Should first world countries offer economic help to third world countries?
Instruction: State your own opinion on this matter.
Throughout the European colonial period, European countries that were more economically developed usually exerted economic and political influence on countries that were less developed. This influence, in some cases, was nothing but pure exploitation. European countries financed their development at the expense of the resources of their colonies. Years of exploitation devastated countries and one whole continent, if you think about Africa. Nowadays, we live in a globalized world. Although some say that the shackles of imperialism have been broken, we are still living in an extremely polarized world. A world in which one fifth of the population lives in extreme famine and one tenth of the population holds more than fifty percent of the wealth.
It's reasonable to imagine a world in which affluent countries help deprived countries. Even more, countries that have exploited in the past should be the ones to blame. We live an era that promotes economic stability and seeks common trade. Countries that trade with each other are less susceptible to wage wars, as well as being more likely to assist each other. Therefore, by helping third world countries, the first world countries would be promoting a world of economic stability. In addition, by raising the standard of living of the population of third world countries, first world countries would be creating new consumer markets into which products could be poured.
However, it's possible to notice that by offering economic assistance, first world countries are still exerting some kind of influence. After all, in the majority of instances they are not just giving the money away. They are expecting to get something back, directly or indirectly. The problem lies in the "indirectly". Some say that poor countries are still trapped in a never ending exploitation cycle. Some say that every form of assistance that we witness is nothing but a way of keeping an exploited country functionally active. Moreover, the world in which we live has not enough resources to accommodate a high standard of living for everyone. Thus, some say that it's impossible to stop and revert the exploitation cycle that has been started in the past. They argue that this exploitation has been veiled, but it still exists.
Even though it's understandable to think about a world in which socio-economic equality rules, one must ask oneself if it could be reasonably achieved. By raising the question and thinking about it, it's possible to analyze why some of the first world countries are so stern when it comes to offering economic help to other countries. It's socially valued to talk about humanitarian deeds. Unfortunately, rich countries stipulate that humanitarian deeds come with a cost, concealed or not. Therefore, instead of asking if they should help one has to focus on what would be behind the action and how it could affect the current economic situation of the recipient country.
Instruction: State your own opinion on this matter.
Throughout the European colonial period, European countries that were more economically developed usually exerted economic and political influence on countries that were less developed. This influence, in some cases, was nothing but pure exploitation. European countries financed their development at the expense of the resources of their colonies. Years of exploitation devastated countries and one whole continent, if you think about Africa. Nowadays, we live in a globalized world. Although some say that the shackles of imperialism have been broken, we are still living in an extremely polarized world. A world in which one fifth of the population lives in extreme famine and one tenth of the population holds more than fifty percent of the wealth.
It's reasonable to imagine a world in which affluent countries help deprived countries. Even more, countries that have exploited in the past should be the ones to blame. We live an era that promotes economic stability and seeks common trade. Countries that trade with each other are less susceptible to wage wars, as well as being more likely to assist each other. Therefore, by helping third world countries, the first world countries would be promoting a world of economic stability. In addition, by raising the standard of living of the population of third world countries, first world countries would be creating new consumer markets into which products could be poured.
However, it's possible to notice that by offering economic assistance, first world countries are still exerting some kind of influence. After all, in the majority of instances they are not just giving the money away. They are expecting to get something back, directly or indirectly. The problem lies in the "indirectly". Some say that poor countries are still trapped in a never ending exploitation cycle. Some say that every form of assistance that we witness is nothing but a way of keeping an exploited country functionally active. Moreover, the world in which we live has not enough resources to accommodate a high standard of living for everyone. Thus, some say that it's impossible to stop and revert the exploitation cycle that has been started in the past. They argue that this exploitation has been veiled, but it still exists.
Even though it's understandable to think about a world in which socio-economic equality rules, one must ask oneself if it could be reasonably achieved. By raising the question and thinking about it, it's possible to analyze why some of the first world countries are so stern when it comes to offering economic help to other countries. It's socially valued to talk about humanitarian deeds. Unfortunately, rich countries stipulate that humanitarian deeds come with a cost, concealed or not. Therefore, instead of asking if they should help one has to focus on what would be behind the action and how it could affect the current economic situation of the recipient country.