In this contemporary world, there seems to be a dilemma regarding how highly developed nations should do its part to help the economically backward countries. While some people believe that financial aid is enough, others believe that alternate types of resources should be provided instead to aid these nations. I agree with this statement to some extent and will discuss my reasons for the same in this essay.
On one hand, rich nations lending money to the developing nations have its own sets of advantages. Firstly, the receiving nation knows best where to invest the capital funds and where to allocate them. For example, in the Israel- Palestinian war, the USA transferred millions of dollars to aid their ally Israel, which were subsequently utilised to strengthen their army and equip them with advanced military weapons. Secondly, liquid cash helps to uplift the financial status of the underprivileged nation. For example, China helped Pakistan to clear off its massive debts from the World Bank. This resulted in increasing the value of the Pakistani currency against the dollar.
Conversely, giving only money funds does not necessarily alleviate poverty. For example, in the Haiti earthquake calamity, manpower, food, and shelter were the main resources that were the need of the hour and not cash. To tackle this, Bill Gates Foundation provided volunteers while Red Cross distributed food packages and UNICEF helped in constructing large-scale shelters and medications to the catastrophe victims. All these cumulatively helped to alleviate poverty from the Haiti region.
To conclude, I would like to emphasise that while financial aids in terms of funds may be one of the effective ways to fight against poverty, it is certainly not enough as manpower, food, shelter, medicines and other such essential resources are equally and vitally important. I strongly believe that well-to-do countries should provide a helping hand to the poverty-ridden nations depending upon the need of the situation.
In this contemporary world, there seems to be a dilemma regarding how
highly
developed
nations
should do its part to
help
the
economically
backward countries. While
some
people
believe that financial
aid
is
enough
, others believe that alternate types of resources should
be provided
instead
to
aid
these
nations
. I
agree
with this statement to
some
extent and will discuss my reasons for the same in this essay.
On one hand, rich
nations
lending money to the developing
nations
have its
own
sets of advantages.
Firstly
, the receiving
nation
knows best where to invest the capital funds and where to allocate them.
For example
, in the Israel- Palestinian war, the USA transferred millions of dollars to
aid
their ally Israel, which were
subsequently
utilised
to strengthen their army and equip them with advanced military weapons.
Secondly
, liquid cash
helps
to uplift the financial status of the underprivileged
nation
.
For example
, China
helped
Pakistan to
clear
off its massive debts from the World Bank. This resulted in increasing the value of the Pakistani currency against the dollar.
Conversely
, giving
only
money funds does not
necessarily
alleviate poverty.
For example
, in the Haiti earthquake calamity, manpower, food, and shelter were the main resources that were the need of the hour and not cash. To tackle this, Bill Gates Foundation provided volunteers while Red Cross distributed food packages and UNICEF
helped
in constructing large-scale shelters and medications to the catastrophe victims. All these
cumulatively
helped
to alleviate poverty from the Haiti region.
To conclude
, I would like to
emphasise
that while financial
aids
in terms of funds may be one of the effective ways to fight against poverty, it is
certainly
not
enough
as manpower, food, shelter, medicines and other such essential resources are
equally
and
vitally
important
. I
strongly
believe that well-to-do countries should provide a helping hand to the poverty-ridden
nations
depending upon the need of the situation.