“ Foreign aid has long been one of the most unpalatable dishes on the federal plate ” (Gaouette, 2014). Developed countries have been considered to provide foreign aid for improving poor countries from misery. In addition, some rich countries give money away to help others on purposes because they expect to obtain the many benefits themselves such as growing the economy, creating more power, and having more security borders. There are many problems that may cause negative effects. For example, foreign aid can be wasted because of corruption, since it is hard to verify how how the government manage expenses. However, wealthy nations should provide foreign aid in order to decrease the number of starving population, but financial aid can be corrupted by the government, so they should give specific supplies to poor countries such as food aid, military aid, and loans. Giving funds, services, and goods from one nation to another, are called foreign aid, help poor countries to survive through calamities. Furthermore, the United States provides most of foreign aids about 180 needy nations such as Middle East and Africa ,that spend about 50 billion dollars annually (2013). Donor nations offer not only financial but also commodities, technical advice, and training. In a history, foreign aid has started during World War II, when it was used to support reconstructive economies of Western Europe and to assist the Soviet extension due to the consequence of World War II. In the 20th century, the United States and other nations constituted the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for reconstruction and development that they would assist reduced debt also developed economy. George C. Marshall, was the United States se... ... middle of paper ... ... stabilization. On the other hand, the another researcher said that it rarely affects developed countries, but they suppose to help poor countries without taking any advantages as humanitarian aid (2014). Besides, foreign aid can affect developing countries in a long term changing poor countries to be rich, so if the government spend money direct to people who really need it, international aid will work effectively also reduce other problems that might affect worldwide.Therefore, many poor countries still need help from wealthy countries due to catastrophe, that means they may not survive without international aid. International aid can provide in various factors such as food aid, military aid, and loans to prevent government corruption. It will be easier to give specific objects straightforward to poor people than offer money through the governments.
The United States continues to give around $550 billion in aid to other countries each year, making America the world's top donor by far (Richardson). While the United States government only supplies $252 billion to needy Americans each year. Former Assistant to the President for Communications, Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous" (Foreign Aid). The United States need to give money to support the domestic impoverished rather than supporting developing foreign countries because the poverty and homelessness in America is increasing faster than the aid necessary to reduce this trend. Part of the reason that the United States should aid the domestic impoverished is that some foreign countries cannot be trusted with the money given to them and in certain cases, the money intended to aid countries are harmful for that country’s well-being.
The duties and responsibilities of the fire department are most importantly responding to fires and other emergencies that involve the assistance from the department such as vehicle accidents, flooding, emergency rescue, and first aid response. When it comes to a fire departments duties and responsibilities when it comes to mutual aid agreements it is to coordinate planning, multiply the response resources available to any one jurisdiction, ensure timely arrival of aid, arrange for specialized resources, and minimize administrative conflict and litigation post-response.
It was not until the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that the US government began to crack down on the financing of terrorism. The passage of the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 was, in part, an attempt by the federal government to disrupt the financing of terrorism and the flow of laundering money. In addition to passing legislation that made it harder to launder money to terrorists, the USA Patriot Act attempted to crack down on non-profit organizations like charities and underground banking systems like “hawalas” (USA Patriot Act). Running a terrorist organization is not cheap, as these organizations must pay for personnel, training, operations, weapons, security, reparations to the families of slain freedom fighters and much more (Madinger, 280-2).
The first food aid program in the world was started during the Great War by soon to be President Herbert Hoover. Food production kicked in and the United States started to feed areas under Bolshevik control in Russia literally right outside the Tsar’s palace in the hopes that hunger – and therefore the main void and driver of need that communism fills could possibly be tackled. In a time absolutely different from our own where the United States gives foreign aid as a matter of routine, Hoover’s program was given over $700 million from France and Britain in order to feed Belgium and wartime
...lance of trade and consistent revenue. The UN can help these countries build their economies if they can improve their trade. The UN can do all of this by implementing a single policy. The policy that will have to be passed is a distribution policy. If this policy is passed, the money generated from trade could be used in projects for the future and help these countries develop as a whole. This distribution policy will take time to pass due to other actors, but these actors are not a big issue. This distribution policy benefits the economies of developing countries such as Somalia. It helps the countries develop a balance of trade and generate revenue. Food will become more available to the Somalia people, and less people will be affected. Everyone in Somalia will have the opportunity to provide food for themselves and others. The hunger in Somalia will cease.
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
The United States Agency for International Development (US AID) was established in the 1960s by an executive order issued by President Kennedy (US AID, 2014). The agency combines development assistance with the promotion of foreign policy to advance US interests abroad (US AID, 2014). In other words – and as noted on its website – US AID “reflects both the American people's compassion and support of human dignity as well as advances U.S. foreign policy interests” (US AID, 2014).
The main massage of this book is that Western aid programs in Africa do not work. Moyo, seeks to account for this failure by trying to answer the question of why most sub-Saharan countries ‘flounder in a seemingly never-ending cycle of corruption, disease, poverty, and aid-dependency’. This is the reality, Moyo, concludes after more than one trillion dollars have been transferred from rich countries to African countries over the past sixty years. This aid...
This essay will argue that the current British policy of trying to meet the target of spending 0.7% of British Gross National Income on foreign aid is flawed. It will be split into three sections: the first will establish that foreign aid is an important and contentious area of policy, the second will show the problems of the 0.7% target whilst the final one will propose solutions to the problems inherent in current policy choices in the area. The main conclusion of the essay will be that, if the United Kingdom is committed to delivering effective foreign aid, it ought to stop considering whether it has spent enough on developing countries but instead focus on whether its expenditure is having effect. Throughout, discussion will be made harder by the fact that current academic commentary on foreign aid ‘anarchy’. Considering this, the essay will try to illustrate as broad a range as possible in the various approaches taken to the topic, before reaching its overall conclusion.
Recent discussion of foreign aid has ignited the sparks of controversy. On one hand, some argue that sub-Saharan nations use donated money to improve economic conditions by establishing anti-corruption agencies. From this perspective, new and stable governments generate revenue, alleviating the populatio...
It seems inevitable that hegemonic cultural currents may slip into the efforts, especially since the West continues to dominate in all aspects of the international world. The mere act of helping seems to say that ‘we, as the West, know better and can do what you cannot’. Non-governmental organizations have a better chance to remain free from politics because they began at a grass root level and continue to be supported by citizens, but even they find difficulties in providing help without unintended effects. Humanitarian aid in the form of materialistic necessities, like food or supplies, is often seized and controlled by military groups, who distribute them among their supporters or to attract new members. Aid in the form of economic help or loans of money are also complicated, and the risk of corruption is high. And if the money cannot solve the underlying cause, the country can also become indebted to others, furthering the problems. In order for humanitarian interventions to be truly effective, I believe that there are two conditions which must be
Progressive era foreign policy was motivated by a variety of factors including racial and national superiority, business and economic interests, strategic concerns, and idealism. Excerpts from For the Record provide various examples supporting the concerns that led to America’s foreign policy.
...ment and well-being. It is clear that without the ongoing presence and work of international organisations, the international system would be in a far worse and more chaotic state, with a far greater chance for a civil war to breakout. They also are a major player in helping develop states political and economical systems.
Many people in the world argue that foreign aid is necessary for developing countries and should not be stopped from being given out. Scores of people argue that foreign aid is vital for the survival of the world’s economy. However, American aid has been going to countries that do not contribute to global development and is usually unknown to the charitable donator. When comparing America’s reason for foreign aid to other powerful nations, they do not share America’s views. As of now, America’s national debt is around $15 trillion, owing around $1 trillion to China. Even though countries like China expect to be paid back in full, America is only continuing to build up its debt. With this, the purpose of foreign aid is impractical and does not benefit the American populace in the long run. Another claim by Americans is that foreign aid for developing nations will benefit them and support the development of other superpowers. Simply put, this statement is false and foreign aid for budding nations only slows their economy and increases poverty. Evidence is put into light ...
Poor countries have been receiving aid from the international community for over a century now. While such aid is supposed to be considered an act of kindness from the donor nations or international bodies, it has led to over dependence among the developing countries. They have adopted the habit of estimating and including international aid in their national budgets to reduce their balance of trade deficits. It is believed that foreign aid is necessary for poor nations in order to break the cycle of poverty that ties their citizens in low productivity zones and so their economy will not be weak. However, some critics view the extension of aid to poor countries as means of keeping the nations in economic slumber so that they can wake up from only by devising ways of furthering self-sustainability. Because of these two schools of thought concerning the topic, debate has arisen on which side is more rational and factual than the other. The non-sustainable nature of international aid, however, leaves the question of what may happen in the event that foreign aid is unavailable for the poor nations. After thorough consideration on the effects of the assistance to poor countries, it is sufficient to state that giving international aid to the poor nations is more disadvantageous than beneficial to the nations. This point is argued through an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of giving international aid to the poor countries with appropriate examples drawn from various regions of the world to prove the stance.