Luyện tập: World Issues: International Aid from Rich Countries to Poor Countries

It is sometimes said that governments should dedicate a fixed proportion of their country’s income to foreign aid each year, and this fixed proportion should always be donated to other countries. Opponents of this idea, however, say that aid should have no fixed proportion, and help should only be sent to other countries at times when it is really needed. What are the arguments on both sides of this debate? What is your own view on the matter?

Hiện nghĩa

Hiện vai trò câu

Highlight nội dung

Topic statementThe issue of foreign aidsự hỗ trợ goes to the heart of how nations should cooperatehợp tác together, and whether this should be on a ‘quota’chỉ tiêu system or more ‘as needed’. Supporting statementIn this often heatedlàm nóng lên debate, the opposing arguments can perhaps be summarisedtóm tắt lại as follows.

Topic statementProponentsngười đề xuất of the quotachỉ tiêu system claim that wealthier nations have a moralvề đạo đức duty to sacrificehy sinh some of their incomethu nhập to help poorer countries, and that this duty does not rise or fall depending on circumstancestình huống. Supporting statementThis argument is often used to justifybiện hộ the quota arrangement for formertrước đó, tiền nhiệm imperial statesnước đế quốc such as Holland, France or Britain. Supporting statementMoreover, the argument goes, the fixedcố định proportiontỷ lệ system allows the receiving countries to plan and budgetngân sách reliablymột cách đáng tin cậy, building the foreign aid into their economic calculationssự tính toán.

Topic statementHowever, opponents of the fixed donationsự đóng góp system respondphản hồi that this budgetarythuộc ngân sách aspectkhía cạnh is in fact the most damaging aspect of the idea. Supporting statementThey point out that, if aid money is provided regardlessbất kể of whether it is actually needed, the funds become part of the recipientnước nhận viện trợ country’s administrativethuộc chính quyền system, with all the dangers of inefficiencysự thiếu hiệu quả and corruptionsự tham nhũng, hối lộ that this involvesdính dáng tới. Supporting statementIt must be said that fixed aid to some developing countries falls into this trap, as even the local charitiestừ thiện themselves will agree. Supporting statementWhat is more, if aid funds could be held backgiữ lại until times of emergencykhẩn cấp, such as floods, faminenạn đói or civil warnội chiến, the money available would then be far higher and thus would help more people in distresscảnh khốn cùng.

SummaryTo conclude, it appears to me that opponents of the quota system have the more robustthiết thực argument, with their concernsmối lo ngại over unnecessary donations which reduce emergency funding in future. SummaryWe all recognisenhận ra a moral duty to help those in need, but surely these resourcestài nguyên should be targetednhắm đến more strictly towards sufferersnhững người chịu khổ, rather than sent permanentlymột cách vĩnh viễn to government departments to become part of the local economy.

targetedresourcesrecogniserobustcivil warfamineinefficiencyadministrativeregardlessresponddonationfixedimperial statesformerjustifyincomemoralquotasummarisedcooperateaid‘quota’heatedproponentssacrificecircumstancesproportionbudgetreliablycalculationsbudgetaryaspectrecipientcorruptioninvolvescharitiesheld backemergencydistressconcernssuffererspermanently

The issue of foreign sự hỗ trợ goes to the heart of how nations should hợp tác together, and whether this should be on a chỉ tiêu system or more ‘as needed’. In this often làm nóng lên debate, the opposing arguments can perhaps be tóm tắt lại as follows.

người đề xuất of the chỉ tiêu system claim that wealthier nations have a về đạo đức duty to hy sinh some of their thu nhập to help poorer countries, and that this duty does not rise or fall depending on tình huống. This argument is often used to biện hộ the quota arrangement for trước đó, tiền nhiệm nước đế quốc such as Holland, France or Britain. Moreover, the argument goes, the cố định tỷ lệ system allows the receiving countries to plan and ngân sách một cách đáng tin cậy, building the foreign aid into their economic sự tính toán.

However, opponents of the fixed sự đóng góp system phản hồi that this thuộc ngân sách khía cạnh is in fact the most damaging aspect of the idea. They point out that, if aid money is provided bất kể of whether it is actually needed, the funds become part of the nước nhận viện trợ country’s thuộc chính quyền system, with all the dangers of sự thiếu hiệu quả and sự tham nhũng, hối lộ that this dính dáng tới. It must be said that fixed aid to some developing countries falls into this trap, as even the local từ thiện themselves will agree. What is more, if aid funds could be giữ lại until times of khẩn cấp, such as floods, nạn đói or nội chiến, the money available would then be far higher and thus would help more people in cảnh khốn cùng.

To conclude, it appears to me that opponents of the quota system have the more thiết thực argument, with their mối lo ngại over unnecessary donations which reduce emergency funding in future. We all nhận ra a moral duty to help those in need, but surely these tài nguyên should be nhắm đến more strictly towards những người chịu khổ, rather than sent một cách vĩnh viễn to government departments to become part of the local economy.