AnthonyBoscia
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,906
.....
Morality & Int'l Humanitarian Aid
- Thread starter AnthonyBoscia
- Start date
Humanitarian aid has a very mixed record. It's so often used as a political tool, rather than done out of genuine goodwill that it actually is difficult to support it in some cases. On one hand, I believe we have a genuine moral obligation to help out our fellow humans, while on the other hand, there is at least as many cases of humanitarian aid backfiring as there is of it genuinely helping. I guess I believe in it, as it's better than nothing, but political, business and personal agendas are always going screw things up to some degree and that has to be accounted for. This doesn't just apply to governments, but to NGOs as well.
The question on pre-existing relationships is an interesting one. While at times, countries that are actively involved in a region are in the best situation to offer help (they have the most interest in doing so, they can provide relief the fastest, among other reasons in specific cases), as they are also the ones that also have the biggest ulterior agendas, they can screw things up royally as well (for example, Syrian the intervention Lebanon was originally done under the auspices of an Arab League mission to restore peace).
There is certainly cases where foreign aid is an absolute necessity and good for everyone. The campaign against smallpox is a good example of this. Another good example would be the U.S. taking measures to help the former Soviet states secure their nuclear materials. I have a hard time finding good arguments against these measures (the measures as a whole, not necessarily how they were handled) as it ultimately was for the good of everyone.
The question on pre-existing relationships is an interesting one. While at times, countries that are actively involved in a region are in the best situation to offer help (they have the most interest in doing so, they can provide relief the fastest, among other reasons in specific cases), as they are also the ones that also have the biggest ulterior agendas, they can screw things up royally as well (for example, Syrian the intervention Lebanon was originally done under the auspices of an Arab League mission to restore peace).
There is certainly cases where foreign aid is an absolute necessity and good for everyone. The campaign against smallpox is a good example of this. Another good example would be the U.S. taking measures to help the former Soviet states secure their nuclear materials. I have a hard time finding good arguments against these measures (the measures as a whole, not necessarily how they were handled) as it ultimately was for the good of everyone.
IdiotsOpposite
Boom, headshot.
I do not believe there is any obligation to provide humanitarian aid to other countries, but I do believe that you really SHOULD. Just like how you shouldn't be obligated to provide charity, but you really SHOULD provide charity.
Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
I do not believe in using morality as a guide to foreign policy, because to prefer moral guidance to national interest is to invite disaster upon the nation. A nation that only acts on moral grounds will find itself spending untold sums of money, toil, and time with only personal satisfaction as a reward, while the nation becomes impoverished and weak. What would be the point of personal satisfaction if every citizen becomes penniless, and the country ripe for exploitation by other nations? There is also the matter of how to provide such aid without becoming overtly involved in an international conflict. How can we ensure that needed aid actually gets to those who need it, and is not stolen by others?
AnthonyBoscia
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,906
.....
There is no point to sending humanitarian aid to Africa without invading full-force. You'd just be giving the aid to whoever's the local warlord.
I guess if you single-handedly administer that aid and safeguard it using military assets it might work, but that's massively inefficient. It is better to root out the cause, rather than addressing the symptoms.
Let the tanks roll in. Build infrastructure and massively improve the quality of life of the people while holding them at gunpoint. Only withdraw once the people are educated enough and have a high enough standard of living that they won't revert to the old ways of stagnance and repression.
(Warning: respond at your own risk to the above hyperbole)
BasketCase
Username sez it all
No. For the following reason:
That's the problem. In areas suffering from the forms of violence you listed, getting assistance to the people who need it almost always requires military support. Otherwise the aid frequently gets stolen by the "other side". A common problem in war-torn areas is that, when the aid trucks do show up, both sides start screaming "hey, you should be helping us and NOT helping them!!"
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,377
If you had asked "suffering from natural or other disasters", my answer would be "sure". But suffering from war? Sending help there means meddling. That must be evaluated in a case-by-case basis, lest the "help" make the situation even worse.
Not only there is no obligation to intervene, there is an obligation to think things though very carefully before making any move. When in doubt do no harm (yourself) .
I agree with this. In general it leads to very sticky situations if you ever say it's a moral imperative to put yourself at risk or to reduce your quality of life in any way to help others - it's commendable, but it shouldn't be a basic requirement of being a decent person. In the same way, people who earn medals for gallantry are brave, but the others who are with them at the time aren't 'not brave' because they didn't do the 'courageous' thing (incidentally, that's precisely why Queen Victoria insisted that 'For Valour' rather than 'For the Brave' be inscribed on the Victoria Cross).
