What this does not address is that the richer countries have a lot more leverage than the poorer nations (duh). As a result, even though in theory it may present a lot more opportunities for the poorer nations to trade resources for help, the lack of leverage may mean a more tending towards slavery (except with "formalised" agreements). One way around this would be if the poorer nations united to increase their collective bargaining power. But isnt the lack of unity one of the causes of poverty (from wars and ethnic conflicts)?
Though it makes for a nice good vs. evil story, the idea that big bad European nations got rich by exploiting resource-rich colonies has little basis in fact. If I recall my high-school European history right, historians are divided on whether colonies were even a net economic positive. In any case, wealth comes from productive capacity (the ability to produce things people want), and raw materials are only one (relatively minor) aspect of production.
The wealthiest nations are typically those that have expertise at turning raw materials into other things; in fact, historically many of the wealthiest nations (such as the Netherlands, Great Britain, and Japan) have been relatively resource-poor. European countries got rich the old-fashioned way, through technological innovation, trade, and a division-of-labor society based on private property rights.
So some people value cash more than land, and other people value land more than cash, and they've worked out a consensual, mutually advantageous deal, without getting government or a bunch of unelected technocrats in the loop.
