Anti-Corruption is Universal

I was very disappointed with the outcome of the simulation, first because each group spent so much time researching and developing a position and we didn't have enough time to complete the discussion and secondly, because of the general outcome decided by the six different parties, which I, coming from Doctors Without Borders, feel was missing an essential element.

There are two subject that I would like to touch on: the voting out of anti-corruption, because it is not too late to continue to push the subject, and the privatization issue which was debated concerning Doctors Without Borders.

To restate our goals, anti-corruption policies, privatization, trade liberalization, and foreign direct investment were our main points in that order of importance. I find it hard to believe that any government, especially the three of which were represented at the conference which have incredibly corrupt governments or histories, would choose to remove anti-corruption completely from the list. Deeming it a 'domestic' and 'personal' issue does not remove corruption from the state, nor distance it from the appeal for help, which is what we were developing in this conference. The fact is that corruption within a country leads to fairly in every other aspect. How will trade liberalization and foreign direct investment work if governments are corrupt and therefore cannot conduct the trade and products will not reach the people at lower prices as one of many possible outcomes. Countries such as Uganda and Ukraine where AIDS drugs are necessary have had problems distributed the drugs because of corruption in the government. All of this works to weaken the country, the population, which in the end determines the economic status of the country. One full of AIDS victims and other health risks, unsanitary water, electricity and other infrastructure problems, will not be able to overcome this solely by ignoring the corruption in its own country (trying to fix it on its own) and intending to continue relations with foreign states. Privatization and anti-corruption measures must work together as we tried to point out in class. As Titus mentioned, there is also corruption in the private sector, so privatizing is not always a solution, yet if the government is not corrupt, it is able to monitor that the private corporations within its state are doing their job correctly. Privatization, when working alongside a functioning government is able to greatly increase clean water, electricity, transportation, and most sections of infrastructure, as was mentioned in class.

As for the privatization remark about negative results found on the Doctors Without Borders website, I would like to say that of course, our outline of points would not work everywhere, yet a framework must be what is for the common good and can therefore help the largest amount of countries. The specific example that is listed on the Doctors Without Borders website is of Colombia, a country that has struggled for decades with incredibly resilient drug traders. Not only is Colombia a major producer of cocaine, but it also has had many changes in the government as well as corruption especially among police forces. As we mentioned, it is difficult to privatize without first eliminating corruption, yet it is still possible. I think it is unjust to jump on Doctors Without Borders as hypocritical with this one example of a country where privatization did not work, especially when there are examples such as the Dominican Republic where privatization is beginning to improve their electrical system which has been failing for many years.

The idea is a development conference, something to aid those places that need help in developing their countries. Most countries that are considered 'developing' are those that have withstood military dictatorships and corruption within the government as well as outside forces. Corruption is universal and is not something that can necessarily be fixed within a country. Many times it is something foreign that causes the corruption. To go back to Colombia as the example country, someone buys the cocaine. The corruption related to drugs, (as well as in Perú and Bolivia) is connected to an outside source that feeds that problem and the trade continues. It is a chain which doesn't end when the drug is resold; it is resold and transferred and sold again. Corruption is not something that exists solely within the country and is most definetely not something that the government can deal with on its own. Therefore, I am astonished that it was so quickly pushed off of the list. For all of the above reasons and others, Doctors Without Borders continued to push for anti-corruption measures to remain in the framework.

I enjoyed working on the simulation and researching the backgrounds on countries. I find the system of deciding these policies interesting, yet wish that we had more time, because I feel as though much of the research and information that we all have went to waste, in terms of talking in class. It is definetely the type of project where everyone must research the background behind the group in order to clearly represent, which at times was obvious.