Claiming humanitarian aid all ends up in the hands of corrupt officials is just a cop out – when that is the case we need to be a little bit cleverer about how the aid reaches its intended recipients. Let’s not forget, while the majority of people in the US and the UK are overweight the majority of people in the third world struggle to consume enough calories to survive. How often does and obese person think about a child going to bed hungry when they devour yet another super-sized fat food meal? Not often enough is the answer. Shame on them.
When a developed country like the United States supports a poor country, it is most likely that the money sent by the US is already in the pocket of corrupt leaders. If that happens, people will not truly benefit but only few individuals. Indeed, supporting other countries which is known for massive corruption is not an ideal thing to do. However, if corruption is minimized, humanitarian aid should be increased. But for now, it is not advisable to do.
The western world gives a huge amount of money medicines and food. And who knows if it goes to where it is supposed to go. We have to stay out of these countries business, withdraw our troops and look after our own affairs. No more wars we want peace. How many people in the US are living on the streets and have no food. Common people enough is enough
I think that aid should be decreased, because it often ends up doing nothing but fattening the wallet of a dictator, or worse, sitting at an airport until it rots. But that's only a cop-out if you provide no alternative. Those who would "teach a man to fish," rather than give him one, would do well to support initiatives that invest in small business and sustainable development in third-world countries. An example is the Acumen Fund (check it out at http://acumen.Org/). Philanthropy, too, provides a real alternative to traditional aid's pitfalls; look at the astonishing volume and scope of work completed by the Bill & Miranda Gates Foundation (http://www.Gatesfoundation.Org/). Charity is good; there is a better way.
Unfortunately, humanitarian aid is typically gobbled up by the corrupt government holding the people down in the first place. To increase aid would be to increase the power and resources of the oppressors. If we could guarantee the right people could receive the aid with training on how to sustain a livable way of live, then I'd be in favor of the increase.
This wouldn't make sense. The money doesn't even get to the people, and the earthquake in Haiti received lots of donations, not even half got to the Haitians. The government will get that money and further oppress their people, yes we are contributing to the problem. We cannot support other countries before ourselves. We are in way too much debt to support this idea.