In contemporary society, it is not an uncommon phenomenon that better-off countries send millions of relief goods to other countries in desperate need. Some people are convinced that there are more banes in doing so than boons to both the. Personally, I strongly consent to it. beneficiaries and the subscribers
On one hand, subsidized on a regular base, the recipients, particularly those universally and historically claimed poverty-stricken areas such as some in Africa, tend to cease to struggle to survive. How pathetic are these countries, which may gradually become used to accepting assistance without making any spontaneous efforts. In the long run, they will be eventually deprived of the capability to live on their own.
On the other hand, these generous countries may also pay a heavy price for what they do, which is largely due to the fact that the insatiability of human wants will put them under not only crippling financial burden but also excessive international pressure. For those openhanded governments who nonetheless fail to guarantee the well-being of their own people, the inconsiderate deed is very likely to spark hostility in their people and thus shake the domestic stability and hinder the economic development.
Admittedly, there exists one distinct benefit in the heroic behavior—to help those needy countries out. But unfortunately many countries do so with intentions that the strengthened bond between them will pay off in cases of emergency or crisis in such a complex and highly-changeable political, economic and natural climate. To their disappointment, this possibility can be easily ruled out as nations would take measures only for their own interests.
To sum up, international aid has certain moral merits, which, however, according to what is mentioned above has long been overrated; therefore, it is more advisable that developed countries offer techniques and talents to help the underdeveloped to maintain sustainable development.
In contemporary society, it is not an uncommon phenomenon that better-off
countries
send
millions of relief
goods
to other
countries
in desperate need.
Some
people
are convinced
that there are more banes in doing
so
than boons to both
the.
Personally
, I
strongly
consent to it. beneficiaries and the subscribers
On one hand, subsidized on a regular base, the recipients,
particularly
those
universally
and
historically
claimed poverty-stricken areas such as
some
in Africa, tend to cease to struggle to survive. How pathetic are these
countries
, which may
gradually
become
used
to accepting assistance without making any spontaneous efforts. In the long run, they will be
eventually
deprived of the capability to
live
on their
own
.
On the other hand
, these generous
countries
may
also
pay a heavy price for what they do, which is
largely
due to the fact that the insatiability of human wants will put them under not
only
crippling financial burden
but
also
excessive international pressure. For those openhanded
governments
who nonetheless fail to guarantee the well-being of their
own
people
, the inconsiderate deed is
very
likely to spark hostility in their
people
and
thus
shake the domestic stability and hinder the economic development.
Admittedly
, there exists one distinct benefit in the heroic behavior—to
help
those needy
countries
out.
But
unfortunately
many
countries
do
so
with intentions that the strengthened bond between them will pay off in cases of emergency or crisis in such a complex and
highly
-changeable political, economic and natural climate. To their disappointment, this possibility can be
easily
ruled out as nations would take measures
only
for their
own
interests.
To sum up, international aid has certain moral merits, which,
however
, according to what
is mentioned
above has long
been overrated
;
therefore
, it is more advisable that developed
countries
offer techniques and talents to
help
the underdeveloped to maintain sustainable development.