Galtung's formulaic explanation of imperialism is only strengthened by his example of feudal interaction. Given an assumption that communication between developing countries would be beneficial in helping each other's growth, feudal interaction is detrimental to every country involved except that of the imperialist. If Zambia and Zimbabwe are both on the periphery and both dealing with AIDS related problems across the country, perhaps further intentional communication would be helpful instead of both states acting as "spokes" within Galtung's structural imperialism model and hearing their similar issues with a western slant. Speaking strictly to the communication pillar of his imperialism model, the information flow within both periphery countries would benefit from being produced by local agencies instead of transnational media outlets in order to bring the news to a personal level which would, perhaps, compel action and further communication across periphery states.
Overall, the "agenda-setting" function of international media is detrimental to the development of so-called third world countries and true improvement is only possible by self-monitoring the information flow to these periphery nations. The NWICO debate served as a beginning realization of a need to alter international communication policy and I look forward to learning more about the recent developments and seeing how international media fits within the realm of Galtung's structural imperialism in the coming years.