[UNCTAD] Should Developing Countries feed off Developed Countries?

Written by RT 

The afternoon council sessions of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development marks a dangerous turn of events for Developed Countries. The delegates of New Zealand and Thailand have expressed support for “funding” or “resources” for Developing Countries to boost trade. However, the question is: are all Developed Countries in agreement with this? 


Surprisingly, delegates of the UNCTAD are generally in agreement with this resource pool for developing countries. However, they are completely oblivious to the dangers that such a fund might bring to Developing Countries, ironically becoming what they had hoped to avoid — overreliance and complacency.


Defining “Resources”


At the start, the UNCTAD decided to call their plan a “fund” pool, but has thoughtfully changed it to “resources”. UNCTAD has defined “resources” as education, technology and financial aid. The council believes that such resources can provide urgent aid to the developing countries, especially during a heightened period such as Covid-19 where unemployment rates skyrocket. The Delegate of the United States of America spoke up against the idea of “funds”, due to the passiveness and inaction of developing countries in the reception of “funds”. She suggested the offering of education and technology in order to fuel sustained growth of developing countries. Whilst considering this, they inadvertently failed to consider the cons of such aid. Thus, delegates should also be aware that such a pool of resources could worsen the reliance of developing countries on the developed countries. 


Damaging Nations


Even though the developed countries all seem to be in agreement of such a resource pool that would require their generous donations and funding, would this actually solve the reliance on US and China economies? 


The not-so-straightforward answer is “no”. This solution only serves to push around the responsibilities of developing countries from the US and China to other developed countries. Providing education is the first step in the right direction, as much of the developed world can agree. However, should all the necessary resources be handed to developing countries on a silver platter, the unsustainable and unstable growth of developing countries can only be short-term unless aid is continually provided. This would in turn put a strain on the developed countries, forcing them to take responsibility for the economic growth of developing countries. In the long term, would this arrangement truly benefit both parties? 


Directing Debate 


After some time, the council spiralled into a heated debate over Free Trade versus Fair Trade, with blurred definitions of both terms. Predictably, the two big countries in question, US and China, expressed strong disapproval of the adoption of “Free Trade” by the UNCTAD. Both delegations argued for “Fair Trade”, with which Russia and India disagreed. The Delegate of Russia mentioned that shifting from Free Trade to Fair Trade will serve developing economies but harm developed countries; India claimed that Fair Trade is too vague a term for implementation. 


Since then, the council has refocused onto other potential solutions. Currently, the debate is currently at a standstill over the encouragement of formation of trade blocs as we suspended debate for Day One of the Conference. Tensions are slowly on the rise as blocs form and resolutions are in the drafts. One can only hope that the resolutions would productively target the mitigation of the fallout of the US-China Trade War.  In conclusion, RT urges UNCTAD delegates to consider more sustainable, long-term solutions. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

[UNHCR] Exiting Afghanistan: Biden’s Big Blunder

Written by Wall Street Journal Upon American troops’ evacuation from Afghanistan, Kunduz and other provincial capitals fell to the Taliban within just 48 hours. On April 14, 2:29PM, President Biden announced that “more and endless American military force could not create or sustain a durable Afghan government”. A bold claim, especially since following American troops’ evacuation from Afghanistan, Kunduz and other provincial capitals proceeded to fall to the Taliban within a mere 48 hours. Biden’s controversial decision to pull out American troops from Afghanistan was not received well internationally, with news agencies such as BBC and NPR  stating that “As Kabul falls, Biden backlash grows” and that “Republicans were scathing about the White House’s actions, and Democrats, while acknowledging that President Biden was carrying out the policies of his predecessor, criticized the haphazard manner of the U.S. withdrawal.” In addition, how relinquishing a large amount of support from A...
Read more

[G20] A Delicious Outcome for Food Security

Written by Daily Mail After yet another day of productive discussions, the council of G20 has achieved not one, but multiple agreements and articles, a feat that may seem far-fetched to other councils. Amongst the agreements and discussions said, some key ideas stood out more than others, such as technology that is more sustainable and efficient, together with the use of genetic engineering. Creations of various different aids and funds have also pushed the council to greater heights, ensuring that the council progresses forward as a whole. The council plans to use “a kind of genetic engineering, which is a kind of controversial, as the GMO that we currently have at the moment”, as said by the delegate of Italy, who claims to be the unofficials spokesperson of the G20, alongside the delegate of Spain. The delegate of Italy also stated that, “the council believes that research into mutated genesis will be extremely beneficial in reducing the impact of climate change going forward”, in a...
Read more

[UNCTAD] No More Silence

Written by RT      RT has interviewed the Delegates of New Zealand and the United States of America to better understand their viewpoints regarding the mitigation of fallouts of the US-China Trade War.      RT chose to interview the Delegate of New Zealand based on her claim that the Trade War has not created a great impact on its nation. However, New Zealand also believes in shifting away from the US and China as economic powers.      The Delegate of the USA has remained relatively silent during the council sessions. As one of the large countries in question, RT hopes to find out more about the views of the US regarding the damage they have caused due to the Trade Wars. But can we really stop the silence? Q: To the delegate of New Zealand, you have mentioned that the US-China Trade War has minimal consequences on your nation, so why would you be willing to incur high administrative costs to diversify your supply chain? A: “By switching suppl...
Read more