International organizations have failed to help everyone who needs help so they should only focus on helping the poor people in their own countries. To what extent do you agree?
With limited money, international organizations, indeed, could not manage to help every needed person. But it doesn't mean that the international community should only provide help to their own poverty-stricken citizens. From my perspective, International organizations have irreplaceable obligation to help the poor.
The purpose of establishing international organizations is help. For example, the World Bank composed by affluent countries offers lower-interest loans to the poor countries. Through this way, the less wealthy countries have enough money to develop the infrastructure facilities, such as roads and pipeline, which could generate massive job opportunities. As more job vacancies will be provided, more lay-off workers in the poor countries could make a living by themselves. Therefore, the living standard of the local people could be apparently improved.
Maybe it seems unfair to the wealthy countries which still have the poor people in their own countries. It is true that the action to help the poor in other countries will damage the interests of the taxpayers in the affluent countries. However, it isn't unfair if we consider the fact that hundreds of thousands of the poor are under starvation in other countries in contrast to fewer poor people in the wealthy countries.
Even though the international organizations have failed to help every the needed, offering help will still make a difference in change the imbalance of fortune in the globe. Without international aid, a large number of poor people may die of starvation in the year to come. Further, the poor may take violent measures, such as stealing, to support their lives, which may drive up the crime rate and cause inability in the country as well.
To conclude, international aid is necessary, despite a few countries will benefit. For the wealthy countries, they should give priority to the needed in their own countries before helping the poor in other countries.
With limited money, international organizations, indeed, could not manage to help every needed person. But it doesn't mean that the international community should only provide help to their own poverty-stricken citizens. From my perspective, International organizations have irreplaceable obligation to help the poor.
The purpose of establishing international organizations is help. For example, the World Bank composed by affluent countries offers lower-interest loans to the poor countries. Through this way, the less wealthy countries have enough money to develop the infrastructure facilities, such as roads and pipeline, which could generate massive job opportunities. As more job vacancies will be provided, more lay-off workers in the poor countries could make a living by themselves. Therefore, the living standard of the local people could be apparently improved.
Maybe it seems unfair to the wealthy countries which still have the poor people in their own countries. It is true that the action to help the poor in other countries will damage the interests of the taxpayers in the affluent countries. However, it isn't unfair if we consider the fact that hundreds of thousands of the poor are under starvation in other countries in contrast to fewer poor people in the wealthy countries.
Even though the international organizations have failed to help every the needed, offering help will still make a difference in change the imbalance of fortune in the globe. Without international aid, a large number of poor people may die of starvation in the year to come. Further, the poor may take violent measures, such as stealing, to support their lives, which may drive up the crime rate and cause inability in the country as well.
To conclude, international aid is necessary, despite a few countries will benefit. For the wealthy countries, they should give priority to the needed in their own countries before helping the poor in other countries.