue and one issue that they have been discussing is the problems of small and small countries and island states and so on but that they can take care of themselves so we're drawing from the commonwealth or abolishing the commonwealth but the respect for the king and the monarchy will continue in India in some other some other countries they are trying to remove the status of head of states of the queen of the king and Australia they tried and the referendum went in favor of the queen so that could one be pursued so that is the that's the situation okay thank you very much