'India blocking China's entry into SAARC to retain supremacy'

[dray]

it will happen with or with out you ,like it or not!
whats the deal with india ?anyway let the chinese enter its not like they will eat you or something

There is something called veto power, it won't happen with us, and it can't happen without us.

 

[Kompromat]

What is there to imagine?
Pakistans induction in SCO will be veoted by Russia if India's is by China.
The only place Pakistan can get in without India spoiling the plans is GCC. You are welcome to join there.

Russia is trying to mend ties with Pakistan and SCO needs our ports for its logistical transits as well as for defeating terrorists who might hit them.

 

[he-man]

How exactly will exporting "fruits, vegetables and cement" to India significantly impact Pakistan's economic growth rate?

Were u serious here??

 

[anonymus]

sardar g
if I tell you something then instead of laughing you will go to Dehli and slap those Lalas that have put restrictions on Pakistani imports. you see Pakistani cement is way cheaper than India but India wont let the people and small business benefit from the low cost of building out of simple animosity towards Pakistan. this trade thing is a two way process with a little bit of open heart and less fat on the eyes...

shame that never happens

Even if Pakistani cement is cheaper, it would become dearer if it is sold to India, as India has humongous demand for Cement. Free trade in Cement would in no way be to the detriment of Indian Cement manufactures.


Example:

A 10 liter bucket X contain 9 liter water (90%) while a 100 liter drum contain 85 liter water (85%) . Both of them are mixed together. Not the new 110 liter vessel contain 94 liter water ie 85.45% water. See very little change for constituent with lower share.


This demonstration encapsulate the dilemma of Pakistan. In areas where it has favorable price differential, that differential would be swiftly eroded in a single market, even though it would gain some in absolute terms but normalization would ensure that there is no large gain in market share.

 

[he-man]

Russia is trying to mend ties with Pakistan and SCO needs our ports for its logistical transits as well as for defeating terrorists who might hit them.

No,,its just trying to make up for lost money elsewhere.And it has every right to.

 

[Judge]

Russia is trying to mend ties with Pakistan and SCO needs our ports for its logistical transits as well as for defeating terrorists who might hit them.

No. You can keep thinking of what SCO 'needs', but the fact is that the end of the day Pakistan will not get into SCO if India is stopped.

And all of us - Russia, China and India - share good relations with Iran and trade with Iran despite sanctions. You know what that means.

 

[WAJsal]

There is something called veto power, it won't happen with us, and it can't happen without us.

lets wait and see

 

[he-man]

Imagine if China vetos Indian induction in SCO. Pakistan will be an SCO member, ECO as well as SAARC while we'll get an observer status in GCC too. We don't wan't to be in SAARC but we have to be there so we can spoil your party by itroducing a bigger fish to the pond

SCO has russia too and we partner china in brics bank too.
Lol,,will they veto indian entry??

 

[Judge]

lets wait and see

There is no 'wait and see'. SAARC charter mandates consensus. India refusing means its a no-go.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no domination in economically. Were markets to open up with China and India, the result would be slightly different - China would take manufacturing, India would take away the services.
There is zero benefit of China actually joining up. But were China to not join up, other countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan would take up manufacturing - because India is not competitive there.

I don't see Bangladesh and Pakistan as being that competitive in manufacturing - in fact, Pakistan is struggling in comparison to Bangladesh with many Pakistani textile companies relocating to Bangladesh. In addition, if Bangladesh and Pakistan really were that competitive in manufacturing, industries would be relocating their manufacturing facilities to these countries (which they are in the case of Pakistani textile manufacturers moving to Bangladesh) irrespective of the opening up of SAARC.

Chinese labor costs are going up, which in turn will change the calculus for companies manufacturing in China and potentially result in these companies opening up manufacturing facilities in Pakistan and Bangladesh, to support local demand at least. The apprehension that countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh will suffer if China is included in SAARC is therefore not entirely justified.

And Markets are already in the process of being opened up bilaterally between SAARC countries minus Pakistan. SAARC only expedites the process as a collective. India is already cognizant of the fact that Pakistan will not let it function so we are moving ahead individually.

We already opened up a group called BIMSTEC(google it) - basically it is SAARC without Pakistan because of realizing the futility of dealing with Pakistan which acts as an outpost for others interests than acting for itself.
Then we moved on and decided that treating bilaterally for trade and economics makes more sense - and that is what we are doing now.

That's all fine, but irrelevant to the discussion of why India is opposing China's SAARC membership.

If just increased economic ties are the goal - then it makes more sense to have Japan, France and US along with China in SAARC as well. They have as much economic justification - as key investors, donors, developmental assistance providers as China and infact larger than China in these assistance's .

And yes - all these nations are keen to join SAARC, US in particular is very keen.

Pakistan has been trying to get open market access to the US for decades now, and the US did not oblige with even limited access during the days when US-Pakistan cooperation over Afghanistan was excellent, so I really don't see why the US would open up its markets to SAARC.

While the US might express "interest" in joining SAARC, it is all just "diplo-speak' - historically US trade agreements have been bilateral or with established and functioning blocs like the EU. There is no chance of the US opening up her markets to SAARC nations at this point since the US does not see any major benefits in bilateral trade agreements with any of the SAARC member States, aside from India. But that is just my view on it - I have no objections in SAARC granting membership to the US, I just don't see the US opening up her markets even if she is made a member.

Then what is the point of having SAARC if we are to involve China and these nations? We can deal directly with WTO if that is the case.

China is geographically contiguous, it is a developing country like the other SAARC countries. China as a member would balance out SAARC in terms of having 2 large economies and States in the group instead of just one, and she is actually interested in being part of the group - like I said above, I don't see the same enthusiasm on the part of the other countries you mentioned.

Now the fact is that just economic ties are not the only goal of SAARC - it is also a platform for South Asian countries to sit together politically. Including China, US, Japan and a host of other nations defeats the other part of the goal of SAARC.

Why politically? What common political goals are you suggesting SAARC advance that will be hindered by the presence of China?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Pakistani members getting too cozy about dreams of a total economic alliance with china should think a little deeply.Its not a simple matter of spiting india.
What will happen in infrastructure development is in return all projects will be awarded to chinese companies leading to mass outflow of revenue from pakistan.As they will have control of projects they will control local employment,which they generally do by bringing in their own workers.
Two they will exploit ur natural resources at their pleasure and their terms and u won't be able to do a damn thing abt it - because western companies aren't willing to invest due to insurgency problem.So basically chinese will suck the resources dry like a colony at dirt price.Monopoly,especially foreign one always ends badly.Historical fact.
Finally-free trade en masse will annihilate the remnants of the indigeneous pakistani manufacturing industries.Particularly textile industry which accounts for 63% pak exports and 20% of all pak labour employment.

Joining the proposed silk road using pak as a transit route is the one excellent proposal in which pak has only to gain-but only if iran and afghanisthan play nice,unrest in middle east ends and gwadar operationalized from current white elephant state.

 

[WAJsal]

There is no 'wait and see'. SAARC charter mandates consensus. India refusing means its a no-go.

once again lets wait and see,china s got dough,it can help us all economically and socially you do realize that?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Were u serious here??

I do believe those are the "goods" you mentioned in a previous post that Pakistan could export to India - do you disagree?

And if you disagree, could you help expand on how open trade with India would help boost Pakistan's economic growth rates significantly?

 

[dil_dil]

There is no 'wait and see'. SAARC charter mandates consensus. India refusing means its a no-go.

Does this mean Pak can continue to refuse any agreement and f other members as well?

 

[Judge]

I don't see Bangladesh and Pakistan as being that competitive in manufacturing - in fact, Pakistan is struggling in comparison to Bangladesh with many Pakistani textile companies relocating to Bangladesh. In addition, if Bangladesh and Pakistan really were that competitive in manufacturing, industries would be relocating their manufacturing facilities to these countries (which they are in the case of Pakistani textile manufacturers moving to Bangladesh) irrespective of the opening up of SAARC.

Industries are infact locating to Bangladesh. That is testament to how it will help the smaller neighbours.
Pakistan is also enroute to becoming competitive in manufacturing - why else is India importing cement from Pakistan. Because Pakistan's labour costs are lesser than India's and regulatory environment better. The security situation is on course to improve in the coming years.

That's all fine, but irrelevant to the discussion of why India is opposing China's SAARC membership.

For political reasons.

That is all wonderful - Pakistan has been trying to get open market access to the US for decades now, and the US did not oblige with even limited access during the days when US-Pakistan cooperation over Afghanistan was excellent, so I really don't see why the US would open up its markets to SAARC. While the US might express "interest" in joining SAARC, it is all just "diplo-speak' - historically US trade agreements have been bilateral or with established and functioning blocs like the EU. There is no chance of the US opening up her markets to SAARC nations at this point since the US does not see any major benefits in bilateral trade agreements with any of the SAARC member States, aside from India. But that is just my view on it - I have no objections in SAARC granting membership to the US, I just don't see the US opening up her markets even if she is made a member.

China is geographically contiguous, it is a developing country like the other SAARC countries. China as a member would balance out SAARC in terms of having 2 large economies and States in the group instead of just one, and she is actually interested in being part of the group - like I said above, I don't see the same enthusiasm on the part of the other countries you mentioned.

US is rather keen on joining up and they have pushed India repeatedly to get them in.
And the logic is entirely the same - if we let US, China, Japan and assorted countries join up - then what is the difference between WTO and SAARC.

Why politically? What common political goals are you suggesting SAARC advance that will be hindered by the presence of China?

Because our geography and peculiar political needs are different and therefore needs a separate grouping. I am surprised at your question.
The reason is the same why we have regional groupings - and why we dont all discuss political issues in the UN which already has all of South Asia in it.