What, if anything, do rich nations owe poor nations?

Edward (Wanglong)Zeng

The world we live in is highly unequal. Whilst Europeans and Americans enjoy extraordinarily high living standards, many other countries struggle to provide basic necessities: some 700 million people live below the poverty line and some 600 million children go hungry each night (Peer and Omer). This disparity between rich and poor nations prompts the question of whether rich nations should resultingly owe anything to poor nations. I believe the answer is yes. Firstly, rich countries have a moral obligation to assist those less fortunate. Secondly, rich nations have consistently profited from the disparity in resources, retarding the development of poor nations. With regards to what exactly are owed, fair trading systems, environmental stewardship, and stable political systems are the three fundamental issues that, I think, should be focused on. Beyond discussing why and what rich nations owe to poor nations, I believe that a better question would reframe the discussion from the perspective of the poor nations. It would be more beneficial to global development if we let the poor nations articulate how rich nations can help, rather than rich nations dictating what poor nations need.

Why poor nations are owed

Cicero wrote in 44 BC that “Non nobis solum nati sumus” (not for ourselves alone are we born). It is clear that throughout history there has been a notion of collective responsibility to varying degrees. In the present day, even the most conservative societies cannot exist without some provision of social security as a collective good. For example, no conservative government in the United Kingdom has ever attempted to privatize the NHS, and the public schooling system in America has existed consistently since the opening of the first public school in 1635. The necessity of social welfare has been established as a societal foundation across history, and all nations demonstrate to varying degrees support for the mantra that the wealthy ought to help the poor; “we don't live alone… we are responsible for each other” (Priestly 41). A nation is but a collection of individuals, the world is but a collection of nations. The same moral obligation, therefore, can be applied both to the society of a nation as well as to nations on a macro level. Therefore, approaching the question from the perspective of humanity and societal obligations, it is clear why rich countries owe poor countries.

Underneath the moral responsibility lies a deeper and more convincing reason why rich nations owe poor nations: the former have garnered immense benefits and disproportionate gains off the back of latter. This has been achieved through grabbing natural resources, labor and land, and even stealing intellectual property, all with ethically and morally questionable methods and at the expense of poor nations’ development. For example, the U.S. solved its initial problem of lack of labor by commodifying and importing human slaves from Africa, not only causing immeasurable suffering to the enslaved individuals but also drastically decreasing African nations’ working age population, which greatly hindered the development of  the indigenous economy.  Also, through the Mexican-American War, the better-equipped United States defeated Mexico and seized large swathes of valuable territory, including what is now California, Arizona and Texas. Mexico would certainly have been much better off if it had not lost these territories. California is now the largest economy by GDP and Texas the biggest oil and gas producer among American states (“Gross Domestic Product by State”; “Oil and Petroleum Products Explained”)[1]. The exploitation of poor nations also brings long-term detrimental effects on them. The actions of the British Raj forcing Indian farmers to grow cash crops drained the nutrients of the land, and the French empire’s demand of unreasonable debt repayment after Haiti’s independence in 1804 crushed local economy, both leaving long term negative consequences on Haiti’s and India’s development (Pradhan; Gamio and Porter). Rich countries also stole intellectual properties from their poorer counterparts. In 1843, a British botanist commissioned by the British East India Company stole coveted secrets of tea production from China, allowing Britain to construct a rivaling production in India in a short time (Rose). Equipped with greater economic resources, cheap Indian labor, and favorable trade rules, the British tea business in India grew exponentially and soon forced their Chinese competitors out of the world market. While the British reaped their windfall, the once prosperous Chinese tea economy went into freefall (Ishak and Silverman).

 Many politicians fiercely oppose the idea of any obligations being owed abroad, claiming that a nation only owes responsibility to its own citizens. The MAGA movement in the U.S. and the Brexit movement in the UK are examples of such nationalistic philosophy in action. Their superficial, populist appeal in prioritizing funds for domestic issues won huge support among their voters. However, in addition to what I argued above that rich countries are indebted to poor countries morally, historically, and economically, helping poor nations also aligns with rich countries’ self-interest. Repeated migration crises in both Western Europe and North America in recent years have threatened rich countries’ safety and social stability. The widening gap between rich and poor nations’ development is the fundamental reason for the migration crisis, which will only deepen unless the economic imbalance is rectified. Furthermore, helping poor nations develop will create greater trade opportunities for the benefit of everyone. As poor nations become more economically interwoven and prosperous, there will only be greater global stability and peace. In former US-Secretary of Defense James Forrestal’s words, “the only way in which a durable peace can be created is by world-wide restoration of economic activity and international trade”. Helping poor nations will not harm rich countries’ interest, but rather bring benefit in the long term: “no one has gone poor by giving” (Frank)[2].

What poor nations are owed?

In terms of what exactly rich countries owe, fair trading systems, global warming and political stability are the three fundamental issues, as they are most critical to the economic development of any nation.

Firstly, rich nations owe poor nations fair trading systems. Historically, rich nations have built manufacturing capacity that allows for economies of scale and, thus, lowers production costs. Relatively cheap goods protected by trade-agreements in favor of rich countries flood poor countries’ markets, disadvantaging local producers and squeezing them out of the markets. As a result of the difference in economic capacity, most poor nations end up being relegated to resource providers or low-level assemblers in global supply chains, bringing little meaningful economic development but massive environmental pollution instead (Bertucci and Alberti 8). The current trading systems simply do not bring the fruits of globalization to everyone equally. It is not that globalization fails these countries, but rather, the fact that the gains of globalization are unevenly distributed (Bathke). The world must construct fairer and more equal trade systems to help poor countries to develop.

The rich world also owes poor countries more effort in solving global warming. Despite the fact that the rich world is now spearheading the fight against climate change, the problem is their doing in the first place. Rich nations, such as Britain and France, were the first to industrialize.  At that time little regulations on pollution existed. Those early industrialized nations are responsible for a large part of the CO₂ emissions that humans have produced thus far and continue to be the main polluters. Whilst the average American today has a carbon footprint of 15.5 tons, the number in Congo is just 1 ton. Contrastingly, when developing nations such as India start to industrialize, they are faced with strict scrutiny for their pollution. It is also these developing nations, without the funds and resources, that are most affected by climate-change (McCarthy). Thus, as global warming is increasingly becoming a survival-threatening issue for all countries, rich nations simply cannot avoid their responsibility to do more to help poor nations.

Finally, in my view, the singularly most important obligation that rich countries owe to poor countries is political stability, which is fundamental for economic development; “there is no coincidence that stability brings success, and success brings stability” (Green)[3]. Early accumulation of capital, which is essential for any economic takeoff, is impossible without a stable political environment. Capital is unwilling to stay in places where its safety cannot be guaranteed because of nationalization, war, or other negative externalities. Poor nations have long suffered from the rich world’s intervention. For example, the retreat of colonial powers was not a thoughtful process; rather, colonial powers’ self-interest dominated their calculation. Once the colonies were deemed too costly, colonial powers like Britain pulled out as fast as possible, leading to devastating political vacuums. Political instability, chaos, and civil wars came along soon afterwards. One of such examples is the Partition of India, which resulted in over 2 million deaths, 15 million displaced population, and four bloody wars (Brocklehurst). Additionally, countries such as the U.S., France, and Russia repeatedly meddled in poorer nations’ politics either covertly or by force for their own political influence. Professor Dov H. Levin of the University of Hong Kong found in one of his studies that ‘one of every nine competitive elections since the end of the Second World War [has] been the target of an electoral intervention by a great power (Levin 94). The numerous military interventions launched by the CIA in central and south America are also testament to this fact. Rich nations should refrain from unilaterally interfering in the political affairs of poor countries and help establish political stability. This is critical to their economic development.

 Conclusion

While we debate whether rich countries owe poor countries, and what exactly this entails, the truth of the matter is that the appalling inequality in our world still remains. The Greek philosopher Plutarch recognized that “an imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics”. A reconsideration of our approach to this age-old problem may actually serve us better. In the past half-century, few poor nations have been able to cross into the league of developed nations successfully. China, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan’s success stories are exceptions, not the norm. The problem may lie in our perception of the problem. For too long, including this discussion, we have looked the problem only from the perspective of rich nations. The stories of China, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan all have a common theme and that is self-dictation. A political scientist in Copenhagen may have more things to say than Mr. Deng Xiaoping on China’s reform, but who knows China best? Well, we certainly know the answer to that one. Each of the four successful countries chose and underwent their own development path, with drastically different political systems and solutions. It is woefully apparent that there is no standard panacea that rich nations can implement on all poor nations. The approach to global development should be bottom-up instead of top down. Hence, the real question we should ask is not “what, if anything, rich nations owe poor nations”, but what poor nations need from rich nations?

Bibliography

Bertucci, Guido, and Adriana Alberti. "Globalization and the Role of the State:

     Challenges and Perspectives." University of Delhi. PDF.

Brocklehurst, Steven. "Partition of India: 'They would have slaughtered us.'"

     BBC, www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40874496.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. De Officiis.

E-International Relations. www.e-ir.info/2020/10/29/french-intervention-in-west-africa-interests-and-strategies-2013-2020/. Accessed 29 June 2022.

Forrestal, James. "James Forrestal Quotes." Brain Quote, www.brainyquote.com/quotes/james_forrestal_317796#:~:text=James%20Forrestal%20Quotes&text=For%20the%20only%20way%20in%20
which%20a%20durable%20peace%20can,economic%20activity%20and%20international%20trade. Accessed 30 June 2022.

Gamio, Lazaro, and Catherine Porter. "Haiti's Lost Billions." The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/20/world/americas/enslaved-haiti-debt-timeline.html. Accessed 29 June 2022.

"GDP by State." Bureau of Economic Analysis. Accessed 29 June 2022.

"Globalization benefits everyone, but gains unevenly distributed: study." DW, www.e-ir.info/2020/10/29/french-intervention-in-west-africa-interests-and-strategies-2013-2020/. Accessed 29 June 2022.

Green, Robert. "ROBERT GREEN QUOTES." OZYLI, www.ozyli.com/authors-quotes-details;jsessionid=FC8330CD3B66D4C48D2B9B3C2165A176?quotes_key=7013. Accessed 30 June 2022.

Ishak, Natasha, and Leah Silverman. "How A Poor Scottish Botanist Ruined China's Economy By Stealing A Bunch Of Tea." ATI, allthatsinteresting.com/robert-fortune#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20the%20end%20to%20the,some%2023%2C000%20plants%20and%20seeds. Accessed 29 June 2022.

Levin, Dov H. "Partisan electoral interventions by the great powers: Introducing the PEIG Dataset." SAGE. SAGE Journals Online. Accessed 29 June 2022.

McCarthy, Joe. "Why Climate Change and Poverty Are Inextricably Linked." Global Citizen, www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/climate-change-is-connected-to-poverty/. Accessed 29 June 2022.

"Oil and petroleum products explained." U.S Energy Information Administration, www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/where-our-oil-comes-from-in-depth.php. Accessed 29 June 2022.

Pear, Andrea, and Sevil Omer. "Global poverty: Facts, FAQs, and how to help." World Vision, www.worldvision.org/sponsorship-news-stories/global-poverty-facts. Accessed 29 June 2022.

Plutarch. "Politics and Political Economy." Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality, inequality.stanford.edu/publications/quote/plutarch. Accessed 30 June 2022.

Pradhan, Sheshan. "Indian Agriculture during British Rule." PSCNOTES.IN, pscnotes.in/indian-agriculture-during-british-rule/. Accessed 29 June 2022.

Priestley, J. B. An Inspector Calls.

Rose, Sarah. "The Great British Tea Heist." Smithsonian Magazine, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-great-british-tea-heist-9866709/. Accessed 29 June 2022.

[1] From US Bureau of Economic Analysis and US Energy Information Agency

[2] Anne Frank

[3] American author Robert Green