Is Foreign Aid An Obligation?

It's obvious that the United States has no legal obligation to help poverty-stricken nations, such as the ones in Africa, but it is equally obvious, or at least it should be, that it has the moral obligation to do so.

It's easy to spout off some cliché that 'with great power, comes great responsibility.' There's a reason for that: it's true. Our own Declaration of Independence says:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and provide new guards
for their future security."

In 1776 the words hay have been about throwing off the shackles of oppressive government, but they still boil down to one fundamental aspect of humanity: those with the ability to take action, have the responsibility to take action.

It is a moral obligation. There is no moral claim to be made for standing idly in the face of another's suffering, witness:

"If I am not for myself, who will be?
If I am only for myself, what am I?
If not now, when?" - Hillel

"The man who says what's mine is mine & what's yours is mins is wicked.
Yours is mine & and mine is yours - a fool. Yours is yours & mine is yours - pious.
The man who says what's min is mine & what's yours is yours is average; however this is the ethic os Sodom." - Sayings of the Fathers (Pirke Avot)

There are more references in the Bible to caring for the poor than to any other precept.

That said, the only question then is how much.

United States or any other state has no legal obligation to help poverty-stricken nations, such as the ones in Africa unless they have some internal problems with those countries.
Helping is a humanity and there is no real legal restriction on helping. I think it's more a case of are we doing all we could? If not why not?

I agree that big nations have big population and their problems to look after, but a dime a day can keep poverty away from poor nations.

They can take a very small amount from their budget for the nations and i think thats enough support considering number of such nations.

Even bible says so - "You help the poor, and I'll repay it".

So the nations are not obliged - "First think of doing it !!! "

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. - The Declaration of Independence

First, it is difficult to state that anyone has an obligation to another person simply because the other person is impoverished. If the United States were obligated to give to these impoverished nations, it would override the liberty of the American people.

That said, these inalienable rights are most certainly in order of which supersedes another. Your right to life supersedes the right of a serial killer to pursue happiness by whacking you.

Further, we can extend that idea to show that these Africans' rights to life supersede our American liberty. As such, we should do what we feel will best help these nations.

Anything less would be hypocritical.

This question seems ridiculous to me. Of course we are. How can a nation with such a large portion of the world's wealth and resources ignore the plight of mankind in other parts of the world?

definitely yes,

Not only US should help, but other countries as well

I like to think and often tell my fellow country man that:

Others are poor mainly because You and I are griddy.

Yes.

Yes all countries have an obligation to help others. You focus on Africa but you don't note that even the US received a lot of foreign aid after Hurricane Katrina.

We humans have the same destiny ultimately. It is in fact a matter of self interest to help others since disasters are random and they can afflict any region and overwhelm the resources available in any such place. Just like we need to be kind to others so that we can receive good measure in return.

I am talking about humanitarian aid however. Developmental aid does not help and has not helped any nation to succeed in known history.

What helps is massive amounts of private investment.

The obligation is created as soon as you create the rules that introduce the poverty - trade rules, introducing or destroying governments or re-drawing boundaries.

The US and Great Britain, (yes I'm British) have similar obligations after helping to redraw the boundaries of countries to throw entirely different ethnic groups in the Middle East and by following the World Bank rules to obtain cheap goods and ensure the EU sell goods to Africa for inflated prices.

"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." - John Donne in Meditation XVII

[ Author note: Something kooky seems to have happened - my answer seems to be there twice! ]

The obligation is created as soon as you create the rules that introduce the poverty - trade rules, introducing or destroying governments or re-drawing boundaries.

The US and Great Britain, (yes I'm British) have similar obligations after helping to redraw the boundaries of countries to throw entirely different ethnic groups together in the Middle East and Africa, and by creating/following the World Bank rules to obtain cheap goods and ensure the EU sell goods to Africa for inflated prices.

Given that America has the richest economy in the world, and also the resources to help out African countries with regard to medicine and education, I think it is an obligation of ours to help these countries. With that said, nobody should tell me where I have to send my money. It should be a personal choice whether or not a person feels they should give to that cause. Keep the institutions private, but market your heart out, I say. Even tell us that it is our duty, as fortunate as we are. Just let people make their own decisions, instead of giving money to the UN, or any other multi-national government-run organization.

No, they're not obligated. An obligation is a moral or legal requirement. I don't think the U.S. is obligated to help any other nation unless a debt is owed. I do believe that it is to the benefit of the U.S. to help poverty stricken nations. Allowing poverty to exist only promotes unrest and usury, violence and economic injustice. A wealthy, educated, and liberal nation gives back to the world.

It's stark economics. Education is a commodity. Commodities bring wealth. Education and wealth brings liberty. A wealthy liberal nation is a free market. A free market means more wealth for the rest of the world. The trick is to prevent the opportunists from taking advantage of cheap labor and corrupt third world governments. The rest will fall into place.

"We are family." No truer words have ever been spoken. So, yes, we all have obligations to help each other out in times of need. The tougher question is how to define help and need.

Tough question, I don't feel foriegn aid is an obligation for any country. But I do feel it shows the character of a country, its leaders, and its people when it does give foriegn aid.

Saying one country is obligated because it is richer or better developed, is like saying I should give my poor neighbor part of my paycheck because he makes less than me.

The U.S. has a responsibility to assist where we are able and only after we have met the needs of those in this country. The real issue arises as to when to we stop providing aid and allow the country or region in need to once again become self sufficient? Our hearts would say that we stay until the crisis is over and the people are able to enjoy a modest lifestyle, but then whose lifestyle are we comparing this to? If it is that of Americans then we will never achieve success and assistance will go on for a period of time beyond which we are able to fiscally support. Within the U.S. we provide assistance to those in need but do not provide the incentive for a person to remove themselves from this assistance. In the end we should provide assistance but for a specific period of time.

Morally: Yes, and without reservation. To let suffering pass unanswered and unchallenged is the height of depravity.

Legally: Sometimes. While the UN Charter compels intervention in cases such as Genocide, there is little else in international law that will force even a single act of compassion, let along a policy of it.

Politically: Rarely. US citizens are typically unwilling to tolerate even the most trivial of tax hikes to increase the foreign aid budget.

Practically: Not at all. The international system is anarchic and chaotic with international law holding only the power that the world's various militaries give it. At present, no nation can force the United Sates to provide help others, no matter how desperate, unwillingly.

It isn't a case of being a member of the international community but being members of the human race. If anybody sees another person in trouble and they have the ability to help them then of course they should be obliged to help that person.

The problem in this question is ability comes down to cost of providing aid to these countries. Until someone comes up with an alternative to putting a monetary value on everything then every country will have to decide if the cost of helping is something they can afford. We are putting a price on people's lives which is much easier when they are on the other side of the world.

So the answer is yes as part of the international community the united states is obliged to help but the international community as a whole should be working together for long term solutions.

Of course we must give aid to those suffering in other parts of the world. We in the United States claim to be good citizens. However, how good are we to stand here and watch as these unspeakable atrocities continue. To a situation like this, we need to follow a simple three-part plan:

1. Recognize a problem
2. Give a damn/Care about it
3. Take action

The US should interven in any horrows like this to help promote peace in the world.

Yes, we do have an obligation to aid other countries. First and foremost, we are the best equipped to do so. No other country has the wealth we do combined with the resources to provide aid to ailing nations.

Additionally, these are often places where we already have a presence, taking advantage of cheap labor to produce goods for domestic sale. If we are unwilling to take their welfare into consideration, then we are just exploiting them for our own good.

Finally, we have a moral obligation to help those less fortunate than us. If we can save lives or vastly improve quality of life in another country with an inconsequential outlay, we should work to end suffering where we can.

Our willingness to help our fellow man is what made the US a great country, and our current hesitance to do so endangers that greatness.

Yes, for the following reasons:

1. the US can help its Iraq-tarnished image by aiding other nations.
2. bringing stability, and hopefully economic growth, to that region could very well mean better access to natural resources and human capital, and ultimately reduce the financial strain on aid-giving countries.
3. it can also help reduce the spread of diseases, not just within the African continent, but ultimately to other parts of the world.
4. the very definition of being a "member of the international community" would imply helping other countries, and this is especially true for a country considered "the leader of the free world."
5. it is the right thing to do

Isn't the more important question to ask ourselves whether answering "yes" and carrying on with the rest of our day really does anything to help quell human suffering?

Thing is, PEOPLE IN NEED OF HELP AREN'T RESTRICTED TO "SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA", AND HELPING THEM IS A MORAL IMPERATIVE FOR MORE FORTUNATE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD (not just those in the United States). 

Surely there are people in our own communities we could offer goodwill since we can't all afford to help abroad. It won't end worldwide suffering, but it's better than agreeing we should help only to make ourselves feel better.

Yes I think to an extent they have a role in assiting poverty stricken countries. But I think the governement have a role to play to in providing resources to their people.

The United States and other countries that are able to assit with resources should but they can not be the sole provider of needed resources the Governement has to make an concious effort and take the lead role in hleping their own people.

Countries like the US and Australia have their own problems they can not been seen playing faviourites with other countries when their are problems in their own countries.

Is it an obligation? I don't think so. However, it is in the best interest of this country to ensure that other countries are stable, their populations content, et cetera. Why is this? Because without those feelings you often get war which, Halliburton aside, is not generally good for that country or its neighbors. Those problems then tend to spread which impacts trade and, ultimately, may bring conflict to the shores of the US.

The old saying goes, "A rising tide lifts all ships." We're not making any new countries. When it comes to giving aid, the US is often (ultimately) creating new trading partners from countries who wouldn't otherwise be able to trade with us, either because of instability or just financial difficulties. That's been proven to be good for both countries.

So even if you don't agree with "giving away," aid, it makes sense as an investment.

I think the question of US foreign aid is a very complicated one. Being the richest nation in the world (and arguably the history of the world), we do have a moral obligation to aid poor and starving nations, whether it be through giving actual supplies and money or putting pressure on the oppressive governments to change their ways.

The trouble comes when politics enters the picture. Some countries will offer the US more incentive to help simply because there is something to gain from it. A lot of military actions begin as missions to "spread freedom" and free oppressed peoples when there are hidden motives.

Beyond our government's role, it is on all of us to give our money to organizations who work to help those in need. We need to put our money where our mouth is and not just complain about how our government can do more.