Jump to content

Talk:Trade bloc/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

ASEAN and Timor-Leste

See, for example, this link; Timor-Leste will join ASEAN, not PARTA. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

EURASEC vs. EurAsEc

OK, I used the full-capital-letters, becouse I saw it this way in another Wikipedia articles. Don't you think, that it looks nicer this way? :)Alinor 22:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

All official sources seem to indicate EurAsEC, which looks way cooler, too, IMO. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's leave it that way. Alinor 23:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
nods Agreed. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

new proposals

  • put the emblems/flags of the blocs before their names in the template-table with the statistics (and maybe in the active members list)?
  • create a new article "Most active regional blocs". Move there the "most active..." section with the list, map, stats, table. Leave here only link and/or brief description. Redirect "Regional bloc" to the new page. The problem is that we will have to rework some (multiple) links that point to Trade bloc#The Most Active.... - so that they point to the new article.
  • Alinor 20:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'm agains the first (not all have emblems, some are of horrible quality on WP, and some simply look horrible at small size), and neutral to the second. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    OK, without flags and let's leave it here for the moment. Alinor 21:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Other states

I intentionaly have put all "other states" into one common list. This is because I think that the purely geographical division is not appropriate in this case. For example asian countries/entities like Syria, Palestine, Jordan have much more in common with Egypt, Libya, Alegeria, etc. than with Turkmenistan or Mongolia... Also the nature of the "other states" is that they are currently not yet firmly aligned with any of the groups, so if we divide them along geographical lines this will be somewhat untrue. Not to mention the issues like "Armenia should be classified with Europe"/"...with Asia", the same for Greenland, etc. The "other states" list is not so big, that we have to divide it into so distrinct groups. I think that some line-break at most will be enough between the micro-groups of the list? Alinor 20:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That's why I grouped the Arab states together. IMO, the partition into different regions serves one important purpose: To make it more obvious which groupings they *might* join.
Another note: I think we should have a different background in the table for "in force" and "proposed". Maybe white on black for "in force" and black on grey for "proposed"? That would make it more distinct... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I moved a few Arab states up to prospective members of Agadir, since they are a) depicted on the map, anyway ;) and b) mentioned in this article. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think that this is a little overstretch. Yes, all these are prospective members, but if we are realistic Libya will not join soon, Syria is more likely, but Palestine is absolutely out of question. So, I propose to stick with the more probable states (Algeria, Lebanon and Syria and at most Mauritania)?
If we are realistic, the Dominican Republic won't join CARICOM in the next decade... I say we leave them all in for now; after all, they might well join Agadir before Turkey joins the EU. Agreed? After all, we're only noting strong affiliation and prospective membership there, no dates given... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
My original idea was to note the "strong affiliation" in the Others-list and to list as "prospective, candidate, etc." only states that have made some official steps toward membership (eg. Turkey to EU, Dominican Republic to CARICOM, Yemen to GCC, etc.) Alinor 23:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Mh. Don't you consider the fact that upon the start of the FTA these six states were named as immediate enlargement prospects official steps? I'd have said they were, that's why I added them... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
They are named, but this is only a general statement, like "Any european state can join the EU". Palestine should stay absolutely in the "Other states", because currently it can not join ANY bloc outside Israel... Alinor 23:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Mh. But Palestine is also a member of a few other organizations despite hardly being a nation... And currently, not *all* European countries can join the EU; only the balkans have a *clear* membership prospect at the moment. I'll add a note to Palestine, however, and then we could put this list up for peer review, don't you agree? It's definitely good enough to become a featured list in the near future... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
"All european states can join the EU, if ..." is Article.49 of one EU treaty, so it is very official :). Palestine's case is too special to just lump it with the other prospective candidates. Let's put it with "Other\Arab"...Alinor 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, if... the EU can absorb them, among other things. ;) I'm still in favour of keeping it under prospective members; we've got other countries with less certain prospects under the same heading... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 05:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
That is a part of the problem - Palestine is not a country currently, so it looks too ambitious to put it as "prospective member"... I will move it now, check how it looks :) Alinor 19:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
About featured list - I agree. But I wanted first to see more into Economic Community of Central African States - this is a "extended" UDEAC. Less active. Includes defense cooperation (for adding to UDEAC as CSTO for EurAsEC). Also it will "pull" Sao Tome and Principle in UDEAC as "partner as ECCAS member". But it is too late today, let's wait till tomorow. Alinor 00:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I'll wait with adding IGAD to the map, then. What about my proposal to clearly differ in the table between "in force", "proposed with a fixed date", and "proposed for sometime, noone knows when"? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 05:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
ECCAS is ready! I agree with the color-coding of in force/proposed firm date/proposed (maybe gray color for the proposed-without-date? or orange?)Alinor 19:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Mh. How about green for in force, orange for proposed with fixed date, yellow for proposed in general? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
My logic was the other way around: green - full force, yellow - medium (proposed with date), red (orange instead of red, becouse of better color-matching) - weak (proposed, no clear deadline). But the current way also serves its purpose. Alinor 21:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Mh. Very well, I'll make it so. I think I actually simply switched those two colours when editting, as I think I wanted orange to be less certain than yellow... ^_^;; ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Also DRCongo goes there; When you update the map with IGAD - change the color of ECOWAS to some other (not green - becouse UDEAC is green)... A little lighter East Timor will be good too (to contrast from the ASEAN Sea around it) Alinor 20:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I did all that, with the exception of the change to Timor-Leste; I can't find a better colour to distinguish it from its neighbours without being non-red. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding my changes to the table: EurAsEC is all talks and no action up to now, and the Andean Community has a FTA fully in force (Peru has a few exemptions, but less than 10% of goods, so I don't think footnote 1 applies), and a customs union in which not all members participate. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 22:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. Only one objection - currently three Andean states (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru) are negotiating individual FTAs with the US. So they must be outside of the Customs Union... 3 of 5... Maybe change status to "proposed"? Alinor 23:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Mh. This states that all but Peru are members of the customs union, so I'd say it's "in force 1". Don't ask me what the US are doing with only three out of five there... scratches head ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's leave it "in force", but it looks strange. Even more strange if some of the US-xxx FTAs are signed already... Alinor 23:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
shrugs If they say they've got a CU... They ought to know what they put on their website, I reckon. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

GCC single market?

Do you have some links about it?Alinor 20:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Try this. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks!Alinor 21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Gladly. I tried to fill in more of your question marks, but couldn't find too much. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, about visa-free Mercosur. We can even remove the "not all participating yet", becouse for this classification Venezuela is treated as part of CAN, so all "most active MERCOSUR members" participate in the visa-free, right?Alinor 17:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that should do. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Integration table

Don't you think it might look better if we switched rows and columns in the table? I.e., have rows for the blocs and columns for the ways of integration? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes! Alinor 17:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you do it? I've tried, but I simply know too little about table syntax in wiki, and I can't really get it to work the way it should... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, but I can't start that now, wait until after the weekend... Alinor 08:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems you did get to it before the weekend. Well done, thanks! Nightstallion ✉ 17:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
;) Also, please check the African Economic Community progress table... Alinor 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Acceding or acceded?

BTW, Afghanistan is a full member of SAARC; you even included it in the table. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I think that Uzbekistan is full member of EurAsEC already and it is included in the stats too :) But I colored it as light, becouse I am not sure if all procedures of its joining are finished. Alinor 21:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Mh, I'll change that, too, then, and will look into Timor-Leste's colour a second time while I'm at it. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Seems I won't change Uzbekistan... Or rather, change Uzbekistan from acceding to candidate and from a mid-dark acceding-orange to a lighter candidate-orange. And could you subtract Uzbekistan in the table for now? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 21:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I also wanted to re-check the EU and CSN stats, so I will do it all together... Alinor 17:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Any idea when you'll get to it? Nightstallion ✉ 17:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. Working on the other changes now... Alinor 09:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Great work! ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 10:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for the table

To mirror CSN, shouldn't AU be grouping all of its pillars? And maybe we should split up ECOWAS into UEMOA and WAMZ, as well; while we're at it, replace SACU with SADC and make SACU a subgrouping. I realize this will be hell to code, but it would reflect reality and plans better, wouldn't it? Nightstallion ✉ 03:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think that we should split ECOWAS. It is fairly active on its own, there seems to be plans for merging UEMOA and WAMZ, even before the WAMZ entry into force... Alinor 08:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I though about SACU/SADC too, similar is the UDEAC/ECCAS situation (as opposed to ECOWAS/UEMOA,WAMZ - that's why I don't want to split it - it is the only one of them that is most active at the "top level"). If we go this way the "most active" group should be changed from SACU to SADC and the members listed as "SACU members: ...; Other members: ...", hmm, this isn't that bad. But then we have to remove the SACU line from the stats table (replace it with SADC). My problem here is that the currently most active group (SACU) will be replaced with less-integrated group. The statistical data for the less-integrated group is also less-important (something like showing GDP per capita of a group between France, Monaco and New Zealand :)) so we will remove "usefull" data and replace it with "irrelevant" data... So, to summurize. SACU/SADC, UDEAC/ECCAS change - for the list OK, for the table OK, for the stats - hard decision, leaning to Oppose (some ideas to overcome this?). For the map - no change needed, maybe only change the labels from "SACU" to "SACU/SADC" - the colors are already there "dark/light". This can be done even before changing table/etc. Alinor 08:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I tought about AEC (not exactly AU yet - similar to EEC->EC->EU transition in the years. We know "AU" becouse they know where such integration leads, becouse of the EU example, but factualy I think that it is AEC) too. The problems are similar to the SACU/SADC, UDEAC/ECCAS: we should not replace well-integrated with totaly un-integrated blocs in the stats (maybe we should add AEC data "under line" as a reference only?). I think that displaying AEC on the map is wrong at the moment - it would become too overcrowded/unreadable (maybe possible if you can add some special effect to cover West/East/South Africa without North Africa). For the list - also unsuitable for the moment, we have still "problems" with the sub-groups and division in three (or more) levels would be a nightmare (AEC->SADC->SACU). I think that the note at the end of the list is enough. Maybe only to move the note from the "other countries" to an individual main sub-entry. For the table - it is comfortable to add AEC, becouse we have many dates for it :)). But again it should be "under line" as reference, becouse of a variant of the three-levels-nightmare: we don't have all of the AEC pillars in the table (because of overlapping), the table is sorted in order of "activeness" and the AEC-pillars are not near each other (CARICOM is very "unhelpfull" here with its advancement :)). My idea was that we can cover AEC in depth on its own page with the table for all of its pillars. I can add additional stats table for AEC+pillars-even-if-overlapping; also AEC-participation map can be added - I wanted to make a map showing the overlapping between AEC pillars, but I want it to be with "striped fill" - DR Congo to have fill with 3 colors: ECCAS, SADC, COMESA; etc. Can you help here? The current table on the AEC page is only for stage3 objectives (FTA and CU). We can add more activities (common market, currency, ...) "under line" and without color (so to not interfere with "completion of stage3"... Alinor 08:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC) Proposals:

  • don't change ECOWAS
  • possibility for SACU/SADC, UDEAC/ECCSA: change in list, table, double names in map, hard to decide about stats.
  • possibility for AEC:
    • "under line" in list, stats, table, nothing or special effect in map.
    • "under line" in list, in depth coverage (full/with all pillars stats, table, striped-fill map) on its own page.
Alinor 08:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, all of that. I can live with all of that, though I would prefer a split for WAMZ and UEMOA; it's not that important, however. I'll leave changing the list and tables to you; I think the stats need not be updated. I support creating its own page for AEC, but will leave that to you, too; you've been doing great work with creating new trade bloc pages! Nightstallion ✉ 09:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
OK. I will need some time :-) Alinor 08:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, take your time. Looking forward to seeing African Economic Community appear on my watchlist with more than a redirect in it. ;) Nightstallion ✉ Featured User Candidate 09:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you think you can use this in your AEC article? Just took fifteen minutes to compile the information. Nightstallion ✉ 13:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice! Will use it of course - maybe in the section "Member states of AEC" Alinor 09:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Great! ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 10:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I had to add two more – Mano River Union and CEPGL. Gah, the AU should really get rid of some of those by merging them regionally, and soon... —Nightstallion (?) 10:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Look at the link in the AEC section of AU. There are mentioned ECOWAS, COMESA, ECCAS, IGAD, SADC and UMA. UMA is not participating. EAC was formed later and participates. COI, MRU and CEPGL are not mentioned (and their members are already members of other regional blocs). So, not ALL african formations participate in AEC (for the better I think :)). Even SACU is not mentioned. On one other link I have seen UEMOA, CEMAC and EAC mentioned. So, maybe instead of adding CEPGL, etc. we should remove COI and SACU (move it as comment to SADC); add a "envisioned WAMZ" (because it is not formed already). Alinor 06:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
So, In the AEC article we will put SADC/ECCAS as main blocs (because they are pillars) and SACU/CEMAC as sub-groups inside them; and here in "most active" we will leave SACU/CEMAC, at least until SADC/ECCAS get stronger, right? Alinor 07:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep. FYI, I've found someone who'll create a map of the different pillars of the AEC for us. —Nightstallion (?) 13:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

UDEAC doesn't exist any more

Check this — UDEAC ceased to exist in 1999 and was superseded by CEMAC. Nightstallion ✉ 13:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. So the first revisions were more correct (CEMAC instead of UDEAC). This makes sense - also the note about EU agreement about merging CEMAC with ECCAS. I will add this to the CEMAC/UDEAC articles too - to be clear who is the predecessor, etc. Alinor 09:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I was about to ask you about that: Have you heard anything apart from "ECCAS should be merged with CEMAC some time"? Wasn't there some sort of deadline set? I would've expected that... ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 10:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I replaced some incorrect information regarding UDEAC in the relevant articles. ᓇᐃᑦᔅᑕᓕᐅᓐ ✉ 10:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
No news on this from your side, Alinor? —Nightstallion (?) 13:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

WAMZ

WAMZ is only currency union (as opposed to CEMAC and UEMOA wich are also economic/FTA/CU blocs), so I will lessen its showing in the AEC page... Alinor 10:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Also, it is still only proposed, so maybe member states will be different when it comes to live... (for example - all ECOWAS states?) Alinor 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, most definitely not. Plans are first to create the WAMZ, and then merge the WAMZ and the UEMOA (and Cape Verde ;)) into a common currency union for all of ECOWAS. —Nightstallion (?) 13:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

ECOWAS common market

Is it really "partially in force"? I think that even UEMOA doesn't have a common market, but can you confirm this? Alinor 11:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's true... —Nightstallion (?) 13:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I will put a question mark then. Alinor 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

IGAD replacement

Maybe we should replace IGAD with COMESA as "most active regional bloc" (it is clearly more active than the stalled IGAD). Members: Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Comoros (others are overlapped). Somalia will be "partner as IGAD member". Alinor 08:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I agree. —Nightstallion (?) 08:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership

The recent inclusion of the Trans Pacific SEP (also known as P4) was reverted because it's supposedly not active enough. However, let's check it against the definition of active used by the article itself:

  • to have greater real practical achievements: the P4 agreement is a comprehensive FTA that immediately eliminates all custom duties and trade barriers (except for some safeguards for Chile's dairy industry to be phased out over the next ten years)[1][2].
  • to have more recent (or regular) activities: five rounds of talks in the last three years.
  • to have more ambitious plans for future integration and a tighter timescale for it.: the agreement openly seeks to support the wider liberalization proces in APEC consistent with its goals of free and open trade and investment. With other APEC countries displaying an interest in joining (Thailand for example[3]) it may prove to be a key component of the process that leads to a potential APEC FTA in the future.

I understand that the size of the countries and their geographical spread may incline some people to disregard it, but I think it stacks up well against alot of the agreements that are already included in this article.--GringoInChile 15:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but you omitt one thing - the overlaping note. The states of TP-SEP-P4 are already participating in other blocs and FTAs (ASEAN, CSN, CER). There are many similar to TP-SEP-P4 agreements, but they overlap... Alinor 16:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, ASEAN is certainly more important for Singapore as is CER for New Zealand (Any reason why CER is excluded from the list and map?). However, I'd like to make the point that from Chile's point of view, the P4 agreement is a lot more significant than its trade relations with the other South American countries. CSN is nothing more than hopeful intentions for the year 2014 and Chile has only associate status with Mercosur. Anyway, I will refrain from adding the P4 back into the main list, but does anyone have any objections with my adding it to the "other states and entities" subsection?--GringoInChile 18:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Or maybe I can put it in List of trade blocs?
It is already in the List of free trade agreements. I see that you added some more Chile FTAs. Are these all of them? If you know about some that are currently in negotiations - you can add them to "Proposed bilateral"... And yes, List of FTAs is the most appropriate place. "Other states and entities" is meant for states, that are not covered by the blocs listed above. "Entities"-word is added for "territorial entities, that are not sovereign states" (like Palestine). Alinor 16:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Uzbekistan and EurAsEC

 Uzbekistan will join on 25 January per [4]. —Nightstallion (?) 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

CACM proposed or in force

Here it is listed as functioning [5]. But it doesn't look convincing enough. For example Chile, Mexico and other states negotiate FTAs with each CACM state on its own (even if in some cases they are negotiated in parallel and are similar to each other)... Alinor 18:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Mh. bilaterals.org doesn't seem to have any info on that... —Nightstallion (?) 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Countries left out in map

The map is good. I notice however that for some blocks, there were countries missing. For example, for CARICOM, you have coloured the Dominican Republic as a lighter shade of yellow (to signify that it is not a full member), but you haven't done the same for the Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands (which are associate members as opposed to observers like the Dominican Republic, although the Dominican Republic has proposed seeking admission for full citizenship). Also for EurAsEC the Ukraine, Moldova and Armenia are observers and have not been coloured (and for that matter, they weren't included in the listing for EurAsEC at all).---anonymous; 4:58 pm February 09, 2004

About CARICOM associates - they are not independent states (but UK dependencies), that is why they are missing from the map. About EurAsEC observers - here the problem is more with the "activity" of the states and the bloc. The states in question are only nominaly observers, but they do not engage in EurAsEC activities. Ukraine doesn't rush to join common space with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan eighter (all three of them EurAsEC members). And Armenia (and Moldova) can not became a full member unless Georgia or Azerbaijan join (they are not even observers) (unless Ukraine joins for Moldova) orthe rules became changed (common border is requiered). Alinor 08:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


EU GDP

It's in conflict with the European Union article. 148.177.129.212 13:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

SCO

The SCO probably deserves a mention, because they have the intent to become a trade bloc. I fully agree they are not a trade bloc at the moment, but then neither are EurAsEC, CACM, PARTA or AEC. Also, Panama's dual currency of the US dollar is possibly relevant in understanding why they are not members of any trade bloc. Addhoc 15:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ecuador and El Salvador also have the dollar as their currency, and yet they're part of blocs... And those other blocs have advanced much more in their attempts to become trade blocs, ne? —Nightstallion (?) 12:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

My language abilities sadly do not extend to understanding "ne". Would you object if I tagged an SCO link on the See Also bit? Are you planning to put this artcle up for a good or featured article soon? Adiós Addhoc 12:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Means "isn't it", at least the way I use it. See also should be fine, and I think it's still far away from becoming a FA... —Nightstallion (?) 12:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Map needs updating

Venezuela formally left the Andean Community in April 2006 and join Mercosur on 16 June 2006 as a full member.--GringoInChile 14:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 12:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Good job.--GringoInChile 19:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Say, GringoInChile, when will Chile rejoin the Andean Community? There's been some news on that, but nothing concrete... —Nightstallion (?) 02:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw something in the newspaper a couple of days ago where the Chilean Minister of Foreign Affairs, Alejandro Foxley, stated that if Chile were invited that they'd almost certainly accept. I guess he wouldn't say that if it weren't a strong possibility. Still, like you say, nothing concrete yet, but I'm keeping my eye on developments. It seems that now that Venezzuela is out of CAN, there's a push for the Pacific-Rim Sth American nations to band together with an eye towards incorporation into APEC for the non-APEC members.--GringoInChile 08:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Mh. And what does this mean for the South American Community of Nations? —Nightstallion (?) 20:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure, Anyway, it seems like a done thing. The four CAN members formally invited Chile to join yesterday and it seems that Chile has accepted. Looks like you'll need to change the map again soon --GringoInChile 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Up to now, they only invited Chile to become an associate member, which wouldn't change anything about the map since Chile is already marked as associated with CAN. However, it is indeed likely that Chile will fully join CAN later, as well as Bolivia switching to Mercosur... Couldn't you just abolish CAN and Mercosur and start working on CSN? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 21:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In light of the above, it sounds as if this is inaccurate?

Venezuela, for example, is a member of both the Andean Community and Mercosur. While Mercosur is a more active bloc than the Andean Community, Venezuela itself is much more active in the Andean Community than in Mercosur. Therefore Venezuela is assigned to the Andean Community for the purpose of this classification. (This is only an example. So, note, that Venezuela is planning to completely integrate with Mercosur by 2010).

Nil Einne 20:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, not really; Venezuela is much more active in Mercosur now than in CAN, and Bolivia is likely to follow suit rather soon, whereas Chile will likely rejoin CAN as a full member in the future, resulting in a more logical division of South America into Pacific nations and land-locked and Atlantic nations. Whether CSN actually develops into something real is still quite unsure, it seems, though I'd certainly be in favour... —Nightstallion (?) 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand are members of PARTA, therefore the map and the table both need updating. Periander 23:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

They are only associate members, which is reflected in the article, and they also have ties to the U.S. and ASEAN. —Nightstallion (?) 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Because of enlargement of the EU (Bulgaria and Romania), the map needs again updating.Beagel 10:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Order

Hey, I tempered with the order a bit. I moved CSN a few places up since they're more successful in creating a common trade bloc than the African blocs and group the African blocs together. I also moved CARICOM and GCC down since the they're not participating in macro-blocs. --23prootie 23:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


The article says: 

(e.g. NATO and EU members are almost the same).

I'd rather say the NATO bloc is almost equal to EU plus NAFTA. --212.95.112.202 07:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

ECO

The economic cooperation organisation ECO should be added to the article. I´m not aware if it is an fully developed trade block, but it is obviously an significant organisation and it should therefore be added.

[Media:http://www.ecosecretariat.org/] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabianblue (talk • contribs) 10:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Move page

I intend to move this page to its proper title, but would like some input from the community first.

  1. "Blocks" is incorrect; Wikipedia naming convention calls for the singular in an article title;
  2. I think the term should be "bloc" rather than "block"; the second, while technically correct, is the eighth and last definition in Webster's, and confusing to boot;
  3. A google search reveals 7,390 hits for the phrase "trade bloc", as opposed to a whopping five for the phrase "international economic bloc".

- Hephaestos 17:56, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

trade bloc then. -- Viajero 18:49, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)

A TOP Bindura businesswoman died after having sex with High Court judge, Justice Charles Hungwe, on Tuesday evening.

Gladys Farai Mangwiro, 55, was said to have had a long standing affair with the Harare-based judge.

But she died after romping with her lover Tuesday evening at a lodge in the town which she owned. Mangwiro, who owned Mayfair Lodge, was found lying dead on the floor of her bedroom without her pants, bra and blouse while an inhaler for treating asthma was beside the body.

According to reports, after discovering that Mangwiro was not feeling well, a frantic Justice Hungwe rushed to the local police station and later to Bindura Provincial Hospital.

He allegedly left his lover alone in the bedroom after she suffered an asthma attack.

He later returned with an ambulance crew but they found Mangwiro dead.

The Judge then drove back to the police station where he informed cops about the new developments. Police visited the home but relatives reportedly diverted the body to the mortuary of a private funeral parlour instead of a government hospital.

Officers at Bindura Police Station initially treated the case as sudden death before it was transferred to the Criminal Investigations Department.

“They were tasked to ascertain the cause of death since the circumstances were not clear,” police sources in the town told The Herald.

“Firstly it was noted that the judge had a car parked outside but did not use it to ferry the now deceased to the hospital, instead he rushed to look for an ambulance.”

That's what I was thinking. I think there's a way to keep all the edit history, I'll be trying it in a bit. - Hephaestos 19:15, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Seems to have worked. Move page command, right? nothing fancy?... -- Viajero 23:06, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)
It got a little fancy; there were two pages I wasn't aware of when I started, one was Trade blocks which was subject to an incorrect copy/paste "move" back in April of last year, and also Trade bloc had been started on the 26th of April this year. After some deletions and undeletions all under the name "Trade bloc" the whole history's there now. It's less complicated than it sounds.  :) - Hephaestos 02:56, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Not to resurrect a dead topic, but your numbers seem to be horribly wrong, Hephaestos. Do another Google search. Actually, I'll do it here for you. "Trade bloc" yields 317,000 results; "international economic bloc," however, yields 382,000. Perhaps you'd better do some rethinking. Elfred (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have problems with this being defined as a free trade zone or near-free trade zone and including something like ASEAN on the list. ASEAN is not a free trade or near-free trade zone. So the question is whether to redefine this term, or simply to remove ASEAN. Fuzheado 23:04, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What is ASEAN then? -- Viajero 23:06, Aug 29, 2003 (UTC)
That's what the Wikipedia entry is for. :) From the entry: aim is to foster cooperation and mutual assistance among members. It is not even close to a free trade zone. It seems this entry has shifted from emphasizing economics to free trade which are not the same thing. Fuzheado 23:21, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I believe I've found a solution, and will include AFTA in this list rather than ASEAN directly. Fuzheado 23:30, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)


References?


George Orwell predicted that trade blocs would evolve into continent-spanning empires with ever-changing alliances. The eastward expansion of the EU and use of the Euro, southern expansion of NAFTA into the FTAA, and increasing co-operation in Asia would seem to validate this prediction.

Roadrunner 02:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New Internation Trade Statistics

Here is a list of reports for 2007. 1.9 has the complete list that this page would want. It's up for anyone to edit. I'll double check when I have time and do it if no one else has. Infonation101 (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

COMESA

It seems unlikely Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa has only as full members: Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Comoros and partners as IGAD members: Somalia. Ideed the COMESA page has a much longer list[6] --Rumping (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


CACM: no a Custom Union nor a Currency Union??? Why the CACM Free trade area has an unclear status??

The FTA: Why the CACM Free trade area has an unclear status? In SICE says it is a almost perfect FTA "Después de 40 años de integración, el MCCA se encuentra actualmente entre un área de libre comercio casi perfecta y una unión aduanera imperfecta." http://www.sice.oas.org/SICA/bkgrd_s.asp

The Custom Union: The CACM has a Common Extarnal Tariff http://www.sieca.org.gt/ArancelCA2002/ although it is not a perfect one because it has (only) 1305 lines non-harmonized.

The Currency Union: They have a "unreal" Currency Union because the "Peso Centromaricano", it is a reference to convert the each country local currency (in the CACM or a foreign one)to Pesos centroamericanos for Customs things in Central America (I say an "unreal" Currency Union because it is intangible currency, it works as a reference, while the Euro is a "real" currency union because they use the Euro, a tangible currency):

http://www.comex.go.cr/acuerdos/comerciales/centroamerica/regimen/c_regimen_ara.htm

Convenio sobre el Régimen Arancelario y Aduanero Centroamericano ARTICULO 20 Unidad monetaria y conversión de monedas Para los fines de la unidad y uniformidad arancelaria se tendrá como unidad de cuenta el "Peso Centroamericano", con el valor que el Consejo Monetario Centroamericano decida fijarle. La conversión de monedas extranjeras a pesos centroamericanos se hará con base en el tipo de cambio resultante de la cotización internacional de la moneda extranjera con respecto al valor oficial del peso centroamericano que se define en el párrafo anterior, en la fecha de aceptación de la póliza. Dicha cotización será proporcionada por el Banco Central del Estado Contratante interesado. La conversión de pesos centroamericanos a las monedas de los Estados Contratantes se hará aplicando el valor que corresponda de acuerdo con las disposiciones nacionales vigentes, a la fecha de aceptación de la póliza.

... forgive me about my spanglish ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.7.101.98 (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan

Is there any data on Taiwan? I assumed it belonged in the alone catagory but I don't see it anywhere. If there is no data it should be mentioned. If there is it should be included in its trade bloc or indicated as unalligned. 98.28.114.217 (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed template Active Regional Blocs

The map is not OK as it is and I do not think that the issues can be fixed. Therefore, I will remove it from the articles that concern me.

Main issue is: Based on what criterion (Source???) is the selection of active blocs made. In my opinion, this map is WP:OR at its best. I do not see the Council of Europe or NATO as a block, but an SCO which is (according to my personal perception) far less active. I see no way out of this problem.

Many other issues (that might get fixed) also exist. I just name a few:

  • Why does the Arab League overrule the African Union? I do not see shaded areas anywhere on this map, which makes me suspicious that there are more examples like this.
  • What happend to Haiti?
  • Same colors for French Guyana and CAIS will certainly mislead readers.
  • Why are Japan and S. Korea colored the same way? There is no color code given for them.
  • What does the color code of Iran or Ukraine mean, and what the one for Cuba?
  • Many non-EU states in Europe have the same color without being part of one group.
    • EFTA countries colored like Greenland is likely to confuse readers.
    • Why is Moldavia not colored like Serbia, both are CEFTA, while Turkey is?
    • Why has Israel the same shade as Turkey?

I could go on and on...

Bottom line: The map is a nice try, and certainly interesting to look at, but does not and (I would say) cannot fulfill the standards of Wikipedia. Tomeasy T C 17:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As soon as a better map is available I'll let you know. Emilfaro (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't you agree that this extremely long list of errors, plus the POV problem that might never be fixed, requires deletion of this map from all articles? Tomeasy T C 17:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Such a map (and template) itself is a good idea. The problem is, on the map now we have a mix of trade blocs and other regional alliances, which may not be primarily (or at all) concerned with trade (the most obvious example is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which is certainly not a trade bloc). There should be two templates - one for real trade blocs (like NAFTA) and one for actual military alliances (NATO, CSTO). I think, Emilfaro, you really want to include the SCO in these, but the problem is the SCO is not a formal trade or military bloc. Fact is, the SCO members aren't sure what they want to organization to be. Right now, more than anything else, it simply serves as a forum for the regional leaders to talk and build confidence (mainly between China and the former Soviet states). It's also a vehicle for China to expand its influence in Central Asia. Honestly, it's not very important right now - it's the future potential that get most people's attention. So, in short, two templates, one trade, one military/security, and SCO doesn't fit on either of them. Otebig (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I also find the map interesting, but more than that it is problematic. The problems are not solved by your suggestion. The map currently contains so many errors that it is a shame it is displayed anywhere on Wikipedia. Most important is the OR issue, which you do not seem to understand. Rather you are starting an OR discussion ("Honestly, it's not very important right now"). This map is based on a hidden selection criterion as to which regional blocs are active enough to be considered. I guess that this selection is purely based on the gusto of the author and now you even start to argue about that. IMO, this cannot be fixed. And if these arguments are all too complicated then ask yourself: Do you really want to show the African Union while all its Arab member states are colored as being part of the AU? Tomeasy T C 19:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
"...which you do not seem to understand...And if these arguments are all too complicated..." - Tomeasy, please don't be rude or talk down to people, it's very off-putting. Anyway, I just rewrote this article to better define what a trade bloc is - hopefully that will help with the templates and map. As I said, we need two templates (and accompanying maps), one for trade blocs and one for military/security alliances. I've left a number of suggestions for improving the trade bloc template at that talk page. Tomeasy, you should add some suggestions in case there are any I missed. I hope Emilfaro can make a new map based on the suggestions (I stink at making maps myself). Finally, on the note of "hidden selection criterion", we should make some standard for inclusion on the map (not "most active", which, as Tomeasy said, could be OR - maybe just the 7 or 8 largest ones?). For an idea of what professional maps on this subject look like, here's a map from this textbook on international organizations. Note how they clearly show the dual membership of the north African states in both the AU and AL - we can do something similar, I hope. Otebig (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. But not with every word. This map was based on my impression reading wikipedia articles. They are sometimes poorly sourced. I think separate maps should be made for preferential, free trade, customs unions, etc. But before that articles on these entities should be severely improved. For example CIS has signed a free trade are back in 1994. And EurAsEC is an active customs union, which began in 1996. Actually you are not judging me, but wikipedia poorly written articles. Emilfaro (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I would mention as well, that wikipedia has almost no word on APTA, which appeared in 1976, and includes China since 2005.Emilfaro (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for a wrong link. This is the one: [7]. Emilfaro (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
If you're up for making that many maps, great! You're right, these articles on the different trade blocs are a mess - I tried cleaning up this one (trade bloc) yesterday. Hopefully after the holidays I can get more material for the other articles you mentioned. For the individual trade bloc articles, we need to show which ones are active, and which ones were proposed but never enacted (with good sources, of course). Otebig (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an Article

Just want to point out that I have removed the list material and made this article into an article. It's not a list. All the removed information (still available here) should go to List of trade blocs. Otebig (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

First it should be properly determined and sourced, which block falls in which categories, state of affairs, dates of signatures, actual establishment, current plans, etc. But I agree, that sorting them out in categories is a better choice. Emilfaro (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
i agree that all of the information should not just be included on here in such long lists, but the information itself is useful. Can we keep it on the page till everythings been transfered across please, because at the moment that List of trade blocs is simply a list with no other information. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I originally undid your major changes to this article Otebig, but after seeing some of the incorrect contents of the list i have restored it back to your last version. It is a better setup now and after seeing some of the tables included which seemed inaccurate it was a good step forward for this article. Although i hope sometime in the future when someone has a time, they can add accurate lists containing similiar data to other articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge with the list of trade blocs

The article is very short - 3.5kb. And the list is even shorter - 2.5kb. They should be merged. Emilfaro (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are worried, that after we include the data the list will be too large - it is not necessary at all. Only the totals shall be included as all the data is now in the List of countries by GDP growth. Emilfaro (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The list grew in kb, but mostly because of hidden flags. However it has become more compact, and is now categorized. If no one objects I'll merge soon. Emilfaro (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

GDP by PPP data from list article lost with merge.

Does anybody know a way to access the now merged list of most active trading blocs article to get the PPP data for GDP comparison?Zebulin (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Preferential trading areas

Preferential trading area includes a list of trade blocs of that type, which should be included here if they aren't already. -- Beland (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

table Comparison between regional blocs

I don't agree with the removal of the classification of countries in "most active" blocs, but it seems the general consesus here was to remove it (maybe one of the reasons for this was the transformation of the list to such a state that was clearly not acceptable in the end... let's say a very random list - like including SCO along with trade blocs...). So, OK.

The current table with statistical comparision is also somewhat random and arbitrary (for example - what is the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of FTAs? Because the list can be extended with many more entries). The previous statistics table was more clearly defined - included were the "most active" blocs from the former list and the first 2 (or 3?) countries by area, pop and GDP. Anyway, it seems that the current table is based on the current FTA-CU-single market-EMU classification in these articles (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.). I have stated my disagreement with this classification on their talk pages.

I don't see any explanation neihter in the edits history nor on this talk page about the removal of the table comparing the stages of integration between the trade blocs (one of the older revisions is this one: [8], but if it were to be restored it should be updated/rearanged). Yes, it had also transformed (like showing EFTA and CEFTA as sub-groups of EEA), but as with the list above some meaningful corrections/adjustments would be much more appropriate than removal.

So, I understand that consesus currently is to delete the "most active trade bloc membership" classification, but why remove the stages comparision table? Alinor (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Trade blocs.png question

From File talk:Trade blocs.png Is the Arab League ("AL") a trade block? Isn't the Arab Customs Union currently just proposed, and is a customs union? 99.181.130.189 (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, a customs union is a type of trade bloc, but you have a point about the distinction between the Arab League and the Arab Customs Union. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Pacific Alliance

This is a new trade bloc that should be included in this article and the information on it should be expanded.--Jean70000 (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

How about taking into consideration RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership)?

May I suggest improvements to the Trade bloc article? How about taking into consideration RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) and reflecting the latest information accordingly in the matrixes as well? 未知との遭遇 (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Regionalism vs. Multinationalism

There is a problem in this paragraph. The first of the following two sentences lacks a main verb: However, regional economies by establishing tariffs and quotas that protect intra-regional trade from outside forces, according to the University of California Atlas of Global Inequality. Rather than pursuing a global trading regime within the World Trade Organization, which includes the majority of the world's countries, regional trade bloc countries contribute to regionalism rather than global integration. Timothy Cooper (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Trade bloc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

no mention of jobs or unions?

How could there be no mention of jobs or weakening of unions under "Disadvantages"? It seems disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.201.242.19 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Trade bloc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

EU / political union

Re "For example, the European Union, started as a trading bloc in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome, has transformed itself into a far-reaching political organization that deals not only with trade matters, but also with human rights, consumer protection, greenhouse gas emissions and other issues only marginally related."

This seems like a perspective straight from UKIP. First of all it is simply not true that it started out only as a trading bloc and evolved into a political union. Although it has certainly evolved, there was a political intent from the very beginning, enshrined in the phrase "ever closer union" (remember these were countries that had been more-or-less continually at war for hundreds of years prior to the start of this process of integration).

The claim that these things are only marginally related (to trade) is debatable at best. Many trade experts would say it is flat-out wrong. Clearly consumer protection is *directly* related. The principle in the EU is that members should not be able to compete on the basis of slashing regulations and/or business taxes (i.e. no race to the bottom). Hence pollution is relevant. Human and labour rights are similarly relevant (so no member can compete using slave or child labour, of example). The EU specifically requires that its member states are democracies and that they abide by their own rule of law. This requirement could be said to be *avowedly* political - but remember that a number of the members have experienced dictatorships in the past (or were such at the beginning of the integration process, and were therefore excluded from it).

A common market needs some form of tribunal or (better) a court or law, to regulate disputes, and to be seen to be doing so fairly and transparently. 'Free trade' in a common market does not mean trade without rules (as some seem to think) but rather trade within collective rules that all the members can, on balance, agree to. This is the hard part of trade agreements - and not tariffs, as many politicians seem to fixated on (because they are easier to understand, explain to the public, and deal with).

In the EU, and several other such unions, there is also a voting council or parliament (in the EU, both) to give greater legitimacy to joint decisions taken within the union.109.147.140.152 (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Trade bloc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trade_bloc/Archive_1&oldid=1145853614"