Should The Developed North Increase Aid To The Less Developed South

Should The Developed North Increase Aid To The Less Developed South? Should The Developed North Increase Aid to the Less Developed South? The question at hand is not whether aid from the developed north should be given at all, but whether or not it should be increased to help ease the suffering of the developing countries in the south.

Every country, whether rich or poor, should have compassion for the suffering. However, it is not the duty of the developed north to completely take care of every developing country. In the present, there are serious problems that need to be addressed dealing with how aid is given out: misuse of funds by governments, the corruption it creates, economies it destroys, lack of votes it buys at the United Nations, and finally the question of who has priority.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Therefore, until these issues are dealt with in the near future, aid should be kept to a minimum. Response to Readings in Taking Sides James P. Grant, in his article favoring the increase of foreign aid to the developing south, notes that poverty in this world is a large problem that has continued to rise for years. It wasn?t until the 1960?s that the mobilization of medical help, better sanitation, clean water, money spent on education, and other measures began to save lives and make the quality of living better for millions. However, he also states that even though aid is being provided, it is still not enough, and leaders like the United States and the European community should take the initiative to donate and assist more each year just like the Japanese have done. The only problem with this statement is that both the European community and the United States are pressed for money.

The European countries, especially leaders like Great Britain and Germany, have devoted much of their aid budgets towards helping other countries within their system grow stronger before the European system goes completely into full force.Whereas the United States? budget deficit forces many government agencies, including the Agency for International Development(AID), to lose funding. Furthermore there is no reason to send billions of dollars over seas when northern countries like the United States and Great Britain currently face the highest levels of child poverty that either country has seen in over 25 years. In addition to poverty, other domestic problems such as rape, robberies, and murders in this country still exist. Until domestic issues are solved, any future increase in foreign aid should also be kept to a minimum. The purpose of a nation is to look after its own citizens to insure that they are free from harm, stay healthy, receive public utilities, and become educated.If protecting a nations? people require its country, for example, to send aid to an African country to help prevent the spread of HIV, then foreign aid is acceptable. However, if there is no immediate threat to US security, then aid and foreign involvement should be kept to a minimum.

In other words, aid should only be offered when a clear gain for that country can be achieved. There are not enough resources to save the destitute and sick of the world out of compassion alone. Special interest groups such as Peace Corps, private donations, and volunteers serve the purpose of helping others. It is all right for a country to help provide these groups with the necessary resources required to carry out their missions safely; however, it is not the duty of a country to take care of all nations alone.As advocates of the no side, the editors of The Economist firmly believe that the north should not increase aid to the developing south on account of past misuse, unfair distribution of aid among countries, and lack of results. Furthermore, foreign aid does more than just ease the suffering of the impoverished. Health care expenditures account for only 2% of the entire aid budget as a study by the World Bank in 1988 showed.

The rest of the 98% goes toward the financing of military campaigns to restore peace and help set up and keep new and existing democracies running, saving the environment, supporting economic development, and lastly to control population growth. Therefore when people claim that the US and other countries do not help out as much as they could or should, they are overlooking the big picture.In reality, the United States does more to foster environmental research and protect other nations with military assistance than most countries. United Nations Voting Pattern Suggests No Benefit of Foreign Aid The Agency for International Development (AID) firmly believes that foreign aid influences the recipients? actions and helps gain support for the donor?s interests worldwide. However it is ironic to note that despite the large amounts of money being pumped into developing nations across the world, those receiving funds have not always cooperated fully as AID suggests. For example, if you look at the voting record of every country that has received money from United States, you will see no pattern correlating aid with support for US interests. Therefore this proves that votes as well as friends are not being bought, so to speak, as the government may have initially wished.

As evidence, with the exception of Israel, the top ten foreign aid recipients voted against the United States in 1997 an average of 54% of the time and countries like India, Laos, and Lebanon voted against the US approximately 70% of the time despite the fact that each country received millions of dollars in foreign aid. Misuse of Foreign Aid Monetary assistance and help towards those in need is a wonderful thing, and facts point out that it saves millions of lives every day.However, there are serious flaws in the assistance effort that need to be addressed before any future increase in spending occurs.

First of all, it has been shown that the economies of those countries receiving aid are only worsening due to the way in which the poorly run and/or corrupt gov …