Submitted Essay
The geographical scope of charitable campaigns remains contentious, with some advocating that organizations should exclusively support fellow residents and others supporting a more internationalist approach and providing humanitarian aid where necessary. The essay aims to examine both these perspectives and shed light on the author’s standpoint.
Proponents of the nationally-focused charity are convinced that each country’s resources, both financial and natural, are finite, which highlights the need to prioritize domestic needs. If local organizations consistently extend humanitarian assistance to overseas regions, it might result in extreme shortage of resources in case of in-country emergencies. Such an imbalanced approach could trigger a decade of deprivation in certain states, which would be problematic to tackle. Furthermore, concepts of proximity and social responsibility deserve careful consideration when it comes to setting priorities. Since fellow residents make regular contributions to the country’s budget through taxation or voluntary allocations, their well-being deserve higher recognition, and responsibility stemming from the social contract far supersedes that before foreigners.
Conversely, advocates of the international humanitarianism claim that developed countries should meet a moral obligation before less developed ones. Urgent humanitarian needs such as famine, diseases and lack of sanitation caused by pandemics or warfare should transcend the geographical boarders. In such incidents requiring global participation, countries with abundant resources should step in and support to alleviate suffering through adequate supply of food and water, medication and items of basic necessity. To illustrate this, the UN frequently arranges campaigns encouraging international assistance in areas of extreme poverty and insanitation including some African regions, war-torn countries such as Ukraine and Palestine. These measures emphasize the importance of non-domestic engagement and voluntary support for the sake of global prosperity.
In conclusion, I believe that neither the domestic-centred nor cross-country approach should be opted for as an exclusive option, since both domestic and international needs deserve equal consideration, especially in urgent scenarios.
Proponents of the nationally-focused charity are convinced that each country’s resources, both financial and natural, are finite, which highlights the need to prioritize domestic needs. If local organizations consistently extend humanitarian assistance to overseas regions, it might result in extreme shortage of resources in case of in-country emergencies. Such an imbalanced approach could trigger a decade of deprivation in certain states, which would be problematic to tackle. Furthermore, concepts of proximity and social responsibility deserve careful consideration when it comes to setting priorities. Since fellow residents make regular contributions to the country’s budget through taxation or voluntary allocations, their well-being deserve higher recognition, and responsibility stemming from the social contract far supersedes that before foreigners.
Conversely, advocates of the international humanitarianism claim that developed countries should meet a moral obligation before less developed ones. Urgent humanitarian needs such as famine, diseases and lack of sanitation caused by pandemics or warfare should transcend the geographical boarders. In such incidents requiring global participation, countries with abundant resources should step in and support to alleviate suffering through adequate supply of food and water, medication and items of basic necessity. To illustrate this, the UN frequently arranges campaigns encouraging international assistance in areas of extreme poverty and insanitation including some African regions, war-torn countries such as Ukraine and Palestine. These measures emphasize the importance of non-domestic engagement and voluntary support for the sake of global prosperity.
In conclusion, I believe that neither the domestic-centred nor cross-country approach should be opted for as an exclusive option, since both domestic and international needs deserve equal consideration, especially in urgent scenarios.