In addition, there are various benefits available to least developed countries. We can export goods to many industrialised countries on preferential terms. The bilateral aid we receive from developed nations, especially from Europe, North America, and Australia, comes entirely in the form of grants. We are able to obtain patented medicines from abroad at lower prices, without having to pay any royalties. Many people from our country travel to Bangkok or Singapore for medical treatment, where medicines are more expensive, largely because of royalty costs. Without LDC status, we would not receive these advantages.

Out of 193 member states of the United Nations, 46 are classified as LDCs. Most of them, that is, 33, are in Africa. There are 9 in Asia, and in the Arab region only Yemen. In the Pacific region there are three, and in Latin America only Haiti. In the Asia-Pacific region, several countries still remain LDCs despite having higher per capita income and better living standards than us. For them, a key criterion is “environmental vulnerability.” Many of these are small island states, while others are “landlocked,” surrounded by multiple countries and without access to the sea.

Bangladesh has surpassed the LDC thresholds in all indicators. Yet there is widespread lament over the benefits that will no longer be available once we graduate from LDC status. No matter how much the country’s GDP grows, most people remain poor, what will happen to them? Using this argument, there are ongoing appeals and lobbying efforts to further extend the timeline for LDC graduation. At the forefront of this campaign is a group of businesspeople and their allied intellectuals. They seem intent on keeping the country poor. Those involved in ready-made garment exports argue that they will not be able to compete with exporters from other countries. But is that really the case? If Vietnam can do it, why can’t we?