Is Foreign Aid An Obligation?

Before we are members of the national (or international) community, we are first members of the human community, and as such have an obligation to serve the most desperate people to the best of our ability.

While I often contribute to local charities (because the results are tangible to me, and it is easy to determine how effective and how efficiently my money is being used), more good could probably be done with less money in foreign lands.

While there are many unfortunate souls on our soil, opportunity, a degree of health care, bathrooms and clean water are provided to most of even the most destitute of Americans. The same cannot be said for a great number of people overseas.

Yes. Not only is foreign aid and obligation it just makes sense. By feeding and educating these countries we not only improve our image abroad, but we create people who want to be useful members of society. The fact is that educated people with a reason to live don't become terrorist as well, and that alone is a great reason for giving them our support.

Yes, both out of the humanitarian necessity and the potential economic benefit of a stronger world community.

Helping the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa is simply the right thing to do. There exists no justification for allowing people to remain in poverty, anywhere in the world. The poverty of the world's developing nations is an outrage, both to our sensibilities and to our national self-interest.

As a community of developed nations, we can help all countries around the world reach a standard of living which is on par with the world community without compromising our own standards. This parity will truly enable a human-right: the right of all people to have the same opportunities.

Further, as nations around the world---whether in Sub-Saharan or elsewhere---develop their economies, the increased global trade will fuel our own economy. While this might sounds exploitative, this is the nature of national self-interest in the global economy.

Foreign aid from anybody can't be an obligation or it isn't aid, it's repayment of a debt. Further foreign aid from the current US government can't be true aid due to the compulsory and unequal tax treatment. That is a group of people are requiring others to pay third parties on their behalf and calling it charity when it is no such thing.

Private citizens should take stock of their own values, desires, and reach out to help those they can. That can be in sub-Sahara Africa or it can be their next door neighbor, it depends on each person's values.

Non-collective action has the benefit of not corrupting those in charge of the aid. Too often supposed aid is given that is really a beneficial business transaction that makes the overall situation worse.

I think not.

The purpose of government, according to John Locke, is to ensure that the basic rights of the people are protected. It is an establishment formed by the people to protect themselves and their rights -- not, necessarily, to protect everyone else.

I believe it is important to help others -- be that a begger on the street or a nation consumed by civil war. This, however, is not our duty as a country. If other countries' instability are at risk of infringing upon our rights, then it is our responsibility to protect ourselves (I am not, for the record, justifying war).

It may seem selfish -- perhaps even conceited, but the truth is that a government is not responsible for the problems in another country (alliances aside). However, simply because it is not our obligation does not mean that we cannot help them in some small ways.

It is not an obligation but generally it is a wise thing to do as it pays your country back in many ways.
You can get allies and allies of allies, sometimes you can get better negotiations for resources that the countries may have. You get world respect. You gain a level of safety when you reduce poverty. It reduces crime and terrorism.
But mostly we use aid to encourage countries to do things or pass laws we want them too. Most people call it tied aid. Money that is tied to you doing something for us, like publicly support the war.

We will never give up foreign aid, mostly for the last reason, money influences people.

The U. S. prides itself on being the planet's leader, a superpower in every sense of the word. We are, arguably, out front in most areas by which civilized nations tend to measure themselves: economically; militarily; our citizen's quality of life, including opportunities available for people to better themselves; our political system, based on individual freedom and our responsibility to others in our national and international communities. It is in this context that we, and all other nations of the world who desire inclusion in the global 'family', must extend humanitarian efforts to those in need, be they citizens of US or citizens of the world.

It's been said that all wealth derives from the commonwealth - the rich owe a debt to the social structure that enabled them to become rich. This is especially so when that structure is biased.

Talking about aid to foreign nations, this principle is only somewhat helpful. Unlike within an individual society, it is harder to say that the US owes a debt (predating globalization, at least) to other societies with which we haven't had much interaction until recently. It is tempting to say that globalization forces us to accept a recent and now-growing debt, but this is inadequate. What has changed with globalization has been the speed of travel and exchange - people traded over tremendous distances since before recorded history - not the fundamental nature of relations or exploitations.

All wealth is still derived from the global order. We still owe a debt to the global commonwealth.

An OBLIGATION? No. Is it the RIGHT THING TO DO? Absolutely.

I do not believe that the United States or any other large country is obligated to help any other country. The US should focus on the needs of its people. There are more than enough domestic issues that demand our attention (see: drugs, crime, poverty).

However, while not obligated, I think the US should help poverty-stricken countries nonetheless -- if for no other reason than basic human compassion.

We may see no direct benefits from these humanitarian actions (either financial or strategic), but we most assuredly would feel the darkness that would follow from standing idly by while a nation of fellow humans suffers and dies.

Unfortunately, regardless of whether one thinks it is moral to give aid to the developing world, there is no good way for the US government to provide that aid. When we have given aid no strings attached, all that money has done is fill the bank accounts of local strongmen. When we have given aid with strings attached, nations have incurred debts that are "paid" by selling local infrastructure to developed world corporations.

The only way to help the developing world is to encourage investment there. That requires lowering trade barriers, encouraging stable property rights and stable government in general. The best foreign aid is diplomacy -- brokering truces and settling disputes that threaten to produce war and civil strife. Direct military intervention makes us look like thugs, and direct aid makes us look patronizing. Treat the people of the developing world like equals and eventually they will be.

I believe we have a Utilitarian ethical responsibility to help those in need who do not have the resources to help themselves. As long as we have a surplus of resources, whether that be intelligent man power, scientific research, monetary resources, etc. we have a duty to not just sit on it and be filthy rich capitalist snobs.

No country has a legal or political obligation to help others -non-developed or not-. But generally large developed countries, as the United States are members of the international community and global associations, as the United Nations, that aims to facilitate cooperation among its members -many of them non-developed countries from Sub-Saharan Africa- in several aspects, among others, economic development, social progress and human right issues, so the US and other developed countries are "commited" -not obliged- to help them.

Depends on who you ask.

Yes. We owe it to ourselves, and to our worldwide community. A true leader gains the trust and support of those it represents. If we plan to be a world leader, the best way to gain trust and support of other nations is by supporting them when in need.

I'm not sure why we would restrict aid only to sub Saharan Africa? Why a geographically imposed barrier? What about Darfur/Sudan? We definitely have an obligation to help these nations. like it or not many of our trade practices and agreements have contributed to their plight. It makes sense on many levels to provide aid to these countries. Economic ,security, and environmental issues are all overriding factors why aiding these nations is very important.

I believe we should only help when asked. And even then, we should do as little as possible to achieve what is asked. It is always my experience that someone doesn't appreciate something unless they work for it and earn it themselves.

In moderation and in concert with other Nations. Oh, and as long as we provided actual vaccines and truly helpful materials, and not basketballs or bulldozers (Thanks, Reagan).
On moderation, for every vaccine a modern country ships to a third-world, I think two should be used in their own country. This may seem harsh, but we've got a job to do here in America with our own citizens.
Living in Seattle, I've found it heartbreaking that the city would close a clinic for mentally imbalanced patients, pushing them onto the street with no reliable source of income, housing, or medication (beyond telling them to walk a few miles to another area of the city, thus overburdening that borough).
Of course I feel we, and any developed nation, should assist the world. However, ignoring our own neighbors is disastrous.

The Equatorial region of Africa encompasses a vast swath of land divided into over 40 countries, some of which stretch into the northern and southern desert regions, and is home to nearly twice the population of the United States, along with another 265 million in the arid regions. With such a great number of people living in situations that poverty can't come close to describing, it is difficult to imagine the U.S. alone being capable of having any substantive impact. No country on the planet generates that kind of money or food that could make a difference alone.

The real obligation here is with the United Nations to organize every other country in the world that is capable of doing something--anything--to compliment the money and food providers with other services such as investment and construction of infrastructure and industry. That said, we can help, and we must help.

Nope. Poor people are required in the world and must be allowed to exist.

The United States government has an obligation only to the people and the Constitution of the United States.

As United States Senator Davy Crockett once said,

We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.

Our government may not have an obligation for foreign aid, but we as individuals certainly have an obligation to help our fellow human beings who are in need, whether they live next door or in sub-Saharan Africa.

Nope. Poor people are required in the world and must be allowed to exist.

Are you serious? Poor people are allowed to exist, but, why shouldn't the U.S.A (or any other large country) help them. I don't see why their would be an obligation though, after all, they have a large debt to pay (yes, I'm talking about money). So, no, they do not have an obligation, but, it's a nice thing to do.

Only when our own country is free from poverty, has universal health care, and does not need the help should we feel obligated to help foreign countries in poverty. With that being said, many people look to the US as an example of how to act in certain situations. With the Iraq crisis, though, other countries probably now use us as examples of "what not to do".

I think it is a hypocrisy that billions of dollars that could be spent to feed our poor, our sick, and our down-trodden are instead being spent on another country's problems.

We all live on the same planet. We're all of the same race (human). What one country does effects all countries in this age of the global economy.

People in poverty are people in desperation. When in desperate situations, the only people that care are yourself and your family. Other people--the environment, society--these are all unimportant things when you are living in poverty.

Much of the planet's problems--terrorism, environmental destruction, wars, abortions, infant deaths, suicide, aids, overpopulation--have root causes related to poverty. To attack poverty is to attack the root cause of a lot of these problems rather than simply attacking the symptoms, which is what we do instead all to often.

Plus, being good to others brings good karma. ;o)

Yes

We have an historical obligation in that our nation's prosperity today is due in large part to a history of fertile resource and export-rich land, and an effective, fair (for the most part) and peaceful political system. To presume that we have somehow become prosperous because we personally have acted smarter or worked harder betrays a sad ignorance of our own history. We stand on the shoulders of many generations before us and can take very little credit for what we have become.

We also have a moral obligation in that each of us is part of the larger human community and where we to be visually confronted daily with some of the sad realities of a life of extreme poverty experience by those in far away lands I'm certain our conscience would be unable to excuse inaction.