Do powerful countries have any particular obligations towards less powerful countries? How about rich countries in relation to poorer ones?
If global equality and world peace are real goals, then it is obligatory for the powerful and rich countries to help out those less fortunate. The powerful countries are well endowed with everything the poor lack; they have an abundance of technology, resources, and wealth, much of which goes to waste. Many poor countries have nothing. Citizens of wealthy countries need to realize that they have done nothing to earn their good fortune, and that those born into poverty have done nothing to deserve their hardship. If everyone clearly understood and empathized with those less fortunate, the race for individual and national power would hopefully cease, and the necessary aid for countries in need would commence.
Impoverished countries lack everything that spans across the spectrum of basic needs. Rich, powerful countries could easily provide aid by simply sending money; as Jeffrey Senger pointed out in Tales of the Bazaar: Interest-Based Negotiation Across Cultures, “The least [a country could] do…was to share [its] good fortune by giving something that meant so little to [them], and yet so much to [the poor state].” A relatively small amount of money can work wonders in the destitute areas. The poor need help to even have a chance at a brighter future; without the aid of the powerful, their situation will only further deteriorate.
The aid given to countries must be nonviolent and selfless. Geoff Wiseman uses the “war” in Iraq to explore the role of diplomatic culture in Pax Americana: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture. He states that the Iraq war originally “would deploy US military might to dislodge dictators with links to terrorists, find and destroy illegal WMD, and promote democracy in such nettlesome regions as the Middle East.” America sent troops into a less powerful country, believing it was executing great deeds to benefit Iraq. However, America’s military intervention lead to thousands of deaths on both sides, and seven years later when the withdrawal of troops begins, nothing substantial appears to be achieved. The mere presence of armed forces creates a negative environment of fear and animosity; “helping” a country in that manner is extremely ineffective, if not harmful.
Some people may believe that less powerful countries have their own pride; they want to work out the problems themselves. However, this is usually not the case, and if so, it is foolish. In Mary Rosenblum’s novel Horizons, Sri Lanka asked for China to vote with them: “If I fling pig dung in the NAA’s eye, I do not wish to do so alone!” (172). Even in her futuristic world, weaker countries seek the protection and aid of those more powerful. If powerful countries quit trying to gain more of what they already have an excess of and started truly selflessly assisting those in need, the country would undoubtedly gain worldwide respect, as well as simultaneously setting an example for others. Therefore, powerful countries should feel obligated to help those impoverished. Doing so would refocus global attention from futile competitive issues to more worldly topics that matter.
There was a mosquito net producer in Africa. He used to make 25 nets a day, earning enough to feed his family of nine and at the same time, because he was using the nets at home as well, he was protecting himself and his family against malaria. Then a blonde Hollywood celebrity donated 5,000 mosquito nets to that man's tribe, which was adequate to cover every single member. That man no longer has the economic power to feed his family, simply because a wealthy person donated his/her money for buying nets.
ReplyDelete"Since the 1940s, approximately US$1 trillion of aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. This is nearly US$1,000 for every man, woman and child on the planet today.Does aid work?" asks Dambisa Moyo in her book Dead Aid, which is a book which elaborates on the question why aid is not working for Africa.
The already corrupt governments of Africa (which are the poor countires in our case) are receiving significant amounts of financial aid continously, however just a minor part of this money is actually spent for its purpose, that is helping the citizens maintain a considerably normal life standard. The aid money is mostly spent for the rulers' vacations in Hawaii, the guns that will protect the rulers and so on.
Hence, I do not believe that the "rich" governments should just give more money to the "poor" countries if their aim isd to help them. There are various other ways than simply giving money away for helping the countries in need. The blonde Hollywood celebrity, for instance, could buy the nets from the net producer and give them to the tribesman instead. That way the tribesman would be protected against malaria, the net producer would've made money and the celebrity would still have donated money.
I believe there are smarter ways of helping the countries in need instead of just giving money and one can find them when s/he thinks about it. Feeling obliged to do something, on the other hand, creates more trouble.
As Asli said, much of the money that is given to the poor countries is completely wasted and used by tyrannical rulers. However, it is undeniable that the countries in question still need aid; the money needs to find a way to get around the hands of the corrupt. To do this, wealthy foreigners who contribute money should find out exactly where their actually ends up and how it is used.
ReplyDeleteThere are many trustworthy, honest NGOs and other organizations that are stationed directly in places in need, such as Africa. These are the types of institutions that foreigners should focus on helping, especially if the organization is well established. Most of these groups have aid workers working directly with the people the money is meant to help, so they can see that the money is not used in a corrupt manner. To even further ensure that one’s donated money is not being used the wrong way, people may find other ways to contribute to the cause. For instance, Invisible Children holds an annual book drive, collecting millions of lightly used books from donations across the nation, then sorting and sending them to Uganda for the children to use. Many foundations hold clothing or shoe drives as well. The Invisible Children also has the Bracelet Campaign, in which the Invisible Children staff work together with community leaders to identify the most vulnerable people in a chosen camp, assessing their personal condition and history, and their family and home situation. Those chosen are trained in bracelet making and supplied weekly with the necessary materials (Invisible Children). The website of IC clearly states who the money from the bracelets will benefit, how it is used, and various statistics. Thus, contributing non-monetary objects such as books, or donating money that has a clear purpose and route, both through a trustworthy organization, are ways to hopefully prevent foreign money from being abused.
However, corruption is still difficult to avoid. Even with aid workers stationed directly in the troubled land and using the money for its intended purposes, things can still go wrong. A report by the Telegraph, a newspaper in the UK, described a case in March in which up to “’95 percent’ of the $100 million given to buy food [in Ethiopia] was diverted to purchase weapons or to boost the rebels’ cause”. In this incidence, “rebel soldiers disguised themselves as grain traders and handed over sacks of sand hidden beneath genuine food aid, in return for cash from Western donations”; “The aid workers were fooled”. This occurrence in Ethiopia shows that many people will go to great lengths to divert the money from its intended path and use it for their own wants, needs, and causes. However, even with all the misused money, a good portion of it is still used correctly, providing food for the famished, clothes for the unclothed, and education for the children. Despite the potential for the money to be used fraudulently, donors from rich countries cannot stop giving; poor countries are truly in need of aid, so donors should choose where they want their money to go, and just hope for the best that it reaches its destination.
It’s my opinion that countries with excess money should help countries in need through non-profit and charity organizations. It is also my opinion that powerful countries have an obligation to help poorer countries by using their influence on a global scale through organizations like the United Nations. But I also believe that this obligation should take precedence in one’s own country rather than a country across the globe. Only when a country’s own problems are sorted out should they get extensively involved in other countries’ problems.
ReplyDeleteOne very important example of this is the United States military occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan. While the original reason for the invasion was a matter of national security, now the United States is devoting a lot of time and manpower to these two regions both as an attempt to help these places and to strengthen their own security. But at what cost? Our country now has a major deficit and is spending more money killing terrorists than educating our students. I believe this is a problem, a problem that could have been solved with better decision-making on the government’s part. The decision to invade had good intentions, as does our current humanitarian efforts, but the outcome appears to be endless. So to answer the question, yes I do believe that rich and powerful countries have an obligation to help poorer ones, but only if the rich country doesn’t become poor itself.