Talk:Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

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

membership section of the article[edit]

the membership section's key is incorrect. the colors are wrong NotPedanticReally (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Iran joining SCO?[edit]

Several sites stated that Iran joined SCO, while others say that its members only agreed to its membership. If it did actually join, please correct the map.


---the post above seem to be unsigned?---

Yes according to some sources it seems that Iran has joined the SCO: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/iran-gets-full-shanghai-cooperation-organization-membership-with-russias-help/2367372 However the official webpage of the SCO doesn't say anything about it, nor do their facebook-page?

Though, if it is an official fact that Iran actually has joined the SCO, I find it amazing that Wikipedia has still not been updated with such a globally important matter, even though their membership seems to have been announced almost a week ago?! Taeronai (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the members table but I don´t know how to update the graphics world maps, the world globe and the Asia map to show the new Iran status. Please some graphics editor can help.
Other point is the colors for member and observers are very similar green tones, could they be changed for better contrast? 138.4.43.34 (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they became a full member last years, as this news reel suggests: ie 2022.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20230417/no-unipolar-world-anymore-iranian-fm-spox-says-us-no-longer-a-superpower-1109603907.html
Joshannon (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map is not NPOV[edit]

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)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Troop presence is usually based on a contract, which can have limitations, timewise or otherwise. I am not familiar with all of that but read of Kyrgystan that they decided they would not extend the contract, and so the US airbase near Bishkek was dismantled. Different countries would have had different contracts.
I have read elsewhere that the SCO founder members first got together in 1990, after the Soviet Union had collapsed, to make agreements between all these countries to end border disputes. If somebody can verify and build this in, I think that would be good because it demonstrates this is an organisation that has grown, not artificially cobbled together. 58.174.193.29 (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Role and Organization section[edit]

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.

I wanted to seek clarification of the term 'artificial nationalism', but it seems to have vanished, which is good because it is judgemental and therefore close to propaganda. It should stay in this section though, because it is interesting that such a term was ever coined. 144.136.192.15 (talk) 02:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. My take would be that it is a translation from .... It may not be judgemental because it would (in my view) mean that 'someone' came along and whipped up national feelings, so one part of a nationalism was 'artificial', disappearing as soon as the whipper had gone home. It has been said that some US Congress members have whipped up nationalism that led to the Ukrainian Orange Revolution. I have always wondered how these people had orange posters and balloons, t-shirts, caps etc all on the same day. Someone must have coordinated the colour and the ordering a few weeks in advance. Ukrainians did not just turn up on that square and suddenly everyone bought that merchandise, or did they? I had thought they were demonstrating because they were so poor and suddenly they participated in a merchandise supported revolution.... 121.209.53.9 (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

New Members[edit]

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)[reply]

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[edit]

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

The word 'security' is these days very often used in the Anglo press to mean 'military' and related to all things military. This must come from the fact that in the new arms race the population can be told to accept austerity for security, but not necessarily for the military. If military would be used, people would ask 'who is our enemy?'. There is a bit of language massaging about; e.g. when Washington speaks of 'our interests', does this mean military, business, human, environmental? They don't explain, but we all know it's military/global corporations'business. 2001:8003:A048:1300:A529:4AFC:DB3:2B94 (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Let's not get carried away here. US bases are not for free, Japan pays for Okinawa, Germany for their bases - no idea about the others. Correction, negotiations have been mentioned in the Australian press about paying for the Marines in Darwin. Maybe, just maybe, Uzbeks did not want to pay any more, or more, or maybe it had been for free and now they were supposed to pay. I hate it, when people discuss topics without giving price tags and who is to pay. 144.136.192.15 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCO terror list[edit]

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)[reply]

Turkmenistan[edit]

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

Map?[edit]

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 Noirtalk 08:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bbcamerica, bbc:[edit]

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)[reply]

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

< 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)[reply]

Taiwan in SCO Map[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GDP for SCO[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mongolia[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Cyrillic[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Dialogue Partners vs Observers[edit]

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)[reply]

Major Military Alliance Map Should Be Removed[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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[reply]

Taiwan not disputed[edit]

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)[reply]

not done much[edit]

This morning the WaPo cited a scholar who said "it generated 'lots of hype but in reality has done nothing,' said Alexander Cooley, a Columbia University scholar who has studied the body. Russia, a member of the Shanghai grouping, initially backed it with gusto but has since cooled on what it considers a vehicle for Chinese ambitions." where can we add this? is it notable? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090707448.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010090305799 207.238.152.3 (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation[edit]

So, which is it: "skoh" or "shkoo"? — kwami (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about other languages, but in english, pretty much everyone pronounces it as "Ess-See-Oh"98.218.229.58 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an abbreviation. You pronounce it letter by letter. Why would you pronounce it as "skoh"? --2.245.169.139 (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some states highlighted on map not associated with SCO[edit]

Syria and Bangladesh should not be highlighted. Doyna Yar (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 01:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 19:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

I'm surprised there has been no criticism entered regarding this organization. What does this organization provide that isn't supplied by the UN? What is its ultimate intent? http://www.cacianalyst.org/publications/analytical-articles/item/13253-uzbekistan-concerned-over-sco-expansion.html

Every Declaration adopted in SCO summits has contained various critical messages against the unipolar world order, the hegemony of one superpower, or the deployment of anti-missile defense systems – all obviously addressed to the United States. In the 2005 Declaration, the SCO even went as far as demanding from the U.S. to set a timetable for withdrawing American military contingents deployed to military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to serve the operation in Afghanistan.

Kortoso (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does the NATO provide that is not provided by the UN? Your logic is flawed. The UN is too big and too international. What's wrong about neighboring countries having a more manageable and more specific organization. --178.7.46.9 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Among many other things, the organization provides defense from CIA/DoS/MSM/Pentagon working in concert to carry out regime changes and install US puppets under the pretense of "fighting for human rights". Not that the human rights don't matter, they do, but the US govt. sponsored "NGOs" are being very selective and unfair about what country becomes the next "baddie". United Nations can not serve as the protector, since its resolutions, including those of the Security Council, are not being followed (e.g.: the case of Libya, where the SC agreed to a no-fly zone, but never agreed to NATO bombing the government forces, which is what happened). Since talking to US does not work (they won't listen), these countries need combined military/economic/diplomatic/informational means to protect themselves from these "freedom crusades". 46.242.11.1 (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperation on security[edit]

One of the threats recognized by SCO is separatism? Where is that called out? Edit: Fear not, here is the link: http://infoshos.ru/en/?idn=7678

Fighting three evils
Priority for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has always been maintaining and reinforcing peace, ensuring security and stability in the region, first of all, by organizing joint efforts against terrorism, separatism and extremism, or fighting the three evils, as we call it.

No concrete definitions for these three evils, however. Kortoso (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PDF Service Partly Out of Order.[edit]

My PDF download of this article comes with the Chinese characters replaced with bullets, i.e. blank glyphs filling the places where 汉字, Chinese characters, ought to be.

This is unusual, and seems to be local. So far I have seen this error only with this single article.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 01:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biased and promotional language[edit]

Attention should be paid to this page to avoid promotional and biased language. When I visited this article saw part of content as just promotional mostly from state owned sources and dibious websited what are of course tool for propaganda. Wikipedia is not tool for advocacy or propaganda. It should be reserved for personal blogs.

I will start with removing lead secction what is strictly made from personal blog/website "euroasia future" and member states owned sources without indipendient third source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.38.251 (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling in English[edit]

Is there an official source on how to spell the organisation/organization's name in English? Their website seems to use both interchangeably. Example: Of their two most recent official press releases, one uses Organisation and the other uses Organization. But perhaps there's some more official source for a registered name? --Delirium (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Delirium: I just saw a photo of the heads of government who attended the recent 2022 summit. On the wall behind them was written [SNIP] SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANIZATION [SNIP]. Also, Oxford spelling indicates that that is the expected spelling for such an organization. —⁠71.105.198.28 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan[edit]

The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was an observer state of the SCO. Following the recent defeat or the IRA, Afghanistan has a brand new government and is not a member of any international organisation or union. As it can be seen, the article itself uses the IRA flag for Afghanistan, because the IRA, as a government in exile is still an observer of the SCO. That's why I recommend that we change the link to redirect to IRA instead of Afghanistan. Bilikon (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is a member of this organization[edit]

This organization has 9 members and Iran is the ninth member. This page is in contrast to the Persian language page Irandamavand (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Irandamavand: The organization currently has 8 members. In September 2021, the leaders of SCO member states have approved Iran's prospective membership, which started the process of Iran joining the SCO. The process takes time. For example, it took India and Pakistan two years to become SCO members after SCO's approval of their prospective membership. It is expected that Iran will obtain membership status in just one year, i.e., in September 2022:

A Memorandum on Iran's commitments with regard to obtaining the status of an SCO member state is to be signed at the meeting of the SCO Heads of State Council in Samarkand in September of this year, whereupon the final decision will be adopted to endow the Islamic Republic with this status.[1]

However, recent Global Times report, citing Iranian Embassy to China, claims that Iran will obtain membership status in April 2023.[2] In any case, Iran's current status within SCO is an observer state. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "A new step towards Iran joining the SCO as a member state". Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. 14 March 2022.
  2. ^ "Iran to obtain full SCO membership in 2023: embassy". Global Times. 12 July 2022.

"Asian Association" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Asian Association and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 21#Asian Association until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan and Crimea[edit]

From what I understand, although the PRC, which claims Taiwan, is a member of the SCO, the ROC, which is the de facto government of Taiwan, is not a member of the SCO. So the territory of Taiwan is de jure part of the SCO (according to the PRC and the vast majority of countries that endorse the One China Policy). At the same time, Ukraine, which claims Crimea, is not a member of the SCO, but Russia, which is the de facto government of Crimea, is a member of the SCO. However, Russia's claims on Crimea are not as widely recognized as China's claims on Taiwan.

Right now, the article has a contradiction, because the first map at the top of the article has Crimea colored in as part of Russia:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SCO_MAP_10_July_2015_-_Including_two_new_permanent_members_Pakistan_and_India.png

Yet, the second map does not have Crimea colored in:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shanghai_Cooperation_Organization_(%D0%A8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0_-_%E4%B8%8A%E6%B5%B7%E5%90%88%E4%BD%9C%E7%BB%84%E7%BB%87).png

And neither map has Taiwan colored in. I think most editors would agree that both maps need to be consistent with each other. So I would like people to give their opinions on how both of these maps should be filled in:

  • Option 1: Crimea and Taiwan colored
  • Option 2: Crimea colored, but not Taiwan
  • Option 3: Crimea not colored, but Taiwan colored
  • Option 4: Crimea and Taiwan not colored
  • Option 5: Crime and Taiwan colored with stripes indicating their disputed statuses
  • Option 6: Something else (comment below)

A note on options 1-4:

  • Option 1 would be recognizing de facto Russian rule in Crimea, and de jure PRC rule in Taiwan (DF DJ)
  • Option 2 would be recognizing de facto Russian rule in Crimea, and de facto ROC rule in Taiwan (DF DF)
  • Option 3 would be recognizing de jure Ukrainian rule in Crimea, and de jure PRC rule in Taiwan (DJ DJ)
  • Option 4 would be recognizing de jure Ukrainian rule in Crimea, and de facto ROC rule in Taiwan (DJ DF)

I would note that Option 3 has the most support in the international community (most countries recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine, and Taiwan as part of the PRC). Personally, I choose Option 3, as it best represents the international community, but would be okay with Option 5.

Please share your thoughts on this. Thanks. --JasonMacker (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JasonMacker: I would prefer to adopt File:SCO Membership Map.svg, that adopted a modified Option 1. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked on the Chinese Wikipedia article on the SCO, and they have given labels to the colors, but have not labeled Taiwan's color on the map. I think that would be okay to use, as long as Taiwan's color is also given a label establishing it as a part of PRC but ruled by ROC. JasonMacker (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the concern over consistency here suggests the territorial disputes in Crimea and Taiwan are very similar (or even exactly the same). I disagree. Since you are the one proposing a change, please provide some evidence for why Crimea and Taiwan should be treated similarly (i.e., why this needs to be addressed). Note that Crimea is sovereign territory that was illegally annexed and Taiwan is the seat of a government in exile. These are extremely different situations despite both being territorial disputes. 69.131.84.146 (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iran becomes a SCO member.[edit]

I have updated the members table and the timeline but I don´t know how to update the graphics world maps, the world globe and the Asia map to show the new Iran status. Please some graphics editor can help. Other point is the colors for member and observers are very similar green tones, could they be changed for better contrast? 138.4.43.34 (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was did so on zhwiki, but later reverted by @Zzhtju:, citing that the process are not completed, and should wait for April 2023? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SCO granting dialogue memorandum to Egypt and Quatar.[edit]

As of the latest update by the SCO, "it's members have signed the memorandum on granting SCO dialogue partner status to Arab republic of Egypt and the state of Quatar. This latest update has been done on 14th September 2022. SCO Secretary-General Zhang Ming, First Deputy Foreign Minister of the Arab Republic of Egypt Hamdi Sanad Loza and State Minister for Foreign Affairs of the State of Qatar Soltan bin Saad Al-Muraikhi signed the documents.

Deputy Foreign Minister of the Republic of Uzbekistan Furkat Sidikov attended the event on behalf of Uzbekistan.

The memorandums stipulate cooperation in security, countering the illegal production of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and their precursors and their sale, as well as such areas of mutual interest as trade, investment, energy and others. 103.199.208.59 (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note for those continuing to add Iran - that's premature until at least April 2023[edit]

There have been repeat attempts to add Iran. Its full membership is expected after the signing of the memorandum of understanding but is not effective yet. It is good to continue to monitor but no source expects the full membership to become effective earlier than April 2023. Even then, we should wait for confirmation that it has become official. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defence organisation?[edit]

Please provide sources to support this claim. SCO it's supposed to be a non-military block. 139.47.83.42 (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a source cited in the body of the article regarding SCO meetings on defence issues. You can check it and see if it is accurate.
I agree that the core interest of the SCO is "security" - with a focus on counterterrorism, extremism, and separatism. This is not co-extensive with "defence."
But there may be enough "defence" for its inclusion in the list of activities, for Wikipedia purposes. Consider for example that the Defence ministers of SCO countries have met specifically, for example. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I wonder if you are thinking of the fact that SCO is not a "military alliance." That's true. I just revised the short description of the page accordingly to reflect that it is not an "alliance" but a multilateral cooperation organization. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency on Iran[edit]

Right now, Iran is listed as a "member", an "ascending member", and an "observer state" all at the same time in different parts of the article. Although we're just a few months away from the April 2023 deadline where it seems as though a lot of this inconsistency will become moot, the article should be cleaned up to be ready for a single, consistent categorization of Iran, especially when we will have to describe how Iran became a member in the past tense.


On a separate note, there is a place that are talking in future tense about an event in the past:

During 19–22 October 2022, Iran will host SCOCOEX, an international conference and exhibition on economic cooperation opportunities available to the SCO member states and partners.

If someone already has a report on how this past event went, feel free to share. I couldn't find anything in a quick Google search. Thanks. JasonMacker (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note for Iran in infobox?[edit]

There are many good faith but incorrect efforts to change Iran from observer to full member. Its application has been approved and it is expected to accede to full membership in April 2023. But accession has not yet occurred.

Is one way to address this to place note in the infobox, with this information? JArthur1984 (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria has applied, update the 2nd map[edit]

Algeria has applied for observer status and the second map in the "members" section is old and doesn't show Algeria as one of the "Interested in partnership" countries Gattor1 (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2023[edit]

Bahrain has been ratified as a dialogue partner so is now officially one.

Date granted July 15, 2023

Sources:

https://www.bna.bh/en/BahraingrantedthestatusofSCOdialoguepartner.aspx?cms=q8FmFJgiscL2fwIzON1%2BDlDCMEcGKMPY4rKOqGpdTL4%3D#:~:text=Shanghai%2C%20July%2015%20(BNA)%3A,People's%20Republic%20of%20China%20Dr.

http://eng.sectsco.org/politics/20230718/951659/The-SCO-signs-a-memorandum-on-granting-the-Kingdom-of-Bahrain-the-status-of-dialogue-partner.html

—- 184.185.243.237 (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Was already added to body of article, but not infobox, so I did that. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Former President Vladimir Putin?[edit]

The caption for the image of the individual leaders of the association says that Vladimir Putin, president of Russia is no longer in office. Jugodellago (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is only the caption when you click to view the file information. Nonetheless, the caption was not a model of clarity either. I've simply deleted to avoid the ambiguity as I do not think the picture adds much to the article. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation&oldid=1194427231"