By Asiimwe Angel
The SCO summit showed Beijing and Moscow’s ambitions. Washington now faces a choice: compete, adapt, or fall behind.
The 25th summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), held in Tianjin, was not just another diplomatic gathering. It was a carefully staged moment designed to signal power, unity, and the rise of a multipolar world order.
Unlike earlier meetings, Tianjin felt like an announcement that the unipolar era led by the United States is fading. The joint appearance of Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un underscored this point. Against the backdrop of a military parade featuring laser weapons, nuclear-capable missiles, and underwater drones, China sent a clear message: it is not merely the world’s factory but also a hub of weapons innovation, deterrence, and global security ambitions.
Even the sidelines spoke volumes. The wife of Malaysia’s prime minister sparked debate when she declined to shake Xi Jinping’s hand. Some saw it as a religious gesture, others as a reminder that international politics often runs on symbols as much as treaties.
Kim Jong Un added his own theater. After meeting with Putin, his staff wiped every fingerprint from chairs, tables, and glasses—continuing his long-standing practice of traveling with a private toilet. In today’s world, battles are waged not only with tanks and missiles but also with genetic data and health information. Kim’s paranoia symbolized the new frontiers of global competition.
Perhaps most telling was an overheard exchange between Xi and Putin. They discussed biotechnology, organ transplants, and the possibility of humans living to 150 years. Xi, with a slight smile, remarked: “Some expect humanity will reach that point.” What sounded like science fiction reflected the reality that the next world order will be built not only on economic and military power but also on technology that redefines life itself.
The “Tianjin Declaration” emphasized sovereignty, non-interference, and rejection of Cold War–style blocs. It was, in essence, a draft constitution for a multipolar world. For the West, it posed a direct challenge: how to respond to a coalition representing half of humanity and a quarter of the global economy?
Putin used the platform to reframe the war in Ukraine as the outcome of a Western-backed coup, not an invasion. His argument was backed by statistics showing trade growth with China and India, underlining his claim that Russia is not isolated but reoriented toward Asia.
China positioned itself as both challenger and stabilizer. Xi coupled his critique of U.S. dominance with promises of billions in aid for infrastructure, renewable energy, artificial intelligence, and the digital economy. The message to the Global South was unmistakable: China is a development partner as well as a counterweight to the West.
The contradictions within the SCO were also revealing. China and India, despite past border clashes, struck a conciliatory tone under the metaphor of the “dragon and the elephant.” Turkey, a NATO member, explored its role in this parallel bloc. Iran, battered by sanctions and strikes, used its presence to signal defiance. Each participant brought its own agenda, but all converged on a shared aim: diluting U.S. hegemony.
From Tianjin, the symbolism was unmistakable. Military parades, subtle protocol gestures, and even discussions of human longevity became markers of a shifting global order.
Washington: From Reading Symbols to Shaping Strategy
For Washington, Tianjin was more than a regional meeting—it was a wake-up call. U.S. officials see the SCO evolving into a geopolitical bloc designed to counter American influence.
The White House read China’s military display and Russia’s reframing of Ukraine as signs of a durable, multi-layered coalition. In response, the administration has leaned heavily on traditional alliances with Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia while intensifying outreach to India and Southeast Asia.
Congress remains divided. Some lawmakers call for more defense spending to confront an “Eastern threat.” Others argue that America’s real advantage lies in innovation: breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, renewable energy, and biomedical research. The overheard conversation between Xi and Putin about extending human life illustrates that future competition will not be fought with missiles alone but with science and technology.
American media echoed the split. Some warned of an “authoritarian axis” rising against the U.S., while others suggested that multipolarity could foster stability—if Washington maintains its edge in economics and innovation.
The truth lies somewhere in between. The U.S. still holds decisive cards: strong alliances, a vast economy, and unmatched capacity for innovation. But the message from Tianjin was blunt—the rest of the world is no longer waiting at America’s doorstep.
The Choice Ahead
Between Beijing and Washington, a new contest is underway. It is not just about markets or missiles, but also about symbols, data, and even the meaning of life itself. The Tianjin summit was not only a showcase of military might; it was an unveiling of ambitions that stretch into biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and the very definition of human existence.
If Tianjin marked the birth of multipolarity, Washington must decide how to respond: by competing aggressively, adapting wisely, or risking being left behind.
