What Happened Behind the Scenes of the Defense Meeting Where India and China Skipped a Joint Statement? The Day the Joint Statement Disappeared: The Truth Behind the "Veto Diplomacy" at the Round Table in Qingdao

1. Defense Leaders from 10 Countries Gather in Qingdao

On June 26, in Qingdao, Shandong Province, China, a port city in early summer where the wind from the Yellow Sea carries humidity, defense ministers from 10 countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) gathered. India's Rajnath Singh, China's Dong Jun, Russia's Shoigu, and Pakistan's Khawaja Asif, among others, attended the opening ceremony with the sound of ship horns in the background. The SCO is a framework for security cooperation among Central, South, and Central Asian countries, centered around China and Russia. Recently, Iran has also formally joined, expanding its geographical reach.reuters.com

2. The Moment the Joint Statement Collapsed

On the evening of the final day of the session, the situation took a turn for the worse when the delegations reviewed the final draft. Initially, the draft included a comprehensive phrase condemning "all forms of terrorism," but the Indian delegation demanded a specific mention of the April 22 attack on tourists in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir (26 dead), and insisted on naming the perpetrating organization and its supporters. However, Pakistan objected, calling it "fabricated," and China proposed deletion under the pretext of mediation, weakening the text. Ultimately, the word "terrorism" itself was removed, and India refused to sign, citing it as "against principles." Thus, the joint statement was buried.reuters.comlivemint.com

3. Avoiding Direct Naming at the Ministry of External Affairs Briefing

On the 27th, at the South Block in New Delhi, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal explained at a regular press conference, "Certain member states did not accept strong references to terrorism, which we could not approve," but deliberately withheld naming any countries. Even when pressed by reporters asking "Is it Pakistan?" he only gave a wry smile, but the background was clear. Indian newspapers ran headlines like "Pakistan's Obstruction," and the "blame game" expanded to TV debate programs the following day.m.economictimes.comtheprint.in

4. The Pahalgam Attack—The "Fuse" That Claimed 26 Lives

At 10:20 AM on April 22, in the Baisaran Valley of the Himalayan tourist destination Pahalgam, gunfire echoed through the pine forest for about 10 minutes, claiming 26 lives, 25 of whom were tourists on their honeymoon. The Resistance Front (TRF), which claimed responsibility, later retracted its statement, but the Indian government concluded it was "cross-border terrorism effectively linked to LeT" and explicitly blamed Islamabad. Although both countries refrained from recalling ambassadors, gunfire intensified at border control points, reportedly resulting in casualties.en.wikipedia.orgft.com

5. China's "Success" Claims and Pakistan's Silence

In contrast, a spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Defense announced immediately after the meeting, "We have achieved sufficient results. The SCO is united," without mentioning the failure to establish a joint statement. The state-run Xinhua News Agency also emphasized "progress in regional security." The Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued only a brief comment, stating, "References based on factual inaccuracies are unacceptable," maintaining a near-silent stance.reuters.comstamfordadvocate.com

6. Two Public Opinions Reflected on Social Media

India's X (formerly Twitter)

• "#StandWithRajnath" exceeded 300,000 posts in a few hours, with many posts expressing pride in India's resolute stance. The defense minister himself posted "No compromise on terrorism," receiving over 30,000 "likes."twitter.comtwitter.com
  China's Weibo

• Sohu-affiliated media criticized India with provocative headlines like "India, the black sheep," and related hashtags surpassed 80 million views. In the comment sections of the younger generation, there were sentiments like "India is a troublemaker everywhere" and "They did the same in BRICS," reflecting distrust.sohu.com
  Pakistan's TikTok

• Patriotic influencers posted short videos claiming "India is politically exploiting terrorism," with views exceeding 2 million, but peaceful comments like "We do not want war" were also prominent. The Pakistani government refrained from posting on official accounts, with civilian voices taking the lead.stamfordadvocate.com

7. The Legacy of "Veto Diplomacy"

This is the third time this year that India has refused a multilateral statement. At the BRICS foreign ministers' meeting in May, India opposed language that positively mentioned the "Belt & Road," shelving the joint document. On June 14, India also "reserved" its stance on the SCO statement regarding the situation in Iran. Chinese media criticize this as "India's unilateralism," but India maintains a consistent logic that "core interests, including sovereignty and counterterrorism, are non-negotiable."sohu.comsohu.com

8. Expert Perspectives—"Tightrope Walking" or "Strategic Autonomy"?

Mishra, a senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) in New Delhi, analyzes, "India advocates for a 'multipolar' world, but its interests clash head-on with China and Pakistan over the definition of terrorism. Finding a middle ground before the autumn summit will be a litmus test." Meanwhile, Professor Kuznetsov from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) views the SCO positively, stating, "The SCO is not a place to enforce agreements but rather a forum to visualize and manage conflicts."

9. Towards the Autumn Summit—Time Remaining

The SCO summit is scheduled for September in Astana, Kazakhstan. With the joint statement still unaddressed, countries have begun readjusting the draft, but differences remain deep over how to define terrorism and whether to name incidents. India has hinted, "If there is no clear condemnation of terrorism in the summit document, we may reconsider attendance," while China is exploring a "soft expression" compromise behind the scenes.

10. Conclusion—The Trial of Multilateralism in Security

The failure to establish a joint statement may reflect a decline in the SCO's centripetal force, or it could be a "rite of passage" accompanying the process of embracing diverse values. The reality that even on the universal issue of terrorism, consensus cannot be reached suggests the vulnerabilities of the security architecture expanding from the Indo-Pacific to Eurasia. However, the mechanism that keeps the dialogue table open, even after exposing conflicts, may be the "minimum safety device" in a multipolar era. In Astana this autumn, will a more advanced agreement be adopted than this time? Amidst intersecting attention and skepticism, the trajectory of the SCO will continue to be tested as a barometer of regional security.