Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer

The Tianjin Declaration, adopted at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s 25th summit in September 2025, passed without the dramatic headlines that often accompany global gatherings. Yet its significance lies precisely in its restraint. In an era marked by loud proclamations and performative diplomacy, the document reflects a quieter recalibration of Eurasian politics, one that privileges continuity over spectacle and gradual alignment over sudden rupture.

Held in the northern Chinese port city of Tianjin, the summit was the largest in the SCO’s history. Leaders from China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran and Central Asia gathered alongside observers and dialogue partners, marking a quarter-century since the organisation’s founding. Chaired by President Xi Jinping, the meeting reaffirmed what the SCO has consistently presented as its guiding philosophy: the so-called “Shanghai Spirit” of mutual trust, respect for sovereignty, equality among states and non-interference.

At first glance, the declaration reads like a familiar catalogue of principles. It reiterates support for a multipolar world order, stresses adherence to the United Nations Charter and renews commitments to combat terrorism, separatism and extremism. Economic cooperation, regional connectivity and sustainable development are highlighted as shared priorities. There are also nods to global challenges, from trade disruptions to technological governance, reflecting the concerns of a region that now accounts for a substantial share of the world’s population and economic output.

What makes the Tianjin Declaration noteworthy, however, is not the novelty of its language but the context in which it was issued. The international system remains deeply polarised, with major powers locked in strategic competition and multilateral institutions under strain. Against this backdrop, the SCO is positioning itself not as a challenger to existing structures but as an alternative forum where non-Western states can coordinate policies without the pressures of ideological conformity.

This aspiration is evident in the declaration’s emphasis on inclusivity and equality. Unlike alliances built around security guarantees or shared political values, the SCO continues to define itself as a platform for dialogue among diverse political systems. The presence of rivals such as India and Pakistan, alongside countries with varying relations with the West, underscores this point. The organisation’s strength lies in its ability to accommodate difference, even if that very diversity limits its capacity for swift collective action.

One of the more substantive outcomes linked to the Tianjin summit was the approval of the SCO Development Strategy through 2035. This long-term framework seeks to align economic cooperation with social and environmental considerations, echoing global discussions on development without explicitly adopting Western templates. It also provides the backdrop against which Russia’s proposal for a dedicated SCO Council on Sustainable Development should be understood.

Moscow’s initiative, first floated during its chairmanship activities in 2025, reflects both pragmatic and political calculations. By hosting the inaugural SCO Sustainable Development Forum in Omsk and later proposing a formal council at the Heads of Government meeting in Moscow, Russia signalled its intent to shape the organisation’s economic agenda. The focus on sustainable development, energy security and regional models of growth allows Russia to remain relevant within the SCO despite the economic pressures it faces elsewhere. The proposal has found a receptive audience. SCO Secretary-General Nurlan Yermekbayev described the idea as worthy of serious consideration and subsequent meetings have indicated gradual progress. By early 2026, references to sustainable development as a core SCO priority had become more frequent, including discussions held in Islamabad that linked the agenda to poverty reduction, food and energy security and environmental protection.

Importantly, the Tianjin Declaration itself endorsed closer cooperation on sustainability, particularly in industry and energy. While the document stops short of detailing institutional mechanisms, it provides political cover for initiatives such as Russia’s proposed council. In this sense, Tianjin can be seen as a moment of convergence, where broad principles were translated into a shared direction of travel rather than immediate commitments. For countries like Pakistan, the implications are both promising and cautionary. On the one hand, the SCO’s emphasis on development and connectivity aligns with Islamabad’s longstanding interest in regional trade, energy corridors and investment. Participation in sustainability-focused initiatives could offer access to expertise and financing tailored to regional conditions rather than externally imposed benchmarks.

On the other hand, the SCO’s consensus-driven nature means progress will be incremental. Competing national priorities, economic disparities and unresolved bilateral tensions continue to shape the organisation’s trajectory. The Tianjin Declaration does not resolve these contradictions; it merely manages them.The broader geopolitical message of the summit is equally measured. By reaffirming support for a multipolar world, the SCO signals dissatisfaction with existing power hierarchies without articulating a clear alternative order. This ambiguity is deliberate. It allows member states to express shared frustrations while preserving strategic autonomy. For China, hosting the summit reinforced its role as a convening power in Eurasia. For Russia, it offered a stage to demonstrate diplomatic relevance. For others, it provided reassurance that their voices remain part of a collective conversation.

In this light, the Tianjin Declaration should be read less as a manifesto and more as a barometer. It reflects a region seeking stability through cooperation rather than confrontation, aware of global uncertainties yet unwilling to be drawn into rigid blocs. The SCO’s gradual turn towards sustainable development, exemplified by Russia’s initiative, suggests an effort to anchor security concerns within a broader socio-economic framework. Whether this approach will yield tangible results remains an open question. Much will depend on implementation, resource allocation and the ability of member states to move beyond rhetoric. Yet the very fact that such issues are now central to SCO discussions indicates a maturation of the organisation’s agenda.

As global politics grows more fragmented, the Tianjin summit reminds us that not all recalibrations are dramatic. Some unfold through carefully worded declarations, incremental institutional changes and the steady accumulation of shared priorities. In a turbulent world, that quiet persistence may prove to be the SCO’s most enduring contribution.

By Prof. Dr. Arshad Munir

Those who prostrated before God are dear to God. They are all martyrs and we are witnesses today and on the Day of Judgment. Satan started firing bullets, and the servants of God remained engrossed in praising God in love, and when they all prostrated themselves praising the beloved of God, Satan detonated an explosion, which killed more than 30 people and injured hundreds. Although there was blood everywhere, the world however, saw that the voices to say ‘God is most great’ are stronger than the wailing and screaming. People were eager to help by shifting the injured people and dead bodies to hospital and donate blood as if all these martyrs and wounded were their own sons and brothers. There is widespread shock and sorrow among ordinary citizens across Pakistan. Many communities are holding vigils and prayers in memory of the victims and offering support to families of the dead and wounded. Leading political figures strongly condemned the attack and labelled the attack on worshippers as a crime against humanity and a violation of religious values. Government leaders emphasized the need to identify those responsible and bring them to justice. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressed “deep grief” as he called for a thorough investigation and the immediate identification of those behind the attack. President Asif Ali Zardari said “targeting innocent civilians is a crime against humanity”. Religious figures and community members have stressed the importance of unity, not allowing the attack to fracture social harmony or fuel sectarian tensions. Several countries including China, the U.S., Britain, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey expressed condolences and condemned the attack, highlighting international concern and called for collective effort against terrorism and reiterated respect for religious freedom. Some Pakistani officials linked the bombing to foreign-based militant networks and suggested possible involvement of external actors, which has shaped part of the broader political conversation. Many ordinary Pakistanis, including religious leaders and civil society actors, see the bombing as an assault on religious sanctity and safety.

An attacker opened fire at the gates of Imambargah Khadijah-tul-Kubra(a Shi’ite Muslim mosque) in the Tarlai area of the federal capital in Islamabad on Friday before setting off a suicide bomb and killing at least 31 people in the deadliest attack of its kind in Pakistan’s capital in more than a decade. Some emotional people were calling it a failure of intelligence, because according to them, the capital was already on high alert on Friday for visiting the president of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, with roads around the capital blocked by checkpoints and security forces posted across the city. Some people said that if the government cannot even take care of the capital, the most heavily secured city in Pakistan, how will it protect the entire Pakistan? Let’s remember that Intelligence agencies operate in an environment of uncertainty where preventing every attack is not realistically possible, particularly when threats are diffuse, low-cost, and rapidly executed. The absence of prior intelligence does not necessarily imply failure, but may reflect the inherent limits of intelligence gathering against low-visibility threats. Without evidence of ignored or mishandled intelligence, labeling the incident an intelligence failure remains speculative. Protecting all soft targets at all times would require levels of surveillance incompatible with normal civic and religious life. While the attack is deeply tragic, it is analytically misleading to label it an intelligence failure without evidence of ignored or actionable warnings. Intelligence agencies operate under significant constraints, particularly against low-profile actors targeting soft locations. The absence of prevention does not automatically imply negligence; rather, it highlights the inherent difficulty of translating broad threat awareness into precise, real-time intervention. What about the Munich massacre terrorist attack during Summer Olympics in Munich caused dozens death, Birmingham pub bombings, killing 21 with almost 200 injured, bombing of the Bologna Centrale railway station in Italy, which killed 85 people and wounded over 200, The Tokyo subway sarin attack, killing 15 with almost 1000 injured, Russian apartment bombings, killing more than 300, injuring more than 1,000,  Madrid train bombings which killed 193 people and injured around 2,500, 7/7 bombings, London resulted in 56 fatalities and more than 700 injuries, Norway attacks, killing 69 and injuring more than 300, Ankara bombings which caused 100+ death and 500+ injuries, Paris attacks which killed 138 people and injured 200+, Brussels bombings, killed 35 people and injured 300+, Pulse Nightclub, Orlando, USA attack, killing 50 people, Christchurch mosque shootings, killing 51 people and injuring 40+. Sri Lanka Easter bombings in which 258 people were killed, including at least 35 foreign nationals, and around 500 were injured, Crocus City Hall, Russia attack, killing around 150 and injured 500+ people. Were the intelligence services of all these mentioned countries unsuccessful? Critics may say that the occurrence of such incidents once or twice can be considered logical, but the occurrence of such incidents in general is a failure of intelligence. In this regard, I would like to tell them to first declare USA and India as failed states studying from “1993 World Trade Center bombing” to September 11 attacks (World Trade Centers) and Wall Street Bombing in Manhattan, New York City as well as from the Bombay bombings, resulted in 257 fatalities and 1,400 injuries, to 2006 Mumbai train bombings, killing 200+ with 700+ injured, and 2008 Mumbai attacks, killing 170+ with 300+ injured only in Mumbai.

However, it can be said that the attack points to potential gaps in intelligence collection, threat assessment, and on-ground security coordination, rather than a single, identifiable failure. While intelligence work cannot guarantee total prevention, the successful execution of an attack at a mosque during Friday prayers in the capital indicates a serious lapse in threat detection and preventive security planning. The incident underscores the need to reassess intelligence-sharing mechanisms, local surveillance, and protection of soft targets, particularly during high-risk timeframes. But for all of this, it is essential that the nation be united in thought, action, and purpose, that there be not only trust in institutions and the government, but also mutual relationships and cooperation.

The writer is the Chairperson of Islamic Studies department at Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan and can be reached at [email protected]