Talk:Union of South American Nations/Archive 1

Abbreviation
As we now know, the Community of South American Nations no longer exists, it is now the Union of South American Nations. The acronym Unasur is as good as any other and is in keeping with our use of the acronym MERCOSUR. It is also widely used in academic literature, conversations with government officials, and the international media. Nhgill (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Nathan Gill In all newspapers and other online sources I've seen on this topic up to now, the Community is abbreviated as SCN, not as SACN. Do we want to try and push our own standard through for this, or shouldn't we rather adapt to the most common abbreviation? - Nightstallion 08:16, 10 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * Maybe it's too early to tell how it will be commonly referred to, since it's so brand spanking new. A BBC article avoided mentioning an acronym for it, and simply called it "South American Community". --68.22.251.127 01:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I did some google searches, for English sites only. Here are the result counts as of 10 Dec 04:
 * SCN "South American Community": 1
 * SACN "South American Community": 4 (two are Wikipedia)
 * CSN "South American Community": 34
 * I recommend CSN &mdash; a re-arrangement of letters isn't going to make pronunciation any more difficult, so might as well have one spelling for all languages, sort of like acronyms of the past, such as ISO and NASA. In the end, though, we should only mention the one(s) that continue to get used (hopefully just one acronym).

Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=sacn+america+-wikipedia Tobias Conradi (Talk) 29 June 2005 16:21 (UTC)

Members
Most of the press reports I've seen are speaking of 12 members. I believe that's 5 Andean Comm., 4 Mercosur, plus Chile, Guyana, and Suriname. Not sure what Mexico & Panama are doing there: Mexico's still committed to NAFTA, and Panama's got a lot riding on the FTAA... Maybe they're going to be associate members of some kind? See here,z for example. - Sluj 03:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not know Sluj, but as a Brazilian myself, I am not sympathetic to the idea of "Associate Members" or "Observers". I think "Associate Members" and "Observers" weaken the seriousness of the Union and, and once we have partial memberships with few responsabilities and floating conditions of association, we'll have members unable or unwilling to put more effort on the matters related to the group, and, also, every other country will want to join every now and then under different conditions of membership and, at some point, we won't be able to tell which country in this world is a member or not.  We want a solid, monolitical union, where members are supposed to be fully engaged on the matters related to the block and to which other.  189.81.23.164 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Alberto.

Néstor Kirchner's absence
Argentina's president Néstor Kirchner did not travel to the meeting because of health issues involving altitude. In his place was vicepresident Daniel Scioli and cancellor Rafael Bielsa, so I think it´s still ok the idea of the "twelve contries leaders". But maybe the articule could include this detail. Opinions? In the last days ex-president Eduardo Duhalde denied Elisa Carrió's jealousy accusation wich says that Kirchner didn't travel because Duhalde is a main supporter of the meeting. --Javier Jelovcan 19:21, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

French Guiana
Can we change the color of French Guiana on the map to something else? It's white on a white background. Thanks. func (talk) 22:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * And what does the "eu" tag mean on the map? i think its a bit confusing if we already have mention of the EU (euro union). Otherwise congrats to south america, and congrats to wikipedia for getting an article so soon.


 * French Guiana is an overseas department of France and as such is part of the EU.


 * Maybe, but there are plenty of recent plans (from both the French Guiana Government and the Presidents of Mercosur and Andean Community) to include it as a observer state.


 * How on Earth can it be an observer "state" if it's not a state! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.68.173.102 (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the problem... French Guyana is only geographically in South America. It's a part of the Republic of France as much Bourgogne or Picardie are though.  And, for everything that matters, French Guyana is part of European Union already.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.23.164 (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Cons
In principle, a union based in the EU (European Union) could be beneficial to all countries involved. But, to the SACN be sucessful, the countries involved would need to be more equal to each other, in economic aspects.

I mean, the SACN have countries developed industrializated countries, as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Venezuela, and countries with a relative good social care (education, health, etc), as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay. But others, like Bolivia, Peru and Guyana, have lots of social problems and lots of economic problems. Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Venezuela have roughly 90% of the GDP of the South Americas - Brazil's GDP is 40% of the continent alone.

The first step needed, in my opinion, is a major social and economic reestructure of the most "undeveloped" countries. This union won't go anywhere if two or three countries are "better" economically and socially, like the EU, where they, the Europeans, carefully organized things as they should be (only countries with similar social programming and economic counterparts are allowed to entry - this is the reason why Turkey, for example, which wants to be part of the EU, is not allowed to entry in the association yet).

I am Brazilian, and I fear that, if things are not planned with careful organization, not only the "undeveloped" countries will continue to suffer, but also causing major damage to the most developed ones, which have now a weak, suitable and continuing social-economic growth.

Unlike many people might think, the countries involved are not all alike each other, all they have very different cultures and histories - especially Brazil (Portuguese), in relation to all the others (Spanish, with the exception of the Guyanas). I fear that minor or major assimilation of cultures can occur, if the SACN ever turns to accomplish the proposal of a new nation. The idea of free-trade zone is +- ok (but even though it causes problems to the weaker countries), but I think that a unified nation is far from reality. --ApS Camper 03:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Correction
Hey, i think you should know that Venezuela is not an industrializated country, it's progressing on that field wich is different. Other thing that you should know is that Peru doesn't has any economic problem, by the contrary, it has the 6th better economy of the world according to the magazyne The Economist but it do has social problems.

"...but even though it causes problems to the weaker countries..." i think you should reconsider that.

Pros
A very unified nation is impossible in my opinion, but the idea of the unique passport and free trade sounds very good. It would result in a fortified economy that could compete, in a space of twenty or thirty years, against China, Japan and even the EU and the US.

It could also improve social conditions, if the countries are willing to help each other. This means fighting agains guerrilla and drugs dealers, improving in education and health care, major social-economic programs (agrary reform, rural assistance, for example).

ApS Camper 21:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other
Well, in my opinion, this community will success. The countries have much in common even when their realities are different.

But untill this happen, a few years are needed. Some countries depend on each other like Chile depends on Bolivia and Peru for gas suply, Bolivia depends on Peru to claim it's sea in Chile, Peru depends on Brazil for his gas exportation and we can continue but this makes us know that South America needs a union even they have differences (Brazil speaks portuguese) or tense diplomatic situations (Peru and Bolivia against Chile) or ideological (Colombia and Venezuela) to prosper and be like the European Union.

This community has many potetial:
 * The main economic producer could be Brazil
 * The main vegetables producers could be Bolivia and Peru
 * The main meat producer could be Argentina
 * The main energy supply countries could be Bolivia, Peru and Venezuela
 * The main earth defense could be Chile
 * The main sea defense could be Brazil
 * The main air defense could be Peru


 * I am really surprised to read this part. Since it arbitrarily assigns functions to countries. Brazil, has the biggest economy (but you can't produce economy, can you?). Bolivia is in the bottom three vegetable producers of South America, and Brazil produces about 10 times as much vegetables as does Peru. Argentina and Colombia produce each about 3 times as much as Peru. Argentina as main meat producer, logical. Energy supply! Only Venezuela and Ecuador are members of the OPEC, so why Bolivia and Peru? Colombia, Brazil and Chile produce 10 times as much Natural Gas as Peru; Venezuela and Argentina produce each 10 as much Natural gas as Bolivia and 100 times! as much as Peru. Also, it is not earth defense but ground defense what you are trying to say. And finally, didn't the Peruvian air forces proved inferior to the Ecuadorian air forces in 1995? Ecuador obviously doesn't have the best air forces in South America; therefore, Peru has no chance of being the main air defense. So what were you thinking when you made this list?--141.30.219.173 (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a huge natural gas deposit recently discovered in the Amazon rain forest of Peru which is being developed by oil executive friends of George W. Bush. A new liquid natural gas terminal is being constructed in Baja California to receive the natural gas for California. Keraunos (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (only countries with similar social programming and economic counterparts are allowed to entry - this is the reason why Turkey, for example, which wants to be part of the EU, is not allowed to entry in the association yet)
 * I wouldn't quite agree with that. For one, you reduce the debate about the start of accession negotiations with Turkey to one of over a dozen aspects, and secondly, even to one I'd personally not consider one of the most important.


 * The idea of free-trade zone is +- ok (but even though it causes problems to the weaker countries), but I think that a unified nation is far from reality.
 * Neither would I agree with that: Granted, when the EC were started, the members all had more or less the same level of economic development, wealth and life standards etc. However, the later inclusion of economically weaker countries (Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, in some aspects Italy, and even more so 7 to 8 of the new 10 members) resulted in a boost to their economy, most notably in Ireland, but also quite effectively in Spain and Portugal. I don't want to be too enthusiastic about the SCN (I know I tend to be), but in my opinion, the goals aren't too far-fetched, though I don't think they'll be able to do it in just 15 years' time. Give them 25 or 30 years, however, and I think they'll do it. --Nightstallion 08:24, 10 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * Well while this is interesting and all, I don't know how much these discussions and opinions can contribute to the main article, which tries to be factual and NPOV. One thing that is going for SA is that most people speak either the Spanish or Brazilian Portuguese language, which is far fewer than it is the case in Europe. Although I do not know much about SA very well, my guess is that there is greater cultural and linguistic unity. I'm amazed at the fact that they are working on getting out a constitution by next year already (on the other hand getting EU members to agree on a constitution seem to take an eternity). I wish best of luck to SACN.--68.22.251.127 04:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, when you want to have a strong, competitive association, you must have countries that have competitive economies. The case is that this is not the case here. Do you know that, although proposals have been made, that the USA refuses to turn on the swich to turn Nafta a association like the EU? Because of Mexico (who is much less developed socially developed than the US; i mean, it still have lots of social problems that the US don't want inside their nation). I do not want to discriminate anyone, but there an abism between some countries in the SACN to the other ones, exacly like the US-Mexican example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newly_industrialized_countries

First, the free-trade association is supposed to help economically the member countries. But I think, in this case, it is only worsening the dependecy of the weaker countries to the richer. And, worst, the cultural differences and past events between the countries can led to instability in certain regions (e.g. Bolivia do not have a opening to the Sea; recently, Bolivia people refused to accept the government's decision that would allow them to export oil and gas to Chile; instability occured and Bolivia's president eventually agreed to retire from Bolivia's presidency; other example is Paraguayans farmers's discrimination against Brazilians farmers inside Paraguayan's territory, even some Paraguayans's politicals incentive these people - to remember, Brazil was one of the countries that formely defeated Paraguay in the Paraguayan War). I didn't said that I was against free-trade (and only free-trade), but even this sort of association can generate problems to its members.

And the problems are not that they are not only badly economically balanced. They are badly socially balanced too (some have high HDI, and others, low HDI). To see the sort of problems that this association already generated, I already heard complaints of some people against it (Argentinian and Brazilian) - and they are not soft and constructive. Unfortunately, these comments are racist. And SACN is only in its free-trade form yet. The problem of illegal immigration (Bolivia>Brazil/Paraguay, for example) is a very serious problem to BOTH countries is a very good example (somewhat like the Mexico>USA immigration). And I lived in Brazil's frontier with Paraguay for quite a long time, where I was used to see many Paraguayans swarming to its neighboor Brazil and Argentina (which are much richer and developed).

I am not against SACN. I am against a SACN badly planned. Even the richer countries are exiting from a period of crisis (Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela). Terrorism is swarming Colombia and coccaine is produced in Bolivia (mainly) and in Peru (which passes to Paraguay and Brazil, where they are exported to other countries), drugs generates violence (see Rio de Janeiro's violence, e.g.). It is not simple as it appear to be. EU was sucessful because they fought to be sucessful. If things does not change (corruption, unimportance given to Education, drugs, poverty, terrorism and racism of cultural, economical and/or historic terms), I seriously doubt that ever the same will happen in South America - and as far I can see, they didn't change much in the last 15 years.

ApS Camper 03:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think, in the current state of politics in Latin America, a full integration like the one UNASUR is looking for is a difficult, almost impossible task. Countries all over the region are moving, again, to the left, trying to follow some old fashion communist ideals and bribed by the wallet of Chavez. Nobody notice that socialism is a old school idea that didn´t bring anything good for the planet, it didn´t work for the USSR and now there is a McDonalds in the Red Square, Cuba is failing in pieces and it´s going to survive in China as longest there is repression and censorship. So unless the area have the same goal and understand that reality there is no way that a full economic, social and military integration will be possible. The worst part is that integration is a pretty good idea and a wonderful solution for the common problems here. --ometzit&lt;col&gt; (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The SCN in other languages
Has the name of the SCN been made available in other (i.e. indigenous) South American languages? (Presumably there is no South American equivalent, as yet, to the EU's Charter for Regional or Minority Languages). Any speakers of Quechua or Aymará? TheVenerableBede 12:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * We're also lacking the Dutch name; and the phrase "CSN in the national languages" doesn't quite ring right, since English and Dutch are also too of the national languages, in which it most definitely is not abbreviated as CSN. - Nightstallion 6:45, 11 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * Why is it necessary to write the different statements in Dutch? as far as I know dutch it isn´t spoked in South America, neither is an important language in diplomacy. It should be only in Spanish and Portuguese, spoken in S.Am. english outside the because it is English wiki and french because it is the language of diplomacy.--ometzit&lt;col&gt; (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Statements in Dutch is important because it is the official language of Suriname, a member states of the USAN. So, it is also incorrect to say that Dutch is not spoken in South America. Salt (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Flag for SACN
''This section consolidates a number of discussions on the flag. Nothing has been deleted'' AnthonyUK (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do they yet have a flag? Seabhcán 14:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. They don't even have a web site yet. The CAN web site is posting all the press releases. --Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   01:40, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought I was really well-informed, and now suddenly they've got a flag and noone told me? Has anyone got more information on the flag (apart from the description of its symbolism)? &mdash; [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]] ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ &mdash; 13:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The flag seems to come from the site http://www.unionsudamericana.net
 * I'm not sure if it's official. It looks like it's the flag of the organization that website represents, not the flag of the CSN.


 * Aye, the site doesn't even mention the Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones, since it was last updated in November 2004, well before the declaración de Cuzco. I'll remove the flag. [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I fixed the inclusion of the flag in good faith. It was added by an anon who had made questionable edits to this article in the past, but the flag is on the Spanish version of the article (added by a different anon, and not removed by subsequent editors). The anon added the flag to a commented out section of the article, so I fixed their edit. I have no objection to its removal.-gadfium 09:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. We're all here to help. ;) [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I told our colleagues at the Spanish wikipedia about the mistake. Gah, it's been ages since I've had to write Spanish... Maybe I should downgrade my babel classification... ;) [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, that's the flag of Argentina. :| -- 200.100.16.27 (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a cycling animation of all the member nations' flags in English alphabetical order. If you just see the Argentinian flag, you probably have .gif animations disabled. 69.47.64.19 (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Flag section is just an attempt to make the article bigger. There is no reason for it to be there. It just mentions that there is a fan site that came up with a flag for an organization that is not even the UNASUR. I'll erase that now, someone just wants to get more hits on their webpage.--141.30.219.173 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. The section about the flag says:
 * At present, the Unasur/Unasul has no official flag. However, a website established in 2002 (which became defunct in early 2008) called  http://www.unionsudamericana.net  advocating the formation of what is now called the Union of South American Nations displayed what is apparently a proposed flag for the organization which has a pale turquoise background with a circle of red stars surrounding a representation of the constellation of the Southern Cross rendered in white stars. (bolded for emphasis)

Yet, the flag in the infobox is completely different than the description above:



So which is correct? —Micahbrwn (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * According to sources (Andina: Alan García gives the Unasur flag to Michelle Bachelet, O Popular: Bachelet, García and Lula show flag of Unasur, Presidency of Brazil: Photo of Unasur's flag) Unasur/Unasul officially has a flag: . Therefore, I'm removing the proposed flag section and updating the infobox(s). Limongi (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)



This logo appears in the meetings of the Union. It would be more appropriate? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 02:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I know nothing about this topic, I can't really comment. I'm still confused as to the flag, myself.  Is the "official" flag the orange-and-white flag depicting an outline of the contenent of South America, or the blue-and-white flag with the "swirly" design on it? —Micahbrwn (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I noticed several sections entitled "Flag", so I just merged them all into this particular section, arranging the comments in this section by chronological order. Hope that's okay. Micahbrwn (talk)


 * There is a clear difference between a flag and a logo. The official flag was presented during the Brasília Summit on May 23, 2008. It is the one on the article: . As for the logo shown above, it has been seen at the Unasur meetings, but there are no references or sources to support it as an official symbol of the organization. It appears to be that it was the logo of the previous South American Community of Nations (CASA), as can be seen by the website of the Ministry of External Relations of Brazil: casa.mre.gov.br.Limongi (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Flag source, please
I can't find a single source that shows an official flag for the Union. The flag given by Alan García to Michelle Bachelet looks nothing like the one currently in the article; per WP:V and WP:NOR, I'll remove it until a source (for whichever flag) can be provided. Fvasconcellos (t•c) 18:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * According to sources (Andina: Alan García gives the Unasur flag to Michelle Bachelet, O Popular: Bachelet, García and Lula show flag of Unasur, Presidency of Brazil: Photo of Unasur's flag) Unasur/Unasul official flag is: . Thanks to User:Guilherme Paula for uploading. Limongi (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of Union of South American Nations flag designs
I'm downloading this paragraph into the talk section so people can compare the original proposed flag design with the design adopted by the Brasilia summit. I like the original pale turquoise flag design better--it is more original (than a simple map of South America)!

Proposed flag (1)
At present, UNASUR has no official flag. However, a website established in 2002 called http://www.unionsudamericana.net  advocating the formation of what is now called the Union of South American Nations displayed what is apparently a proposed flag for the organization which has a turquoise background with a circle of red stars surrounding a representation of the constellation of the Southern Cross rendered in white stars.

Another flag was seen at the Brasília summit, showing the continent of South America in gold surrounded by a gold circle before a red background. Keraunos (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this picture Presidency of Brazil: Photo of Unasur's flag, I am thinking that the design of the new flag was probably strongly influenced by Hugo Chavez since the colors are the Communist/Socialist colors of red and yellow like various Communist flags. Keraunos (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed flag (2)
right|100px It is interesting to find out that User:Guilherme Paula from Rio de Janiero, Brazil, is the one who downloaded the image of the new red and yellow flag of the Union of South American Nations. Guilherme also designed in June 2007 this imaginary flag for the possible future North American Union, which I already downloaded into the talk section of the North American Union article. I think this is an excellent design! We obviously have a common interest in vexillology! Keraunos (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That flag is horrible
Who designed that flag? Hugo Chavez himself? I can't stand predominantly RED flags with details in yellow any more!!! CHINA has a predominantly red flag with yellow details as well, and as like every communist country in the world! These people who designed that flag want the Americans to think we are communists and nuke us, don't they? If they chose red because they wanted a badass-macho flag for our Union, they should rather had picked a very dark green, deep blue-purple or just black instead of a color so much related to communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.23.164 (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a page to discuss the merits of UNASUR (much less the flag of the supranational union in question), but to discuss the content of the article itself -- specifically, to avoid edit wars and NPOV statements. Incidentally, I realize that sections of Talk pages can't really be edited (specifically, deleting statements that one doesn't like is a no-no), but this is the third section regarding that damned flag.  And since this particular section doesn't address anything pertinent in regards to the article (but rather the anonymous user's opinion regarding the flag), can we delete this specific section?  At least strikethrough it, something?  And how about merging all three sections regarding the flag into one comprehensive section? —Micahbrwn (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * done. AnthonyUK (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Multi-flag
I would just like to throw this in here, it was on this article originaly. It was derived from this one Image:BanderasAmericanas.jpg by User:LittleRoughRhinestone --SelfQ (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

key for table?
What do the different colors in the table mean? DanKeshet 20:47, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Someone added this at the bottom of the table:
 * "Cyan for greatest stat, green for smallest, among the blocs compared."
 * --68.22.251.127 01:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article on Wikinews
The English Wikinews edition has an article on the South American Community of Nations. Please consider helping out. 119 07:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comparison Table
Should NAFTA be in that table? Its large in population and GDP, but its only 3 countries and has no political-union aspects. By contrast, EU and AU have parlaments, and SACN intends to have one. NAFTA sounds more like the Benelux aggreement (on a larger scale) than an "Economic and Political Union" like EU, AU or SCAN? (I don't know enough about ASEAN or CIS to comment) Seabhcán 11:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd agree, yes. To the best of my knowledge, the states in the CIS tend not to care too much for Russian involvement in their economy, though they depend on it; it may of course be that this impression of mine stems from slighty anti-Putin media. Don't know enough about ASEAN to comment, either. --Nightstallion 12:35, 12 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * I think NAFTA should be there. It's large; it's familiar to major sectors of our readership who've maybe never heard of AU or CIS; and it's most definitely part of the context & background of the SACN -- in the sense that the USA's insistence on "trade only" arrangements for the continent (NAFTA, FTAA, the bilateral agreements) is largely what gave the SthAm states the impetus to (try to) put their differences behind them and tackle the 200-years-pending Bolivarian dream. All highly POV, of course, but it's useful to see the SACN initiative in the context of the stalemated FTAA talks.  (Oh -- and, on a couple of occasions at least, Fox has been caught promising that NAFTA will ultimately evolve into a EU type arrangement, regardless of what the US & Canada might say.) Sluj

editing of the map
Panama should be added to the map, becouse it borders Columbia and currently it looks like SACN+French Guiana are detached from the rest of the Americas. In the legend Panama should be noted as "observer countries" or "other countries" Also, there is the question if Panama has some south-american territory. If they have not - then Columbia should have North-American... I put the argument about "continental borders do not copy political state borders" not for the first time :)

Panama considers itself part of South America because it used to be part of Colombia before it became independent. Keraunos 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Panama has never been part of South America, in all maps and for all purpose they are part of Central America and it is clear to all sources that South America goes from Argentina to Colombia. It was part of South America until the early XX century (thanks little american thiefs haha)--ometzit&lt;col&gt; (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Panama should be added to the map, but only if it joins the union. Stupid arguments like "they are part of Central America and it is clear to all sources that South America goes from Argentina to Colombia", should be discounted. There is no definitive division of "what" is South America, Central or North America. Remember, in the oldest maps, only "south" America was called "AMERICA". North America was "tierra desconocida" i.e., unknown lands. Secondly, Panama shares more in culture and language with Colombia than with Guatemala, its central american neighbor. Lastly, all of central america, the caribbean and Mexico, should look to the South American model and consider joining. We have more in common than the Germans, Spanish, Slovaks, Greeks and Turks do and they are all or shortly to be part of the EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.159.93 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

table
African Union and CIS somehow are not belonging to this comparision. They are mostly a discussion forums (espicialy CIS)... African Union does some political actions (sending peacekeepers, etc.), but CIS remains mostly a discussion forum. In contrast - NAFTA is a free trade area, ASEAN has broad economic integration agenda, EU is both political and economic supranational organization. The precursor unions of SACN - Mercosur (economic) and Andean Community (economic with some additional political agenda) are also functionaly much more like NAFTA/ASEAN/EU than CIS/AU. And the Area/Population/GDP statistics are mostly important for economic unions, not for discussion forums. Also CIS and AU does not have any common foreign policy, so they do not "represent" the combined population of their member states. So, the sum of Area/Population/GDP for CIS and AU does not give any ground for comparision with the statistics of SACN or NAFTA or EU or ASEAN.

All these formations should not be placed on equal footing. That is my point - CIS and AU are more like OAS (Organization of American States), not like the other unions.
 * The Panama-in-South/NorthAmerica question still remains, but anyway this is not the place to argue about it.
 * Why do you remove Mexico from the list of "Large countries"? It is very relevant here, becouse of its important relations with the SACN members (including the fact that it attended the founding-meeting). Also it is large enough to be added to the table - bigger population and simialre GDP to Canada...


 * Please try to sign your posts with ~ It depends on what comparison you believe is taking place. For example one might say that since NAFTA has no visions of closer political integration, it's NAFTA that really doesn't belong here, and it's the AU and the CIS that do. On my part I think it'd make more sense to move the whole table to international organization. As for Mexico vs. Canada, Canada's sole reason for inclusion is its vast area. Mexico isn't significantly large to be included by any other criterion. Aris Katsaris 15:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm just passing and not currently logged in... So, AU does have some VISIONS of future political integration and it can be argued if most CIS states have such, but anyway that are only VISIONS. NAFTA does not have visions for future political integration, but at least NAFTA has currently working trade integration, witch CIS and AU don't have. About Mexico - you say that Canada is added becouse of its area. What about Australia then? (bigger than India) It has too little population maybe? The criteria for adding a state to the list is too vauge. And I think that Mexico, as the biggest (in all terms: area, population, GDP) Latin American state outside SACN (and only second to Brazil) should be included.
 * CIS plans to become a free trade area and AU has a parlament. Seabhcán 23:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * many other blocs have plans to establish FTA or have SOME parliament. But giving statistical data for all these is irrelevant. AU and CIS are not exactly advanced at these policies. They are more like the OAS than like SACN or EU.
 * Yeah, the criteria are vague, but not too unreasonable: In the table you'll find the two nations with the largest area (Russia and Canada), the two nations with the largest population (China and India) and the two nations with the largest GDP (USA and China).


 * When you say however Australia should be included (because its area is larger than India's) or that Mexico should be included (because its population is greater than Canada's), that indicates confusion about the reason India and Canada were added in the first place -- it was India that was added because of the population, and Canada that was added because of the area, not vice versa. Aris Katsaris 01:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Info table/LocationSACN.png
Could someone create an info table and a location map for SACN?

For more info, see:
 * Template:European Union table
 * Image:LocationEuropeanUnion25.png


 * - 68.72.125.15 15:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The organization is non-existant, so there's no hurry. —Cantus&hellip; &#9742;

Table
Do they have a flag or a president yet?

And could someone please make a location map? - 69.212.72.193 23:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello!
Could you please help out with the infobox? - 69.212.72.193 00:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

SACN vs. CSN
This probably deserves consideration for one of the Lamest edit wars. Having said that, I don't understand what was wrong with Kapil's last revision. It clearly stated that "CSN" was preferred in English. I don't see what exactly is wrong with "SACN"; if the Guyanese (English-speaking) government prefers it, and they are a member of the CSN/SACN, who are we to tell them they are wrong? Check out this article: .--Rroser167 15:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statues of Bolívar in every American capital?
With reference to this edit ("Simon Bolivar does not have a statue in Washington DC or Ottawa to my knowledge") the claim that he has a statue in every American capital is certainly a factoid that gets repeated frequently. While I have doubts about (eg) Georgetown and Belmopan (and suspect that maybe some of the island nations of the Caribbean are being excluded from the definition of "American"), Washington and Ottawa are definitely in: DC's Bolívar statue is at [http://www.preservationdirectory.com/photodatabase_washingtondc.html Constitution Av. and 18th]; while Ottawa's appears to be at Dalhousie and Besserer. In any case, I changed the "all" to "practically every". (And, fwiw, here's Paramaribo's.) –Hajor 14:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Hajor thanks for catching my error; I should have double checked my facts. –TBonnie 02:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Excuse me?? Where exactly did you guys heard about a statue of Bolivar in Brasilia?? Smertios 16:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, however for me who live in the area is true that in all capital cities of countries in the area, and in most cities and towns of middle importance there is a statue of Bolivar or something related to Bolivar a street the name of the city hall etc. Obviously, Brasilia doesn´t have a statue of bolivar because he didn´t free them from Portugal but I think there is a statue in Buenos Aires, Argentina and he didn´t free them either so.....--ometzit&lt;col&gt; (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Maps

 * Currently there is no "SACN" yet, so there are no member states. Anyway here is one map for future reference:
 * Also, until SACN is getting functional - let's use this map:
 * The second map may be made with better look, but I have no easy tool for this... Alinor 21:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

EU comment
I dont see the point of this comment:


 * ''The European Union (EU) is not a simply regional bloc in the common sense. The EU is a Union of sovereing States with the deepest connections in the political, economical and executive fields. Thus, it is a far more integrated bloc than any other regional bloc or cooperative association of sovereign States in the world...

when the article also says:

Leaders announced their intention to model the new community after the European Union

The fact that the EU is more developed that other regional blocs does not mean it is incomparable. Maybe the table could include some measure of bloc "depth". --AndrewRT 17:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

South American Community of Nations
Having a look at the discussion of the article in question I could notice how you congratulated and supported the SACN. I just wanna thank you for your nice words and your feeling for South America as a whole. Unfortunately, I cannot see the changes we were supposed to experience with the Union. Recently, there has been a meeting in which every associate member agreed to revoke the so-called visa. This visa, as you may know, was a compulsory and expensive document required when travelling from one country to the other. I'm pretty sure this fact is really important for us as a subcontinent, because it allows everyone to cross the border for a maximum of 90 days without showing any documentation. Anyway, there are still many things to do. I hope we can see the difference in a couple of years time. Greetings from an Uruguayan citizen living in the European Union.--Gustave - May I help you? 22:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC) PS: I've already sent this same message to other wikipedians I considered interested in the subject.

Thanks for the news, Gustavo. Very good progress for the SACN, easy travel is very important for people to know each others and to work together. I know that advancing towards a community is a hard road (the EU is still is the middle of it) but I'm sure that citizens as well as political leader see step by step that in this world there is no other solution than to unite. --Pgreenfinch 08:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the news! As Pgreenfinch said, it's a hard road and it will take a lot of time for the countries to fully integrate into a community, it requires a lot of patience :) Making traveling easier was a good step. I wonder if it will be easier for the SACN than it is for the EU, which is still very divided, as I'm sure you know... I think that things like the SACN having fewer official languages than the EU's 20 makes things a little easier :) Are there any plans about a common currency for the countries somewhere in the near future? – Alensha   talk  16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I've heard, there are basic plans for just about everything the European Union has ever even thought of; the question is whether it can easily be realised in realpolitik, as well. I wish you the very best. (And Alensha, I wouldn't say the Union is "very divided" -- it's currently in a phase of reflection, but development of the Union has always been a periodic process. Trust me, in five years, you won't notice anything of this and last year's crisis. ;)) &mdash; Nightst  a  llion  (?) 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what Gustave said it is not possible to cross the borders of a country without ANY document since you do need an identity document. What you don’t need is a visa, which allow you to stay in a country for an specific amount of time for an specific purpose. This identity document should be recognized internationally so it is normally a passport. Here in Brazil we already have id cards that are accepted in the MERCOSUL countries but I don’t know if it is accepted in this CSN-based agreement.Alvaroludolf 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * About the currency integration it was already tried in MERCOSUL many times but we lack on a consensus about it either on what currency to adopt (most countries want to adopt the dolar but Brazil defend the Real, Brazilian currency, or a new currency) or how to manage this currency (Brazil have a more strict policy about inflation while Argentina is trying to recover from his default, generating differences in the inflation rate and exchange rates in these countries).Alvaroludolf 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now the intention for sulamerican countries are to create a free market bloc and slowly migrate to a trade bloc with powers to negotiate economic agreements with other parties (since most trade blocs in the world, specially the EU, gave up on direct negotiations with isolated countries). A real community is not possible in the current scenario due to social, economical and political differences between its members. Beside that the region is facing a political revolution with the ascension of the left-wing populists in the command of these countries, some with dictatorial tendencies and increase in the corruption (including in Brazil). Not only this Brazil, because of its economic influence in the region is been seen as an imperialist force among smaller countries (specially Bolivia and Venezuela). Alvaroludolf 12:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

SACN vs. CSN... again
Beside the fact that the bloc acronym is CSN in both OFFICIAL languages of the bloc (Spanish and Portuguese), I think that we must come to a standard here because i keep seen both ASN and SACN in the article. If we chose for SACN, knows that it will be because this is the English Wikipedia, while it will be misleading to readers (like calling NATO with OTAN in a Portuguese Wikipedia or something like SULCOMER for MERCOSUL in English). Alvaroludolf 13:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Trinidad/Tobago, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles
Should Trinidad & Tobago, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles be counted as South American territories? They are not found in the South America article. Funnyhat 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a South Ameria article but an article about South American Community of Nations, a proposed community bloc for the region. I don't have any information regarding the participation of those countries in this community. Alvaroludolf 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither are any of these countries considered a part of South America, despite their geographical proximity. 189.68.173.102 (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, all of those countries are geographically considered part of South America, since they all lay on the south american plate (tectonics). So, I think there should exist some clarification as there is for French Guyana and Malvinas Islands. Also, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are South American and are not part of the Malvinas territory, so those might also need a clarification.--141.30.219.173 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Countries like Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad y Tobago, Aruba and Netherlander Antilles are NOT Latin countries (they speak English or Dutch, neither of them Latin languages) and I think they should not be allowed in any Latin American comunity of states to begin with. They are USA's problem, it's the USA and Canada the ones who sould be creating a Germanic-American comunity with these countries.  Sorry but hence North-Americans build a fence in the Mexican border, I think we should act the same about English-Speaking and Dutch-Speaking Caribbean and Circuncaribbean countries.  Alberto 189.106.8.8 (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of comma as number divider
Is the GDP really "2,65 trillion dollars"? Or just "2.65 trillion dollars"? There is a 100-fold difference between the two! From WP:MOSNUM: "A decimal point is used between the integer and the fractional parts of a decimal; a comma is never used in this role (6.57, not 6,57)." So which is correct here, 265 or 2.65? Purgatorio (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this probably is because the person who first wrote it was South American, and only English uses period instead of comas as decimal dividers.--141.30.219.173 (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)