Duties are owed to global power: Thomas Pogge's Critique

Glancing at the developing and undeveloped countries, the authoritarian rulers or dictators have strong ties with rich countries and by which, those rulers, however, are received enormous benefits. Nevertheless, the led are still being oppressed and lack of redistribution from their rulers. That is somehow the act of inhumane sense. In addition, there is no system for the poor to link up to in marginalized countries. In the case of China, for instance, China is greatly benefiting from extracting natural resources from Zimbabwe. As consequence, the country supreme leader, Robert Mugabe vastly enjoyed the power and even spent millions of dollar for his medical treatment in Singapore while the majority of the population is under severe poverty line. This is, in my point of view, the case in this question and is believed to be correlated to the thinking of Thomas Pogge on this issue.

To some assumptions; suppose that there is an idea or argument that there is no relationship between the poverty caused by the mismanagement under bad rulers and the rich country that has well-governed system. The deprived countries are poor because of having bad leaders. In contrast, the rich countries are prosperous and run by good governance. So, in theory, there is no relationship between them. However, the fact that there is strong evidence of rich country involved in the course of economic interconnectedness which directly or indirectly helps perpetuate tyrants and rulers grip power. By gripping power at ironic hands, poverty in the those countries will not be enhanced. Opponent of this idea might say that the less the corrupt-cum-bad leaders have economic ties with rich countries, the greater limit they have desecration. That could initiate power-sharing and have, in turn, to be effective in distributing national resources among the population.

In an attempt to understand key fact of what Thomas Pogge believes that the global power are owed to duties is, rulers, not chosen by people in principle, have borrowed money in the name of their country and the eventual debt has to be paid by the population of that country. The effect is obvious here—severe poverty is fueled by local misrule. But such local misrule is fueled, in turn, by global rules that we impose and from which we benefit greatly. There would be, therefore, no duty correlation between the line, should the global power ceases to have economical connectedness and providing financial assistance to the least developing countries on the ground of humanitarian concern.   

On this basis, the global power do not have the duties—duties to eradicate poverty in those countries by providing technical assistance and lobbying greater governance and management skills. In contrast to this claim, global power has duty as long as they do business with leaders of poor countries. Thomas Pogge’s thinking is affirmative in the sense of China’s unabashedly bilateral ties with North Korea.

At last not the least, despite the impose by global powers, they are, at the same time, not opposed to getting resources from the imposed countries that global powers are indirectly injecting poverty in that country and bearing responsibility, too.