What do you think about an Asian equivalent of the EU?

[INDIC]

@faithfulguy you again started the same crap.

 

[faithfulguy]

@faithfulguy you again started the same crap.

You should read my post #10 on how India had succeeded what EU had failed. I was congratulating India for its achievements.

 

[sankranti]

If you feel that my post #27 is incorrect, than debate me instead of personally attack me. First of all, do you believe that Britain united India when India was consists of several kingdoms?

LOL........why should I debate your desperate claims and give it undue importance ?

 

[sindhibrah]

EU is a failure. Nobody wants to emulate it.

And how is the EU a failure? As Viet stated above the eurozone crisis has been the one major flaw of the EU. And that is only because of a common currency which is not even a requirement for a successful regional organization.

EU has achieved its main political objectives, which are to encourage regional co-operation and bring peace to Europe. People don't seem to remember that only 70 years ago the likes of France and Germany despised each other. Are you really going to say that the EU is a failing organization despite all it has achieved?

asean has huge potential i woudnt be surprised even if it out grew other economies..but forming a single economic union is highly unlikely

But why not? The world is slowly but surely running towards globalization. A single economic union doesn't need a single currency. It's a difficult concept because of the current economic and political climate throughout Asia, but I wouldn't say it is highly unlikely in the future.

Actually, EU has failed what India has accomplished. Which is by merging a group of historically disjointed states into one union. Congrats to India for this achievement... But do not forget to thank the British that first integrated your nation.

How has the EU failed? I'd argue the EU has gone beyond India in ensuring peace between people of different backgrounds. I'd personally wager a bet that a Spaniard would get along with an Italian better than a pious Indian of one faith with a compatriot of another faith.

Also I disagree with what you say about Britain integrating India. Have you not heard of 'divide and conquer'? Have you not heard of the Aryan invasion facade the British promoted to North Indians?

Are you serious?! You don't know what kind of situation the EU is in?

Besides, soon China will be equal to all of Asia combined in terms of GDP, how do you form a "EU" if one party is vastly superior to the rest?

Even if there is someone of equal status to China in Asia, it would just be France and Germany today, still more counter productive than productive.

Just because Germany has the highest GDP in the EU doesn't mean smaller countries do not have a say. It is only during this eurozone crisis that Germany's dominance has been made clear. And even then, it is only to do with cash handouts, not with EU's trade policies for which all countries have a say. Each country's voice can be heard as has been the case with the Parliament.

I do think the likes of China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and other continental heavyweights will have the power to sway countries. But that doesn't mean there will be a vast superiority gap when each country retains the ability to make its own decision.

No India in an Asian Union. They are nothing but trouble for the region constantly doing the wests' bidding.

This union could never be possible untill india change it's attitude towards other countries. India try to be leader of the asian world but in reality they are nothing but a bunch of rooten potatoes

And China is not troubling the South China Sea? North Korea is not pursuing its own expansionist/maniac agenda? Each country has its issues. That is what a regional organization can solve. The days of military confrontation over minor issues in Western Europe are long gone.

India, as an Asian country, has as much of a right to join a regional organization as North Korea and Turkmenistan do.

 

[ShahidT]

Not my reality, but the reality that India was forged together by the East India trading company before taking over by the British crown. If you want to dispute that obvious reality, than go ahead. But the truth speak for itself.

my taiwanese friend, you seem obsessed with the modern european concept of nation states. in ancient times throughout south asia, middle east and europe, there have been several empires/kingdoms existing side by side. people moved freely across such imagined borders without a republic of china passport, or a people's republic of china passport, etc. there was civilizational continuity, exchanges and migrations throughout the region. and of course everything from harmonious peace, friction and existential wars were common between empires. it may have been different in china, but even you had your fair share of warring kingdoms throughout history.

but that doesn't negate your common han culture, similarly it didn't negate a common iranic culture or semitic culture or indic or slavic or hellenic. because you people were separated by thousands of miles of hostile terrain from the greater middle east, the warring kingdoms were mostly ethnically han. there was few times you faced non-han competition in the form of mongols, japanese, etc. whereas here, greeks took over most of middle east, left their mark. before that the persians. later the arabs who had taken all of persia, afghanistan and parts of subcontinent. then mongols who took over persia, northern afghanistan, much of the arab lands. no country in this region can say it hasn't been invaded and dominated for long periods of it's history.

please read the book Indica by Megasthenes and Arrian which describe Indic lands, their various tribes, culture, etc. NorIndids trace a common civilizational history to the Indus valley, and before that to the Ancestral North Indians who moved north after the second wave of homo sapien migration from east africa arrived at the southern coast of subcontinent. there is infact much more genetic evidence to show consistency of the south asian gene pool over the past 40,000 years than say the middle east or central asia, because early migrants to the subcontinent populated, stayed and developed civilizations here rather than invading other regions. and yes, there was a common Vedic culture that permeated throughout the subcontinent until the past 1,000 years when Islam was accepted in large numbers. still, the majority of inhabitants follow some descendent version of that Vedic culture.

hope that clarifies some confusions that you may have.

 

[Wright]

Only East Asia is developed enough to benefit from a union. and only they are in similar situation as the European powers were before the EU. Japan, China, Korea have all had militay conflicts and tend not to get along and all are highly developed/develping (China).

 

[asad71]

Any union / combine is possible and will be profitable to the peoples of Asia - provided India is kept out. Experience shows India fouls up any association. SAARC is an example.

 

[navtrek]

So how do they regard the existence of one India? Do they believe that its a civilization that is unique to others from outside India?

Also, do the kings of each empire treat other kings as equals. For example, do the Sikh empire treat the Maratha empire as rebel empire or as another empire occupied another area of Baratha.

Maratha's and Sikhs and all other native empires treat each other as equals and all major clans had ambition to unite the whole country under one flag but sadly the Muslim invaders were too strong followed by the British.

Large kingdoms lost battle after battle finally empires broke down clans became greedy leading to formation of small independent states which were even more easier to be captured by the British.

And that the reason behind the British theory of uniting India, Just like how they justify looting India by telling us how they gave us a railway system, education system and public service system.

 

[northeast]

Why should we east asian save you poor arshes from bankrupting like germany save PIIGS？Only idiots want this.

 

[sindhibrah]

Only East Asia is developed enough to benefit from a union. and only they are in similar situation as the European powers were before the EU. Japan, China, Korea have all had militay conflicts and tend not to get along and all are highly developed/develping (China).

I don't quite understand the relevance of military conflicts. South Asia has been embroiled in far more military conflicts in recent history than East Asia. The Middle East has had its fair share of trouble as well.

I'd say Southeast Asia is a developing region. Once the Middle East's political troubles start buckling down, they can develop even further with all their resources. Hopefully, with some more progress, South Asia can start to be seen as a developing region, and by then an 'Asian Union' can be more achievable. Again, this is all tentative and based on what the future could be like for Asia.

Any union / combine is possible and will be profitable to the peoples of Asia - provided India is kept out. Experience shows India fouls up any association. SAARC is an example.

You seem to forget that alienating one country would contradict one of the main goals of a regional organization, to attain peace.

Excluding what some feel is a troublemaker may bring short-term co-operative benefits but surely feces will hit the fan at some point or later. Collective and gradual dialogue is the best way to go.

Why should we east asian save you poor arshes from bankrupting like germany save PIIGS？Only idiots want this.

China is dishing out money to countries like it comes out of trees. Eventually the money comes back.

 

[eddieInUK]

If a South Asian Union could be built, anything can happen after that. But it sounds impossible, can India, Pak, Bago come together ?

 

[INDIC]

If a South Asian Union could be built, anything can happen after that. But it sounds impossible, can India, Pak, Bago come together ?

That's impossible. But seeing the way Greece and other countries screwed the prosperous economies of the Eurozone, I don't believe we should go for EU type organization in Asia.

 

[eddieInUK]

That's impossible. But seeing the way Greece and other countries screwed the prosperous economies of the Eurozone, I don't believe we should go for EU type organization in Asia.

A free-trade zone could be made. I agree with you on this, different ideology will cause a lot of troubles. SCO works well until now. India should build some organisations maybe.

 

[ExtraOdinary]

The problem is even Pak+BD+Nepal+Bhutan+Sri Lanka put together are around a third of India . So naturally feel threatened, bullied and insecure. In my opinion an SCO seems to be the way forward for this region.

 

[sindhibrah]

That's impossible. But seeing the way Greece and other countries screwed the prosperous economies of the Eurozone, I don't believe we should go for EU type organization in Asia.

A free-trade zone could be made. I agree with you on this, different ideology will cause a lot of troubles. SCO works well until now. India should build some organisations maybe.

As Eddie said, a political regional organization doesn't need to bind countries heavily when it comes to economy. The main purpose of an organization should simply be to ensure a peaceful region. If anything it would help South Asia. SAARC has been about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

The problem is even Pak+BD+Nepal+Bhutan+Sri Lanka put together are around a third of India . So naturally feel threatened, bullied and insecure. In my opinion an SCO seems to be the way forward for this region.

India is not the only power in Asia. There are also the East Asian powers, Iran, Saudi Arabia, hell even Turkey if they start looking eastwards more when it comes diplomacy. How can one country, India, 'bully' so many countries in one organization?