which any sovereign nation can ignore with little consequences
This is contrary to fact, because a) African nations are dependent on foreign aid, and donor organizations both will not fund DDT and will quietly threaten other funding if you choose to spray it and b) the prospect of African agricultural exports being barred due to "contamination" by DDT residues acts as another de-facto ban on DDT, since it threatens crippling economic sanctions for using it.
(Oddly enough, the crop most often at "risk" is tobacco -- because God forbid your cigarettes have harmful chemicals in them. There is an absolutely priceless quote from a chemist saying that he's be more concerned that you got nicotine in his DDT than getting DDT in your nicotine.)
Is there any nation that has had aid withheld explicitly because of their violations of DDT use? India shirks WHO regulations like crazy (including but not limited to those pertaining to DDT) but received billions in aid during 90s, before they were a nuclear power. And it certainly hasn't slowed down their position in global trade. Heck, their human slavery problem furrowed lots of brows but never amounted to any sanctions that I'm aware of.
What I'm trying to say here is if the hammer is going to come down on your country, it's likely doing things waaaay worse than revamping its ecosystem with pesticides.
That quote pertains to acquiring funding exclusively for programs that will use DDT, and basically says that donors will be reluctant to fund something that involves spraying DDT. Unless the only people who bother to give any money to these programs are misinformed bleeding-heart environmentalists, I'm not sure how much of a barrier that is. Nothing is stopping say, the Cato Institute from starting a DDT spraying initiative to fight malaria.
This is contrary to fact, because a) African nations are dependent on foreign aid, and donor organizations both will not fund DDT and will quietly threaten other funding if you choose to spray it and b) the prospect of African agricultural exports being barred due to "contamination" by DDT residues acts as another de-facto ban on DDT, since it threatens crippling economic sanctions for using it.
(Oddly enough, the crop most often at "risk" is tobacco -- because God forbid your cigarettes have harmful chemicals in them. There is an absolutely priceless quote from a chemist saying that he's be more concerned that you got nicotine in his DDT than getting DDT in your nicotine.)
Sources:
http://www.africanagricultureblog.com/2008/07/malawis-tobbac...