Pakistan and India, both may get SCO full membership

[kurup]

No idea why India want to join SCO .

Nothing good is going to come out of it ...... it's a useless organisation anyway .

 

[mike2000 is back]

This is from the Pew survey
China’s Global Image
The survey finds that overall ratings for China are mostly positive. A global median of 55% express a favorable view of China, while 34% have a negative opinion.

We are taking about India view(which is one of the lowest in the region below 30%) of China. Read again the conversation we had.

 

[Shotgunner51]

Allow me to predict how things will unfold over the course of the 21st century.

SCO will eventually seize control of the oil and gas supplies in the Middle East. China and India combined have over 2.5 billion people. Taking the oil by force is the only way we can survive long term and maintain a modern industrialized economy. I believe China and India will see eye to eye on this. There is no other way.

If you take a look at a map of the SCO, you can see that we are already on the doorstep of the Middle East. All we have to do is take that final step in.

The US will be fine because North America has plenty of oil.

The big losers here will be the EU.

You are quite right bro, it's about security of limited natural resources, oil included.

Throughout millenia of history, industrialized nations (or economically more advanced nations at the time) will use whatever possible means to secure resources and markets, and will design a favorable trade-investment framework, aka regional/world order, to achieve that. Diplomacy is always the preferred means, though it works better within range of guns (or bow & arrow). Only when diplomacy fails, hard power will be used as a contingency plan, after all wars were very expensive & risky investments.

The existing world order is designed solely by the only almost unharmed industrial power - the US - since post-WWII, realized in form of a US-favorable Bretton Woods system and the likes, backup by military presence in vicinity to the resources/markets. Well after 7 decades, a lot has changed, while US still maintain a strong momentum in consuming world resources, productivity of other industrialized nations have risen or even surpassed US in some areas.

How thing will unfold in the 21st Century? I don't know but these trends are obvious, reflecting different geopolitical vision from various industrialized nations:

• US will defend its status quo. Well rather than playing defensive, US diplomacy is "divide and contain" on other major industrialized nations, backup by its far reaching gun barrel. Sino-Japan divide, Russo-German divide, are all favorable, but a Sino-Russia alliance (ex-SCO) is definitely not welcome.

• Japan being a lesser power trapped between US & China, will choose a safer path to ride on status quo world order for security in resources/markets, and it's largely dependent on US-China power balance. For the time being Japan will slowly develop its own sphere of influence, say a peaceful version of "Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", and in other resources rich continents.

• Germany despite also being a lesser power has less geopolitical challenge than Japan, and hence has better control of its own plan. Like Japan it will ride on status quo world order, while actively expand influence in the name of Euro and EU till reaching tolerance limit of Russia. Maybe a "Forth Reich" is in the making, in peaceful form hopefully.

• Russia has far less industrial capacity than other nations but it is compensated by its huge reserves in natural resources. Passively speaking, Russia is the most self-reliant of all, but it's sphere of influence largely depend on its diplomacy towards US, China in its east, and Germany in its west.

• The current trade/investment/security frameworks (from UNSC to Bretton Woods system) needs to be overhauled. Despite having surpassed US in industrial productivity and financial reserves (result of low consumption) China still sees US as the world leader for its contribution to international trade, however US should also let other industrialized nations have fair share of world resources that commensurate with their capacities/sizes. China sees Russia as a fully complimenting economic/security partner, Japan/East Asia as co-prosperity sphere, Germany/EU as trade/investment partner, and the Global South as growth opportunities. China will always use diplomacy whenever possible, wars are expensive and risky options.

 

[Aepsilons]

You are quite right bro, it's about security of limited natural resources, oil included.

Throughout millenia of history, industrialized nations (or economically more advanced nations at the time) will use whatever possible means to secure resources and markets, and will design a favorable trade-investment framework, aka regional/world order, to achieve that. Diplomacy is always the preferred means, though it works better within range of guns (or bow & arrow). Only when diplomacy fails, hard power will be used as a contingency plan, after all wars were very expensive & risky investments.

The existing world order is designed solely by the only almost unharmed industrial power - the US - since post-WWII, realized in form of a US-favorable Bretton Woods system and the likes, backup by military presence in vicinity to the resources/markets. Well after 7 decades, a lot has changed, while US still maintain a strong momentum in consuming world resources, productivity of other industrialized nations have risen or even surpassed US in some areas.

How thing will unfold in the 21st Century? I don't know but these trends are obvious, reflecting different geopolitical vision from various industrialized nations:

• US will defend its status quo. Well rather than playing defensive, US diplomacy is "divide and contain" on other major industrialized nations, backup by its far reaching gun barrel. Sino-Japan divide, Russo-German divide, are all favorable, but a Sino-Russia alliance (ex-SCO) is definitely not welcome.

• Japan being a lesser power trapped between US & China, will choose a safer path to ride on status quo world order for security in resources/markets, and it's largely dependent on US-China power balance. For the time being Japan will slowly develop its own sphere of influence, say a peaceful version of "Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", and in other resources rich continents.

• Germany despite also being a lesser power has less geopolitical challenge than Japan, and hence has better control of its own plan. Like Japan it will ride on status quo world order, while actively expand influence in the name of Euro and EU till reaching tolerance limit of Russia. Maybe a "Forth Reich" is in the making, in peaceful form hopefully.

• Russia has far less industrial capacity than other nations but it is compensated by its huge reserves in natural resources. Passively speaking, Russia is the most self-reliant of all, but it's sphere of influence largely depend on its diplomacy towards US, China in its east, and Germany in its west.

• The current trade/investment/security frameworks (from UNSC to Bretton Woods system) needs to be overhauled. China still sees US as the world leader however US should also let other industrialized nations have fair share of world resources that commensurate with their capacities/sizes. China sees Russia as a fully complimenting economic/security partner, Japan/East Asia as co-prosperity sphere, Germany/EU as trade/investment partner, and the Global South as growth opportunities, and China will always use diplomacy whenever possible.

Excellent analysis point by point! In wish we have more writers with such caliber!

 

[mike2000 is back]

Yes we are and average Indians don't consider China to be a threat to them to be honest. Indian administration is more level-headed than common people. Conflict in between India and China are limited to few disagreements in border. Both sides see that their territory is occupied by the other but only Indian media blows it out of proportion whereas I rarely see India being mentioned in CCTV.

China Wants Maritime Cooperation With India in Indian Ocean

'Make in India' gets some help - from China | South China Morning Post

This one gives some of the moronic statements.

Subramanian Swamy calls for India-China-US strategic partnership - The Hindu

India administration might be level headed, but they still consider China as a threat. Reason they usually focus their military plans/issues towards China. The 1962 war they lost, coupled with border disputes and China growing even bigger/more powerful has only made things worse and expatiate the threat/danger to India. So any Chinese moves in S.Asia is obviously seen as a threat to India. When was the last time you saw India focusing its threat on the U.S/west? lol Its always either China or Pakistan. If you doubt this ask even Indian members here themselves. You saying otherwise is hilarious, since almost anybody with a little knowledge of the region knows India views China as a bigger threat than it views the U.S/West, if not we wouldn't be hearing even funny news like this:India's ban of ZMPC leaves port operators in uncertainty -- China Shipping Even Chinese cranes are a threat

Indians Rank China a Threat, Survey Finds - India Real Time - WSJ

Keep wishing things could be different though, but reality is often hard to accept.

The so-called "multi-polar world order" is a sweetened geopolitical term, in fact very diplomatic, harmless and even feel-good. However, it's so ambiguous that no one knows what it means, or every nations big and small has their own interpretation. And that's is exactly the problem why SCO will not prevail, lack of common geopolitical or geo-economic vision.

But that's normal, I doubt any outsider can describe true geopolitical vision of Tokyo, Berlin. That's why I don't see much relevance of multi-lateral platforms (be it SCO, BRICS or even EU), and rather place much focus on promoting bilateral deals. Beijing-Moscow might see things differently, however the common challenge is equally obvious, and imminent, hence SCO becoming obsolete wouldn't damage the bilateral co-operation which stems out of pragmatism.

P.S.: Bro, I have written different versions of geopolitical vision of different countries, but I delete that since this is open forum, but I might do it using Funny Countryball thread, LOL!

AGREE.

Also there is thread going on 'India shuns China'
Also let me make it very clear since the day of inception of SCO it is a useless organisation. I don't know what will India achieve by SCO.
On China- I will say that we see china negatively because it is not a democracy(if they want to become or not is not our concern) also we can take on china anytime if they want war.
Also if they want to mess in our internal matter they will feel the pain as we are building oil blocks in SCS and fielding our ships in SCS. So if they want to mess with us they should be ready to feel back the sweet chin music.

True bro, tell that to @Nan Yang .

 

[Shamain]

@coffee_cup , @Zarvan , @Areesh , @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @Donatello @Norwegian @Shamain @Windjammer @Menace2Society @engineer saad @Abu Zolfiqar
@TheFlyingPretzel
@Sage

Your opinions on the bolded part

Lolzz yeah our shameless politicians could do that. How else the sick WOT came to our soil?? A corrupt general's cowardice by bowing down before usa.

 

[XiaoYaoZi]

Well you are absolutely right. We in the west have always been more expeditionary than any other region/countries out there. Thing is we(as great powers) always think globally, not regionally/locally like most Asian countries do. This is what gives/gave us advantage in dealing with other countries/powers. as we visited/settled in many countries and learned from them(in case they had something we didn't).
However, i will summarize this for two main reasons: Competition and culture

There were at least 6 European states that were capable of mounting trans-oceanic expeditions for some or all of this period in history i.e Portugal, Spain, Netherlands,France, Italy(to a lesser extent) and of course our great Britain. They were all aggressive states often at war and in need of resources. for exampe Columbus shopped his 'sail west to China' plan all over Europe before he got backing from Ferdinand and Isabella (single best VC pay-off EVER). So where the Emperor could shut down expeditions, there was no-one in Europe who could have done that, and plenty of states willing to fund expeditions in search of land and trade.

Further, these societies were all much more warlike than China/Japan/Asian powers. There was a culture of going out and conquering each other and were always plenty of adventurers willing to go off in search of glory and loot (Cortes, Pizarro, Clive) without much interest in what the government wanted. (OUR British 'Empire' in particular had a tendency to grow against the wishes of anyone in London.) Chinese/Asian wars were about control of China/Asia itself, and tended to be much rarer - Europeans had been at war more or less continuously for a thousand years. Indeed a large part of Spanish expansion in the Americas is about the redirection of energies from the recently completed Reconquista. @Carlosa .

Finally, China/Asian powers (generalising hugely) tended to see the world as China/Asia, plus a few minor subsidiary peoples (Vietnam, Korea, Japan,etc) around the edges that weren't worth bothering with. So maybe this explains why were sailed round/colonized the globe, while Asian countries/powers mainly limited themselves regionally.

GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PLAN.

You should eat all you sprayed. In BC139, Chinese great explorer Zhangqian has opened the Silk Road to West Asia on land, which has brought Chinese endless wealth over 2000 years. In AD 785, the officials' fleets(not explorers) of the Tang dynasty had come the Tazi empire of the West Asia, which could be the territory of the Iran today, along the Maritime Silk Road. The Zheng He fleet of Ming dynasty in 15th Century, which had reached Africa, are larger than all the fleets of your westerners in 18th fleets.
The main purpose of your expedition is that you couldnt solve material shortage yourself because of the existence of Ottoman Empire that cut off the trade road with the East on land, so that you had to open new road to the far East on sea, for Columbus his 'sail west to China' plan was in order to open new road for trade/robbery to "China in his mind". Everyone's purpose of expedition was to find wealth, but for China, a self-sufficient country in history, expeditions were meaningless, because along the ground/maritime Silk Road we could export our common things such as china/silk/tea that was looked as luxuries by the Indians, Arabs, African even Europeans to earn large mount of silver. In history, all the nations/countries known by the central dynasty government of China to the limit we could reach were small/poor/barbaric nations/countries. So there was no need for China to pour money to conquer any such nations/countries. Very large mount of silver flowed to China automatically until you Brits exported opium to China.
We Chinese know more about the importance of the traffic and communication with other countries, all the strongest dynasties of China were the dynasty when we kept the closest contact with the external world, such as Qin that built Sichuan Road(蜀栈道), Zheng Guoqu canal(郑国渠), Linqu canal(灵渠), Han that built the Silk Road(丝绸之路) and the Maritime Silk Road(海上丝绸之路), Sui and Tang that built and strengthened the communication and trade with Persian Empire in West Asia. The main reason of declining of China in history was that in the all period of Qing Dynasty we closed ourselves, that the Silk Road was almost closed thoroughly by the stupid Manchu rulers.
Nowadays your Europeans has solve most your internal disputed problems, you can direct your own contradicts to External world, and we have to solve many disputed issues with other Asia countries, which distract many our attentions, so you seem to look more expeditionary than China.

 

[XiaoYaoZi]

It can, since it has the size and long term potential to do so.

The potential of India will always the potential, never become the real strength.To change that, India has numerous internal affairs to solve. China becoming the now style has gone through the countless changes and reforms ceaselessly by the Chinese predecessors throughout thousands of years. Anytime you realize you cannot shake the China, India will only be the fat sheep to be slaughtered by you greedy westerners.

 

[mike2000 is back]

You should eat all you sprayed. In BC139, Chinese great explorer Zhangqian has opened the Silk Road to West Asia on land, which has brought Chinese endless wealth over 2000 years. In AD 785, the officials' fleets(not explorers) of the Tang dynasty had come the Tazi empire of the West Asia, which could be the territory of the Iran today, along the Maritime Silk Road. The Zheng He fleet of Ming dynasty in 15th Century, which had reached Africa, are larger than all the fleets of your westerners in 18th fleets.
The main purpose of your expedition is that you couldnt solve material shortage yourself because of the existence of Ottoman Empire that cut off the trade road with the East on land, so that you had to open new road to the far East on sea, for Columbus his 'sail west to China' plan was in order to open new road for trade/robbery to "China in his mind". Everyone's purpose of expedition was to find wealth, but for China, a self-sufficient country in history, expeditions were meaningless, because along the ground/maritime Silk Road we could export our common things such as china/silk/tea that was looked as luxuries by the Indians, Arabs, African even Europeans to earn large mount of silver. In history, all the nations/countries known by the central dynasty government of China to the limit we could reach were small/poor/barbaric nations/countries. So there was no need for China to pour money to conquer any such nations/countries. Very large mount of silver flowed to China automatically until you Brits exported opium to China.
We Chinese know more about the importance of the traffic and communication with other countries, all the strongest dynasties of China were the dynasty when we kept the closest contact with the external world, such as Qin that built Sichuan Road(蜀栈道), Zheng Guoqu canal(郑国渠), Linqu canal(灵渠), Han that built the Silk Road(丝绸之路) and the Maritime Silk Road(海上丝绸之路) , Sui and Tang that built and strengthened the communication and trade with Persian Empire in West Asia. The main reason of declining of China in history was that in the all period of Qing Dynasty we closed ourselves, that the Silk Road was almost closed thoroughly by the stupid Manchu rulers.
Nowadays your Europeans has solve most your internal disputed problems, you can direct your own contradicts to External world, and we have to solve many disputed issues with other Asian countries, so you seem to look more expeditionary than China.

At least you are debating more maturely instead of ranting like before.

Nope, European powers started being expeditionary mainly due to competition, limited resources and history as I said before. There was simply too many big advanced powers in Europe at least 6 or even more. So after fighting wars against each other, without clear victories that lasted long, we were all forced to look overseas for more space/resources/colonies and competed among each other for colonies/sphere of influence like in the U.S and canada where we and France we're battling for supremacy/control. In fact we actually even fought a war with France for ultimate control of colonies/influence . So sailing/conquering and colonising countries all over the world from the Americas, Asia, Oceania. Africa ,Middle East, etc etc was just a part of this struggle among European great powers, it's not as if we had any personal issues with china or anybody for that matter .

As I also mentioned, the fact that there was many independent adventurers /explorers who we're free/independent from any central government /king/emperor also played a crucial role on this. Since individual explorers could sail and explore different countries around the world without needing blessing from the government /emperor unlike in china we're almost all explorations/expeditions we're sanctioned by the government /emperor . Reason the Ming dynasty mighty fleet was disbanded/destroyed after a new emperor gained power. Which armed the tragic end of china as a maritime power (leading to subsequent humiliations/invasions at the a hands of other maritime/foreign own powers ). This couldn't happen in Europe since most expeditions we're often free from government control and more independent as I said before. Do you even now that we colonised India through a company? East Indian company. It wasn't dictated from london that we had to sail and colonised India. No far from it. London had no such idea in mind in the beginning, it was merely a company that settled in India /established trade there, became so big and powerful that it kept wanting more and more land /control/resources, which ultimately led to clashes with local population , and then subsequent intervention of London who saw trade with India was in jeopardy. So that was /is the main difference between European powers system and china. even today it's similar situation with china being a highly centralised system , it has advantages and dis disadvantages as well .
It's for this reason we colonised/rules the world while china/Asian powers didn't/limited themselves to mainly Asian continent.

Even today this can be seen by the fact that we in the west/US mainly think globally even when we launch a product , same with our companies. MeanwhileChinese companies mostly think about china first, before even remotely thinking about the world if at all. Maybe it's also because china market is so large they don't bother looking elsewhere . Everything has it's advantage and disadvantage I guess.. This can be seen even in case of crisis on Middle East where it's only the west/US who are looked upon for intervention , not any Asian country. Same situation in many other conflict Zones/issues in the world. Since we have been used to intervening/being involved on issues around the world for a very long time now,which is the opposite for china and other Asian countries . Old habits die hard I guess.

 

[XiaoYaoZi]

Okay then i believe you Try us.

You can continue to self-comfort yourself.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

So what's the story? Were we trying to screw them out of the membership or was it the other way around?

 

[mpk1988]

So? What's the big deal? Terrorism will continue, the Kashmir dispute will continue, Siachen will continue and trolling on PDF will continue!
Nothing to see here...move on...

 

[mike2000 is back]

The potential of India will always the potential, never become the real strength.To change that, India has numerous internal affairs to solve. China becoming the now style has gone through the countless changes and reforms ceaselessly by the Chinese predecessors throughout thousands of years. Anytime you realize you cannot shake the China, India will only be the fat sheep to be slaughtered by you greedy westerners.

I must confess that made me laugh like crazy . You got a good sense of humour bro . I like that.

But remember we in the west all thought the same thing about china just over 4 decades ago when you were the sick man if Asia. So don't think we should write them off just yet, after all they are now bigger economically than even your Russian 'strategic ally'. Though must confess it's also because we have put a big padlock on Russia's neck(economy).

 

[XiaoYaoZi]

I must confess that made me laugh like crazy . You got a good sense of humour bro . I like that.

But remember we in the west all thought the same thing about china just over 4 decades ago when you were the sick man if Asia.

For US to suppress the rise of China, it need get to work before 2009. But obviously It lost the chances forever to do it by any measures including war, thanks to the Iraq War, the Afghanistan war and the financial crisis from 2008. Now you can see China always step first after 2012.

 

[XiaoYaoZi]

At least you are debating more maturely instead of ranting like before.

Nope, European powers started being expeditionary mainly due to competition, limited resources and history as I said before. There was simply too many big advanced powers in Europe at least 6 or even more. So after fighting wars against each other, without clear victories that lasted long, we were all forced to look overseas for more space/resources/colonies and competed among each other for colonies/sphere of influence like in the U.S and canada where we and France we're battling for supremacy/control. In fact we actually even fought a war with France for ultimate control of colonies/influence . So sailing/conquering and colonising countries all over the world from the Americas, Asia, Oceania. Africa ,Middle East, etc etc was just a part of this struggle among European great powers, it's not as if we had any personal issues with china or anybody for that matter .

Agree, but I think all the factors you said supplement each other. the reason of most competitions were limited resources or competing interests that also magnified your conflicts and competitions with each others. That always boosted the mature of your commercial civilization system that also needed more trades and communications with the world outside Europe to gain more resources and interests that created more conflicts and competitions. The more competitions and more resources also promoted all the powers more advanced and more powerful each other. That see you westerners' all history until the end of WWII.

As I also mentioned, the fact that there was many independent adventurers /explorers who we're free/independent from any central government /king/emperor also played a crucial role on this. Since individual explorers could sail and explore different countries around the world without needing blessing from the government /emperor unlike in china we're almost all explorations/expeditions we're sanctioned by the government /emperor . Reason the Ming dynasty mighty fleet was disbanded/destroyed after a new emperor gained power. Which armed the tragic end of china as a maritime power (leading to subsequent humiliations/invasions at the a hands of other maritime/foreign own powers ). This couldn't happen in Europe since most expeditions we're often free from government control and more independent as I said before. Do you even now that we colonised India through a company? East Indian company. It wasn't dictated from london that we had to sail and colonised India. No far from it. London had no such idea in mind in the beginning, it was merely a company that settled in India /established trade there, became so big and powerful that it kept wanting more and more land /control/resources, which ultimately led to clashes with local population , and then subsequent intervention of London who saw trade with India was in jeopardy. So that was /is the main difference between European powers system and china. even today it's similar situation with china being a highly centralised system , it has advantages and dis disadvantages as well .
It's for this reason we colonised/rules the world while china/Asian powers didn't/limited themselves to mainly Asian continent.

Ming dynasty mighty fleet was not destroyed the new short-sighted young emperor who even had no idea about it. It is the failed official-governance of Ming Dynasty that destroy the mighty fleet. The commerces and trades in Ming dynasty had boosted the mature of commercial civilization system, a more advanced system like you, but they also strengthened the local powers in China, which weakened the strength of the emperor and aggravated the burden of the official-governance. The mighty fleet represented the interests of imperial family/centralized government, which occupied the most trade interests of local officials/landlord/merchants, so they united to destroy the fleets belonging to the emperor. In fact the Chinese trades with external world were never reduced but enhanced for that. But the destroy of the mighty fleets largely limited the scale of trades with external nations/country and weakened the defense capability of the trade with others, so that the material exchanges with external world were limited largely. It is also the failed official-governance of Ming Dynasty that caused the serious corruption to limit the continuing mature of commercial civilization system, which finally leaded to the collapse of Ming dynasty and being conquered by Manchu.
I agree you that any civilization style has its advantages and disadvantages, so learning others in own need is very important. That is also why the times when China was strongest was the times when China had the most immigrants and emigrants

Even today this can be seen by the fact that we in the west/US mainly think globally even when we launch a product , same with our companies. MeanwhileChinese companies mostly think about china first, before even remotely thinking about the world if at all. Maybe it's also because china market is so large they don't bother looking elsewhere . Everything has it's advantage and disadvantage I guess.. This can be seen even in case of crisis on Middle East where it's only the west/US who are looked upon for intervention , not any Asian country. Same situation in many other conflict Zones/issues in the world. Since we have been used to intervening/being involved on issues around the world for a very long time now,which is the opposite for china and other Asian countries . Old habits die hard I guess.

Nope, your commerce system has been very mature. In this field we are just a new learner, and you have planted your own influences and interests all over world for hundreds of years, that is why you are always thinking about the world. It need time for China to do the same things like you. Also our companies have many knowledges and experiences needed to learned to your westerners, they have not form enough competiveness to compete with your companies. So we should safe them first in our wall, then set them free to the world. However, that need more communications with other cultures and more thinkings about all the world like you.
The contention of the influences on others will continue to become the subject of all the powers, that means also the contention of the resources at last, which will be the most fierce contention ever since in history, and there will be many developed countries that even will become developing countries. Because the limited resources of the Earth are hard to support the over 2 billion people's lives of high quality like most the developed country in the current life style.