With SCO meeting in China recently - and even Kim Jon Ung attending - they are trying to promote an Asian alternative to the WTO and NATO.
ANTI-ALLIANCES?
Anti alliances don't seem to last long? It helps to also be FOR something mutually beneficial. EG: The West was anti-USSR and anti-imperial Russia and China and North Korea - but also FOR democracy and trade. (At least until Trump!)
EG: Nations that used to go to war with each other every few generations formed the European Coal and Steel Community - and are now the EU. They're a Confederation on the verge of Federating (or splitting up! But that's another subject.)
But SCO only has Anti-Trump going for it. Sure - being Anti-Trump has paused the conflict between Russia and China. But what if the next President is a moderate? What other forces would have member countries invest in SCO - even if China gives free 'aid' of $230 million to each member?
The EU formed to encourage more and easier trade - but member states had to give up a little sovereignty at each step. Can anyone see that happening with SCO?
Anyway - maybe we should give Trump a new Nobel Prize category - the "Peace through mutual hatred of Trump" award!
Here is probably the most direct answer.
Can the SCO Survive Its Own Conflicts?
The EU example you give was mostly about economics and politics. Its roots started with the Benelux nations. I always have followed this fairly accurate model of economic integration. It describes the EU fairly well and even NAFTA to an extent. (Though politically, it was impossible to get Americans on board with a common market, the way around that has been to allow illegal immigration, a sort of off the books solution)
Levels of Economic Integration | The Geography of Transport Systems
The reason this model persists is that it really can be mutually beneficial.
Certainly the SCO (
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) can do a few economic things but these nations are far apart in this. The only reason the EU works is that those states are alike and they have strived to become more alike since the beginning. The SCO, according to Wikipedia has a plan for economics but there is not much cooperation especially in the widened area. But they are cooperating more by doing some simple things for mutual defense, student exchange, cultural stuff, anti-terrorism etc. There is a bureacracy, but as the name implies the SCO is China led. China too has poured in some loans to members.
If you want a more EU like institution, "The
Eurasian Economic Union (
EAEU or
EEU)
[note 1] is an
economic union of five
post-Soviet states located in
Eurasia. The EAEU has an integrated
single market. As of 2023, it consists of 183 million people and a
gross domestic product of over $2.4 trillion."
You are right though there are counter-alliances and they probably will stick around and wait for their day, should it ever come. I don't know much about Brics structure, but they seem worthy as a threat to some.
I am thinking the next President will embrace the USA as the world leader and return the USA to more of it's historical role as leader, pushing for free trade and not trying to be mercantilist or force the rest of the Western world into concessions that primarily benefit the USA.
I think that BRICS too is interesting and perhaps the biggest challenge to Western dominance. Another alternative that will come according to the bible is the world government and far more intrusive world instututions.
For those interested the international relations theory that predicts what happens in a uni-polar world with one world hegemon the best is probably neo-realism. Bing Ai suggests that neo-realists would expect the bullets below to occur. It seems to be fairly accurate thus far. Perhaps the USA is ceding it's leading role to the EU? I suppose that could occur but then the USA will lose its role as the world's reserve currency and lots of other benefits.
"
Bandwagoning: States align themselves with the unipolar power to benefit from its dominance.
Balancing: States may form counter-alliances or enhance their military capabilities to counter the unipolar power's influence.
Resistance: Some states may oppose the unipolar power's initiatives or engage in more assertive measures.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=b6e8...mRpbmctdW5pcG9sYXJpdHktaW4taXItdGhlb3J5&ntb=1
Critics argue that unipolarity can lead to instability, as the dominance of a single state may foster resentment among other states, leading to potential conflict. Overall, the unipolar system creates a dynamic environment where states must navigate their relationships with the dominant power while also considering their own interests and strategies."
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=ba15...1Q0QyOUY3MDI1NDYwNTg3OTU2NDhBMTE3NDhBMQ&ntb=1
