roadrunner
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,696
- Reaction score
- 0
SCO is an intergovernment mutual security organization afaik.
It has nothing to do with economics.
SCO steps out of Central Asia
- Thread starter Riseup
- Start date
SCO is an intergovernment mutual security organization afaik.
It has nothing to do with economics.
roadrunner
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,696
- Reaction score
- 0
So? UAE invested 100 billion in Pakistan. India's 1.5 billion is stil a joke. Pakistan has probably invested more in other places.
well it is a good point about india's hundreds of millions of poor people, and indias foriegn investments.
i mean you need to look at it in the right light, its not india being generous, its india thinking strategically, charity starts at home and india is essentially leaving many many millions to rot, but has a deep heart of people in other nations - a nonsensical stance.
i mean you need to look at it in the right light, its not india being generous, its india thinking strategically, charity starts at home and india is essentially leaving many many millions to rot, but has a deep heart of people in other nations - a nonsensical stance.
The_Assassin
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 0
Now you just read the first sentence about SCO in wikipedia but you forgot to atleast see the contents. Read the economic and cultural cooperation also on the same page rather than just reading the first sentence
The_Assassin
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 0
Haha...I can only laugh at this ludicrous sentence. On a serious note tell me one country where Pak has invested more. Also India has already invested/committed more than $2 billion till 2015 in Astan.
Mo12
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,643
- Reaction score
- -15
No India is richer then Russia our economy is bigger and the gap will get wider and wider.
roadrunner
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,696
- Reaction score
- 0
Now you just read the first sentence about SCO in wikipedia but you forgot to atleast see the contents. Read the economic and cultural cooperation also on the same page rather than just reading the first sentence
i didnt read it in wiki.
it's on most sites (russian, chinese etc). noonw except wiki mentions any economics.
roadrunner
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,696
- Reaction score
- 0
an investment for business of 2 billion dollars is something that Ghana (and India) would do.
you can look up the 100 billion investment by uae. investments can be quite large.
Kyusuibu Honbu
BANNED
- Joined
- May 21, 2010
- Messages
- 15,305
- Reaction score
- -21
- Country
- Location
GDP doesn't equate to richness......per capita does.
Riseup
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 155
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Autocratic peace and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
May 11th, 2011
Author: Andy Yee, Hong Kong
In June 2011, Astana, Kazakhstan will host the jubilee summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Over the past 10 years, the SCO has institutionalized economic, political and security cooperation among its members. Western countries have watched the organization with growing concern. In 2005, the US was denied observer status in the SCO. In March this year, US officials again expressed interest in greater engagement with the organization.
The rapid development of the SCO represents a major challenge to Western norms of political development and international cooperation. Its success as a multilateral organization provides support for the notion of autocratic peace. Where democratic peace theory posits that democracies do not go to war against each other, autocratic peace theory holds the same for autocracies. This implies that it is not the political features of democracy that are important for peace, but rather the shared preferences for stability that stem from similarities in regime type. This kind of peace provides de facto legitimacy for authoritarianism, and, by extension, suggests an alternative to Western norms of universal values and democracy promotion.
The SCOs organizational ideology rests upon two sets of non-provocative norms, The Shangai Spirit, and the Beijing Consensus. The Shanghai spirit is based on the principles of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equal rights, consultations, respect for diversity of culture and aspiration towards common development. The Beijing Consensus promotes economic development without attached political conditions. This allows autocracies all the benefits of energy, infrastructure, and investment without the pressures of democratization and market liberalization. Last year, China granted $10 billion in loans to SCO nations, and proposed contributing $8 billion to establish a SCO Development Bank to promote multilateral economic cooperation.
The New York-based group, Human Rights in China, recently expressed concern over the challenge posed by the SCO to Western norms. In a new white paper, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights: The Impact of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, it calls to attention the SCOs problematic approach to counter-terrorism. The paper argues that the doctrine (modelled on Chinas Three Evils doctrine of terrorism, extremism and separatism) often acted as cover for suppression of legitimate opposition groups and the cutting-off of trans-regional ties between them. The broad definition of terrorism in the doctrine also enables SCO states to criminalize legitimate expressions of political and religious beliefs.
Revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan between 2003 and 2005highlighted the political value of the SCO in providing a support structure for members to rely on in legitimizing their regimes. In 2005, China provided support to Uzbekistan in cracking down on separatist revolts in Andijan. For Uzbekistan, Chinese support gave protection against further uprising and Western interference. For China, a successful crackdown in Uzbekistan lowered the chances of revolution spreading to Uyghur extremists in Chinas northwest.
The political value of the SCO was again demonstrated shortly after Chinas crackdown on the July 2009 ethnic riots in Xinjiang. The SCOs Secretary General issued a statement which made clear that Xinjiang was an inalienable part of China, and that the Chinese government was taking measures in accordance with its law to restore peace and order in a situation of purely internal affairs. This was rare and valuable public support in the face of Western criticism.
Despite these gestures of support, behind the veil of autocratic peace lie the incoherence and instability characteristic of single party regimes and dictatorships. The desire for stability and the fear of popular uprising are constants in these regimes, hence shared values and ideology will often come second to the desire for self-preservation. As such, the SCO could lack stability in times of difficulty.
A case in point is the refusal of the SCO to support Russias push for recognition of breakaway Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, after Russias war with Georgia in August 2008. In particular, China is concerned that recognizing these secessionist moves would stimulate similar demands for autonomy in Tibet and Xinjiang.
The contrast between this scenario and the SCOs immediate support for Chinas 2009 crackdown in Xinjiang highlights the strategic competition between China and Russia that underlies the organization. While they are bound together by their enmity toward the US in Central Asia, they remain suspicious of each other. In particular, a declining Russia is concerned about Chinas long-term ambitions in Central Asia, where it has long dominated.
Ultimately, the SCO is a structure in which the two powers manage their tensions, with smaller states balancing their interests against those of the powers. Russia is interested in developing the SCO as a geopolitical counterweight to the US and NATO, and using it as a vessel to shape Chinese thinking and maintain influence in the region. China, alternatively, is concerned with using the organization to combat Islamic extremism and expand its economic and soft power in Central Asia.
This is why Quentin Peel of the Financial Times described the SCO as a dog that does not bark. It is an alliance of convenience that masks very different ambitions between Russia and China. For example, in 2002 China proposed that the SCO be made into a free-trade zone. This proposal was rejected by Russia on the basis of different levels of economic development. Smaller states such as Kazakhstan also fear that they would be turned into Chinese economic protectorates.
As the role and geographical scope of the SCO remains in flux, it is still too early to determine if it will develop into a formal security community or alliance. But, the question may be irrelevant. The SCOs member states know the limitations of autocratic peace. Institutional instability, nepotism, corruption, and a lack of rule of law will make further cooperation difficult in the long term. This implies that the SCO is not necessarily dedicated to promoting anti-Western values and authoritarianism. Its underlying logic is different to that of other multilateral organizations. Regardless of its future direction, though, there can be no doubt that, as relative power shifts from West to East, the SCO will assume a greater role in international politics.
Andy Yee is a writer and translator based in Hong Kong. Educated at SOAS and Cambridge University, he has worked at the Political Section of the EU Delegation to China in Beijing. He blogs at Global Voices Online and China Geeks.
May 11th, 2011
Author: Andy Yee, Hong Kong
In June 2011, Astana, Kazakhstan will host the jubilee summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Over the past 10 years, the SCO has institutionalized economic, political and security cooperation among its members. Western countries have watched the organization with growing concern. In 2005, the US was denied observer status in the SCO. In March this year, US officials again expressed interest in greater engagement with the organization.
The rapid development of the SCO represents a major challenge to Western norms of political development and international cooperation. Its success as a multilateral organization provides support for the notion of autocratic peace. Where democratic peace theory posits that democracies do not go to war against each other, autocratic peace theory holds the same for autocracies. This implies that it is not the political features of democracy that are important for peace, but rather the shared preferences for stability that stem from similarities in regime type. This kind of peace provides de facto legitimacy for authoritarianism, and, by extension, suggests an alternative to Western norms of universal values and democracy promotion.
The SCOs organizational ideology rests upon two sets of non-provocative norms, The Shangai Spirit, and the Beijing Consensus. The Shanghai spirit is based on the principles of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equal rights, consultations, respect for diversity of culture and aspiration towards common development. The Beijing Consensus promotes economic development without attached political conditions. This allows autocracies all the benefits of energy, infrastructure, and investment without the pressures of democratization and market liberalization. Last year, China granted $10 billion in loans to SCO nations, and proposed contributing $8 billion to establish a SCO Development Bank to promote multilateral economic cooperation.
The New York-based group, Human Rights in China, recently expressed concern over the challenge posed by the SCO to Western norms. In a new white paper, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights: The Impact of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, it calls to attention the SCOs problematic approach to counter-terrorism. The paper argues that the doctrine (modelled on Chinas Three Evils doctrine of terrorism, extremism and separatism) often acted as cover for suppression of legitimate opposition groups and the cutting-off of trans-regional ties between them. The broad definition of terrorism in the doctrine also enables SCO states to criminalize legitimate expressions of political and religious beliefs.
Revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan between 2003 and 2005highlighted the political value of the SCO in providing a support structure for members to rely on in legitimizing their regimes. In 2005, China provided support to Uzbekistan in cracking down on separatist revolts in Andijan. For Uzbekistan, Chinese support gave protection against further uprising and Western interference. For China, a successful crackdown in Uzbekistan lowered the chances of revolution spreading to Uyghur extremists in Chinas northwest.
The political value of the SCO was again demonstrated shortly after Chinas crackdown on the July 2009 ethnic riots in Xinjiang. The SCOs Secretary General issued a statement which made clear that Xinjiang was an inalienable part of China, and that the Chinese government was taking measures in accordance with its law to restore peace and order in a situation of purely internal affairs. This was rare and valuable public support in the face of Western criticism.
Despite these gestures of support, behind the veil of autocratic peace lie the incoherence and instability characteristic of single party regimes and dictatorships. The desire for stability and the fear of popular uprising are constants in these regimes, hence shared values and ideology will often come second to the desire for self-preservation. As such, the SCO could lack stability in times of difficulty.
A case in point is the refusal of the SCO to support Russias push for recognition of breakaway Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, after Russias war with Georgia in August 2008. In particular, China is concerned that recognizing these secessionist moves would stimulate similar demands for autonomy in Tibet and Xinjiang.
The contrast between this scenario and the SCOs immediate support for Chinas 2009 crackdown in Xinjiang highlights the strategic competition between China and Russia that underlies the organization. While they are bound together by their enmity toward the US in Central Asia, they remain suspicious of each other. In particular, a declining Russia is concerned about Chinas long-term ambitions in Central Asia, where it has long dominated.
Ultimately, the SCO is a structure in which the two powers manage their tensions, with smaller states balancing their interests against those of the powers. Russia is interested in developing the SCO as a geopolitical counterweight to the US and NATO, and using it as a vessel to shape Chinese thinking and maintain influence in the region. China, alternatively, is concerned with using the organization to combat Islamic extremism and expand its economic and soft power in Central Asia.
This is why Quentin Peel of the Financial Times described the SCO as a dog that does not bark. It is an alliance of convenience that masks very different ambitions between Russia and China. For example, in 2002 China proposed that the SCO be made into a free-trade zone. This proposal was rejected by Russia on the basis of different levels of economic development. Smaller states such as Kazakhstan also fear that they would be turned into Chinese economic protectorates.
As the role and geographical scope of the SCO remains in flux, it is still too early to determine if it will develop into a formal security community or alliance. But, the question may be irrelevant. The SCOs member states know the limitations of autocratic peace. Institutional instability, nepotism, corruption, and a lack of rule of law will make further cooperation difficult in the long term. This implies that the SCO is not necessarily dedicated to promoting anti-Western values and authoritarianism. Its underlying logic is different to that of other multilateral organizations. Regardless of its future direction, though, there can be no doubt that, as relative power shifts from West to East, the SCO will assume a greater role in international politics.
Andy Yee is a writer and translator based in Hong Kong. Educated at SOAS and Cambridge University, he has worked at the Political Section of the EU Delegation to China in Beijing. He blogs at Global Voices Online and China Geeks.
The_Assassin
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 0
What has UAE to do with SCO ??? Also I believe you forget that Dubai is under massive debt. They even had to refinance it after things didn't improve the way they expected. And you are showing yourself as an idiot by comparing India with Ghana. On the otherhand it also shows that in your view, Ghana is much better than Pak which is a real shame for Pak.
Moreover you skipped my question regarding the name of country in which Pak has invested more than $2 billion. You are making yourself a laughing stock by putting forth such illogical and unrelated statements. On top of that you are a think tank. I just can't stop laughing.
NmHqh2JbVo
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2010
- Messages
- 354
- Reaction score
- 0
My comment is: this article is garbage.
NmHqh2JbVo
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2010
- Messages
- 354
- Reaction score
- 0
With those Chinese in it, nothing is predictable.
Riseup
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 155
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
As we have read in different posts from different ethnic researchers and diplomatic experts on this forum SCO’s objective still not finalized or it still not fixed and stuck with some objectives and it have a big possibility to grow toward economical organization but might not be like EU, as well as we saw that it is organization to ensure security stability but it would not like aggressive as NATO.
Actually the two big stockholders have their own concerns about this organization. Russian looking it as a security organization that should encounter the influence of West (NATO) and as well as the influence of terrorism china also has concern about that but her also need to use this organization as an economical growth and stability in all over CAT and South Asia and Russian never denied it but she has more concentrated on security issues.
Russian has problem with western influence into Caucasia and their objectives into Afghanistan, she do not want to see CAT’s recourses under western management or manipulation at this point China agreed with Russian concern and coordinating to prevent it but the difference is the strategically China does not interested a security organization like NATO, she does not believe into joined operation and armed influence into other countries like NATO did into Iraq and Afghanistan.
In another scenario Russian and China also did not want to any direct collision with westerns in the Afghanistan although they have concerns about western objectives in Afghanistan, to encounter western influence and objective about that both countries have concerns they want to use SCO as platform and want to involve all the local stakeholders on this platform to participate for this prospective. We also see a term in an article for that circumstances ‘A dog that does not bark’.
Economical prospective has little prospected right now but it would increase as well as western forces would go out of the region and terrorism issues would settle down. What would SCO’s economical objective, It is a good question but it has a big answer, because it is not limited it has hug background and elaborate and unveil along with time.
Actually the two big stockholders have their own concerns about this organization. Russian looking it as a security organization that should encounter the influence of West (NATO) and as well as the influence of terrorism china also has concern about that but her also need to use this organization as an economical growth and stability in all over CAT and South Asia and Russian never denied it but she has more concentrated on security issues.
Russian has problem with western influence into Caucasia and their objectives into Afghanistan, she do not want to see CAT’s recourses under western management or manipulation at this point China agreed with Russian concern and coordinating to prevent it but the difference is the strategically China does not interested a security organization like NATO, she does not believe into joined operation and armed influence into other countries like NATO did into Iraq and Afghanistan.
In another scenario Russian and China also did not want to any direct collision with westerns in the Afghanistan although they have concerns about western objectives in Afghanistan, to encounter western influence and objective about that both countries have concerns they want to use SCO as platform and want to involve all the local stakeholders on this platform to participate for this prospective. We also see a term in an article for that circumstances ‘A dog that does not bark’.
Economical prospective has little prospected right now but it would increase as well as western forces would go out of the region and terrorism issues would settle down. What would SCO’s economical objective, It is a good question but it has a big answer, because it is not limited it has hug background and elaborate and unveil along with time.
Riseup
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 155
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
My Dear,
I have been posted multiple articles from different ethical background; I think you could not understand them. If many intellectuals are discussing some thing it could not be garbage.
Similar threads
