International Organizations stop nations from reaching their full potential

"Your example shows how the IMF helps big country's more that little countries, you have not shown how this is harming the little country, more so than the IMF not existing. " In this case the definition of subsidies as A subsidy (also known as a subvention) is a form of financial assistance paid to a business or economic sector. [1] Perhaps i should be more detailed. Let us assume that the IMF has written up a proposal that simply states "Developed nations may not subsidize exports into developing nations to a price any lover than that nation allows, if they do so the IMF is required to counter subsidize" What the resolution is trying to do is stop countries from subsidizing their exports in order to manipulate the other countries economies, a very good thing and a good idea. Now we assume that the united states wants to maintain its power in influencing other nations economy. ie. crippling nations by subsidizing goods from the United States, thus selling the goods for a cheaper price than the home nation. So the large powers of the IMF vote against the resolution. I have created an excel spreadsheet that shows that the top 17 members hold 67.42% of the vote. [2] (I do not know how i could show you the spreadsheet i made, but i can give you the place where the raw data was found, and upon instruction will provide the spreadsheet. ) What that means is that these 17 members, arguably the most powerful nations in the world, hold the fate of these smaller nations (160 of them) in their hand. You can draw the conclusion yourself as to how the vote would go. And whilst this still brings us to the point that the larger nations are benefiting, the international community as whole benefits much more if the vote does pass. The fact that smaller nations economies becoming larger benefiting the intentional community as a whole was decided in the League of Nations conference in 1933. [3] "This is not stopping other nations from reaching their full potential, this is not helping them do so. " The case in Bosnia & Herzegovina was of this. Had the United Nations not taken action, and let the violence go unanswered, then the nation would have recovered economically at a much faster rate than right now. [4] What Joe Black said is that if the UN decided to take action then it should do so with food and aid, and not soldiers. [4] As of right now we see that B&H is still, almost 20 years later, the same as when the UN decided to intervene. New argument one: INGOs like the UN have already stopped developing nations. In this point we will take North Korea for an example. Ever since the Korean war, tensions between the west and the DPRK have always been touchy. The UN has time and time again imposed sanctions on North Korea and have virtually stopped their economic growth and development. [5] We see that the South Koreans have a booming economy with modern socio-economic stability. [6] The reason is, due to the UN, the US has gained enough power to press the DPRK due to bitter times in the 1950s. [7] I thank my opponent for listening and await his reply. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.imf.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://flag.blackened.net... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...