In the years following World War II, the global landscape began to change significantly with the decline of European colonial powers. This shift, combined with the rising momentum of independence movements, led to the emergence of several former colonies as sovereign nations. However, some colonial powers resisted this transition, engaging in prolonged and violent conflicts to delay decolonization. Others contributed to instability by drawing artificial boundaries and fostering divisions, resulting in long-lasting tensions and violence.
Following decolonization, former colonial powers sought to retain influence through economic means. Efforts to maintain an unequal global order included perpetuating unfair trade practices and strengthening the reach of multinational corporations. In countries such as Iran, Congo, and Chile, foreign powers—including the United States—intervened in domestic politics, even going so far as to remove democratically elected leaders, in efforts to protect economic interests and corporate access to natural resources.
Despite these challenges, the global discourse on development and trade—particularly in multilateral forums and institutions—acknowledged the historical injustices faced by countries of the Global South. There was a degree of recognition of the need to address these disparities. United Nations agencies and several international scholars contributed to the effort to promote a more equitable framework for trade and development.
For many years, concerns of the Global South remained part of the global agenda. While leading industrialized countries continued to prioritize their national interests, open assertions blaming developing nations for global economic issues were rare. However, this dynamic began to shift notably during the Trump administration in the United States. A narrative emerged that attributed economic challenges in wealthier nations to trade practices of poorer countries, including maintaining higher tariffs or failing to provide certain concessions.
This marked a significant change in tone and content. Instead of acknowledging the structural disadvantages faced by the Global South, the discourse began placing blame on developing countries, sidelining earlier concerns about equity and justice. The shift appeared designed to resist calls for preferential treatment or corrective action, and to justify the imposition of trade barriers and other restrictive measures.
In this changing landscape, it is useful to revisit earlier discussions on fair trade—particularly the recognition that historically marginalized countries deserve equitable treatment to recover from long-standing disadvantages. As someone involved in past campaigns for justice-based trade, I can attest that there was considerable support for this cause, including in parts of the Global North. Campaigns frequently relied on reports and data from organizations such as Oxfam and various UN bodies.
One such example is the Human Development Report (HDR) published by the UNDP, which dedicated a special issue to international trade. This report highlighted how policies in wealthier countries—especially agricultural subsidies—were detrimental to rural communities in the Global South. It noted that rich countries provided over $1 billion annually in aid to developing world agriculture, but nearly $1 billion daily in subsidies to their own agricultural sectors.
These subsidies allowed industrialized nations to dominate global agricultural markets, often undercutting farmers in developing countries. The HDR criticized the inefficiency and regressive nature of these subsidies, which mostly benefited large agribusinesses and wealthier farmers in developed nations.
The report also emphasized that access to subsidies, rather than comparative advantage, shaped success in agricultural trade. For example, U.S. cotton farmers received subsidies equivalent to the market value of their crop, distorting competition and deepening poverty in countries like Benin. Similarly, subsidized rice and sugar exports from the U.S. and the European Union displaced local producers in countries such as Ghana, Haiti, and others, severely harming rural livelihoods.
Oxfam’s report Rigged Rules and Double Standards reinforced these findings, documenting how the U.S. and EU frequently exported goods at prices far below production costs, devastating small-scale agriculture in developing countries.
These reports reflected a broad consensus that international trade rules disproportionately harmed the Global South and needed reform. Today, however, such concerns are being eclipsed by narratives that focus exclusively on the grievances of the wealthiest nations. These claims are often not subject to thorough scrutiny and risk sidelining evidence-based policy discussions.
In such a context, it is critical to re-center the conversation around facts, fairness, and historical accountability. Multilateral institutions, particularly the United Nations, should take an active role in promoting balanced and evidence-informed perspectives. Reaffirming the importance of equitable trade and development is essential to ensuring just outcomes for all nations.
---
The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Earth without Borders, Man over Machine and A Day in 2071
Comments