Talk:Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

Map is not NPOV

The map (actually globe) depicting the SCO countries shows Arunachal Pradesh with a closed boundary because it is claimed by China. However, similar Indian claims on Chinese and Pakistani territory have not been shown. Please correct this. Junoon53 (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The last paragraph seems to need some editing, it doesn't seem to represent a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.202.80 (talk • contribs)

I've partially edited the paragraph concerning Sri Lanka since it suffered of a POV.

Name

The article should be moved to Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, since this is the official translation. See www.sectsco.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.204.58 (talk • contribs)

History section

This sentence is unclear. (it's from the history section):

In July 2005, after the war in Afghanistan and Iraq saw a semi-permanent troop presence of U.S. forces in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, the SCO meeting at its summit in Astana, Kazakhstan, urged them to set a timetable for withdrawing their troops from member states.

I am guessing that it is supposed to mean:

In July 2005, after the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan saw a semi-permanent troop presence of U.S. forces in in their countries. At the SCO summit metting in Astana, Kazakhstan, urged the U.S. to set a timetable for withdrawing their troops from member states.

It's not much better but it makes the unamed "them" clear. CambridgeBayWeather 07:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Role and Organization section

I would like to see more information about this sentence: "...this aim is frustrated by the artificial nationalism of the five main ex-soviet Central Asian states." Sounds hostile and/or biased and needs clarification.

Taiwan?

The highlighted map of member countries includes Taiwan but I doubt the signatory states have any meaningful relations with Taiwan's government or military let alone cooperation as defined in the treaty. This should probably be changed. Smoove K 06:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Probably, this has to do with the fact that Taiwan is considered part of China, as far as China is concerned at least. The map is probably intended to list "all of china". But you're right, this should be amended. Should we shade Taiwan, or just remove it? The Minister of War 09:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure without actually knowing the depth of the organization. If the member states agree in assisting China in defending Taiwan should it be attacked for some reason, or if there is some other similar understanding or connection (even without Taiwan's approval), I could see the island becoming shaded. Otherwise, if there is no de facto relationship, it should probably not be indicated at all. Smoove K 04:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

China defending Taiwan? That'd be the day!

I've checked it out a bit, and it seems the SCO supports China's claim for Taiwan; the SCO logo also incorporates Taiwan. As such, a version of the map with or without Taiwan could be considered POV on that topic. I'd say we have to shade it, though i dont really know how. The Minister of War 11:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that actually colouring Taiwan would be POV. Wikipedia is supposed to represent the facts, and the fact here is that Taiwan has no bilateral relations with the SCO. Wikipedia should not represent the viewpoint of China in this manner, that would definitely make it POV. Joffeloff 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Joffeloff that Wiki presents facts. But i think the fact here is that though Taiwan has no relations with SCO, it is not recognised by any of its members. Taiwan is considered by them to be a part of PRC. For example, South Ossetia formaly is within Georgia, but 95% of its population are Russian citizens, and they obey Russia's laws, not Georgia's. But on the map of GUAM (where Georgia is a member) South Osseita is included in that block.

Well, the logo of the SCO shows Taiwan, and so their official view of this is quite well documented. I added a random sentence under 'relations with the west', I just couldn't figure a better place to put it. Joffeloff 11:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Taiwan/ROC should be removed from the map, but not the logo. the SCO can draw their logo however they like, but Wikipedia is here to present the facts, and Taiwan is a de facto independent nation and not part of the SCO. In the event that the PRC-ROC unification become a reality, we'd still have to look at the unification arrangement to determine if Taiwan can be added. For example, if Taiwan becomes a PRC province under direct control by the PRC government, then yes, add Taiwan to the map. But if the "One China" turns into something like a loose Commonwealth of equal states/partners, with PRC as a SCO member but not ROC, then Taiwan should still be excluded from the SCO map. -- Adeptitus 21:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it shouldn't be shaded in the map at all. —Nightstallion (?) 03:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

remove taiwan from this map or the map will be removed from the SCO article. Willy turner 02:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What a bunch of bull, Taiwan is a part of China, of course the PRC will defend it, just as the USA will defend NY when it gets attacked. PEACE. 142.239.254.20 19:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation: "Taiwan is a de facto independent nation and not part of the SCO." Your logic goes wrong, man. Taiwan is part of China and China is a member of SCO. What should you conclude then? Not only does Chinese government or SCO admits that Taiwan is part of China, US government and most of the countries in the world also do. In addition, while you don't think so, I, for one, think that Taiwan is part of China. Is this clearer to you now?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.71.18 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-09 15:11:46

I have created an updated map that gives Taiwan its own color, and have labeled it as such in the legend, and included a link that explains the dispute. I think some of this discussion here on the talk page is actually relevant to the article, especially the part about how SCO member nations all recognize the PRC's claim to Taiwan. Somebody who is more familiar with the matter should add that, with proper references. --Sapphic 01:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan is a part of China, as the Republic of China, the government of the island of Taiwan claims to be the legitimate government of China, which the People's Republic of China does so as well, both claiming Taiwan as an integral part of China as a whole. However, that does not mean that the Republic of China is a member of the SCO.207.114.206.48 (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

a small favour, could you make it striped? like how most map represent disputed claim? not really important but it look cool! :S 222.165.72.43 (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

New Members

I just read that the SCO just decided to admit Mongolia, India, Pakistan, and Iran, so this should be updated pronto!Getagrip123 12:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Added a line of text, updated the pic, and removed the 'possible future members' section. ArmanJan

I've read that too. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD18Ad02.html (source - 18 April 2006) and Belarus is gaining observer status http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HD27Ag01.html (source - 27 April 2006)

I don't think they are members YET. But there is an inconsistency. It first says "All four nations have applied for full membership to the organization." then "So far India has not made an official membership application, but has unofficially made its interest in joining known." Which is it?

I am sorry, but the SCO is not a military organization

The SCO is not a military organization and they have gone out of their way to stress this. This said it is a security organization, which is not exactly military, but linked to military applications. The SCO however has a clause where military cooperation is promoted in fighting, seperatists, extremistis, and terrorists. 69.196.164.190

Some pictures of the SCO 2006 Summit will help build this article up. I would like to help with this article. 69.196.164.190

Not a military organization? Are you kidding? Sure, they say it's not, but c'mon. It's coming from countries that always mention wanting "peace" with their neighbors and all of that horse crap. I'll agree it's not a primarily military organization like NATO...but it is a military organization. 68.18.25.136 (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think a collapsed Democratic Russia would sided with a economically reformed China when Soviets couldn't even trust Mao? It has political aims possibly to hedge against US hegemony, but it's not a military alliance in the sense of Warsaw Pact. It shouldn't even been mentioned on the same level or plane as Warsaw pact.Phead128 (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

They have over-lapping aims and ambitions. It should have been clear to the world when Uzbekistan kicked the US out of its bases just how much power the SCO wields. It's united against the biggest "rogue" threat the world faces today, namely The United States of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

SCO terror list

Does anyone know where I can find the list of organizations banned by the SCO as terrorist organizations? I have looked and looked and I cannot find the list. KazakhPol 00:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Turkmenistan

Does anyone know if there have been suggestions that Turkmenistan should/will join? --Dpr 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Map?

Can we get a map, like Image:Map of NATO countries.png? I can't seem to find the base world map, or I'd do it. Vert et Noir^talk 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

bbcamerica, bbc:

bbcamerica, bbc, has, this morning [05:00-06:00], Pacific time, referred to it as military, as well as "peace mission 2007", "Peace Mission 2007".

Thank You.

user : hopiakuta

75.80.255.85 12:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"peace mission 2007" "shanghai cooperation organization" "shanghai cooperation organisation" "". (0.34 seconds).

< http://google.as/search?q=%22peace+mission+2007%22+%22shanghai+cooperation+organization%22+%22shanghai+cooperation+organisation%22+%22%22 >:

"peace mission 2007" "shanghai cooperation organization" "shanghai cooperation organisation" "". (0.34 seconds).

user : hopiakuta

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 13:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan in SCO Map

I noticed that a few SCO maps have been changed to not show Taiwan as "disputed" (including the map on this page). Is this sticking with NPOV, or are people fine with it? Otebig 05:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Unless the SCO regards Taiwan as 'disputed' then it is not up to WP editors, IMO, to make that call. If the SCO includes Taiwan as part of the PRC, then so be it. That my 2к --Russavia 08:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

GDP for SCO

The combined GDP PPP is about 12000000000 if anyone is interested in adding that in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.70.88 (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken, the combined GDP PPP is about 12000000000000000000000, learn some fact or get out. Also, sign your comments. 24.222.149.179 (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia

Did mongolia really express its wish to join the SCO? My sources say the contrary: Mongolia is observer of the SCO since 2004. However, she obstinately resists full membership, in spite of sustained Russian and Chinese pressure - the more the SCO tries to paint itself as a virtual opponent of NATO and the american presence in Asia, the more obstinately. (My translation. Original text: Die Mongolei ist in der SCO seit 2004 mit Beob-achterstatus vertreten. Der Vollmitgliedschaft aber widersetzt sich die Regierung trotz nachhaltigen russischen und chinesischen Drängens umso hart-näckiger, je mehr sich das Bündnis als virtueller Antipode zur NATO und zur amerikanischen Prä-senz in Asien zu profilieren versucht.) From here.

At a KAS symposium in Berlin, the former Mongolian president Ochirbat as well as the accompanying parlamentarians and security experts made clear that this should include an institutionalized relationship with NATO in the long run, for example in the Partnership for Peace framework. This wish corresponds to the just as openly declared Mongolian dislike to get involved in the SCO - the Russian/Chinese dominated pact with four central asian states - as full member, beyond the current status as observer. (Original text: Bei einem von der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung ausgerichteten Symposium in Berlin machten der frühere mongolische Staatspräsident Punsalmaa Ochirbat ebenso wie die Parlamentarier und Sicherheitsexperten in seiner Begleitung deutlich, dass das längerfristig auch eine institutionalisierte Beziehung zur Nato, etwa im Rahmen des Programms Partnerschaft für den Frieden, einschliessen sollte. Dieses Anliegen korrespondiert mit der gleichermassen offen bekundeten Abneigung der Mongolei, sich über den gegenwärtigen Beobachterstatus hinaus als Vollmitglied in das von Russland und China dominierte Bündnis mit vier zentralasiatischen Staaten, die Schanghaier Kooperationsorganisation (SCO), einbinden zu lassen.)From here.

I see some leftist websites allude to Mongolia being eager to join the SCO, but they seem to be writing from their own wishes without taking the Mongolian perspective into account. Anyway, I'd like to see a reliable source. Yaan (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mongolia is a non-factor, 3 million people positioned in a largely empty region sandwiched between russia/china. Mongolia is just an economic satellite of china/russia. It has no freedom in it's foreign policy, china could squash it like a bug in 3 days if it went out of line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.25.74 (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

3 days? more like 24 hours, paratrooped and captured the capital, nothing else of interest anyway... it is obivious why mongolia is freak out. 222.165.72.43 (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I found an additional source in English verifying that Mongolia has been aloof with regards to membership, and have updated the article accordingly. Otebig (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Cyrillic

Hey. I just looked at the Cyrillic transliteration for the Chinese. Besides I don't see the point of having the Chinese in Cyrillic, the letter ц has ts sound. It is currently listed as a z, despite the fact something like a 3 has that sound. Is this correct? Deavenger (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• The letter "z" in Romanised Mandarin Chinese (Hanyu Pinyin) stands for the /t͡s/ sound, and thus "ц" in Cyrillic. --71.252.19.211 (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dialogue Partners vs Observers

It should be kept clear Sri Lanka and Belarus are going to be Dialogue Partners (as the citeed source states) and NOT observers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.182.211.178 (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Major Military Alliance Map Should Be Removed

The map was taken from Wiki Commons. It is highly flawed, factually inaccurate and not at wiki standards. It should be removed from the article. A discussion of the map's many errors is in the image file discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7o62x39 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. It's a military alliance, let's not kid ourselves here. 68.18.25.136 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. There is a "soft" military alliance and a "hard" military alliance. SCO is more like a "soft" military alliance. Examples of "hard" military alliances: China and North Korea, US and Israel, US and Japan, etc... I recommend that this image be removed ASAP.Phead128 (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Errors - SCO's Nature, CSTO, Observers, Consistancy with NATO wiki article

Observers are not members, and are distinct from nations on some path towards membership. The OAS has 61 observers, NATO has dozens of observers. In fact, the four NATO Contact Countries (Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand) have a status more formally tying them to NATO than the "observers" listed in this idiotic map as part of the SCO.

By virtue of the EU's sui generis relationship with NATO, the Berlin Agreement, and the EU/ESDP "separable but not separate" relationship with NATO, the NATO/EU relationship of NATO having to decline to act for the EU/ESDP to act and the fact that every non-NATO EU state but Malta sent forces to Afghanistan - were the USA enacted NATO's mutual defense clause - either the Wikipedia article on NATO should include Sweden, Finland, Austria, Cyprus, Ireland and Malta (as ESDP de facto NATO members), Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Ukraine and Georgia which are all more than observers being to some degree along the process of joining NATO, along with the four "contact" nations - Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand as NATO members. Australian forces in Kosovo operated under NATO command. Azerbaijan which has aspirations to join NATO sent forces to Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. India, Mongolia and Columbia are sending forces to Afghanistan in 2009 joining 42 other nations with forces deployed in Afghanistan under NATO-ISAF.

India would sooner join the FPDA or become a contact nation of NATO before they would join the SCO. Turkmenistan will not join the CSTO or SCO as it has major problems with members of both. Mongolia would not join the SCO or CSTO as its security threats are from China and Russia.

Sri Lanka will likely join the SCO as the Chinese are constructing a major naval base there for the purpose of projecting force into the Indian Ocean (which surely does not make India happy). Russia has thwarted Belarus from joining SCO arguing that Belarus is a European state outside of the sphere of SCO (read China). The reality is that the SCO is China's project and the CSTO is Russia's. Any Sino-Russian "alliance" is far more complex than the Atlantic project between North America and Europe.

The CSTO treaty precludes members (Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgystan) from joining other military alliances. The security provision of the SCO is limited to counter-terrorism under RAT. 7o62x39 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

Taiwan not disputed

Taiwan is considered part of China according to the officiel SCO website : http://www.sectsco.org/EN/China.asp Polylepsis (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)