The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has given a clear message to Iran: war is not the answer to all its problems, sovereignty cannot be claimed, and peaceful nuclear energy cannot be reserved exclusively for non-nuclear powers. At its recent meeting in Bishkek, the Kyrgyz Republic, the SCO strongly condemned military action against Iran, expressed concern about the civilian casualties and the economic damage caused by the conflict, declared firm opposition to any unilateral coercive measures, and demanded that the conflict be settled only with peaceful and diplomatic means.
This declaration is significant not solely because Iran is a member of the SCO, but more because of its growing weight, not just in terms of numbers but also in economic and geopolitical terms. The SCO was established in 1996, and now comprises some 43 percent of the world’s population and 23 percent of the world’s economy. The SCO condemned the ‘military strikes on the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran’, noting that these strikes have resulted in ‘civilian casualties and significant damage to Iran’s economy.’ It also said the US-Israel strikes are contrary to the principles of international law and the UN Charter, and pose grave threats to international peace, security and stability.
This is in line with the SCO’s earlier declarations. In March 2026, the organisation pointed to using force against Iran as ‘unacceptable’ and called for disagreements to be settled through dialogue, respect and international law. In July, its foreign ministers yet again said that military action against Iran is a breach of the UN Charter. The message must be consistent. The SCO is not responding to just one incident of violence. That’s an expression of a larger idea: international conflicts shouldn’t be settled by a single nation’s military.
That’s important because the credibility of the rules-based international system is being tested. Sovereignty and territorial integrity are fundamental concepts of international law and must be respected equally by both types of states. The nuclear programme in Iran has always been a worry for the United States and its allies. However, Tehran has always claimed that its nuclear program is peaceful. Iran is an NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) signatory and says that the treaty allows Iran to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes like power generation, scientific research and medicine.
The SCO is a direct supporter of this position in the Bishkek Declaration. Member States reaffirmed Iran’s right to pursue research, development and peaceful uses of atomic energy and Iran’s right to cooperate with other countries in this sector, without discrimination. They further stated that it infringed on international law in that regard. It’s not a blessing on Iran’s nuclear policy in general. Neither does it address sound concerns about nuclear proliferation or verification/compliance with international safeguards. Rather, the SCO is making an important distinction between the right to peaceful nuclear technology and the possession of nuclear weapons.
A credible non-proliferation system is needed within the international community, and it should be equal. Nuclear non-proliferation should not be an instrument used by some nations to have exclusive control over peaceful nuclear technologies, and by others to be threatened by nuclear weapons. The SCO’s attack goes beyond military action. Members are against the practice of unilateral coercive measures, which breach UN and WTO principles and are detrimental to the world economy. One of the most used instruments of contemporary geopolitics is sanctions.
An alternative to war is sometimes offered in the form of sanctions. In some cases, they may provide governments with an opportunity to apply pressure without actual armed confrontation. However, the consequences of sanctions can be widespread and long-term for the lives of ordinary people, the energy market, access to basic goods and trade and investment. The SCO is an extremely diverse group. It is a group of China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Central Asian countries and Belarus. These countries don’t share the same outside policy agendas, political systems and geopolitical concerns. For example, the relationships among the United States, India, China and Russia are complex, and so are the relationships among these three.
The alliance is not to be interpreted as an ‘anti-Western alliance’. The SCO has repeatedly said it is interested ‘not in other states (or in any other organisations)’. But as its political clout grows, the era of a plural international system is setting in. The U.S. and its western allies have played a dominant role for many decades in the world’s political, economic and security systems. Now, however, countries that are not members of the Western alliance are exerting greater influence over what they view as norms in the international community.
Condemnations will not bring the conflict to an end. Nor will claims to sovereignty solve the nuclear issue. To facilitate a diplomatic solution, the SCO members, especially China, Russia and India, will have to use their respective lines of communication. The organisation can be a political forum, but it will be up to the parties to engage in practical diplomacy. The SCO is also keen to avoid a ‘defence of Tehran,’ which would mean accepting all of Tehran’s actions. Consistency is essential to a sincere adherence to international law. Both the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the principles of civilian protection and non-proliferation, apply to all states.
The Iran crisis once again shows that only when the military or nuclear assets are destroyed can security be guaranteed. The tenets of sustainable security include political agreements, credible verification mechanisms, mutual restraint and diplomatic engagement. So, the SCO has drawn its line today. It has condemned military action against Iran, affirmed the country’s territorial sovereignty and territorial integrity, expressed support for Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technology and demanded a political and diplomatic solution.
But the SCO’s statement will be of little consequence if it is merely a diplomatic statement. However, Bishkek would be the key event in the new multipolar world if it were able to gain more influence over the rules governing power, rather than over its share. The true challenge, however, is to see whether the SCO can draw the line beyond Iran, and whether the international community will back off from confrontation and return to the principle that even the toughest conflicts are best resolved at the negotiating table rather than on the battlefield.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author
The writer is a Professor, Department of International Relations, University of Chittagong, Bangladesh. Director, Hong Kong Research Centre for Asian Studies-Bangladesh Centre (RCASBC). Email: [email protected]
