vi-va
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 6,475
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Pipe dream. It's the Pakistan-China alliance keep India barking not biting.
Just brain drain. and looting India for past 200+ years. How absurd.
India plays with fire spicing up G7 expansion
- Thread starter Feng Leng
- Start date
Feng Leng
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2017
- Messages
- 4,355
- Reaction score
- -21
- Country
- Location
India has more poor than Sub-Saharan Africa
Gandhi G in da house
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 9,475
- Reaction score
- -24
- Country
- Location
India has more poor than Sub-Saharan Africa
Dont worry, sub-saharans will also enjoy when CCP gets gang banged.
Africans in China: We face coronavirus discrimination
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-52309414
hundreds of thousands working in IT parks in India must be figment of my imagination
I see more frequent invitations to India to co-ordinate political and economic policies. France invited India in August 2019. In any case there exist the G-20 as a forum to include India
it is amazing pakistanis are choosing to advise the Indian state. when the pakistani state was in cahoots with America what are you guys doing ? Sleeping then and bitching now
masterchief_mirza
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2019
- Messages
- 9,706
- Reaction score
- 17
- Country
- Location
The discussion isn't about American opportunism and exploitation of third world nations. That is well known.
Why would anyone want to listen to pakistanis on how to manage relationship with America ?
True. Huge income gap with rich and poor.India has more poor than Sub-Saharan Africa
G 20 exisit for economic coperation. But point here is trump trying to unite all G7 against china but he wont be successful. G7 might agree on hongkong and covid but that dont mean they will cut off trade ties.
Gentelman
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,307
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
I know that....
And best of luck trying to take some sq kms back from chinese.....
Chinese may even go back and let you declare victory but not without conveying their own strategic objectives....
Sheikh Rauf
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
- Messages
- 5,732
- Reaction score
- -10
- Country
- Location
This seems like as soon as india gets in trouble india start calling other countries who doesnt like china. India is next door to china and by the time world get their support to india china takes what belongs to it and block all kind of stratigic areas india will be open from sea rout already too many stats wants to get out of india it will not be feasable for india to fight.. india will likely to put pressure to convey its message if you mess up with me i have friends who will take care of you..
In history we have seen world largest empire disappears from map and india is just 5th largest economy..
It will be all out war if it happens and i believe india starts with pakistan to unite its people cuz mody didnt say a word against China cuz they know china will come hard and she wont be able to handle it.
In history we have seen world largest empire disappears from map and india is just 5th largest economy..
It will be all out war if it happens and i believe india starts with pakistan to unite its people cuz mody didnt say a word against China cuz they know china will come hard and she wont be able to handle it.
Trump Suggests a G7 Expansion to Include Australia, India, and South Korea. Is That Realistic? Will the G-7 see expansion?
https://thediplomat.com/2020/06/tru...alia-india-and-south-korea-is-that-realistic/
This past weekend, U.S. President Donald J. Trump announced that the upcoming summit of the Group of Seven would be postponed until September. He added that the meeting would take place around the United Nations General Assembly’s general debate — on either side of the event. What drew considerable attention, however, was Trump’s set of comments suggesting that the G-7 should be expanded. “I don’t feel that as a G-7 it properly represents what’s going on in the world. It’s a very outdated group of countries,” Trump told reporters gathered on Air Force One. Instead, he suggested that other countries, including Russia, South Korea, Australia, and India should be included. The suggestion to add Russia was immediately controversial, given that the Group of Seven was born of the former Group of Eight, which included Russia. The other seven members excluded Moscow from the grouping after its unilateral seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014. But the suggested addition of two U.S. liberaldemocratic treaty allies, Australia and South Korea, and India, an important U.S. partner, have raised eyebrows in these capitals — mostly in a positive way. There’s no real reason this couldn’t happen. The Group of Seven, since Russia’s expulsion, has been a loosely associated group of large, industrialized countries
Comprising the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Canada (and the European Union), the group meets annually to discuss a range of global issues, managing to usually find a common stance. In recent years, there have been more than a few road bumps. The Trump administration’s “America First” agenda made it difficult for the countries to release the sorts of statements they had in the past, particularly when it came to the issues of climate change and free trade, where the United States is an outlier. The Trump proposal may find takers in the proposed new additions, which would together make the new group a Group of Eleven, or G-11. But there are risks. For instance, even as the United States’ new foreign policy preferences have made joint statements a little more difficult than they were before 2017, the additional of new countries may complicate the agenda in new ways
One of the obvious attractions for Trump of having the four proposed countries at the table is the possibility of having a forum to discuss China. In multilateral terms, adding India and Australia would allow a new G-11 to subsume the “quadrilateral” of the United States, Japan, Australia, and India, providing yet another forum in which these four democracies could interact. But more countries means a broader agenda. India, for instance, may take a different stand from the other participating countries on issues related to trade, where New Delhi continues to be reticent about full-scale liberalization. Either way, the suggestion of adding Russia makes Trump’s proposal a nonstarter for the remaining members of the G-7 — notably the four Europeans and Canada. If the proposal can be disaggregated, Australia, South Korea, and India, however, may have the interest — and ability — to see through a modest expansion. There is also the question of whether an expanded G-7 may lack the sufficient cohesion to justify its existence alongside the Group of 20, which is a broader group of 20 economies — with less in common ideologically — focused on global economic coordination. Given the already-existing rifts within the G-7, an expansion simply might not make sense.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/30/politics/trump-g7-september/index.html
(CNN)President Donald Trump has announced he is postponing the G7 until at least September and wants to invite four additional countries to the summit: Russia, Australia, India and South Korea.
"I'm postponing it because I don't feel as a G7 it probably represents what's going on in the world. It's a very outdated group of countries," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday.
The G7 is comprised of the US, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Japan.
White House director of strategic communications Alyssa Farah said the President wants to bring other traditional allies, including Five Eyes countries, into the mix, as well as those impacted by coronavirus, and to talk about the future of China.
The President had recently said he planned to host the G7 in person later next month, but has faced a mixed and uncertain response from other G7 leaders on attending the summit in person amid the pandemic.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel "cannot confirm" that she will attend a possible G7 summit in Washington amid the coronavirus pandemic, a spokesperson at the Chancellery said Saturday.
"The Chancellor thanks President Trump for his invitation to the G7 summit in Washington at the end of June," Merkel's spokesperson said in a statement.
"As of today, given the overall pandemic situation, she cannot confirm her personal participation, that is, a trip to Washington," the spokesperson added.
Meanwhile, Germany's Health Minister, Jens Spahn, expressed his "disappointment" over the United States' withdrawal from the World Health Organization, saying that the decision taken by the Trump administration was a "setback" for international health policy.
Other world leaders have also been cagey with regards to Trump's proposed G7 summit.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Wednesday he could not yet commit to attending the proposed G7 meeting in person because of concerns over transmission of the virus and Canada's quarantine rules.
"There are significant health preoccupations that we have around holding it in person but there's no question that an in-person meeting in an ideal situation are much more effective than even virtual meetings," he said.
French President Emmanuel Macron spoke with Trump on Thursday. The two leaders "agreed on the importance of convening the G7 in person in the near future," according to a White House readout of the call. But the White House did not say whether Macron had committed to attending in person.
Trump first introduced the idea of reviving the summit as an in-person event in a tweet on May 20, indicating that it would signal to the world that things are returning to normal after the coronavirus pandemic halted travel and froze the global economy.
CNN's Nadine Schmidt, Laura Smith-Spark, Paula Newton, Kevin Liptak and Nikki Carvajal contributed to this report.
https://thediplomat.com/2020/06/tru...alia-india-and-south-korea-is-that-realistic/
This past weekend, U.S. President Donald J. Trump announced that the upcoming summit of the Group of Seven would be postponed until September. He added that the meeting would take place around the United Nations General Assembly’s general debate — on either side of the event. What drew considerable attention, however, was Trump’s set of comments suggesting that the G-7 should be expanded. “I don’t feel that as a G-7 it properly represents what’s going on in the world. It’s a very outdated group of countries,” Trump told reporters gathered on Air Force One. Instead, he suggested that other countries, including Russia, South Korea, Australia, and India should be included. The suggestion to add Russia was immediately controversial, given that the Group of Seven was born of the former Group of Eight, which included Russia. The other seven members excluded Moscow from the grouping after its unilateral seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014. But the suggested addition of two U.S. liberaldemocratic treaty allies, Australia and South Korea, and India, an important U.S. partner, have raised eyebrows in these capitals — mostly in a positive way. There’s no real reason this couldn’t happen. The Group of Seven, since Russia’s expulsion, has been a loosely associated group of large, industrialized countries
Comprising the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Canada (and the European Union), the group meets annually to discuss a range of global issues, managing to usually find a common stance. In recent years, there have been more than a few road bumps. The Trump administration’s “America First” agenda made it difficult for the countries to release the sorts of statements they had in the past, particularly when it came to the issues of climate change and free trade, where the United States is an outlier. The Trump proposal may find takers in the proposed new additions, which would together make the new group a Group of Eleven, or G-11. But there are risks. For instance, even as the United States’ new foreign policy preferences have made joint statements a little more difficult than they were before 2017, the additional of new countries may complicate the agenda in new ways
One of the obvious attractions for Trump of having the four proposed countries at the table is the possibility of having a forum to discuss China. In multilateral terms, adding India and Australia would allow a new G-11 to subsume the “quadrilateral” of the United States, Japan, Australia, and India, providing yet another forum in which these four democracies could interact. But more countries means a broader agenda. India, for instance, may take a different stand from the other participating countries on issues related to trade, where New Delhi continues to be reticent about full-scale liberalization. Either way, the suggestion of adding Russia makes Trump’s proposal a nonstarter for the remaining members of the G-7 — notably the four Europeans and Canada. If the proposal can be disaggregated, Australia, South Korea, and India, however, may have the interest — and ability — to see through a modest expansion. There is also the question of whether an expanded G-7 may lack the sufficient cohesion to justify its existence alongside the Group of 20, which is a broader group of 20 economies — with less in common ideologically — focused on global economic coordination. Given the already-existing rifts within the G-7, an expansion simply might not make sense.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/30/politics/trump-g7-september/index.html
(CNN)President Donald Trump has announced he is postponing the G7 until at least September and wants to invite four additional countries to the summit: Russia, Australia, India and South Korea.
"I'm postponing it because I don't feel as a G7 it probably represents what's going on in the world. It's a very outdated group of countries," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday.
The G7 is comprised of the US, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and Japan.
White House director of strategic communications Alyssa Farah said the President wants to bring other traditional allies, including Five Eyes countries, into the mix, as well as those impacted by coronavirus, and to talk about the future of China.
The President had recently said he planned to host the G7 in person later next month, but has faced a mixed and uncertain response from other G7 leaders on attending the summit in person amid the pandemic.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel "cannot confirm" that she will attend a possible G7 summit in Washington amid the coronavirus pandemic, a spokesperson at the Chancellery said Saturday.
"The Chancellor thanks President Trump for his invitation to the G7 summit in Washington at the end of June," Merkel's spokesperson said in a statement.
"As of today, given the overall pandemic situation, she cannot confirm her personal participation, that is, a trip to Washington," the spokesperson added.
Meanwhile, Germany's Health Minister, Jens Spahn, expressed his "disappointment" over the United States' withdrawal from the World Health Organization, saying that the decision taken by the Trump administration was a "setback" for international health policy.
Other world leaders have also been cagey with regards to Trump's proposed G7 summit.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Wednesday he could not yet commit to attending the proposed G7 meeting in person because of concerns over transmission of the virus and Canada's quarantine rules.
"There are significant health preoccupations that we have around holding it in person but there's no question that an in-person meeting in an ideal situation are much more effective than even virtual meetings," he said.
French President Emmanuel Macron spoke with Trump on Thursday. The two leaders "agreed on the importance of convening the G7 in person in the near future," according to a White House readout of the call. But the White House did not say whether Macron had committed to attending in person.
Trump first introduced the idea of reviving the summit as an in-person event in a tweet on May 20, indicating that it would signal to the world that things are returning to normal after the coronavirus pandemic halted travel and froze the global economy.
CNN's Nadine Schmidt, Laura Smith-Spark, Paula Newton, Kevin Liptak and Nikki Carvajal contributed to this report.
lonelyman
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
- Messages
- 3,737
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
If you do that, India will cease to exist next day
Germany refuse to come, Russia refuse to join, and USA is 1000 miles away and we will take care of India nuance first by disintegrate Hindu terroistswith trump in power, how stupid For Indians to hope for any crumbs from USA? Really this dumb?
U are nothing but filthy disgusting canon fodder to trump
https://www.cfr.org/blog/india-and-g7
On June 2, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald J. Trump spoke by phone. According to the Indian government’s call readout, the president “conveyed his desire to expand the ambit of the [G7] grouping beyond the existing membership, to include other important countries including India. In this context, he extended an invitation to Prime Minister Modi to attend the next G-7 Summit to be held in USA.”
This confirmation from the Indian government builds upon the president’s remarks, reported on May 30, about his plans to convene a larger G7 summit including Australia, India, South Korea—and Russia; in his words, to “discuss China’s future.” Predictably, Trump’s invitation to India has generated substantial interest within India, as has the invitation to Australia similarly received coverage there. In the United States, more attention appears to be directed toward the president’s plans to include Russia in this enlarged grouping.
There’s little economic logic to a grouping that would include Russia, no longer among the world’s top ten economies at market exchange rates, while excluding China, the world’s second largest economy (largest if using purchasing power parity terms). But the G7 has never professed to be a gathering of “developed and developing economies from every continent” along the lines of the G20.
The G7 was created as a consultation of industrialized economies, all of which have been democracies since the grouping’s origins in 1975. The original G6 included the United States, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with Canada joining to make the G7 by 1976. Russia participated in the G8 from 1998 to 2014 until its invasion of Ukraine’s Crimea caused the group to eject it.
In the decades since the G7 formed, emerging markets have grown to become far more important to the global economy—and large emerging markets like China and India have become crucial to every issue of collective action that the G7 is preoccupied with, such as climate change, clean energy, and health pandemics. Both countries participate in the G20 but have not been part of the G7.
Should the criteria of “advanced industrialized” still apply as a threshold for G7 inclusion when countries still in the middle-income or lower-middle-income categories have become so central? My answer to that is no, and I argued in my book that it’s time to consider Indian membership in an expanded G7 given the size of its economy and the fact that, for all its troubles, India is a democracy.
Democracy sets India apart from China, so it could be a conceivable and logical expansion to include India in an enlarged G7, but not China. But using this yardstick, the selection of Australia and South Korea spurs questions about other democratic economies around the same size not on the list. What about Brazil and Mexico? Or Indonesia? A ranking of the ten largest economies that are also democracies—using market exchange rates—would suggest inclusion of Brazil, India, and South Korea in a “D10” grouping along with all members of the existing G7. That same ranking using purchasing power parity would include India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, and South Korea—but not Italy and Canada, core G7 members. All of this is food for thought on the purpose and design of any expansion of this consultation.
Countries in bold are current G7 members. Sources: Market exchange rate data (2018, latest available) comes from the World Bank. Purchasing power parity data (2020, estimated) comes from the IMF.
Most of all, it’s clear that the twentieth-century institutions of global governance have not reformed to reflect the established importance of emerging economies to the world. In his own way, Trump was right to call the G7 an “outdated group of countries,” because it is. What we need, however, is a logical and consistent way to create a more relevant group for the challenges currently facing us. The invitees to the Trump G7 summit do not, as a group—and especially with the inclusion of Russia—provide that clear, coherent case for an enlarged institution.
On June 2, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald J. Trump spoke by phone. According to the Indian government’s call readout, the president “conveyed his desire to expand the ambit of the [G7] grouping beyond the existing membership, to include other important countries including India. In this context, he extended an invitation to Prime Minister Modi to attend the next G-7 Summit to be held in USA.”
This confirmation from the Indian government builds upon the president’s remarks, reported on May 30, about his plans to convene a larger G7 summit including Australia, India, South Korea—and Russia; in his words, to “discuss China’s future.” Predictably, Trump’s invitation to India has generated substantial interest within India, as has the invitation to Australia similarly received coverage there. In the United States, more attention appears to be directed toward the president’s plans to include Russia in this enlarged grouping.
There’s little economic logic to a grouping that would include Russia, no longer among the world’s top ten economies at market exchange rates, while excluding China, the world’s second largest economy (largest if using purchasing power parity terms). But the G7 has never professed to be a gathering of “developed and developing economies from every continent” along the lines of the G20.
The G7 was created as a consultation of industrialized economies, all of which have been democracies since the grouping’s origins in 1975. The original G6 included the United States, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy, with Canada joining to make the G7 by 1976. Russia participated in the G8 from 1998 to 2014 until its invasion of Ukraine’s Crimea caused the group to eject it.
In the decades since the G7 formed, emerging markets have grown to become far more important to the global economy—and large emerging markets like China and India have become crucial to every issue of collective action that the G7 is preoccupied with, such as climate change, clean energy, and health pandemics. Both countries participate in the G20 but have not been part of the G7.
Should the criteria of “advanced industrialized” still apply as a threshold for G7 inclusion when countries still in the middle-income or lower-middle-income categories have become so central? My answer to that is no, and I argued in my book that it’s time to consider Indian membership in an expanded G7 given the size of its economy and the fact that, for all its troubles, India is a democracy.
Democracy sets India apart from China, so it could be a conceivable and logical expansion to include India in an enlarged G7, but not China. But using this yardstick, the selection of Australia and South Korea spurs questions about other democratic economies around the same size not on the list. What about Brazil and Mexico? Or Indonesia? A ranking of the ten largest economies that are also democracies—using market exchange rates—would suggest inclusion of Brazil, India, and South Korea in a “D10” grouping along with all members of the existing G7. That same ranking using purchasing power parity would include India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, and South Korea—but not Italy and Canada, core G7 members. All of this is food for thought on the purpose and design of any expansion of this consultation.
Countries in bold are current G7 members. Sources: Market exchange rate data (2018, latest available) comes from the World Bank. Purchasing power parity data (2020, estimated) comes from the IMF.
Most of all, it’s clear that the twentieth-century institutions of global governance have not reformed to reflect the established importance of emerging economies to the world. In his own way, Trump was right to call the G7 an “outdated group of countries,” because it is. What we need, however, is a logical and consistent way to create a more relevant group for the challenges currently facing us. The invitees to the Trump G7 summit do not, as a group—and especially with the inclusion of Russia—provide that clear, coherent case for an enlarged institution.
SuperStar20
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,668
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
If you do that, India will cease to exist next day
with trump in power, how stupid For Indians to hope for any crumbs from USA? Really this dumb?
U are nothing but filthy disgusting canon fodder to trump
If you do that, India will cease to exist next day
with trump in power, how stupid For Indians to hope for any crumbs from USA? Really this dumb?
U are nothing but filthy disgusting canon fodder to trump
You are over estimating Chinese capability. If world stop buying from china for 3 month, Gone all the money. Chinese people back to eating anything and everything. Off course some still eating any shit.
India has enough natural resource to survive on its own.
lonelyman
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
- Messages
- 3,737
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
a slum dog worry about billionaire what to eat
your farmer kill themselves in droves and 60% open shit on roads and ur gdp depends on a good rain
, yes a proud RSS thug proud of being the dirtiest and poorest place in the world
Similar threads
