kalu_miah's new world order, a road map for the future

[Diamond_Gold]

duplicated

 

[Diamond_Gold]

Of course, discussion and sharing among ASEAN member countries. I did not say that we should discuss the disputed South China Sea with ASEAN partners, for example ASEAN +3...
Normally, ASEAN leaders hold an internal organization meeting first.

You should not be too scared Uncle Sam. You seem to have the mentality of a Chinese than a Singaporean.
I noticed the Singaporean leaders have thought completely different from yours.
Try to read the following link:

Taylor & Francis Online :: America the Indispensable: Singapore's View of the United States



We have "fired" on the island, which is occupied by Taiwan? Please provide me with trusted sources in English to confirm about "fire" incident.
Spratly Islands is disputed areas of overlap. No wonder if some incident occurs was called the "intrusion into the waters of the island" due to the other countries is occupied. This problem, no one can do better than China.
But "fire" is completely different problem. You should not put it out as one of your arguments, if you are not sure about it.



Of course not alone I am worried. I think Singaporean leaders are also worried, the evidence that they have allowed four U.S warships deployed there...

Me worrying about USA? Could be in some degree. But as a matter of fact, I am/ all singaporeans are more worry about some of our neighbours might destroy our hard earned peace and development just for their own greeds. Of course based on my chinese mentality, it actually refers to Vietnam and Philipines.

So what if I do share some similar thoughts with the chinese? Is it a problem? Must a singaporean always sound like an "anti" Chinese according to your perception/ needs? FYI, 76% of singaporean are chinese ethicity, do you seriously think that we going to be more "pro" Vietnam or Phillipines than china if we are forced to take side?

What "Chinese mentality"? Is it the same kind of "mentality" like what you guys have exerted here? e.g. any thing pertaining to Chinese = pro chinese = chinese chauvinist or lies. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Who is the hypocrite here?

Read through carefully my earlier posts, did I actually mention any point that is in contrast to the article you quoted?
Kindly point out if yes? Even if there is some discrepancies, is it a crime? LOL.

Ok, seem like the earlier news that I read was misquoted by the reporter. Now the taiwanese soldier claimed that they are unsured whether there was any shot firedwhen the Vietnamese infringed into their water. But an intrusion or infringment is still an intrusion/ infringment and the claim still stand.
Taiwan Coast Guard denies shooting incident with Vietnam Navy - Taiwan News Online

Don't the same type of "intrusion" claims were made by all disputed parties (PRC, ROC, Malaysia, Phillipines, Vietnam) in SCS? Why so fast to point finger at China but not yourself and the rest? Why there is a double standard again? BTW, i am not a PRC or really a pro PRC guys, I am sick of people who like throwing shits at each others and make the whole place stink. That's my concern!

I doubt 4 warships is enough for so many trouble markers in our neighbourhood!

 

[Battle of Bach Dang River]

Me worrying about USA? Could be in some degree. But as a matter of fact, I am/ all singaporeans are more worry about some of our neighbours might destroy our hard earned peace and development just for their own greeds. Of course based on my chinese mentality, it actually refers to Vietnam and Philipines.

So what if I do share some similar thoughts with the chinese? Is it a problem? Must a singaporean always sound like an "anti" Chinese according to your perception/ needs? FYI, 76% of singaporean are chinese ethicity, do you seriously think that we going to be more "pro" Vietnam or Phillipines than china if we are forced to take side?

What "Chinese mentality"? Is it the same kind of "mentality" like what you guys have exerted here? e.g. any thing pertaining to Chinese = pro chinese = chinese chauvinist or lies. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? Who is the hypocrite here?

Read through carefully my earlier posts, did I actually mention any point that is in contrast to the article you quoted?
Kindly point out if yes? Even if there is some discrepancies, is it a crime? LOL.

Ok, seem like the earlier news that I read was misquoted by the reporter. Now the taiwanese soldier claimed that they are unsured whether there was any shot firedwhen the Vietnamese infringed into their water. But an intrusion or infringment is still an intrusion/ infringment and the claim still stand.
Taiwan Coast Guard denies shooting incident with Vietnam Navy - Taiwan News Online

Don't the same type of "intrusion" claims were made by all disputed parties (PRC, ROC, Malaysia, Phillipines, Vietnam) in SCS? Why so fast to point finger at China but not yourself and the rest? Why there is a double standard again? BTW, i am not a PRC or really a pro PRC guys, I am sick of people who like throwing shits at each others and make the whole place stink. That's my concern!

I doubt 4 warships is enough for so many trouble markers in our neighbourhood!

Actually, I do not think Singaporeans worry Americans, because their country is "nearly" U.S. allies.
However, I don't think that Americans come to Singapore only because they protect Singapore as required by Singaporean . It is because their interests first, but it coincides with your interests.They need to protect the Malacca Strait. I think they have a very good move.
Similarly, they need to protect freedom of navigation in the South china sea. They have been present there a long time ago.
You don't need to worry about Vietnam and Philipines. We are simply protecting our legitimate interests based on international laws. We want good relations with China, but all relations must be based on international laws, not illegal power.

 

[Hideki Yukawa]

Nationalism will destroys your order! Chinese and Japanese, Japanese and Korean, Chinese and Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese, these relationships never become really friendships. We hate each others. (Certainly, there are some ppl can accept it, but they're minority). China cannot reunion with Taiwan, Taiwanese doesn't want to lives with the leading of Communist China, furthermore, American will split them.

 

[kalu_miah]

Nationalism will destroys your order! Chinese and Japanese, Japanese and Korean, Chinese and Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese, these relationships never become really friendships. We hate each others. (Certainly, there are some ppl can accept it, but they're minority). China cannot reunion with Taiwan, Taiwanese doesn't want to lives with the leading of Communist China, furthermore, American will split them.

Nationalism is the corporate ideology of a nation state to further its people's long term interest. But if it is in people's long term interest to have a regional union, then nationalism can be used to support regional union.

Lets consider the situation in South China Sea. Obviously PRC (People's Republic of China) is using the law of the jungle (might is right), which is the ultimate "international law" currently in force in world stage and has been since animal evolved to form groups, clans, tribes and nations. PRC claim is absolutely preposterous and has no logic behind them, but they are getting away with "murder" because they just can, because of their power in the region and the stakes are not high enough for the US to pick a fight with China on this issue, which is not affecting US vital national interest, as long as China does not block maritime traffic in this area.

So what would Vietnam and Philippines do, what options and choice do they have? To bring in India or Japan? None have the ability or temperament or the interest to counter China, despite Indians making useless noise to egg Vietnamese or Filipinos on. When hostility starts, neither USA, nor Japan nor India will intervene to save Vietnam and Philippines. So the only options remaining is:

- not negotiate and let China do what it wants to without getting into a fight, but this will keep open the possibility to come back later and claim that Chinese actions and occupations of these islands/shoals were illegal
- negotiate and get some small benefit now, but loose the option to fight China in the long term

But if the Vietnamese and Filipinos were told that they can and should work for a NATO style security arrangement in ASEAN together with Japan and Korea for mutual protection and in 10 years have a joint Armed forces collected from these 800 million population to guard against any mutual threat, would that thrill Vietnamese and Filipino nationalists? I would think so.

South China Sea is just one incident that is blowing up in our collective face now, but there are myriad issues where China and India will take things by force in their neighborhood and have already started doing it, because they can get away with it and nobody can do anything to stop them.

So I as a Bangladeshi nationalist and I think Lankan Ranger as a Sri Lankan nationalist would love to see our countries join a future ASEAN+ group (which will have Korea and Japan in it), to solve all of our common problems and create a secure future for our nations.

Japan and South Korea's current dependence on US security umbrella is not going to last, nor will be enough to counter Chinese threat in the future. So both nations need to think about their future options and alternatives. The idea of ASEAN+ I believe is one such elegant solution. Like EU, it will not only solve internal conflicts through arbitration, it will also provide a platform to build a common security structure like NATO and face common threats. The fragmented approach will not work in a world when both China and India will rise significantly in 10-20-30 years time. And ASEAN+ regional union can also be a tremendous boost for the economies of these countries with an internal market of a billion people, led by Japan and South Korea is the 2nd rung leader. It will have to avoid mistakes like a common currency which was premature and introduced too early in EU integration process.

The good thing is that there is already a regional framework, ASEAN-10, which has done a lot of integration work already. All that needs to be done is for some interested countries to develop its full potential. These countries are Japan, South and North Korea, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, PNG and Timor Leste.

If the end goal is to find a secure and prosperous future for the people, then nationalism will support and work for regionalism and regional union. In a future ASEAN+, with more than a billion people, it will be possible to go into joint space research, have a tremendous blue water Navy and huge armed forces distributed and highly coordinated among its far corners in many nations within this union, not to mention become a leader and example for the world in creating a sustainable economy.

 

[kalu_miah]

I am going to create some sub-threads for geopolitics of different regions:

current status:
5. ASEAN: 10 nations of South East Asia
7. GCC and Arab League
8. Eurasian Economic Community (Eurasian Union with former Soviet countries except Georgia)
9. African Union
10. SAARC

Stage 1:
5. ASEAN+Japan+Korea (Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, East Timor and Papua New Guinea may want to join this group)
7. expanded GCC to include all non-Maghreb Arab countries
8. Eurasian Union (Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey and Mongolia may want to join this group)
9. African Union (Maghreb will remain part of Arab League, but due to economic and geographic reasons, it will form political union with rest of African continent, Nile river usage being the main reason for Egypt and the rest for geographic proximity)

Stage 2:
4. ASEAN+Japan+Korea+Maldives+Sri Lanka+Bangladesh+PNG+East Timor (ASEAN+, leading states: Japan, unified Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand and Bangladesh)
6. expanded GCC to include all non-Maghreb Arab countries (GCC+, leading states: KSA and Iraq)
7. Eurasian Union+Iran+Pakistan+Afghanistan+Turkey+Mongolia (Eurasia+, leading states: Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan)
8. African Union (AU, leading states Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria and South Africa)

The separate sub threads will be for discussing geopolitics of ASEAN+, GCC+, Eurasia+ and AU.

 

[kalu_miah]

http://www.clingendael.nl/publications/2011/20110400_cas_paper_egberinkwithvanderputten.pdf
ASEAN, China's Rise and Geopolitical Stability in Asia
Fenna Egberink with Frans-Paul van der Putten
April 2011
NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
'CLINGENDAEL'

This well researched paper of about 50 pages describes in great detail about evolution of ASEAN, its relations with great and aspiring powers of the world and future prospects.

I was surprised to see the mature and thoughtful role played by China with regards to ASEAN and was disappointed to see the typical short sighted role played by USA. In the past few decades, China have recognized the importance of ASEAN and have dealt with ASEAN nations as a group, whereas USA have a preference for side-lining the ASEAN and dealing with ASEAN nations on a bilateral basis and the Japanese also towing the same US line. This was surprising considering the high HDI level of USA and Japan compared with China, but maybe a better explanation can be had from the following:

File:National IQ Lynn Vanhanen 2006 IQ and Global Inequality.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IQ and the Wealth of Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
IQ and Global Inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nations and intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The relationship between nations and intelligence is an area of study pioneered by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen. Together they have constructed IQ estimates for many countries using literature reviews and international student assessment studies. These national estimates have been criticized on theoretical and methodological grounds. The estimates have been used to study the impact of intelligence on economic growth, democracy, crime, and health.

From these track records, it might be safe to assume that China eventually will unseat the US as the no. 1 hyper power of the world and retain that position for some time and the US will probably try to make a come back after some soul searching to figure out where it went wrong.

If this will come to reality in the next 20-30 years, then it will have obvious implications for global geopolitics. But there are major obstacles for China, the nepotism and corruption in current regime, lack of democracy, an inevitable increasing level of democratization to solve these problems etc. and if these transitions will be smooth, these remains to be seen.

But if we assume that China will successfully overcome these obstacles then, following its "far-sighted" track record with ASEAN, it might provide rich dividend for it to extend its policy of supporting regional integration in other near and far regions of the world, to help empower these regions and stand on their own feet, reduce influence of other powers in these regions and make long term alliances with these regions.

Once the US is in the process of getting defeated and relegated to 2nd position, Japan and S. Korea will both defect from the US team and may finally decide to join the ASEAN+ group to seek their own security in a China-allied team. Russia with its Eurasian union may extend it southwards to include Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan to reach warm water ports, thus creating Eurasia+ group, whereas African Union will be integrated with help from China and its two hands, the right hand of ASEAN+ and left-hand of Eurasia+.

The question to be pondered upon is what will happen to GCC+, India and Turkey, what roles will they play and who will they ally with? EU will remain intact in my estimate and continue to integrate further, whereas US, Canada and ANZ will get closer to EU, as a strategy to counter the dominance of China and its allies.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Do not use faulty statistical pseudo-scientific 'studies' to validate your thesis. Lynn and Vanhanen or whatever used completely faulty methods for their calculations. Taking a sample IQ test in India to deduce the IQ of Bangladesh or Pakistan is completely unscientific, not to mention statistically invalid. That was just an example, there are many other scientific criticisms of their faulty 'studies', which are nothing more than pseudoscience published in Western press to gain some popularity from the ignorant Westerners. After all, Westerners are known for cooking up statistics and publishing false documents.

Some notable ones of recent years include their false allegations and "proof" of Saddam Hussein posing an imminent danger "to the world" with his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" programmes, and recently, their claim that BAL's leader is favoured by 77% of Bangladeshis when even during the most recent, staged election, BAL and cohort did not manage to win 60% of the votes.

 

[kalu_miah]

Do not use faulty statistical pseudo-scientific 'studies' to validate your thesis. Lynn and Vanhanen or whatever used completely faulty methods for their calculations. Taking a sample IQ test in India to deduce the IQ of Bangladesh or Pakistan is completely unscientific, not to mention statistically invalid. That was just an example, there are many other scientific criticisms of their faulty 'studies', which are nothing more than pseudoscience published in Western press to gain some popularity from the ignorant Westerners. After all, Westerners are known for cooking up statistics and publishing false documents.

Some notable ones of recent years include their false allegations and "proof" of Saddam Hussein posing an imminent danger "to the world" with his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" programmes, and recently, their claim that BAL's leader is favoured by 77% of Bangladeshis when even during the most recent, staged election, BAL and cohort did not manage to win 60% of the votes.

Before you discount all Western achievement and knowledge because of Saddam's WMD canard and Hasina's popularity fiasco, I would suggest for you to use a little fairness to judge human beings regardless of their national origin.

And this national IQ study shows non-western Korean, Japanese and Chinese, essentially East Asians to have the highest average IQ, if these "Westerners" were so biased why would they show non-westerners as the most intelligent?

 

[Raphael]

Do not use faulty statistical pseudo-scientific 'studies' to validate your thesis. Lynn and Vanhanen or whatever used completely faulty methods for their calculations. Taking a sample IQ test in India to deduce the IQ of Bangladesh or Pakistan is completely unscientific, not to mention statistically invalid. That was just an example, there are many other scientific criticisms of their faulty 'studies', which are nothing more than pseudoscience published in Western press to gain some popularity from the ignorant Westerners. After all, Westerners are known for cooking up statistics and publishing false documents.

Some notable ones of recent years include their false allegations and "proof" of Saddam Hussein posing an imminent danger "to the world" with his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" programmes, and recently, their claim that BAL's leader is favoured by 77% of Bangladeshis when even during the most recent, staged election, BAL and cohort did not manage to win 60% of the votes.

Wait, is your argument really:

1. Westerners have lied about the Saddam threat/fabricated election results
2. Lynn/Vanhanen are Westerners
3. Lynn/Vanhanen are lying

?

 

[kalu_miah]

I have been dealing with these issues of our history for sometime. It is about whether our leaders made a mistake in 1947 and 1971. To answer these questions, please look at my hypotheses here:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...orld-order-road-map-future-8.html#post2758071
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...orld-order-road-map-future-8.html#post2772275

I have had detailed conversation with my parents and this was their version of events. East Bengal Muslim masses were oppressed by Hindu Zaminders, so we had no option but to separate from India to get out of Hindu oppression in 1947 by becoming a part of Pakistan. Similarly they expressed their view that West Pakistani and Hindustani (non-Bengali) Muslims oppressed us during 1947-1971, one example given was promotions given to professionals bypassing Bengali Muslim candidates. So there was blatant discrimination which made Bengali Muslim middle class in then Pakistan quite upset.

I also understand that Bangladesh middle class and business class did tremendously well after 1971, as the West Pakistani or Hindustani Muslims were no longer there to take away their opportunities and they made the best of this new situation. Same thing happened with overseas migration opportunities for Bangladeshi migrants to the West as well as to middle-east and other countries with labor-shortage.

But none of the above can overcome the glaring macro-economic and strategic factors that pulls a country up or down. Discussing with other neutral third party obeservers who are not from South Asia, I have concluded:

- that 1947 partition was a mistake for both India and Pakistan, without partition it could be an economic powerhouse. The responsibility lies more with Hindu congress leadership, who held the upper hand and thus the power to compromise and accept the Cabinet mission plan
- that Bengali nationalism in 1947-1971 was a mistake and break up of Pakistan was a mistake and the responsibility lies with leadership in both wings, while India secretly instigated and provided fuel to fire to engineer a break up
- in a way 1971 break-up of Pakistan was an inevitable side-effect of the 1947 partition, which brought the situation in a somewhat steady state
- both 1947 partition and 1971 breakup were irreversible, any attempt to undo them will not work, the three landmass and their people have moved away from each other and are continually moving in seperate directions
- a steady state in this region and in greater Asia will come, only when Pakistan can form some kind of union with neighbor nations and powers in West and Central Asia, while Bangladesh does the same with neighbor nations in the East, in Mekong delta region and East Asia

In short, breaking off from a bigger nation, a working system, almost always is a mistake, despite how attractive the option may look in the short term. In the long term, all persistent problems that seem impossible to solve, can be solved and benefits of staying together outweighs the benefits of going separate ways because of macro factors, economic and strategic. But once broken off, the broken parts can almost never be joined together again. At least that is the situation in South Asia.

The Eurasian Union which is a reincarnation of Soviet Union seems different however, mainly because the Soviet system broke down because of a failing communist system. Since communism is gone now, today these former Soviet countries can definitely help each other if they come back toghether in a union and find a common future.

So for Greece it will be better to break off from the Eurozone, adopt its own currency, but not to leave EU. EU should either have a real European Central Bank that backs all European bonds, or the common currency fiasco should be given up and revived much later when EU is ready for it.

Regionalism and regional groups are a definite wave for the future. Small countries are increasingly at a disadvantage trying to compete with large nations of the world. The only good answer to this problem lies in regionalism.

The more I examine the cases of the breakup of nations in 1947 and 1971 in South Asia, it reinforces the two hypotheses I mentioned in this thread, about the importance of Historical Continuity and Large systems, both factors that play critical role in providing political stability and economic competitiveness for success of nations and peoples, against all odds, specially in competition with larger, more developed and powerful nations.

 

[kalu_miah]

A relevant post for this thread:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...wn-us-plans-counter-china-14.html#post3030637

 

[kalu_miah]

Some dilemma's and discussions:

1. I presented a rather simplistic global model for regionalization. Now as we are getting down to details, things are getting more complex. Case in point, situation with Burma/Myanmar. I simply didn't know that the Bamar Junta and Bamar ethnic group had such a problematic past. So it complicates my country's (Bangladesh) possible goal to join ASEAN. But I will try to stay above my personal or in this case my national interest and try to be more fair in doing justice to the concept of regionalism.

2. Some time I get upset with people dying in ethnic cleansing, and when it happens to our ethnic kin Rohingya, which are similar to our Chittagonian people, it gets even more painful, so I may at times loose the ability to stay objective in my posts on this issue. So hopefully people will be able to understand where I am coming from during these times when these events are taking place.

3. I have a very difficult time dealing with Indian posters, as they seem to have some pre-conceived ideas (I am a Jamati or member of an Islamist political party in Bangladesh) about me, since I happen to be from Bangladesh and do not fit their box of two types of Bangladeshi, pro-India and anti-India. With regards to Bangladesh national interest I believe that Indian interference in internal matters of Bangladesh is negative, so I belong in the anti-India camp. So, I have sharp exchanges with them at times. Hopefully people from countries not in South Asia will understand that I am dealing with an entrenched set of preconceived ideas, sometimes I think applied to me knowing fully well that I am not an Islamist for example, mainly because of their perception that I am attacking their national interest, which happens quite often, even when I am trying to protect my own national interest and also do justice to the overall cause of regionalism, which I try to promote. So it serves their interest to label me as an Islamist to malign my credibility. Hopefully people will be able to understand the often acrimonious exchanges between myself and Indian nationals. I must make it clear that I do not hold any hatred towards any religious or ethnic group, including Indian Hindus. So some Indians get confused when I support India moving towards SCO, as I support this move by India, as it fits with the overall regional model I promote.

4. Because of my unique personal views of regionalisation, I support different parties and different countries and also support different posts with the Thank button, as long as it matches the big picture and broad direction I would like to see the world and regions move towards. So sometimes people get confused that I am supporting people on opposing sides in different threads. The key here is to understand that I believe in regionalism and would like see the broad goals of regionalism achieved, so I support point of views that I feel are moving things in the right direction for a particular event or theater towards the overall regional model I have described. So I support Vietnam and their efforts to fight against a much bigger China with most of my thanks going Vietnamese friends, but this may make the Chinese friends think that I am anti-China, which is not the case at all. As in North East India insurgency and independence and greater Chinese involvement in Nepal and Bhutan, I support China all the way. But sometimes I am just careless and making mistakes, which I would welcome for people to point out and hold me responsible.

5. Sometimes I hold a complex position and point of view, given a particular theater. For example, as we discovered more about the Rohingya issue during the ongoing disturbance there, I find that there should be some new directions for this theater, which some countries and regimes might find extremely threatening. But the key point for me is that I would like to see more self determination for indigenous people who are suffering under the yoke of local imperial powers, which I find in this theater to be:

- India, ruling over 8 North East states, where the people would rather be independent (there is ongoing insurgencies)
- Bamar Junta, ruling over Burma/Myanmar, where many minority ethnic groups, like Kachin, Karen, Shan, Mon, Rakhine would like to curve up their own independent or autonomous states with controls over local resources, under a very loose federal structure

I hold the position that people should decide their fate, not their imperial masters. So if the indigenous people decide to use help from outside powers, they should be welcome to use that help. In case of North East states of India, I think, China is interested to get involved and will get more active in this theater, USA may provide covert help or just provide moral support as an independent country that includes all 8 North East states would make the area and region more stable and a new country will be added to ASEAN+ group, which will make it bigger and stronger and will make the wider region more balanced. This is also good for global peace and stability, which is a professed US goal.

In case of Burma/Myanmar, I am not sure who will be interested to support the minorities there. I know Bangladesh would like to support the Rakhines to get a completely independent Arakan or an autonomous federalized Arakan, so the Rakhines can rule there and take good care of their Rohingya minority. Not sure what states such as China, Thailand, Laos (Vietnam) and USA/West, who will support any of these other insurgencies to help them win independence or federal autonomy. I think it will be none, one or more states that will support individual insurgencies, depending on the neighborhood of their homeland within Burma/Myanmar.

6. Lastly, I want to discuss geopolitics of the Muslim world, without sounding like an Islamist, which I can assure you that I am not. I do not believe that Muslim majority countries should form one Union of countries, because I think that will upset the regional union model which I think is more viable and better for a more stable, balanced and peaceful world. But I think I should cover this subject, as it can be a last resort option for many Muslim countries of the world, who may face religious, racial and ethnic discrimination from other countries in their region and may not be able to join a union of nations in their neighborhood, just because they are Muslim or from a particular ethnic group. So I will go ahead and open a thread called Geopolitics of the Muslim World.

 

[Hello_10]

I am going to create some sub-threads for geopolitics of different regions:

current status:
5. ASEAN: 10 nations of South East Asia
7. GCC and Arab League
8. Eurasian Economic Community (Eurasian Union with former Soviet countries except Georgia)
9. African Union
10. SAARC

Stage 1:
5. ASEAN+Japan+Korea (Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, East Timor and Papua New Guinea may want to join this group)
7. expanded GCC to include all non-Maghreb Arab countries
8. Eurasian Union (Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey and Mongolia may want to join this group)
9. African Union (Maghreb will remain part of Arab League, but due to economic and geographic reasons, it will form political union with rest of African continent, Nile river usage being the main reason for Egypt and the rest for geographic proximity)

Stage 2:
4. ASEAN+Japan+Korea+Maldives+Sri Lanka+Bangladesh+PNG+East Timor (ASEAN+, leading states: Japan, unified Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand and Bangladesh)
6. expanded GCC to include all non-Maghreb Arab countries (GCC+, leading states: KSA and Iraq)
7. Eurasian Union+Iran+Pakistan+Afghanistan+Turkey+Mongolia (Eurasia+, leading states: Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan)
8. African Union (AU, leading states Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria and South Africa)

The separate sub threads will be for discussing geopolitics of ASEAN+, GCC+, Eurasia+ and AU.

Kalu Miah, there are 3 basic things you miss in your dreams. the plan you have, needs a WW3 type things which may change the maps. otherwise the three main things as below won't let your dream come true in 21st century:

1st, Religious factor, mainly for Muslims, which is very dominant. Turkey couldn't get a place in EU due to that, US/EU/Australia/Canada type countries are trying hard to restrict Muslim immigration also. even ASEAN is divided on the name of religion and we find Philippines with West, Malaysia more willing to invite muslims in their country only, Thailand and Vietnam have their own separate standing as their own cultural background etc. just ask beloved China of Pakistan+Bangladesh, will they invite migrants from these two muslim countries? in fact, China was found to have the toughest stand against muslims than anyone else. even in South America, blacks are welcomed but they want to maintain a distance from Muslims....

2nd, racial/identity feeling. do you want Korean and Japanese to invite Bangladeshis, in your stage 2????? Japanese and Koreans have serious racial complexity with even Chinese, they keep talking about inferiority of Chinese on this forum, will they invite Bangladeshis? never, even if Japan and Korea may become as poor as Burma, they will fight for their 'Identity' but they will not let others come to their countries. only Unified Korea is possible rest, none from ASEAN will also like your idea, they have business trade only among them, nothing else

3rd, none will share their wealth/resources with others. even mineral rich Canadians/Australians won't let British come so easily which may increase unemployment rate there with increased burden of subsidies also, which will come from the pockets of locals . have a look on EU, if Greece will exit EU, their economy fall, then there will be a flow of Greeks into other EU's states which will be the biggest problem there. EU could be formed because most of the EU's states were equally wealthy and they invited small Eastern European countries only. otherwise, EU does try to influence small Belarus of per capita income $16,000 but they maintain a distance from Ukraine of per capita income $6,000, also because Ukraine is very big, 45mil population with lower middle income group, which EU nations dont want. here, will they ever wish a country like Bangladesh of 160mil population of hardly $1,800 per capita income? see how Saudi behave with muslim workers there??????????

we have to make our own country first, no other option . or, lets see whether we may have any WW3 type things which may help us straight change the maps

 

[Hello_10]

Russia is already forming it's own union.

Russia's Putin says wants to build Eurasian Union | Reuters

there is a certain reason behind it, that is, why would russians think to merge with EU while now its EU's nationals who want to go to Russia for a better future prospects?

European Debt Crisis Driving Workers East
01 June 2012

Despite its exorbitant prices and eternal traffic jams, Moscow has become a magnet for foreigners seeking jobs, as unemployment in Europe is hitting record highs amid the debt crisis.

European Debt Crisis Driving Workers East | Business | The Moscow Times

also, Russia hardly has around 8% public debt, while that of US its 103% to its GDP while many major EU's economies now just beg for debt to feed their civilians while they are already heavily indebted? then here, why would Russia invite these civilians of EU to Russia? why would Russia join EU or US to share their debt?

List of countries by public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia