Talk:Trade bloc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trade bloc has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

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)

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)

---

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)

Contents 1 ASEAN and Timor-Leste 2 Other states 3 EURASEC vs. EurAsEc 4 GCC single market? 5 new proposals 6 Acceding or acceded? 7 Integration table 8 Suggestions for the table 9 UDEAC doesn't exist any more 10 WAMZ 11 ECOWAS common market 12 IGAD replacement 13 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership 14 Uzbekistan and EurAsEC 15 CACM proposed or in force 16 Countries left out in map 17 EU GDP 18 SCO 19 Map needs updating

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 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)

[edit] 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! ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 17:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 ;) Also, please check the African Economic Community progress table... Alinor 21:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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? ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 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! ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 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. ;) ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ _{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. ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 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)

[edit] UDEAC doesn't exist any more

Check this — UDEAC ceased to exist in 1999 and was superseded by CEMAC. ^N_i^g_h^t_s^t_a^l_lⁱ_oⁿ ✉ 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Uzbekistan and EurAsEC

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] EU GDP

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)