Do rich nations have the obligations to help poor nations?

Question

This is from my debate motion "Rich nations have the obligations to help poor nations."I am for this motion.

Answer 1

although it would be nice to have the rich nations help the poorer nations, it doesn't always work that way. Rich people hardly ever help poor people on a more personal level either. While I believe in the old theory "if you have, why not give" I also believe in the saying "if you give a man a fish, he will eat for one day, if you teach him to fish, he will eat for a lifetime." In this aspect I think "wealthy" countries should help set up programs, health care, etc. for the "poor" countries, but after a point they must withdraw as well. If not you will just create a nation that is dependent rather than independent.

Answer 2

In a perfect moral world, the easy answer is yes. Countries with resources should share with other nations. Historically this entails huge, in some cases, sums of cash. It has also shown that too much of that cash doesn't end up where it was intended for. Aid to really aid does not mean cash, it means to go there, build what is needed, hydro-plants, water filtration systems, etc. Instead of sending 100 million, send 50 core of engineers people, let them use the 100 million. Then the aid, works. And continues to work. Problem solved and you leave. Provide and teach, not preach and hand out.

Answer 3

Hi Neo,

Although your intentions are honorable, there are no mandates for any Nation to do anything for another nation.

Foreign aid is based on good will in developing good diplomatic relations with underprivileged nations, but there is nothing that obligates one nation to do anything for other nations.

Basically it sounds good in a debate, but the reality stops there.

Good question,

Darryl S.

Answer 4

You want to share the wealth of your nation with that of other nations, which is admirable. Now, let's see you demonstrate your willingness by sending double-your-tax-amount to the U. S. IRS so the country can pay for it. If you don't pay taxes, then send 40% of your gross income to them. -- If you don't want to use the IRS, then send the money to the United Nations, International Red Cross, or some other relief agency. Be sure to tell us how much you contributed. -- Remember, if you don't want to do this willingly, then, per your debate, the country can 'obligate' you by taking away a percentage of whatever assets you may have. Please start reading the columns of Dr. W. W. Williams, an economist, at: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams.archives.asp

Answer 5

I think they have the obligation based on the country's people's conviction. A country might be hesitant to help a country based on it's religious or ethical background as well as it's history.
It is always good to have good social relations with other countries. Even if a rich country isn't helping out of the goodness of their heart it can be beneficial for future trade or future support in other aspects.

Answer 6

Let me reword your question to make it more realistic... Are poor people in rich nations obligated to give money to rich people in poor nations?

Answer 7

If the rich nation would take care of its people at home first then yes, if not ehn they are money rich but culturally poor

Answer 8

They _could_ have an criminal accountability in the event that they have signed a treaty , commerce contract, or different binding record that commits them for help - yet usually speaking, No. whether - detrimental international places usually characterize probability for wealthy international places - if your financial help will develop the determining to purchase ability of their voters - you've a sparkling marketplace for the products and amenities you produce. you additionally could have an best pal which will supply troops or strategic place in time of conflict (a available place on your next military base or military terminal, etc.). The "detrimental" international places is additionally sitting on a treasure-trove of organic materials that they are too detrimental to mine/harvest/etc. shop an eye fixed on what China is doing in Africa precise now. they are offering all varieties of "help" to the poorest international places in Africa, a lot of whom have sparkling water, China is rather, enormously intelligent approximately how they dole out their "help".

Answer 9

No. While at first they appreciate it, they grow to resent the help, for what ever reason. Plus they tend to grow to expect more and more, and angry if it isn't given to them. They also tend to reduce the amount of work they do expecting to be given more to take up the slack. It is "Catch-22", with no real end in sight.

Answer 10

No, not when those "poor" nations refuse to help themselves.