What I say, is that if we put a boundary on how people spend their money, then obviously that violates basic rules of ownership. In the case of North Korea, we stopped sending aid because the money was used in a way that posed a threat to other countries. You people argue that humanitarian aid used for political leverage treats suffering citizens as mere means to an end. The purpose is to provide aid.
Not only is it the morally right thing to do, but it has also been proven that providing aid to foreign countries is ergonomically, economically, socially, and politically beneficial. In 1970, the world's rich countries agreed to give 0.7% of their Gross National Income as official international development aid, annually. It is shown that countries that give closest to or more than 0.7% of their GNI, are actually more productive, economically stable, and are less likely to engage in wars. These countries' governments are looked upon more favorably not only by their citizens, but also by other countries. Countries that donate their 0.7% and more like Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, and The Netherlands are the countries I'm referring to. While other countries that donate 0.2% are politically stagnated because of trillions of dollars worth of debt, poor government, poor work force, poor relations with other countries and poor political relations with its own people. Countries like the United States.
The fact is, humanitarian aid needs to be distributed effectively to people. Placing political conditions - i.e. stop your human rights abuses or become more democratic - is going to slow down the effectiveness and distribution of humanitarian aid. Notably, humanitarian aid comes in the form of money; tying a condition to that aid is unjust because the people who need help won't be able to get it if the government refuses the condition.
Just model challenge ftw boys just do itjust model challenge ftw boys just do itjust model challenge ftw boys just do itjust model challenge ftw boys just do itjust model challenge ftw boys just do itjust model challenge ftw boys just do itjust model challenge ftw boys just do it
Because conditioning humanitarian aid to foreign countries violates the moral principle of Deontology, it is not justified. Deontology states that we can’t use people as a means to our own end, that people have certain unconditional rights. This is known as Immanuel Kant’s second categorical imperative.
Kant, Immanuel. “The Critique of Practical Reason.” “Now I say that the human being and in general every rannal being exists as an end in itself, not merely as a means to be used by [someone’s] this or that will at its discretion ; instead [s]he must in all [her] actions, whether directed to [her self] or also to other rational beings, always be regarded at the same time as an end . . . . Rational nature exists as an end in itself . . . . The supreme practical imperative will there fore be the following: So act that [End Page 62] you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means .”
When Kant states that we exist as an end in ourselves, it means that we have an inherent intrinsic value, such that can’t be violated. This is particular to human or rational beings.
Conditioning humanitarian aid violates the inherent intrinsic value Kant speaks of.
The need to use humanitarian aid is usually under emergency circumstances. Time is of the essence, and because many of the cases in which humanitarian aid is needed are emergencies, we do not have the luxury to use up time to negotiate conditions. Immediate humanitarian aid is needed to save lives. In the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, over 100,000 people died. The tsunami affected many poor communities. These lives could have been saved if the response to the catastrophe had been sooner. Imposing conditions on giving humanitarian aid would create even more delays to discuss conditions, leading to more deaths.
Conditioning humanitarian aid sets a price on lives in danger. This makes the people in crisis a means to an end, violating their unconditional rights. Imposing a condition equates the condition to a life. A life is priceless, and therefore by placing a price on people, conditioning humanitarian aid ignores the value of a human.
Some may argue that conditioning humanitarian aid ought to be imposed prior to deploying aid in order to prevent corruption. However, the risk of fraud does not outweigh saving lives.
In order for the Negative to make a case against the resolution, they must forget that the aid that is sent to these countries is normally sent in the form of food, which is then used to feed the poor of that nation. To deny these people food, in order to place conditions on their reigning government to instigate change cannot be defended morally. The Negative must say that the long-term benefits of the political conditions outweigh the immediate losses, but how can we, as Human being condemn another innocent person to death for any cause?
Corrupt goverments often reject political conditions that are attached to humanitarian aid, resulting in no aid for citizens. If countries do accept, they often are unable to follow the conditions, resulting in aid suspensions and reductions. This is one of the reasons foreign aid to Haiti, Afghanistan, and several other countries failed. Political conditions also negatively affect the donor country because the when political conditions are not accepted or followed conflict arises between the donor and the recipient country, causing the donor to lose credibility. The quality of the aid is also lowered with political conditions because the recipient countries often have to use aid money to actually follow the political conditions.
Politics do not hold the same ground as human lives. In the event of, say, a hurricane, people are dying and needing aid IMMEDIATELY, not in a month after we try to convince the current government to become a democracy or whatever. Humanitarian AID is short term, by definition. Using humanitarian aid as leverage for political change is long term, thus not making it Humanitarian aid; but Humanitarian ASSISTANCE.
Conditional assistance sets up ethically perverse situations where aid must be withdrawn, condemning those who are in peril to suffer and die.
Therefore if you are in favor of political conditions you are destroying the ideals of humanitarian aid which is not supporting humanitarian aid. That is why i voted yes
I say no because it is just not right to not wanna give to the people in foreign countries. They need our help they don't have stores like we do where they can go buy whenever they need and want like we can. Just imagine being them and needing food to feed your family and not being able to afford it.
If a country wants the help of another they should expect to have some rules, so to speak. They shouldn't just get the, in this instance lets pretend food, aid and keep going about. There should be regulations to make sure they don't need help in the future. They way the country can become self dependent. If one country feeds off another then it won't grow to its fullest potential, only to what the host country decides. However if this host country were to say, "If you want my food then you have to agree to make jobs for more farmers so that in the future you can create your own food." Then if the country decides to accept the aid and the conditions, it will take a step towards the bettering their country.
When you give a country aid, that aid does not necessarily go to the people who need it. Certain countries will in fact take this aid for themselves and use it in for whatever purposes they so desire, rather than using it to help alleviate the suffering of its citizens. One example of this is North Korea. In the '90s, certain western countries like the U.S. contributed aid to the country in the hopes that some of this aid reached the common people. These countries realized their mistake when it was discovered that North Korea had been secretly developing nuclear technology, and aid for the most part ended in 2006. You never know where aid will go when you give it to someone.
By promoting self dependency a country can sustain itself a lot longer. The long term impacts simply outweigh. A country cannot use others as a crutch to sustain itself. That is not moral. Besides, unconditional aid gives governments a chance to use the aid for unintended purposes. This creates an abusive dependency syndrome. Where the government can use unconditional aid for the wrong purposes. This way money can keep funding the wrong thing. Another argument is that, NGOs never take into account of the economic situation. For example in Haiti, the economy pretty much collapsed because the US gave so much aid it caused unemployment of 60% of the working class (farmers). It isn't moral if a people are losing their jobs which collapses into a collapse of the economy. This is why you negate.
Humanitarian aid is usually given in the form of money. Because of this it can be misused very easily. By placing a political condition on the way the aid is used we can ensure that the aid is not used in a manner that it was not meant for. These conditions can set guidelines for use and distribution of aid. The purpose of these conditions are to ensure the government does not withhold aid from the people of the country.
In the 1980's The United states along with the United Nations provided humanitarian aid to North Korea. Along with this aid came many political conditions. Among these was how the aid was distributed. They placed these condition on the aid to ensure the people in need of aid would receive it. After the 1980's crisis we continued to tighten restrictions, because the Government of North Korea was misusing the aid.
The United States Stopped sending Humanitarian aid to North Korea when it became evident that they were using the aid given, to further their nuclear program. This would endanger not only the United States, but many other countries whom we are allies with. With this knowledge also came the realization that had the political conditions been more firm and were monitored more closely, this could have been avoided and the aid could still be given.
A good example for this will the protest in Ukraine who wants to get billions of money as a means of humanitarian Aid form Russia instead of joining the European union which told them to wait. Since the government wants the money to increase the economic of the country he agrees to the political condition that Russia propose, which not was the primary reason for rebelling against the government.
There really is no reason why this should not be allowed as the country is supplying aid, and if the country in need doesn't agree with the conditions, they can negotiate. However, this is only allowable up to a point. There ideally should be a third party to decide whether the conditions instated are just, if one of the countries requests it.
The idea of supportive aid and humanitarian stimulus is to provide those in need over seas with whatever they are in need of. But, more often than not, these needy people are under all sorts of either war torn regions, or areas that are ruled by an unjust and corrupt government. To ensure the hard earned tax payers' money is going to where it needs, the needy people, political strings need to be tied to that stimulus. Throwing money at a problem will not solve it. Especially, when that money is being thrown at a corrupt government. There is no guarantee that those governments will use that money wisely and give the relief where it ought to be. These political ties are the only safeguard to ensure that the money isn't being just fed into the root of the problem that in which the money was sent to fix in the first place.
Here we have the corrupt regime and the people, all in one country. Say USA would like to help the people and go against the regime, but USA can't be sure that the money or help will go straight to the people and not the regime. What political conditions do is that they *make sure* that the help gets to the people and that the regime does not benefit much from the aid.
In nearly all situations I would say no, being the fact that policital conditions are placed on Humaniatarian Aid almost solely to prevent abuse, or the growth of terrorist organizations, such as in Afghanistan with the Taliban. However, on the other end, the donor country could potentially be using the political conditions for all the wrong reasons, but in most cases this isn't true.