Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > How Can China and India be Classed as Developing Countries by the UN?

China has the second largest Economy in the world and it spends almost three times as much on Defence as the UK. India recently launched its own space station, is building its own aircraft carrier and in cooperation with Russia, it is building a 5th generation fighter aircraft (China already has one).

Oct 11, 2015 at 2:25 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Because there's a thick layer of white man's guilt in western society. Instead of seeing that those countries are as much a victim of their own decisions, certain people blame anything anyone did to them by dead people. I can't even say 'my people' because my ancestors were as much down trodden as most of those the British affected. They certainly weren't free in any modern form of the word.

There's a certain form of arrogance too, that perpetually assumes the Indians and Chinese need a helping hand any more.

I blame all the introspection into ancestry and history in general.

Oct 11, 2015 at 3:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

"How Can China and India be Classed as Developing Countries by the UN?"

Because they haven't yet exported most of their heavy industry to lower cost destinations?

That might seem a slightly flippant answer, but I was thinking about it the other day in the context of China now having higher per capita CO2 emissions than Western economies. The Western economies would have higher emissions today if more domestic heavy industry had remained. So they can be all smug about relatively lower emissions due to a more service-based economy.

Where could China export its heavy industry to as a means of reducing emissions? Effectively nowhere at present, and only to poorer nations in the longer term. This must be obvious to all except the rabid green muppets, and appears another reason why they won't get what they want from developing nations in Paris. Not without huge dollops of cold, hard cash. Developing nations won't sacrifice the opportunity that industrial development presents on the EU/Obama altar. .

Oct 11, 2015 at 3:01 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

What about Zimbabwe and Nigeria amongst others in Africa? Zimbabwe is not a developing nation; it is a wrecked nation and it once was the breadbasket of Africa. Nigeria has everything it needs but is totally corrupt?

Oct 11, 2015 at 3:17 PM | Registered CommenterDung

I've got no reply to that, Dung, other than to repeat what I said about Tuvalu on "The Perilis of Delegation" thread:

Tuvalu had met targets so that Tuvalu was to graduate from LDC (least developed country) status.

In 2013 Tuvalu deferred its graduation from LDC status to a developing country to 2015.
The reason?
"Once Tuvalu graduates to a developed country [said Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga], it will not be considered for funding assistance for climate change adaptation programmes like NAPA, which only goes to LDCs".

From my limited information, this seems to imply that a country can freely choose when it transitions up the scale.
Maybe countries like Zimbabwe are not allowed to voluntarily transition down the scale.

Politics, power, corruption,and lies, is probably the best suggestion I can make as being the reason.

Oct 11, 2015 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

"How Can China and India be Classed as Developing Countries by the UN?"

Because they have a lot of very poor people.

On a GDP per capita basis China is about 80th in the world.
Here's Wikipedia knowledge.

Oct 11, 2015 at 5:48 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Developing fighter planes
Developing space programs
Developing a naval air arm

I think that qualifies them admirably.

And both have nuclear weapons, which to me rather overrides any protestation about poor people.

Oct 11, 2015 at 6:26 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

Could it have anything to do with the fact that The UN knows it can not get China and India to sign up to any carbon emissions targets and so 'Developing Nations' is a convenient little back burner to park them on?

Oct 11, 2015 at 7:23 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Dung on Oct 11, 2015 at 3:17 PM
"Zimbabwe is not a developing nation; it is a wrecked nation and it once was the breadbasket of Africa."

The full, high impact quote is:

Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of Africa; it is now a basket case.

Oct 11, 2015 at 8:34 PM | Registered CommenterRobert Christopher


You are playing 'Devil's Advocate' and being horrible to poor Dung :(

Oct 11, 2015 at 10:01 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Dung, no question is sufficiently serious or valid that I won't squeeze a joke in given any kind of an opportunity.

Just an observation, both the nations in the original question began their economic miracles by relaxing central planning and control. Each could have been surging since the 1940s had they adopted the economic policies of John Cowperthwaite in Hong Kong. How did socialism help the poor folks?

Oct 11, 2015 at 11:23 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

The term 'underdeveloped', was deemed politically incorrect. The term 'developed', implies wealty, and therefore able to pay money, towards those who are 'developing', who need more money from the developed.

There is no financial or poltical advantage for any country to be seen as developed, and the Key Performance Indicators are therefore VeeDubbed accordingly. Whether money changes hands for sympathetic UN assessments, is, of course, a developing story.

Oct 12, 2015 at 1:14 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Qn : "How Can China and India be Classed as Developing Countries by the UN?"
Because they are.

#1 Maybe what Dung means is : "How Can China and India be Classed as UNDEVELOPED Countries by the UN?

#2 Why for climate ? is that used as an simplistic arbitrary divider for UN Climate policy is the main question.
There is a million mile difference between them and basket case countries, so why are they both treated equally ?

* You could say that western countries are the undeveloping countries cos our living standards by many measures seem to be falling.

Oct 12, 2015 at 2:56 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Agree wholeheartedly about the arrogance.
The thought had occurred to me while reading your first paragraph but before I got to your second! The average western European, especially those who had any aspiration to a succesful Empire (which means the British, the French, the Dutch, the Germans (sort of)), have never successfuly shaken off the idea that "these people" still need all the help we can give them, "poor benighted souls that they are".
And these "poor benighted souls", not being quite as naive and backward as we still like to believe, see no reason why they should say "stop" while we're busy funding, in effect, their nuclear development and their space programme.
Specifically on climate, I am 100% with any country anywhere that still needs cheap, reliable energy — aka coal! — to develop their economies to the point where their people enjoy the same standard of living, health and longevity that I do.
Perhaps Philippe Sands could redirect his obsession towards getting the ICJ to condemn rather than support those whose activities hold back human development in less developed places and delay the day when their life expectancy is as good as his.

Oct 12, 2015 at 9:40 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Actually, MJ, India did say, "Stop!" not so long ago, but our PM over-ruled them, and insisted that they take £1 BILLION of UK tax-payers' money ('cos he wants to show that he cares about non-white foreigners, don'cha know?).

Oct 12, 2015 at 10:58 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

You're right! I'd forgotten that. Didn't he dress it up as something else to save face?
Still the argument holds good. If we are prepared to continue pouring aid into a country or make reparations for something we did 200 years ago why would poor countries not say, "thank you very much. When's the next cheque?"
This whole "gesture politics" business is becoming tedious.

Oct 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Radical Rodent

Not so long ago 'Call me Dave' hoped he could sell the BAE Typhoon to India but they went for the French Rafale instead. I think the master tactician 'Call me Dave' thought that bunging them £1Billion would be a superbly clever way to save the deal, oh dear.

Oct 12, 2015 at 3:48 PM | Registered CommenterDung

The loudly trumpeted climate deal between the US and China recently is being wrongly portrayed as being an agreement by China to reduce Carbon emissions. China has given no assurance that it will reduce CO2 emissions, now or at any time in the future. China has effectively said that it believes its CO2 emissions will naturally peak in 2030 and it has not even committed to make that happen.
China is free to grow its CO2 emissions by any amount it pleases for the next 15 years (India will be in the same position as will Russia).

Oct 12, 2015 at 4:26 PM | Registered CommenterDung

Dung, omitting the countries you mentioned (China, India and Russia) the following countries, ordered by population (current wiki estimates) are next in the list:
Indonesia 257,080,000
Brazil 205,026,000
Pakistan 191,165,000
Nigeria 183,541,000
Bangladesh 159,173,000

United Kingdom 64,800,000 is down in 22nd place

The list of poor nations goes on and on. Those nations and people will not be denied. They are too many to be paid off, even if there was a good case for doing so.

The global warmers gathering in Paris in November have a worse problem than not being able to spot the poor science about CO2 from global warming alarmists: They cannot even do simple arithmetic.

Oct 12, 2015 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Quite a few poor people in the USA.

If Britain, a country living on its credit card, can give money to nuclear weapon states, why is it not providing aid to the USA - a nation even more overdrawn than the UK.

Oct 12, 2015 at 6:59 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A, you are right, but they are paid to be poor, and once you pay people to be poor you will NEVER run out of poor people. In fact poor people are paying to get to the USA. Which does not run exactly to Cowperthwaitian principles.

Oct 12, 2015 at 7:03 PM | Unregistered Commenterrhoda

Yes, Dung. I have been told that the French have a better response to those they give aid – they ask what the aid would be wanted for; if the response is, “We need to buy trucks,” the French then supply them with trucks (French-built, of course) to the required value. Whether this is true or not, it would certainly be a lot more sensible way to send “aid”.

Good point, Rhoda. I do wonder if you are a bit more than "just" a housewife, whether in Texas or from Oxford.

Oct 12, 2015 at 9:07 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent