A Summit Beyond Ceremony
It has been more than two weeks since leaders gathered in Tianjin for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit. At first glance, it might have seemed like another diplomatic ritual. Yet the outcomes and debates it generated are still reverberating across global trade and geopolitics. The timing was not accidental. Renewed U.S. tariffs have unsettled exporters, supply chains remain fragile, and great power rivalry is hardening. Against this backdrop, the SCO’s deliberations revealed not unity, but a struggle to navigate an unpredictable world.
India’s Tactical Calculations
For India, the urgency was evident. New U.S. tariffs on pharmaceuticals, textiles and machinery exposed the danger of depending too heavily on Western markets. Prime Minister Narendra Modi seized the opportunity to show that India has options. By engaging SCO partners, New Delhi is seeking alternative corridors, new investment partnerships and a larger role in a multipolar system.
But contradictions abound. India’s border disputes with China remain unresolved. Its rivalry with Beijing for regional influence continues to sharpen. The SCO may offer India tactical breathing space, but it cannot resolve strategic mistrust. What Tianjin revealed is that India is not building new alliances so much as hedging its vulnerabilities.
China’s Institutional Engineering
China, meanwhile, entered Tianjin under strain. The return of Trump to the White House has reignited tariff wars, revived technology restrictions, and accelerated the rhetoric of decoupling. Beijing knows that its export-driven economy is deeply exposed to U.S. pressure. Its response was to build institutional hedges that reduce dependence on Western systems.
At the summit, China proposed the establishment of an SCO development bank, advanced shared energy platforms, and expanded access to the BeiDou satellite system. More than 1.4 billion dollars in loans were pledged to SCO partners. These moves signal Beijing’s determination to cultivate resilience, export its own institutional influence, and create alternative trade and financial frameworks.
Yet ambition collides with reality. SCO members are a heterogeneous mix with diverging interests. Historical mistrust and uneven levels of development mean that China’s institutional blueprints may not automatically translate into durable cooperation. The summit showed Beijing’s intent, but it also revealed the structural limits of regional leadership.
Russia’s Dual-Track Strategy
Russia’s presence in Tianjin added weight and nuance. Only days earlier, President Vladimir Putin met Trump in Alaska for discussions that hinted at cautious progress on Ukraine. In Tianjin, he used this momentum to project Moscow as both mediator and power broker.
Russia is pursuing a dual-track strategy. On one hand, it engages directly with Washington to reduce its isolation. On the other, it deepens its role in Eurasian institutions like the SCO to dilute American dominance. This balancing act reflects Moscow’s determination to remain relevant in spite of sanctions and conflict. It also underscores how bilateral diplomacy and multilateral positioning increasingly reinforce one another.
The Tianjin Declaration: Symbolism and Substance
The summit concluded with the Tianjin Declaration. It pledged cooperation against terrorism, endorsed India’s “One Earth, One Family, One Future” vision, and floated proposals for joint bonds and shared investment platforms. Its language was ambitious, but the deeper message was pragmatic.
The declaration symbolized a collective effort to reduce exposure to U.S. unilateralism. For SCO members, tariffs, sanctions and political shocks are no longer episodic disruptions. They have become the normal condition of global trade. By sketching institutional buffers, the declaration was less about immediate solutions and more about shaping a future where resilience matters as much as growth.
Global Trade in Transition
For the global economy, the implications are far-reaching. Supply chains that once prioritized speed and efficiency now require resilience and redundancy. Indian exporters are rethinking their dependence on the U.S. market. Chinese firms are relocating production to friendlier jurisdictions. Russian commodity suppliers are searching for financial networks that bypass Western sanctions.
Multinational corporations must now pay close attention to alternative financial infrastructures that are gaining traction. Local currency settlements, regional payment systems and new investment frameworks may still be experimental, but they are no longer peripheral. The SCO has become a laboratory for these alternatives, however imperfect its mechanisms may be.
Africa’s Position in a Fragmenting World
The Tianjin summit also matters for Africa. Ethiopia’s accession to BRICS already places it in the orbit of multipolar financial debates. Tianjin made clear that the global economy is fragmenting into blocs that are building their own trade corridors and financial safety nets.
For Ethiopia, this is both an opportunity and a challenge. With foreign exchange shortages, heavy debt burdens and an undiversified export base, the country cannot afford to rely solely on traditional partners. At the same time, overcommitting to one camp could be risky. Strategic diversification is not a luxury but a necessity. Ethiopia must learn to engage with both Western institutions and emerging frameworks led by China, India and Russia.
The experiments tested at Tianjin offer practical lessons. If SCO members develop viable joint financial mechanisms or alternative payment systems, these could influence how Ethiopia negotiates loans, manages currency risks and pursues regional integration. The question is whether Ethiopian policymakers are ready to draw insights from these evolving architectures.
A World of Navigation, Not Harmony
Ultimately, Tianjin was less about harmony than about navigation. India cooperated with China for tactical reasons even as rivalry persisted. Russia projected influence through both bilateral and multilateral channels. China experimented with institutional engineering while struggling against mistrust. Each player was improvising, seeking to manage volatility rather than eliminate it.
The lesson two weeks on is clear. Multipolarity is no longer a future prospect but a present condition. Volatility is structural. Alliances are transactional. Resilience has overtaken efficiency as the new measure of success.
For Ethiopia and other African economies, adapting to this fractured order is not optional. The challenge is how quickly they can recognize that survival in today’s global economy requires agility, foresight and the courage to learn from shifting alignments.
Contributed by Mikiyas Mulugeta (PhD)
