‘This cycle will break with us’: Two ECOSOC blocs clash fiercely in negotiations
Written by Matilda Alexis Camara, Journalist, LIMUN 2026
The future is looking uncertain for The United Nations Economic and Social Council. After nearly a day and a half of negotiations, two opposing blocs have formed concerning the topic ‘Reforming Global Financial Governance for Sustainable Development’. Neither side appears to be backing down from their principles as the session continues.
Divided by approach, united by one goal
The Revolution Bloc, opposes the idea of continuing to use the International Monetary Fund (IMF) entirely and instead wants to put forward new sustainable technology and ideas that can reduce and eventually remove the dependency many countries have on the IMF. Consisting of countries such as India, Russia and China, the Revolution Bloc recognise the damaging effects of the IMF that put developing countries, like Ghana, in a vicious circle of repaying immense debt instead of investing in healthcare and education. This causes a domino effect that damages our climate and prevents sustainable development. India passionately pleaded the opposing bloc to ‘decrease the dependency the world has gained over the USD’ as a resort to display how the IMF is not a stable economic power for developing nations or the climate however, with no avail.
‘I am Green’, the opposing bloc, contrastingly seems to want to keep the function of the IMF but reform it heavily to make it sustainable for developing countries and the climate through inclusion. Countries such as the Maldives declare that if countries ‘work[ed] together with us, not just for us but for everyone’, progress can be made towards sustainable development. Moreover, they hold a principle of transparency which they argue is not present within China’s finance initiative of ‘Belt and Road’ and can prevent sustainable development. Significantly, ‘I am Green’ has failed to address how they will incorporate inclusion when the structure of the IMF relies on the financing power of America which gives them huge decision power over small developing countries. Despite this, ‘I am Green’ remains unwavering in their stance despite the convincing arguments of the Revolution bloc.
USA looks out for themselves
Conspicuously, the delegate of the United States of America seems to stand alone amidst the battlefield between Revolution and ‘I am Green’. Although the USA agrees with ‘I am Green’s view of transparency and supports their market driven initiatives that promote private lending and investment to developing nations, it does not stand fully with ‘I am Green’ and instead promote their own priorities. Their individualistic actions are made clear through the USA withdrawing from 66 organisations and only supporting market driven initiatives that benefit their country. Unfortunately, as one of the biggest economic powers, the USA can afford to be solely concerned about their priorities because they don’t necessarily need to rely on other nations even if it is at the detriment of hindering sustainable development and the climate. It will be intriguing to observe if the USA, by the end of this conference, will make a compromise on their priorities and heed to Maldives’ declaration to ‘work together with us’.
As one day remains, the horizon is left uncertain but hopeful for the divided ECOSOC Committee. Will the cycle ‘break with us’ as the delegate of India affirms, or will it continue to be divided?
