Debate Matters: Development

A compilation produced by the Singapore National Debate Team that participated in the 2012 World
Schools Debating Championships and International Public Policy Forum
Series editor: Tan Teck Wei
Contributors: Teoh Ren Jie, Benjamin Mak Jia Ming, Darion Hotan, Kok Rabin, Chua Jun Yan, Tan
Kuan Hian, Rohan Shah
Coach: Mrs. Geetha Creffield
Debate Matters: Development
Ladies and gentlemen, we will deliver a few key lines of analysis about the topic...

1. Introduction
Pause what you are doing, and look around. Ask yourself this: out of all the things you see around
you, how many of them would a child in Africa not have access to? It could be the laptop you are
currently reading this on. It could be the classroom you are currently in, or the textbooks beside you.
It could even be the clean drinking water in your water bottle. These, among many others, are
luxuries that we tend to take for granted, even though many others around the world are not
fortunate enough to have. Development is, in essence, about bringing all these to others around the
world, and thereby developing a greater quality of life for them.
Human development does not have a universal or concrete definition, but it tends to be as allencompassing as possible. Thus, when seeking to improve quality of life for other people around the
world, we need to consider a spectrum of approaches and mechanisms. For example, contemporary
approaches to reach the same goal of development range from providing healthcare, subsidizing
education, imposing environmental standards, and empowering women. Within each of these
targets, there are even more different ways we could go about doing the job. Hence, the topic of
development is certainly a broad one: there are many ways we can contribute to development
around the world.
Before we decide on the best path of development, we need to understand who we are trying to
benefit. You may have heard of the terms developed and developing world; the specific definitions of
these terms are open to differing interpretations. Nonetheless, this distinction is useful in describing
the world as we see it. Developed countries are usually those with a higher Gross Domestic Product
(GDP), are more industrially developed, and their citizens are relatively well-off. Basic needs, like
food, water and shelter, are met, while education and healthcare are accessible to most, if not all, of
us. On the other hand, developing countries lack a number of these things. Some developing
countries are nonetheless better of than others, and so even within the category of these countries,
there is a spectrum. For example, Ethiopia and India are both developing countries, but they are still
fundamentally different societies and economies. In summary, development tends to be a process
that starts from developed countries, through the sharing of their resources and expertise, that ends
in the developing countries.

Why does finding the best path to development matter to us? Why do we need to care about the
needs of people miles away? There is no single straightforward answer to this question.
Development could be important to you because you believe in certain fundamental rights that all
human beings are entitled to, such as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It could also be
because you believe that no one should be forced to live in suffering and poverty in developing
countries. Whatever this reason may be, the practical implication on a debate about development is
easy to see: your arguments and your case must be about the citizens you are trying to help. Losing
focus of who development is meant to aid can be disastrous in a debate, as it is in the real world.
If the aims of development are noble, why do people disagree and persist in debate? This is
because the aims of either side in a debate are largely the same, but they disagree on the means by
which to accomplish them. Similarly, teams debating the best path of development all have the
welfare of the developing world at heart, but they disagree on how this welfare can be maximized.
To round off this introduction, we have included some possible ways of thinking about such debates;
this list is naturally not all-inclusive, but are good starting points when thinking about these issues.
Is this sustainable in the future? How do short term gains measure against future harms, or vice
versa?

Is this an appropriate solution? Are these solutions suitable for the cultural, social or economic
situation at hand?

Is this a fair solution? Is it fair for more developed actors to be a larger burden of solving the worlds
problems?
We will now delve into the specific debate motions pertaining to development, where everything that
has been discussed thus far will be brought to life. Onward!

The Debate:

2. Debate 1: THBT African problems require African solutions

Context
This debate is likely to swing upon which side is better able to analyze Africa, with specific reference
to the causes underlying the problems plaguing it. There are some unique characteristics that ought
to be noted: first, Africas 54 nations have a history of colonization. This means that the borders of
these countries are often arbitrary, based on politics of Europe at the time and subject to the
decisions of Victorian cartographers.
Second, Africans are not a homogenous group of people- they come from hundreds of diverse tribal
and ethnic groups, each with their own history and culture. As a result of the previous characteristic,
however, a single group may span many countries and cross many borders, while one nation may
include many different ethnic groups.

Third, the decolonization of African nations following the Second World War was in many instances
a rushed and hurried affair. Hence, power vacuums were created in many nations, leading to the rise
of authoritarian regimes as well as the propensity for sectarian violence, as there was no force to
stop it. The common occurrence of military coups as a means of changing government has also
undermined efforts for democratic change.
Definitions
African problems
There are three broad categories under which Africas problems can be placed. First, there is
conflict; the African continent is rife with civil war and ethnic violence. This often leads to massive
refugee problems for the region. The emergence of terrorism as a new global threat and groups that
operate from Africa have also led to extremist insurgencies across the nation.
Second, there is poverty. 36.2% of Africans live on less than USD 1 a day, making it by far the
worlds poorest continent. This manifests itself in problems such as food shortage, drought, lack of
adequate healthcare, education or infrastructure, all of which have contributed to low life expectancy
across the country.
Third, authoritarianism and oppression have left many Africans deprived of human rights and
liberties. Of the 54 African nations, only 15 are considered democratic, with many others being
bywords for oppression, such as Zimbabwe, Chad, Sudan, e.t.c. The lack of democracy in Africa has
led to some of the most egregious violations of human rights imaginable, such as mass rapes in the
Congo and ethnic genocide in Rwanda or, more recently, South Sudan.
It is true, of course, that these categories of problems are all interlinked and affect each other. The
failure of democratic institutions, or their absence, increases the likelihood of conflict, which in turn is
responsible not only for gross transgressions of human liberty but also for instability that stunts the
continents economic growth. Solutions to them must, therefore, be coordinated in some way. How
teams decide to use these links is up to them.
Require African solutions
The categorization of solutions follows those of the problems: first, diplomacy and intervention to end
conflicts. Second, economic development and effective aid distribution to combat poverty. Finally,
bringing about democratic change and reform to stop oppression, by pressuring regimes into
undertaking such reforms or by aiding existing local democratic movements.
By requiring African solutions, therefore, Prop argues that the problems identified would be more
efficiently and swiftly dealt with by a) the countries themselves b) other African nations c) regional
African organizations such as Ecowas, SADC, or the African Economic Union, as opposed to
external actors such as the UN, NATO or the USA, by achieving the aims stated above.
However, this does not mean that only African nations and organizations should be involved; it
means that interference and intervention from outside powers should be avoided, and that
developmental/humanitarian aid should be given without conditions, and left to be directed and
allocated by African nations themselves. In short, Africans must have the final say in how their
countries are run, and not be beholden to the requirements or pressures of the international
community.

In contrast, Opp should argue that external organizations are better suited to implementing and
bringing about such change as is needed, and should be allowed to pressure African nations where
necessary, even intervening if they deem they must.
Some concerns
Prop will probably try to paint Africas problems as due to the persisting effects of abrupt
decolonization, and argue that many non-Africans will be hard-pressed to fully understand the
intricacies of Africa and be rejected by Africans. Opp, on the other hand, should probably paint
Africas problems as being caused by a succession of corrupt dictators who are unlikely to fall in the
foreseeable future, and will be more concerned with lining their pockets than with Africans welfare.

Prop

Opp

African solutions are better for

African solutions are not better

conflict resolution

for conflict resolution

External groups are separate from
the myriad of cultural politics and

Thesis:

Africans

are

better

at

mediating African conflicts because

they

understand

the

issues

underlying these conflicts better.

For fellow African leaders, the divide
between ethnic groups within nations

are hence more willingly accepted

as unbiased. The specifics and
sensitivities of various cultures can
be taught; it is impossible for an
African to divide himself from his
own ethnicity.

and the existing tensions that lead to

There are problems with African

conflict are better understood, as

mediators:

being of similar ethnicities, other

cultures are spread across many

African countries fully understand the

countries, due to the arbitrary

cultural and historical background to

nature of national borders drawn

the conflict. By contrast, external

powers often tar the whole of Africa
with one brush, regarding all Africans

African

tribes

and

during colonialization. The fact that

previously

warring

tribes

are

placed within the same borders

as similar without considering ethnic

means that often, African conflict is

or cultural differences that often lead

tribally

to conflict.

Tutsis, Zulu and Xhosa, Merle and

Hence, African countries are far

better at negotiating an end to
conflict, as they do not infringe upon

motivated

(Hutus

and

Nuer in South Sudan).

African mediators also have their
own

tribal

affiliations

and

cultural sensibilities of Africans unlike

ethnicities. Due to a long history of

external forces might. Furthermore,

tribal conflict in Africa, every tribe

African nations have a stronger

has some form of past relation with

understanding of why civil conflicts

another tribe. Mediators from one

within nations arise, such as the

tribe, however well-intentioned they

Prop

Opp

historical territorial disputes between

may

the Zulus and Xhosas in Southern

accusations

of

Africa,

conflicting

tribal

allowing

them

to

tailor

be,

are

often
bias

open
that

groups

to
lead
to

mediation towards these specific

disregard their efforts. e.g. Julius

issues.

Nyerere,

former

Tanzania,

was

President
tasked

of
with

Willingness to intervene: by reason

mediating conflict between Hutus

of geographical proximity, African

and Tutsis in Burundi; however,

nations have much stronger interests

Tutsis accused him of being biased

in

Often,

towards the Hutus, an accusation

conflicts lead to refugee crises, e.g.

lent credence due to the fact that

Darfur, Somalia. The mass exodus of

Nyerere belonged to the Zanaki

refugees into neighbouring countries

ethnic group, which had a history

place a strain on the infrastructure of

of tension with the Tutsis. As a

such

Somlian

result, mediation efforts by Nyerere

refugees in the Dadaab camps in

in Burundi did not lead to tangible

Kenya. As a result, they have a

success.

other

African

nations.

countries,

vested

interest

e.g.

in

ensuring

that

conflicts do not spiral out of control.

Non-African powers are better at

By contrast, external forces do not

mediation because there is no

have such a strong vested interest,

possible

and are hence easily deterred by

cultural/ethnic bias. It is precisely

their domestic politics, leading to a)

because they are more divorced

lack

b)

from the minefield of African tribal

full

ties that they can legitimately claim

commitment. e.g. USA and Somalia,

to be unbiased. e.g. mediation in

USA pulled out after Black Hawk

Mozambique, which was driven by

Down

UN.

of

will

to

interventions

intervene
without

incident,

leaving

Somalia

accusation

of

mired in civil war.

When you have to intervene, this
Hence, African nations, with a keener

feeds rhetoric: precisely because

understanding of evolving tensions

other African nations have vested

coupled

overwhelming

interests in conflict is the reason

national interest to prevent them from

that African intervention is likely to

spiraling into conflict, are far more

support one particular group. In

likely to step in to mediate early and

fact, these vested interests often

also to, in necessary situations, send

lead to accusations of conquest no

in

Africa

less vitriolic than those directed at

intervening in Lesotho, without half

Westerners; e.g. Kenya in Somalia

with

troops,

an

e.g.

South

baked interventions. External forces

are subject to the whims of domestic
politics, and when they fail to commit
to an intervention this leads to a
massive escalation of conflict in the
region, e.g. Somalia.

Prop

Opp

African solutions are better for

African solutions are not better

conflict resolution (cont.)

for conflict resolution (cont.)

Even if their motives were clear,
African militaries are simply unable

Ability to

intervene:

against

the

opposition to be expected, African

militaries are as good as, if not better
than, those of external organizations.
Against

opposing

armies

in

conventional warfare for control of

territory, the opposing armies are
armed merely with small arms, some
gun-mounted vehicles, at most a
tank or two. For example, the military
of South Africa is more than capable
of taking out such forces using
technology it already gets from the
Western world, including jet fighters.
The technological difference between
African militaries and external forces
is hence not significant in relation to

to cope. It is true that the fight

against insurgency is often not
conventional

warfare;

however,

African militaries lack the requisite

and often even more specialized
training

for

counter-insurgency

warfare (more specialized because

emphasis on precision, work in
small, cohesive units). Equipment
as well often needs to be even
more

advanced

insurgency,

as

for

counter-

precision

and

stealth are key. The tanks that

South Africa possesses are no
use; the drones that the USA
commands are. Furthermore, weak
democratic institutions in Africa
itself (with only 15 African nations

this kind of opposition.

as democracies) make abuses by

insurgencies, guerillas, and terrorists:

soldiers more likely. For example,

faced with this kind of unconventional

even South Africas intervention in

warfare, against insurgencies, once

Lesotho, to date the only African to

again the difference in technological

African nation intervention with a

capabilities

African

legitimate basis, is marred by

militaries and external ones does not

reports of soldiers killing civilians

constitute a substantive difference,

and opposing forces that tried to

since insurgents arent exactly well

surrender. Lack of training in crowd

equipped. What is needed to deal

control also led to widespread

with

rioting in Lesothos capital, further

between

insurgents

is:

keen

understanding of where insurgents

ravaging its stuttering economy.

might hide themselves, where more

specific African knowledge comes in
useful, and winning the battle of
hearts

and

trust/support

minds,
of

gaining

locals, which

is

easier when those intervening are

fellow Africans as opposed to the
Western

imperialists

terrorist

groups/insurgents often vilify.

Non-African

nations

are

better

when intervention is necessary. It

is true that Somalia was a failed
intervention- following the lessons
of that time, however, Western
powers

have

been

far

more

committed to intervention when

necessary. For example, French
intervention in the Ivory Coast to

Therefore, African militaries are just

remove

Laurent

Gbagbo

from

Prop

Opp

as good at intervening, if not better,

power

than foreign militaries.

continuing UN support and UN

succeeded.

There

is

peacekeepers for the conflict in

In

conclusion,

fellow

African

Somalia, which is the only thing to

nations/organizations have a better

have kept Mogadishu under the

understanding of conflict situations,

legitimate governments control.

giving them greater ability to mediate

such conflicts. They have a greater

Where

incentive to prevent the escalation of

expertise and equipment, Western

conflict, and when they intervene to

nations fill the gap. It is not true

do so they are more effective than

that

foreign militaries. Therefore, in the

insurgencies; the previous example

area

African

of Ivory Coast was not, and neither

solutions are definitely better and

was the intervention in Libya,

hence required.

which

of

African

conflict,

African

all

militaries

African

required

lack

wars

cruise

are

missiles

African nations certainly lack. Even

for insurgencies, the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, against precisely
the kind of insurgency African
nations might face, mean that
Western militaries have soldiers
trained and experience in counterinsurgency, as well as equipment
tailored

specifically

to

such

asymmetrical warfare.
Finally,

non-African

powers,

especially Western ones likely to

intervene,

have

democratic

far

stronger

institutions

and

emphasis on rights, meaning that

abuses by soldiers are less likely to
happen.
African solutions are better for

African solutions are not better

economic growth

for economic growth

African nations have no choice but to

Stance: dont make judgment on

accept

the Washington Consensus, but

aid,

often

from Western

nations. This aid often comes with

believe

conditions

conditions

attached,

and

these

that Western
are

huge

aid

and

necessary
corruption.

to

conditions hinder economic growth

prevent

Dont

as they are not tailed to African

stand for everything donors do, but

needs.

believe that their aid and direction

is far better than African corruption

Prop

Opp

For

example,

the

Washington

and mismanagement.

Consensus: fiscal austerity, trade

liberalization

(allowing

MNCs

in,

Cause

of

problem:

Africa

is

removing all trade barriers), high

extremely rich in resources. Since

interest

rates,

privatization,

and

decolonization, however, it has

capital

market

liberalization

(e.g.

been mired in poverty and suffered

removal of currency controls) based

from economic mismanagement.

on neoliberal economic thought. e.g

The key reason why is that a

and every single developing

countrys resources go towards

nation that has ever received aid

lining the pockets of its officials

from it. USA and Angola. IMF and

instead of helping the people. Due

Russia, IMF and Argentina, IMF and

to the lack of democratic checks

East Asia.

and

IMF

balances,

corruption

is

widespread and exploitation of the

The

idea

behind

these

market

countrys national resources rife.

reforms is that profit motive will lead

to

competition,

and

the

self-

correcting invisible hand will lead to

efficient outcomes. However, the
invisible

hand

works

imperfectly

when there is imperfect information

and imperfect markets, which is
especially the case is developing

If no conditions are imposed upon

aid and officials are left to decide
its use, all that will happen is ever
greater corruption. The good thing
about all aid donations is that they
share a universal condition: the aid
must

go

towards

helping

the

people, whether this be building a

countries.

hospital or a road or a school.

These circumstances dont exist,
hence the conditions are bad for

Imposing such conditions upon aid

these nations. Why?

that African rulers must accept

helps the people of Africa by

(A) Imperfect information: reforms

providing the basic transport and

imposed by IMF largely include

educational

privatization of state industries (e.g.

need to pull themselves out of

Russia, where everything used to be

poverty.

infrastructure

they

a state industry in the USSR) as

soon as possible. Under systems
where

perfect

information

and

In fact, if you leave the use of aid

up to African rulers, chances are

this

that even if they dont embezzle it

privatization should work, and state

directly, they will pump it into state-

transparency

are

achieved,

owned assets would be sold to the

highest bidder. However, especially
in African countries that are often not

owned companies that they have a

direct stake in, or waste it on
grandiose

monuments,

as

has

democratic (only 15 out of 54), the

happened time and again with

system of privatization is opaque and

public funds.

not released to the general public.

with institutions such as the media,
the courts and sometimes also the

Furthermore, foreign investment is

a huge driver of African growth. It
is true that in some instances,

Prop

Opp

opposition often not very strong,

donors such as China impose

officials in charge of privatization can

specific conditions. However, this

easily fall prey to corruption.

happens in a minority of instancesfor the most part, the foreign

As a result, state owned assets are

investment

sold

strong

businesses for the African people.

connections to state officials, with

Even when it does happen, jobs

many kickbacks, leading to a system

and growth still occur- in fact, the

of crony capitalism that does not

example of China and Nigeria

benefit the people or abide by the

simply proves that even more jobs

principles of neo-liberalism. Either

were made, since oil fields that

the assets are sold at less than their

would otherwise have been left

actual value, or they end up being

alone under Proposition would be

run by organized crime with strong

operated by Chinese companies

links to officials. e.g. in Nigeria,

hiring local Africans. Without this

privatization

national

foreign investment, Africa would

telecommunications company was

suffer from an acute lack of capital

marred by fraud, bribery and the

and liquidity and find itself in even

failure

more dire economic straits.

off

to

to

people

of

with

former

consider

existing

employees in the deal that was

made.
African solutions are better for
economic growth (cont.)

(B) Imperfect markets: IMF reform

includes lowering of trade barriers,
as well as deregulation of capital
markets. This allows for foreign
goods to flood local African markets
without the added cost of tariffs, and
without subsidies for local producers.
The problem is that in countries at
such low levels of development, local
industries lose out to MNCs which
can rely on economies of scale,
existing logistical infrastructure and
superior technical expertise.
This leads to a huge difference in
what MNCs can afford to price their
goods and what local industries can
price their goods while still staying
proftitable. as a result, cheap foreign
goods (especially from China) are

creates

jobs

and

Prop
able

Opp
to

flood

deregulation,

the
and

market

after

without

any

protections for local industries, these

industries are swiftly crowded out; for
example Nigerias budding garment
industry, which got pretty much
crowded out after it liberalized and
MNCs flooded the market with goods
from Bangladesh. The result is that
local

industries

are

suffocated,

leading to less jobs for locals.

Furthermore, it undermines attempts
to create local industries that often
become engines of growth for the
entire nation.
(C)

The

markets

deregulation
leads

to

the

of

capital
flow

of

speculative money into the country

as investors bet on whether or not
the economy or certain industries will
grow, really fast since the IMF
demands

abrupt

deregulation

in

developing nations. With so much

money coming into the country,
inflation

rises.

Given

the

IMFs

stance on inflation (keep it as low as

possible), and the conditions worked
into loans, rising inflation will trigger
fiscal austerity and higher interest
rates in an attempt to limit the flow of
money. Fledgling businesses and
poor families find it much harder to
borrow the money needed to keep
going. This leads to a rise in
bankruptcy or closure of business in
these African nations, which also
feeds into unemployment. This is
exacerbated because fiscal austerity
removes any form of social safety net
for those who are hit. Finally, foreign
investors are quick to withdraw their
capital in light of such circumstances,
leading to a much less well-off
country. e.g. Thailand in the East
Asian Financial Crisis, where IMF

Prop

Opp

imposed these loan conditions and

George Soros took the chance to
make a lot of money by destroying
the Thai economy.
As a result, international policies
dont work, instead harming African
economies.
African solutions are better at

African solutions are not better

creating democracy

at creating democracy

African dictators remain in power first

The problem with African solutions

by controlling powerful institutions

is that most other African nations

such as the military, but also with a

are

strong

Dictators tend to support other

propaganda

system

that

blames troubles on external forces.

just

as

non-democratic.

dictators over democratic change,

since they fear similar change in

Hence,

Western

pressure

fuels

their own countries.

rhetoric. In many autocratic regimes,

democracy/womens

are

Most African countries are non-

portrayed as evil concepts that the

democratic. As such, any regional

Western imperialists are trying to

bloc

impose on an African nation or

statement

culture. When external forces (often

movements in, for example, Syria

the

pressure

is automatically hamstrung by the

democratic

fact that a significant number of its

reform, with e.g. sanctions, dictators

members might be facing or be

are able to claim that the West is

worried

refusing

and

challenges to the regime, e.g Saudi

destitute, and do not really care

Arabia, Bahrain and their Shia

about the citizens. Rallying cries are

population. The fact that dictators

created by leaders to go against the

count on other African nations for

West, including Western notions of

support is proof of this: they know

right and wrong, and this leads to the

that other similarly undemocratic

poisoning of democracy as a concept

nations are far more likely to

in the minds of citizens.

support them.

More perfidiously, when dissent has

This

already

countries,

when considering that regional

Western support is often portrayed

African organizations designed to

as an imperialist attempt to take over

foster positive change are similarly

the country. With fears still playing in

led by non-democratic regimes.

the minds of Africans over how the

For example, Obasanjo of Nigeria

USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan,

(an ex-military ruler) and Gaddafi

West)

governments

to

rights

decide

to

towards

help

started

the

within

poor

attempting

is

to

about

about

make

democratic

similar

particularly

local

problematic

Prop

Opp

the creation of fears over a Western

were ex-chairmen of the African

takeover is a powerful tool dictators

Union. This hamstrings its ability to

can

For

push for tough but necessary

example, Gaddafi constantly blamed

change. Most notably, the AU

all and sundry external forces for the

stood against the world in opposing

unrest in Libya, as has Assad in

the no-fly zone over Libya and

Syria. With the powerful machine of

assisting the Libyan rebels.

use

in

their

arsenal.

propaganda in such undemocratic

states, the Western association as

Even when you do have groups

an outsider may well hamper all

that push for democratic change,

attempts at inspiring democracy.

the response of a regime is no

different

from

its

response

to

By contrast, Africans inspire trust.

Westerners: that they ought not to

When

African

interfere, that the protesters are

this

terrorist rebels, and so forth. In

pressure, it cuts out a lot of possible

fact, democracy itself is seen as a

dictator rhetoric about imperialism,

Western idea, such that even when

moral superiority and so forth. This

one African nation supports it that

stops

Western

African nation is deemed to be a

takeover, decreasing the opposition

mere puppet of the West, as Bashr

to regime change as citizens are

al-Assad called South Africa.

it

is

organizations

the

confident

instead
that

fears

that

of

their

apply

country

will
The

remain.

difference

for

external

organizations such as the UN is

More

importantly,

African

that

they

are

fundamentally

organizations have more influence

committed to democratic principles

over

Many

and human rights. Also, they have

autocratic leaders count on the idea

stronger and more internationally

of regional affirmation, that fellow

recognized democratic institutions

Africans believe him a legitimate

that

leader, to actually portray legitimacy

momentum

to his people. e.g. al-Bashir and

democracies, not only within the

Sudan.

nation

autocratic

leaders.

help

lend

credence
to

itself

but

and

fledgling
also

for

the

international community.
To suggest that African dictators
will call for democracy in other
African dictatorships is nave in the
extreme,

and

simply

will

not

happen. As a result, regional voting

blocs usually have

a majority

against

democratic

movements.
African solutions are better at
creating democracy (cont.)

this

Prop

Opp

When African organizations publicly

reject a figure whom they have
traditionally accepted, it very strongly
signals to the people of that country
that their leader has lost the faith of
those whose support he once used
as a reason for his power. It is a
clear indication that his actions are
so deplorable that even a group that
historically has not condemned him
will now do so, and this weakens the
leaders popular cult/moral grasp
over the country immensely.
Either

this

action

itself

helps

precipitate the support required to

topple the leader, or the threat of
such action is sufficient to gain
significant concessions. e.g. Arab
League, Ali Abdullah Saleh.
As a result, Western powers cannot
try to bring about or support existing
democratic
merely

movements

fuels

authoritarian

the

as

rhetoric

leaders,

this
of

whereas

African nations are able to send very

strong messages not just to dictators
but also to their people about the
atrocities a dictator is committing and
about the importance of democracy,
giving them the ability to extract
concessions that would otherwise
have been impossible to get.

Debate 2: THW legalize child labour in the developing world.

Context
This is a an example of a debate that implicitly refers to a specific context for us to debate in; clearly,
it would not make good socio-economic sense for Singaporean students to pull out of school
tomorrow, and start finding work! Instead, child labour could most reasonably be justified in
developing countries. This is where it is most common anyway, and it is within this context that child
labour could possibly reap benefits.
The understanding behind this debate is that neither side can reach a perfect outcome. Thus, the
proposition needs to prove that child labour, while not ideal, is principally justified and in the best
interests of the child. On the other hand, the opposition needs to counter by showing that child
labour is more detrimental to the child, and that it would be better for him/her if child labour was not
employed in the developing world.
Definition
Child labour is defined by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF) as any minor working more than a certain number of hours a week.
Hence, the legal definition of child labour in each country depends on (a) the age of majority and (b)
the number of hours a week that defines child labour.
Child labour thus usually refers to minors who take up a permanent job, such as working in factories,
fishing vessels, plantations, among others. It is good to bear in mind that this work will usually
interfere with their education, either by forcing them to drop out of school or combine their school
attendance with excessively long and heavy work.
Prop policy:
The policy on Proposition needs to endorse some form of child labour, but should be a nuanced and
well-regulated policy that aims to maximize the benefits while minimizing the costs to the child. A
possible model to follow would include:
1. Legalize child labour in the developing world, and legitimize it in these select instances
2. Regulate child labour: laws on workplace safety, providing basic amounts of food and sleep as
per the needs of children, outlawing reckless endangering of children (like other workers)
3. Limit the forms of child labour: no child prostitutes, bondage, slavery - these are not part of the
real-world definition of child labour, and are inherently exploitative
4. Provide avenues of escape: regular checks on companies using child labor
Opp policy:
The policy on Opposition clearly cannot endorse child labour. However, at the same time, it should
provide some alternatives that it stands for. This allows it to stand for a world with solutions to the
problems that the developing world faces, rather than sounding unreasonable when saying no child
labour. A possible model to follow would include:
1. Do not stand for child labour: no legalization, or legitimization.

2. Alternative toolbox of solutions: development projects, compulsory education, better health

policies, birth control, higher quality schooling, targeted subsidies to encourage families to send
children to school, etc.
Prop

Opp

Child labour protects the rights

A ban on child labour protects

of children by enabling them to

the child and his rights.

survive.
Children have rights, more than
adults,

because

they

are

less

capable than adults of protecting

The

rights

of

the

child

are

themselves. In the UN Convention

important, but but like all rights,

on the Rights of the Child, children

they exist based on priorities.

are protected from abuse, and

When resources are limited, we

cannot be treated as possessions or

need to secure basic rights first.

chattels

At the same time, in the developing

world, basic rights are often not
currently fulfilled. The poorest parts
of the developing world live in
poverty, without enough food, and
are forced to live from hand to

These rights are important and

need to be upheld because parents
do not always make the best
decisions for their children, and
these rights protect the child from
abuse and harm in these cases.

mouth.
Child labour clearly violates these
Child labor helps children to fulfill

rights and hurts the child.

basic rights better, because it

allows children to supplant the

When deciding to work, parents

income of their family, helping to

have more leverage over the child.

put food on the table. This allows

They have the ability, through their

these children and families to

emotional bond, to compel the child

survive these harsh conditions.

to work. Often, they also have full

control over selling a child off. This

In fact, because we often cannot

send every child to school, some
element of child labor pays for the
education of a few and helps the
family in increasing their income in
the long-run.
Child

labor

means that the true consent of the

child is often not present when he
decides to work. Even if they do
agree to work, in the workplace,
children

are

less

capable

of

resisting abuse, running away, or

also

helps

as

temporary solution to tide families

through crises, before returning to
school to continue their schooling.
For example, in the 1990s, in
Vietnam, 80% of child labor was in
agriculture. When trade barriers
went down, prices went up, and

reporting abuse, because they are

more

easily

intimidated

and

physically controlled.
This work causes permanent harm
to the childs development and
growth: the workplace is often very
dangerous, in particular the jobs
that children are needed to fill. For

Prop

Opp

child labor went down accordingly

example, diving down to the coral

as families were relatively better

reefs to attach nets, because only

off.

children are small enough to get

down

deep.

The

pressure

Therefore, child labor is effective

permanently harms their body, and

and crucial in helping families and

many children end up attacked by

children survive, by securing their

carnivorous and poisonous fishes.

future without sacrificing todays

needs.

Similarly, an ILO report in 2002

found that 179 million children are
currently trapped in child labour that
endangers

the

childs

physical,

mental or moral well-being.

Even when the work is not in itself
dangerous, children need more rest
and nutrition in their growing years,
and this is unlikely to happen when
they are needed to work a sizable
amount of time a day to maintain
economic value.
Furthermore, parents end up having
an economic incentive to sell their
children as labor for money, rather
than necessity. For example, Brazil
in 1990s, when coffee prices went
up, child labour rates went up as
well, and school attendance went
down, because parents used this
opportunity to profit.
The child labour market protects

Child labour hurts the economic

children from worse exploitation.

development of the country.

Because of the sheer poverty in

Child labor prevents children from

developing world, the desperation

attending school over a sustained

of families means that children will

period of time, because they spend

always need to be a source of

most of their time and energy

income. (32% of workforce in Africa

recuperating and working, leaving

and 22% in Asia are children,

nothing

despite its illegality)

Furthermore, they often have to

work

much
substantial

for

schooling.

hours

to

be

for

the

Therefore, the best thing we can do

economically

is to ensure children are not

employer.

exploited, and gives them the best

Leone and Niger, 78% child labor

productive

For

example,

Sierra

Prop

Opp

chance for development in the

%, about 30% school attendance.

future. This means we need to

protect them from bondage, work

This results in a less educated

without

into

workforce in the future, without the

excessively

basic literacy/numeracy skills to

pay,

servitude,

being
or

sold

dangerous work.

take on more advanced jobs.

Legalizing the child labor market

Without these skills, citizens will

lack the ability to take on better

combats exploitation, because:

jobs, and thus be locked into the

Resources spent enforcing can be

same low-paying industry as before.

better used to make workplaces

safer,

and

without

punishing

This leads to a poverty trap, where

parents for their poverty instead.

individuals

For

improve their position.

example,

in

Thailand,

knowledge or connivance of child

labor = 4-20 years prison for
parents, fine of 80,000 to 400,000
baht. In the Philippines its a 5000
pesos fine, 6 months jail.

parents to respond by sending

children to kids in informal sector,
which is often more dangerous,
because they want to avoid getting
With

legal

never

able

to

ILO estimates that banning child

labor and educating all children
would raise the worlds total income
by 22% over 20 years, because of
the economic boost of primary and

Making child labor illegal forces

caught.

are

market

alternative, we will be able to

lower secondary education, as well

as health benefits.
Hence, since child labor sacrifices
the

future

human

development

capital

and

of

our

economic

development, a ban on child labor is

necessary.

regulate workplaces and provide a

safer option for parents. Parents
will be less likely to take the illegal
option, even if it pays more,
because of the risk analysis parents know that its dangerous to
send children to black market
sectors, and what they need most
is a stable income. Given that the
legal option provides this with far
less risk, parents are less likely to
send children to more dangerous
forms of child labor.
Thus, a legal child labor market
better

protects

children

from

exploitation.
Legalizing child labour gives

Legalizing child labour makes it

Prop
children

Opp
the

real-world

skills

harder to protect the child.

needed to survive.

The legalization of child labor is

In the developing world, support

tantamount

to

the

structures, where adults take care

legitimizing

of their childrens welfare, are not

encourages and endorses parents

always present. This could be

treating

because of parents who are forced

instruments, or tools for income.

the

government
act.

children

as

This

economic

to work far away from their homes,

or who die young due to AIDS or

This makes it harder for us to

other diseases. Furthermore, state

protect children from other forms of

welfare

or

abuse in society. It encourages

underprivileged children is usually

parents to sell their children into

non-existent, because of a lack of

worse

resources.

lucrative

for

orphans

occupations
payouts,

with
in

more

order

to

maximize the income of the child,

In these cases, children are often

such

as

prostitution,

marriage,

forced to take care of themselves,

factory work. It also encourages

and their siblings, at an extremely

more to offer these illegal jobs,

young age. This is not an ideal

because they justify their approach

circumstance, but legalizing child

with the same economic logic of

labour helps these children survive.

proposition. The state has already

legitimized the trade-off between

Compared to traditional education,

child labour allows children the
opportunity to pick up trades or

welfare of

child

and economic

necessity, so both parties are going

to be more likely to do so.

work skills. These enable them to

find jobs despite not having literacy

It also makes it harder for parents to

or a full education. Furthermore,

distinguish between legitimate and

child labour helps children develop

illegitimate occupations for their

a sense of the real world through

children. Most of them are not

the work experience they obtain.

educated, very vulnerable. In the

status quo, there are already many

This enables them to survive better

who are tricked into child or human

in the absence of parents or

trafficking in the developing world

guardians, because minors who

with the promise of a better life,

have experienced some form of

thinking its a legitimate venture.

child labour will be better able to

This is going to be worse when they

hold down a job for himself, as well

are expected to distinguish between

as make decisions for his siblings if

legal and illegal forms of child labor,

needed. This gives a significant

number of broken families the best
opportunity to survive the loss of

as compared to an outright ban on

all child labor and education that all
forms are illegal.

one or both parents, and thus

Since legalizing child labor hampers

Prop

Opp

should be legalized.

our ability to protect children from

worse abuse, we would not legalize
it.

Debate 3: THW tie development aid to environmental standards.

Prop policy:
Proposition teams must consider the following questions in their model or policy. Given the fiasco
surrounding environmental negotiations in Copenhagen (2009) and Mexico City (2010), it is vital for
the Proposition to demonstrate that a fair and equitable arrangement acceptable to all parties is
feasible in the real world.
What are the types of aid being discussed? (note the distinction between developmental aid, which
is used to promote long-term economic growth, and humanitarian aid, which is used to alleviate
immediate suffering after a natural disaster)
Through what channels do these types of aid reach their recipients? NGOs like Red Cross or
Oxfam? International organizations like World Bank and IMF?
What are the environmental standards which will be used? (e.g. United Nations Environmental
Program / Kyoto protocol)
Who will objectively and accurately assess whether these standards are met? How will they do so?
Opp policy:
For the sake of consistency, the clearest line for opposition to argue is that developmental aid should
always be given unconditionally. To demonstrate how environmental problems can be solved in their
paradigm, opposition could suggest alternative mechanisms by which environmental protection can
be upheld in developing countries. For instance, this could include the transfer of environmentallyfriendly technology from richer to poorer nations. Nonetheless, opposition teams must ensure that
the mechanisms they propose do not contract the principles they enshrine in their constructive
arguments. For example, threatening economic sanctions or tariffs against polluting countries would
go against an argument about how developing countries should be allowed to develop first and take
care of the environment later.
Prop

Opp

Developing nations have an equal

Developing nations have a right

duty

to prioritize economic growth

to

uphold

standards

and

environmental
should

be

over environmental protection.

penalized if they fail to do so.

There is almost always a trade-off

At its heart, development is about

to be made between the economy

protecting the welfare of the people.

and the environment. Building a

Environmental

not

factory means cutting down trees;

exclusive to this aim, because the

expanding the transport system

effects of environmental damage

means increasing air pollution. In

directly compromise the quality of life

the case of developing countries,

protection

is

environmental damage is inevitable

Prop

Opp

of locals.

in

achieving

growth.

This

is

because growth necessarily entails

First, pollution severely threatens the

a shift from low-value agricultural

health of people. An asthmatic child

activities

to

more

intensive

in Beijing literally chokes to death

secondary

industries.

Moreover,

from the impenetrable smog in the

these countries lack the money and

air; a person living drinking tainted

expertise

water from the Mekong River risks

environmentally-friendly

developing cancer.

which are more expensive.

Second, environmental degradation

tears apart homes and habitats.
When forests are indiscriminately cut
down,

indigenous

peoples

are

displaced; when soil erosion occurs,

farmland

becomes

barren

and

destroys livelihoods.

fuels

introduce
solutions

It is unfair to expect developing

nations

to

uphold

the

same

environmental standards as the first

world,

because

developed

countries accumulated its wealth

through rapid industrialization which
caused present-day environmental

Third, climate change and global

warming

to

natural

disasters

which ravage developing nations

and claim lives. Hence, it is an issue

degradation

in

the

first

place.

Developing countries should not be

denied the same opportunity to
grow.

which must be mitigated at all costs.

Moreover, the developed world is

We have already seen the powerful

actually

effects of global warming in action

environmental problems in the third

during

world. The most polluting factories

Hurricane

Katrina

and

Cyclone Nargis.
Worse,

3rd-party

harm

from

other nations as well, because air

water

pollution

for

most

are funded by first-world consumers

environmental damage accrues to

and

liable

knows

no

borders. This is fundamentally unjust

to countries that do not pollute and
must be stopped.

and

controlled

headquartered

in

by

MNCs

major

cities.

Even till today, developed countries

fail to uphold their obligations under
international

environmental

agreements and refused to be held

to account. Consequently, it is
unjustified to expect developing

While the first world may have

countries to bear full responsibility

developed at the expense of the

for environmental problems.

environment, the crucial distinction is

that it had no knowledge of the
harms it was precipitating. Humanity
ought to have learnt its lesson and
its developmental trajectory should
reflect this.

Given that most developing nations

dependent
survival,

on

foreign

tying

aid

aid

for

to

the

environment equates to functionally

compelling them to choose the
environment over economic growth.

Consequently, development without

attention to environmental protection

This

is

particularly

damning

because the basic needs of citizens

Prop
is

Opp

irresponsible

and

dangerous.

in the third world are still not being

However, governments are often too

met up to 2 billion people still live

blinded by short-term realities and

below the UN poverty line of $2 a

the demands of a hungry electorate

day. Hence, the foremost goal of

to do what is best for their country.

governments

in

the

developing

world should (legitimately) be on

Hence, developmental aid ought to

alleviating this immediate suffering

nudge

in

and improving the standard of living

developing countries in the right

of the people which elects them.

direction.

Even though the environment is

governmental

policy

important as well, the long-term

implications of climate change and
pollution

come

second

to

the

pressing and direct needs of the

people.
Therefore, it is unfair to force
developing

countries

to

meet

environmental standards in order to

gain access to developmental aid.
Tied

aid

promotes

long-term

economic growth.

Slower

Tied

aid

hinders

long-term

environmental protection.

development

which

is

When developing countries are

environmentally sustainable ends up

forced

to

adopt

stringent

being more beneficial in the long run.

environmental standards at the

expense of growth in order to gain

Why? Economic growth which fails

to

account

for

environmental

standards often entails exploiting

and extracting resources (be in
fertile land, forest, oil or coal) in the

access

to

aid,

citizens

governments

perceive

environmentalism
neocolonial

and

to

imposition

be
on

a
their

independence and autonomy.

quickest rate possible. This is done

without

regard

for

whether

the

Consequently,

the

aim

of

resource is able to naturally renew

developing countries becomes to

and replenish itself.

gain aid as quickly as possible by

superficially

Because these industries are so

lucrative,

companies

have

adhering

and
to

dogmatically
environmental

little

standards. Outside the purview of

incentive to diversity into higher-

these indices, these countries have

value economic activities. Amongst

no regard for the environment. This

companies, the profit motive dictates

is

that they try to gain as much as

environment covers such a broad

possible from a countrys resources

problematic,

because

the

scope of factors that no set of

Prop
before

Opp
a

competitor

reaps

the

benefits (read more on the Tragedy

standards can possible cover all of

them.

of the Commons).
Worse, developing countries have a
Eventually, the resources that the

perverse

country depends on will run out due

environmental

to

no

concealing them a problem which

alternative to turn to, economic

is hard to resolve due to endemic

stagnation and decline occurs.

corruption

unsustainable

use.

With

incentive

development

must

environmental

meet

cover-up

abuses

and

problems
As such, any sustainable model of

to

by

enforcement

under

such

circumstances.

sound

standards.

An

In contrast, our model allows the

important mechanism for ensuring

local population to progressively

this is to tie developmental aid to

buy

environmental protection.

environmentalism as it becomes

into

the

principles

of

wealthier and gains the means to

care

for

and

protect

its

surroundings. This gradual uptake

of conservationism permits civil
society

to

pressure

their

governments into becoming truly

environmentally-friendly

through

advocacy and campaigning. It also

increases the chances of success
of

environmental

winning

over

initiatives

the

support

by
and

adherence of the people.

In sum, the path to truly sustainable
growth is one without tied aid.
Developed nations have no duty

Developed

to give aid and are legitimate in

inherent duty to give aid to

using aid to further their own

poorer

countries;

interests,

should

not

including

that

of

environmentalism.

instrument

nations

be
to

have
hence,

used

aid

as

achieve

an

an

other

goals.

The premise of this argument is that

the foremost duty of any government

The wealth of a nation is based on

is to protect its own people. This is

morally arbitrary circumstances it

because governments derive their

is through the lottery of geography

legitimacy from the consent of those

and

which elect them and fund its activity

situation

history that
on

country is

piece

of

land

endowed with mineral resources, or

Prop

Opp

through taxes.

at a strategic location near shipping

routes.

Aid is no different in this regard and

ought to be used strategically as a

Therefore, it can never be truly said

foreign policy tool to advance the

that a developed country truly

interests of the donor nation.

earned its riches. Vice versa, it is

inherently unfair that some nations

Given that the polluting practices of

the third world harm the citizens of

are

disadvantaged

by

factors

beyond their control.

the first world (as w have proven

above), governments of developed

Consequently, developed countries

countries have a right to defend their

have a duty to compensate for

own interests by urging developing

these accidental circumstances by

nations to adopt more stringent

sharing the benefits they have

environmental standards.

reaped with the less fortunate.

If

this

requires

the

tying

of

Furthermore, developed nations are

developmental aid to environmental

often responsible for the plight of

standards, we would be prepared to

poorer countries. For instance, the

do it.

legacy

of

colonial

exploitation

abuse

continues

to

and
foster

tribal conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa

and

prevent

sustained

growth.

Therefore, developed nations have

a duty to recompense for past
wrongs.
One important instrument by which
this can be accomplished is through
the

provision

of

developmental

aid.

Because this is an inherent

duty that developed countries have

to developing ones, however, aid
should not be used to further any
particular agenda, including that of
environmentalism.
immoral

and

Hence,
unjust

it

is
for

developmental aid to be tied to

environmental standards.

Debate 4: THW remove patents for AIDS drugs in the developing

world

Context:
The bulk of HIV/AIDS infections and eventual casualties occur in developing countries; in 2007, the
WHO estimated that 76% of HIV/AIDS-related deaths occurred in Sub-Saharan Africa. Given the
extent of poverty in these nations, many afflicted with HIV/AIDS cannot afford the lifelong therapy of
antiretrovirals needed to manage HIV/AIDS.
It is in this context, that we consider the removal of patents on AIDS drugs. Currently,
pharmaceutical companies that originate from developed nations patent new drugs so that, for a
period that usually lasts from 7-12 years, these companies have a monopoly on the production and
sale of that drug. The rationale given is that these new drugs are the intellectual property of these
companies, and that these companies must be allowed to recoup the colossal costs of R&D. This
monopoly thus allows a pharmaceutical to control the price of the drug for the period of the patent.
In a world without patents, other drug manufacturers would be allowed to produce the same drug. As
a result of the competition, the price of the drug would be driven downwards. These drugs would
then, presumably be affordable to HIV/AIDS patients in the developing world.
Operating in the background of this entire debate is the shadow of what HIV/AIDS is. Is it an
incurable disease that patients will always be consigned to managing with lifelong, costly therapy?
Or is it in fact, a disease with a cure that is within our reach with R&D continuing. In Germany, a man
who received experimental bone marrow transplant in 2007 has reportedly been cured of AIDS
completely. The HIV can no longer be found in his blood.
Bear in mind that many of the arguments below swing at the fulcrum of characterization/context.
Consider these questions and others on the status quo during prep:
What is the behavior of pharmaceuticals like in the developing world? Altruistic or
mercenary? A bit of both?
What sorts of drugs are available in the status quo to developing countries? The reasonably
functional, the grossly outmoded or the top-of-the-line? Why is it any of these cases?
What is the nature of the HIV/AIDS epidemic? Is the threat receding or is it just as dangerous
today as it was 2 decades ago? What are the modern problems in managing HIV in the
developing world?
Clash:
What is more important in the fight against HIV/AIDS Incentivizing further R&D or Ensuring
affordability today? The question that underpins this question is whether the two are mutually
exclusive or if either team can better maximizes these two goods.
Strategic concerns:
The Proposition must decide in prep if they plan on removing the patents in developing
countries aloneor if they would extend the policy to developed countries as well. Both stances have
strategic implications. Should you choose the former, a team would have to defend against the
accusation of a inconsistency of principle; the impoverished in the developed world have just as

much trouble securing their treatment as those in the developing world, the Opposition may argue.
Should you choose the latter, the arguments that R&D would become unprofitable become
particularly resonant as there would be no market where these firms would not be undercut.
The Opposition can include a buffer in their model that they would tighten patent law to prevent
exploitative extensions of patents. It would be helpful to illustrate the feasibility of making patent law
airtight by showing existing trends in the direction. This would counteract the weight of some the
Propositions rhetoric and argumentation that patents eventually last forever, preventing developing
nations

from

ever

getting

the

drugs

they

Prop

Opp

People in developing countries

Pharmaceuticals

will be saved.

intellectual

need.

right

property

to

must

be

upheld.
The poor in the developing world
need

these

drugs

to

continue

The right to property arises because

surviving. There is a need for the

we acquire property on account of

most recent of drugs because HIV

our efforts

is becoming increasingly resistant

to the first-generation of drugs that
are no longer protected under
patents. In addition these firstgeneration

drugs

come

with

debilitating side effects that remove

The reason we own the land we

bought is because the money we
used to buy it is the product of our
labour
Similarly, new antiretrovirals are the

HIV/AIDS sufferers quality of life.

product

To deprive them of these drugs is to

labour. In its creation went the

remove their ability to live lives of

efforts of countless researchers,

dignity that all human beings

financiers, etc.

deserve on account of where their

poverty and where they were born.
These circumstances were beyond
their control and such deprivation is

of

pharmaceuticals

Because it is their property, they

have the right to seek out protection
of

that

property

and

for

that

protection to be respected.

unfair.
When
They do not get access to these
new drugs because they are too
expensive for NGOs, hospitals and

governments

start

taking

away patent protections, it is saying

that other people can make claims
on your property

governments to distribute in these

nations.

This is the equivalent of the rest of

society

This was the precise cause of the

massive protests in Rabat, Morocco
a only marginally democratic state

staking

claim

on

what

brought your property about in the

first place: your labour.

against the high prices of such

Therefore the abolition of patents is

drugs.

morally equivalent to the enslaving

of those researchers by society and

Prop
If

Opp

patents

are

removed,

no

cannot be tolerated.

pharmaceutical will have monopoly

over the sale of the drug.
Generic drug companies local to
developing countries will be able to
produce the drugs at a far cheaper
cost

than

the

pharmaceuticals

because manufacturing these drugs

is in fact very cheap. The drug will
thus become more affordable to buy
and distribute
AIDS

triple-combination

therapy,

which costs US$ 10 000 per patient

per year in industrialized countries,
can now be obtained from Indian
generic drugs company, Cipla, for
less than US$ 200 per year
Thus, the people in developing
countries who are desperately in
need, will no longer have to suffer
the degradation of their dignity and
lives.
R&D by pharmaceuticals is in

R&D will be compromised by the

fact

removal of patents

sped

up

by

removing

patents.
R&D

is

crucial

in

combating

HIV/AIDS. New drugs and new

combinations are crucial in easing
Patents hinder the introduction of
generic

drugs

anti-retroviral

drugs manufactured by smaller,

local companies.
Paracetamol is a generic drug it
has exactly the same chemical
composition as Panadol but is
manufactured by many companies
worldwide as patent rights to the
chemical composition have expired.
Generic drug companies drive R&D
in two ways.

the

debilitating

side

effects

of

antiretroviral drugs, increasing the

degree of inhibition of the virus ie.
Increasing life-span, decreasing the
chances of secondary infection, etc.
Some new drugs have even been
shown to have preventive effects.
None of these developments are
possible without continued R&D
Triple-combination HIV therapy was
only

made

possible

after

the

development of the drug Saquinavir

which began in 1987 and only bore

Firstly, they can take on R&D on a

Prop

Opp

smaller

scale

themselves,

fruit in 1995.

piggybacking on the unpatented

developments

made

by

larger

R&D is immensely costly. This is

because of the inherent costs of

pharmaceuticals

employment,

equipment,

Secondly, by producing the same

administering trials, etc. Secondly,

drug as big pharmaceuticals, they

there are several drugs that fail

create

completely in R&D; the capital

competition

for

these

pharmaceuticals.

invested in these drugs is never

recouped

In order to maintain their profits and

status

as

market-leaders,

pharmaceuticals will now have to

speed up R&D as the differentiating
gap between them and the generic
drug

companies

narrowed.

would

because

they

never

become viable products. Therefore,

for every new successful product,
there are the added costs of every
failure the led to the eventual
product.

have
Therefore,

the

cost

to

pharmaceutical developing a drug

far outweigh the cost of merely
manufacturing.
The research costs of a standard
anti-retroviral drug for instance, are
estimated at over US$ 400 billion
Therefore, a pharmaceutical can
thus be easily outcompeted by
generic drug companies in terms of
price as generic drug companies
have far lower costs because they
only manufacture
Therefore,

in

world

without

patents, a pharmaceutical will not

be able to make a profit on newly
developed drugs.
There will thus be no incentive for
them to develop these drugs
Patents in the developed world are
insufficient to ensure profitability
because HIV/AIDS is becoming a
rarity in the developed world; the
market for these drugs has shrunk
significantly.
Therefore, the only viable means of

Prop

Opp
securing

more

maintenance

of

R&D
patents

is
in

the
the

developing world.
Patents are prone to exploitation

Pharmaceuticals will be driven to

that worsens the HIV/AIDS crises

keeping the fruits of their R&D

trade secrets

When

patents

are

in

place,

pharmaceuticals will strive to keep

In IP law, there exist several types

them in place as long as possible.

of legal protections of intellectual

property. One of these is patents

This is because this would allow

and the other, is trade secret

them to maintain their monopoly

protection.

and thus their supernormal profits

for an even longer span of time.

Patents function on the disclosure

of

Consequently, pharmaceuticals will

make small changes to the product
or the manufacturing process that
would make their drug eligible for a
new patent.
Therefore,

information;

Pharmaceuticals

disclose

information

about

product,

manufacturing

their

process,

etc. and agree that their monopoly

on that product will cease after a
period of time in return for a wider

the

patent

will

be

ambit of legal protections.

extended indefinitely. This process

Trade secrets allow companies to

is called evergreening.

maintain the secrecy of the process

Governmental regulation on such

exploitation

is

difficult

because

pharmaceuticals will always look for

loopholes in the regulations and
tweak their product accordingly.

merely change the colour of the

casing of the drug in order to
their

patent.

fewer legal protections in the event

the secret is found out.
Currently pharmaceuticals prefer to
patent their developments because

In the past, drug companies would

evergreen

and product indefinitely, albeit with

When

regulation tightened, they began

changing non-critical aspects of the
drug like the concentration of water,
the means of administration, etc.

they are confident that they will

recoup their R&D losses within the
timeframe of the patent. Therefore,
pharmaceuticals prefer the wider
legal protections of a patent over
the indefinite timeframe of trade
secrets.
If

Therefore, regulation is at best

reactive rather than proactive to the

we

remove

patents,

pharmaceuticals no longer have the

guarantee of recouping their costs.

new methods of exploitation that

Pharmaceuticals will thus be more

companies find.

inclined to protecting innovations

Therefore, HIV/AIDS patients in

developing

world

are

likely

to

through trade secrets because this

will allow them to recover the losses

Prop

Opp

continue receiving old-generation

they made in R&D

antiretrovirals as they will not be

This is a bad thing because this

able to afford the newer drugs.

means that information on how to

This will worsen the plight of

develop

HIV/AIDS

the

improvements in the manufacturing

developing world who will have to

process will no longer be shared

wait even longer to get drugs at an

with the entire industry

sufferers

in

certain

drugs

and

affordable price, if ever at all.

Therefore the existing framework of
R&D

where

pharmaceutical

piggybacks on the research of each

other will not exist.
The development of new and better
drugs will thus take longer, meaning
more people suffering and dying of
HIV/AIDS in the interim.

Debate 5: THW cancel the debts of developing nations

Context:
The debts of developing nations refers to the foreign debt owed to external creditors by
the governments of those nations. This includes the repayment of financial and
developmental loans, as well as debt transferred from former colonial powers to their
former colonies. External creditors include individual countries, as in the case of the
debt Haiti owed to France as the price of independence, as well as international
monetary institutions, as in the lending schemes offered by the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank.
Often, this external debt is crippling to the economies of developing nations which
cannot afford to repay, especially with the relatively high interest rates attached to
loans.
Initiatives seeking to cancel or reduce developing nations debts have been attempted
by various parties before. This includes individual state actors, as in the case of
Frances reduction of Haitis debt in the 1800s, and global activist groups like the
Jubilee Debt Coalition, which calls for the abolition of unpayable debt.
The central questions of this debate are:
1. Who, in principle, should shoulder the burden of debt?
2. What is best for the developing world?
3. What are the effects of debt cancellation on the developed world and the international
community?

Proposition:
We advocate a complete abolition of all external debt owed by all developing nations.
This will be a once-off policy; loans undertaken after this cancellation takes effect must
be repaid. We also support ongoing global efforts to improve the transparency and
fairness of all loans made by corporations, governments, and international financial
institutions, such that future loans can be made in a just fashion.
Opposition:
We stand for a variety of possible measures to help the developing world with its debt
burden, including the restructuring of debt, reduction or cancellation of interest, and
extending the time period across which the sum must be repaid. However, the principal
sum
must
be
repaid.

Prop

Opp

Debt cancellation is the duty

of the developed world

Canceling debt is unfair to

the developed world

Thesis: the developing world

Thesis: it is unfair in principle

Prop

Opp

should not be forced to adhere

to agreements it had no control
over.

to deny citizens of the

developed world what is
rightfully theirs

We hold individuals responsible

for their own actions. This
principle
is
extended
to
democratic states if the
people of a nation have chosen
a particular government to
represent their interests and
make agreements on their
behalf,
then
they
are
responsible for the actions of
that government.

Monetary
loans
are
fundamentally taken out of the
pockets of citizens in the
developed world. Whether it
comes from governments, in
which case they are extracted
from taxpayers money, or from
corporations, in which case
they are the property of the
owners and shareholders of
those companies, they are the
property of citizens.

However, the vast majority of

developing nations currently
saddled with debt are nondemocracies. This means that
citizens of those nations had no
control over the financial
agreements made by their
dictatorial rulers.
The problem is that debt
repayment often incurs great
costs to the citizens of
developing nations. Developing
nations that have emerged from
the dictatorial regimes that
incurred the debt in the first
place are forced to utilize their
own financial reserves and
taxpayers money to repay,
while in developing nations
which are still ruled by
dictatorships, dictators simply
increase
taxes
or
divert
resources to finance debt
repayment, ignoring the harm
caused to their people.
Thus it is unjust in principle to
force the burden of debt
repayment onto a people who
had no say in the creation of

Citizens of the developed

world deserve to have their
money returned to them. This
is especially relevant to
developed nations struggling to
deal with financial troubles
brought about by the recent
financial crisis. The repayment
of loans goes to funding
welfare programs in the
developed world which support
the poor and needy.
Furthermore, the loans made
to developing nations did bring
about benefits. Other than
direct developmental loans
which
contributed
to
infrastructure building, even
monetary loans used by
dictators to support their
regimes were paradoxically
better for citizens of those
countries.
This is because the dictators
alternative to using funds from
external creditors would have
been to extort that amount
from his people; hence, the

Prop

Opp

that debt in the first place.

loans actually allowed them to

retain a greater portion of their
property.

However, this injustice is even

more severe in the case of
developing nations debt, for a
variety of reasons.
Firstly, because developed
nations which gave loans to
dictatorial regimes often knew
these loans would be used to
fund brutal and oppressive
practices, or that large portions
of the loans would be siphoned
off through corruption. This
happened in the case of South
Africa,
where
lenders
essentially fueled the Apartheid
regime; it is unconscionable
that South Africa was forced to
repay the very loans used to
brutalize them. This was also
seen in Zimbabwe, where the
Ian Smith regime borrowed
heavily to finance military
spending to maintain its fragile
grip on the nation through
violence and terror; creditors in
the developed world knew full
well where the money was
going.
Debt cancellation is the duty
of the developed world
(cont.)

Secondly, because of the

legacy of colonialism. After
former
colonies
declared
independence
from
their
colonial masters, they were
often forced to pay reparations
or shoulder part of the colonial
masters debt in return for
independence. France forced

Thus, there is a principle

obligation for the developing
world to pay off its debts.

Prop

Opp

Haiti to pay 150 million francs in

return for French recognition of
Haiti as an independent state.

Thirdly, because the developed

world is responsible for the
creation of monetary institutions
that cripple the developing
world. Institutions like the World
Bank and the IMF impose
conditions on monetary loans
that
cripple
developing
economies, which will be
further explained later.

Thus, it is unjust to compel a

person to pay for the actions of
another, and it is the duty of the
developed world to cancel debt
because it was complicit in the
creation
of
poverty
and
suffering.
Debt cancellation gives the
developing
world
the
freedom to grow

Canceling debt undermines

the growth of the developing
world

Thesis:
debt
cancellation
removes a massive financial
burden from the developing
world

Thesis:
debt
cancellation
undermines
investor
confidence in the developing
world

To finance debt repayment,

developing countries divert their
national financial resources to
pay off debt.

Realistically, the developing

world still requires a great deal
of investment and borrowing in
order to grow. This is because
the developing world requires
the raw capital to kickstart
expansion into new sectors; it
also benefits greatly from
infrastructural investment. For
example, Chinas investment in
the
African
continent
is

This is highly problematic

because it means a reduction
of spending on social services.
In developing countries like
Angola, Liberia and Lebanon,
total external debt dwarfs

Prop

Opp

government expenditure on
public services. In 2004,
Ecuador spent 12% of its GDP
paying off debts and just over
3%
on
healthcare
and
education.

expected to increase to $50

billion by 2015; it commonly
undertakes
developmental
projects,
including
the
construction
of
roads,
railroads, and ports, which
facilitate internal movement
and growth.

This is very significant in the

developing
world.
The
expenditure on debt repayment
prevents developing nations
from providing basic standards
of living for their people. This
means fewer people have
access to hospitals, keeping
disease rampant and difficult to
cure, and children have less
access to schools, which
denies them their ability to learn
and grow. In fact, some
extrapolations
based
on
UNICEF data suggest that
several million children in subSaharan Africa who perished
due to extreme poverty could
have been saved by the huge
sums of money spent instead
on paying off debt since the
1980s.
Thus, canceling debt allows the
developing world to spend on
protecting its citizens.
Furthermore, canceling debt
aids the growth of the
developing world. The poor
living conditions of citizens
prevents them from contributing
effectively to the workforce.
Citizens who are not afflicted by
rampant disease can contribute
more effectively; greater access
to education would add to the
skills of people in the
workforce.
Many
Chinese

The problem is that debt

cancellation
creates
the
perception of a moral hazard.
Even if debt cancellation is
only once-off, at the point
where the developing world
succeeds in
securing a
complete debt cancellation
deal, it creates the fear of such
a deal being secured in the
future.
This
undermines
investor
confidence,
because
it
suggests that the developing
world might begin to undertake
reckless borrowing schemes
without
regard
for
the
consequence, as someday
developing countries might
simply secure another debt
cancellation deal. This skews
the risk/reward analysis of
investors
away
from
developing nations by adding
significant uncertainty in the
returns of investment.
Consequently, the growth
developing
nations
undermined by the loss
investor confidence when
debts are cancelled.

of
is
of
all

Prop

Opp

corporations, in their operations

in the African continent, have
placed a premium on ensuring
that their local employees are
kept in decent working and
living conditions.
Thus canceling debt allows
developing nations to increase
the living standards of their
people, as well as to develop
their economies better.
Debt

cancellation

developing

world

frees

the

from

the

shackles of the developed world

Thesis: debt repayment forces the
developing world to stay beholden
to international financial institutions
set up by the developed world
Often, developing nations are forced
to take loans to pay off their debts.
These additional loans usually come
from

international

financial

institutions like the World Bank and

the

IMF.

This

is

problematic

because these loans come with

conditions that stifle development.
The first general condition is a
restriction of public expenditure in
order to keep the nations budget
balanced.

This

because

it

is

detrimental

means

decreased

access to hospitals and schools,

which

not

only

leaves

citizens

unable to take care of the sick and

educate

the

young,

but

also

hampers development by keeping

developing nations mired in disease
and illiteracy.
The second type of condition is the
opening up of markets, supposedly
to

allow

developed

nations

to

Prop

Opp

compete with local industries. The

problem is that the developed world
continues to provide subsidies and
support to its own industries; this
means that they can flood the
developing worlds markets with
cheaper goods that undercut local
producers, driving
business

and

them

creating

out of
rampant

unemployment.
The third type of condition is the
privatization

of

public

services.

Problematically, the desire of private

corporations to maximize profits has
led to an increase in the price of
public

services

developing

world;

across
in

the
some

countries, water supply has been

cut off by private corporations to
those who cannot pay, which is
unconscionable, since access to
water water is a basic human right.
Additionally,

legal

recourse

is

lacking when a relatively small

number of private companies hold
strangleholds over public services.
Furthermore, even if these loans
didnt come with harmful conditions,
they only succeed in trapping the
developing world in a vicious cycle
of debt repayment, as additional
borrowing only increases debt which
will still have to be paid off later.
Thus canceling debt allows the
developing world to escape from
entrapment in poverty.