SCO: India refuses to sign joint statement at the summit
How did your country report this? Share your view in the comments.
Diverging Reports Breakdown
India Refuses to Sign SCO Statement Over Omission of Terrorism Concerns
India has declined to sign a joint communique at the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in China. India said the statement did not reflect the country’s security priorities, particularly in relation to the recent militant attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian side, citing the absence of any reference to the incident in the final text, saw the document as ‘pro-Pakistan’ India’S stance may also reflect a broader discomfort with what it perceives as China and Russia’s ambivalence toward cross-border terrorism, especially when it impacts Indian interests. India and Pakistan joined the organisation in 2017, but tensions between the two neighbours have often complicated consensus within the group.
Omission Sparks Diplomatic Snub
The SCO, formed in 2001 by China, Russia, and four Central Asian nations to counterbalance Western influence, held its defence ministers’ meeting in China ahead of its leaders’ summit this autumn. India and Pakistan joined the organisation in 2017, but tensions between the two neighbours have often complicated consensus within the group.
This year’s joint statement became a point of contention for India, reportedly due to the omission of the Pahalgam attack that occurred in April. The assault, which killed 26 tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, was blamed on Pakistan-based militants by New Delhi. The Indian side, citing the absence of any reference to the incident in the final text, saw the document as “pro-Pakistan”, especially as it mentioned militant activity in Balochistan, where Pakistan accuses India of supporting separatist groups, an allegation India denies.
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal noted on Thursday that India’s proposed language on terrorism was “not acceptable to one particular country,” though he stopped short of naming it. Media speculation has strongly pointed towards Pakistan as the country in question.
A Pattern of Cross-Border Hostilities
India’s Defence Minister, Rajnath Singh, used the platform to issue a veiled critique of Pakistan, stating, “Some countries use cross-border terrorism as an instrument of policy and provide shelter to terrorists. There should be no place for such double standards. SCO should not hesitate to criticise such nations.”
Although Singh did not explicitly name Pakistan, the context was clear. The Pahalgam attack pushed the two nuclear-armed neighbours closer to conflict, with India retaliating in May through what it called precision airstrikes on “terror infrastructure” in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Islamabad, in turn, denied these claims and responded by launching missile and drone strikes into Indian territory.
Tensions only began to ease following an intervention reportedly brokered by the United States. On May 10, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that both India and Pakistan had agreed to a “full and immediate ceasefire.” However, New Delhi has consistently denied any third-party mediation in the matter.
Strategic Gaps Within the SCO
India’s refusal to endorse the joint SCO statement underscores growing unease within the bloc. Despite efforts to maintain regional solidarity, fault lines between India and Pakistan continue to pose challenges to consensus-building. India’s stance may also reflect a broader discomfort with what it perceives as China and Russia’s ambivalence toward cross-border terrorism, especially when it impacts Indian interests.
As the SCO prepares for its leaders’ summit later this year, observers will be watching closely to see if the group can reconcile these deep-rooted disputes or if the organisation’s utility as a regional forum will continue to erode.
Kakaopay’s Shares Plunge 17% Amid Concerns Over Stablecoin Venture
Kakao Pay, formerly known as Kakaopay and a subsidiary of Kakao Corp, has been the leading force in the South Korean digital payment ecosystem. Its sudden surge is due to the investor speculation on the prospect of the company entering the stablecoin industry. This includes cryptocurrency-like devices pegged against a stable good, such as the US dollar, with the aim of reducing volatility. However, the government of South Korea has raised growing concerns about the risks involved in the implementation of KakaOpay stablecoin. This has evoked a plummeting stock value of the firm by 17%. The next few months will probably define the outcome of whether Kaka Opay will overcome this storm or they have to revise their approach under the growing questions.
Kakao Pay, formerly known as Kakaopay and a subsidiary of Kakao Corp, has been the leading force in the South Korean digital payment ecosystem. Its sudden surge is due to the investor speculation on the prospect of the company entering the stablecoin industry. This includes cryptocurrency-like devices pegged against a stable good, such as the US dollar, with the aim of reducing volatility. Nonetheless, even with this optimism, the market has started taking a cautious view following rising concerns of regulatory focus.
Regulatory Scrutiny Raises Red Flags
The government of South Korea has raised growing concerns about the risks involved in the implementation of Kakaopay stablecoin. Although stablecoins have the advantage of being fast and cheaper to transact, these coins are also perceived to be vulnerable to the same regulatory barriers. These have hindered the growth of the international cryptocurrency market. Government authorities have indicated that when Kakaopay, the stablecoin project, is not properly regulated, it may pose serious challenges. This is mostly in terms of legal and regulatory issues, especially where there is money laundering and financial stability.
Furthermore, the increasing attention towards stablecoins has been prompted by the various popular cryptocurrency platforms that have failed in recent years. This has pointed to the necessity of regulated control. South Korean regulators have indicated to the South Korean people that any wrong move made by Kakaopay may lead to negative consequences. This may also impact the financial status and reputation of the company negatively. Such anxieties have also given rise to outbursts of uncertainty among investors, which have played a part in the drastic falls in the price of the company.
Investors React to the Uncertainty
Besides these regulatory issues, the market is also dealing with the risks that come with stablecoins in their intrinsic nature. This is mostly notable with regard to the assets behind the stablecoins. Although stablecoins are created to achieve lower volatility relative to other conventional cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, they are pegged to some stable assets. This means that their stability depends on the stability of these other assets. Any movement on the value of these assets may also reflect a change in the value of the stablecoin, resulting in losses for the investors.
The same concerns have seen the stock of Kakaopay decrease by 17%, as it seems that an ambitious expansion into stablecoin might not reap as much profit as expected. Meanwhile, the relocation can situate Kakaopay to be a market leader in future digital financial payments. However, the risk that comes with regulations and market fluctuations has made the investors reevaluate the growth opportunities of the firm.
Kakaopay is still working on its stablecoin. The only uphill climb awaits it in being able to register the required regulatory approval and guarantee the sustainability of its intended digital currency in the long run. The next few months will probably define the outcome of whether Kakaopay will overcome this storm or they have to revise their approach under the growing questions.
‘China and Pakistan manoeuvred this’: Ex Foreign Secy says India was right to not sign the SCO statement
Former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal said that Defence Minister Rajnath Singh did the right thing by not signing the Shanghai Cooperation Summit (SCO) joint statement on Thursday. Singh did not sign the SCO joint statement since it skipped any mention of the Pahalgam terror attack that claimed the lives of 26 tourists, including one Nepali citizen. Sibal, who served as the Foreign Secretary under Atal Bihari Vajpayee, alleged that China and its “all-weather friend” Pakistan manoeuvred the attempted diplomatic snub. He also said that the fact that other SCO member countries, including Russia, did not press for a balanced statement needs to be probed.
Advertisement
Related Articles
The statement, however, had a mention of incidents in Balochistan and tried to frame India for fomenting these incidents in the Pakistani province. Sibal, who served as the Foreign Secretary under Atal Bihari Vajpayee, alleged that China and its “all-weather friend” Pakistan manoeuvred the attempted diplomatic snub.
“Def Min Rajnath Singh was not right not to sign the SCO communiqué because Balochistan figured in it, but not Pahalgam. Normally, communiqués are drafted after delegation-level consultation so that consensus is achieved before the principals are asked to sign on. It would seem India’s objection to an invidious text was disregarded, forcing India’s rejection at the Def Min level. Clearly, China and Pakistan manoeuvred this,” Sibal said in his post on X.
Def Min Rajnath Singh was right not to sign the SCO communiqué because Balochistan figured in it but not Pahalgam.
Normally communiqués are drafted after delegation level consultation so that consensus is achieved before the principals are asked to sign on.
It would seem… — Kanwal Sibal (@KanwalSibal) June 26, 2025
But why would the global loan shark China manoeuvre something like this with its all-weather friend? Sibal, who is currently the Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), decodes: “China has been shielding Pakistan on terrorism. Because of Gwadar, it has great interest in highlighting Balochistan.”
Advertisement
He decried other countries for not referencing the Pahalgam attack in the statement despite having condemned it. Sibal also said that the fact that other SCO member countries, including Russia, did not press for a balanced statement needs to be probed.
“Why Russian and other delegations did not press for a balanced communiqué aware of India’s long fight against terrorism and the recent perpetration of the heinous Pahalgam attack and chose to acknowledge Pakistan’s concerns about Balochistan, more so as Pakistan alleges Indian involvement, needs probing.”
Furthermore, Sibal said that a statement was not issued at all to avoid isolating India was an indication that India’s firm stance against terrorism has paid off. The former Indian ambassador to Russia also said that this is a signal to other SCO members that the summit communiqué could be impacted again if China and Pakistan acted funny.
Advertisement
“That other SCO members finally chose not to issue a text at all and avoided isolating India by inscribing a footnote that India had not approved that particular para/formulation, as is done in case of BRI, shows that India’s firmness paid. It is good we stood our position. It is a signal to others that the SCO summit communiqué could be jeopardised if China and Pakistan chose to play games again,” Sibal signed off.
No mention of Pak terror: Rajnath refuses to sign SCO joint statement
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh says perpetrators and sponsors of terrorism must be held accountable. Singh chose not to sign a communique by the bloc for not addressing India’s concerns over Pakistan-backed cross-border terrorism. Singh’s refusal to endorse the document resulted in the SCO defence ministers’ conclave ending without a joint communique, people familiar with the matter said.
The SCO operates under the framework of consensus, and Singh’s refusal to endorse the document resulted in the SCO defence ministers’ conclave ending without a joint communique, people familiar with the matter said.
There was no clear-cut approach to combating terrorism, including cross-border terrorist activities, they said.
The Opposition launched a scathing attack, accusing the Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led government of failing diplomatically to rally international support against terrorism and to hold Pakistan accountable.
In his address, Singh said there should be “no double standards” in combating terrorism and urged the SCO member nations to condemn the menace with unity.
Besides India and China, the SCO comprises Pakistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
In an oblique reference to Pakistan, Singh said some countries are using cross-border terrorism as an “instrument of policy” to provide shelter to terrorists.
“The biggest challenges that we are facing in our region are related to peace, security and trust-deficit,” he said.
“And the root cause of these problems is increasing radicalisation, extremism and terrorism.” Singh said peace and prosperity cannot co-exist with terrorism and proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in the hands of non-state actors and terror groups.
“Dealing with these challenges requires decisive action, and we must unite in our fight against these evils for our collective safety and security,” he said.
SCO: India refuses to sign joint statement at the summit
India refuses to sign joint statement at defence summit over Kashmir issue. Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India’s desire for its concerns to be reflected was “not acceptable to one particular country” India perceived the joint statement as being “pro-Pakistan” after it omitted the Pahalgam attack but mentioned militant activities in Balochistan. India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir, which they claim to own in full but administer in parts. The latest signing ceremony took place during the SCO defence ministers’ meeting in China.
India has blamed its neighbour Pakistan for sheltering a militant group it blames for the attack. Pakistan has rejected the allegations.
While he did not share more details, Indian media reported that Delhi refused to sign the statement after it omitted the Pahalgam attack, a deadly militant attack that killed 26 tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir.
Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said on Thursday that India’s desire for its concerns to be reflected was “not acceptable to one particular country”.
India has refused to sign a joint statement at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in China as it did not reflect the country’s concerns on terrorism, India’s foreign ministry has said.
China, Russia and four Central Asian countries formed the SCO in 2001 as a countermeasure to limit the influence of the West in the region. India and Pakistan joined in 2017.
The latest signing ceremony took place during the SCO defence ministers’ meeting in China, held ahead of the leaders’ annual summit this autumn.
According to media reports, India perceived the joint statement as being “pro-Pakistan” after it omitted the Pahalgam attack but mentioned militant activities in Balochistan.
Pakistan has accused India of backing the Balochistan freedom movement, which India denies.
After the meeting, India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh urged the SCO to hold the perpetrators of cross-border terrorism accountable, though he didn’t explicitly mention Pakistan.
“Some countries use cross-border terrorism as an instrument of policy and provide shelter to terrorists. There should be no place for such double standards. SCO should not hesitate to criticise such nations,” he said in a statement.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir, which they claim to own in full but administer in parts.
The Pahalgam attack in April brought the two nuclear-armed countries to the brink of another war.
In May, India launched a series of airstrikes, targeting sites it called “terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir”.
Pakistan denied the claim that these were terror camps and also responded by firing missiles and deploying drones into Indian territory.
The hostilities between the two countries continued until 10 May when US President Donald Trump announced that India and Pakistan had agreed to a “full and immediate ceasefire”, brokered by the US.
India has, however, consistently denied any intervention by the US.