Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1787 that "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them."
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Responsibility and Poverty
Please read this article on poverty aid. What is the most signifiacnt aspect of this article for international relations? Why?
11 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I think the most significant aspect of this article for international relations is rich countries have not delivered on their historical commitment made in 2005 to substantially increase their aid to fight extreme poverty. They showed a clear lack of leadership on bringing much needed funding to poor countries. "Rich countries failure to delieve on aid promises means millions of children denied a place in school, and mothers and children condemned to die." When quality long-term aid is given, it is making huge different; on the other side, if rich countries give less aid, poor countries may be getting worse and affect the development of the rich countries. So the rich countries should help the poor countries get out those bad situations, and fulfill "One world one dream, love for all mankind". YMM
It is really sad to hear that rich countries didn’t keep their promises to help poor countries, and save millions people live whose suffer from the diseases, like Malarial, HIV/AIDS, and TB. It is shame on the leaders spending millions on global military every year instead of spending some of those millions to save children, and women’s lives, which need medication, and to go to schools.
I agree that the most significant aspect of this article is that countries that committed to distribute aid have failed to do so. It is important for governments to honor their commitments in order to establish trust between rich and poor countries. This is a good example of rich countries failing to lead by example. However, it is promising to see that poorer countries are increasing spending on health and education as this is a better solution to fighting poverty. JA
This article is informative by giving a clear example of the funding and aid needed in the world. The amount of money needed to prevent a fraction of this is significantly high, seeing that 94.4 billion was not enough. I think that wealthy countries should increase the present of aid funding. I also think that wealthy countries contriuting money should device plans that help poor countries and its people to prevent poverty instead of relying on billions of dollars. RCW
Its very unfortunate that the richer countries arent keeping their promise to aid poorer countries, because there are many innocent people who are suffering for the financial defeciets in theor country. While this comment, "Rich countries failure to delieve on aid promises means millions of children denied a place in school, and mothers and children condemned to die," seems a little dramatic, I do believe the failure on the part of rich countries to aid poor countries is doing significant damage. It also seems like some countries who dont really have money to give, are actually the ones trying to help. Whereas the countries who do have money, arent really trying to help. Also, if rich countries dont give to those in need now, who will want to give money to them when they are in need? D Epperson
The most significant aspect of this article is that rich countries promised to increase aid by $50 billion annually by 2010. "Aid is less than one tenth of global military spending. Yet this aid could save literally millions of lives. In 1970, rich countries promised to give 0.7% of their income as aid. Yet no one has ever kept their promise to help. Maybe this time they should just do what they say they are going to do. MH
I think it's unfair that the richer countries are not giving as much aid as was promised. I agree that this is the most significant piece of the article. If richer countries assisted in bridging the gap between rich and poor we would have no struggling countries. The world needs to work better together. CH
I will have to agree with the majority and say that most significant part of the article is the in ability of these other countries to keep their word on providing foreign aid to under developed countries. I dont think anyone should be deprived as what the article points out as schooling and medical needs. If these countried like the UK and Japan promised to provide funding then they should be held to that promise. TS
The rich countries promised to increase aid by $50 billion annually by 2010. The promises were not kept and to be realistic, are any of us suprised? it is vary sad that they made such a promise and did not fulfill it but i see it as something that was to be expected. K.Lake
I think the most important aspect of this article can be found in the fourth from last paragraph where the article mentions that aid makes up only a tenth of military spending. That is incredibly unfortunate. Humanity should concentrate on saving lives, not taking them.
i dont see different aspects of this article. the fact that people are dying because of the lack of support is rediculous and unacceptable. the united states obviously has enough financial problems of its own, however it's debt to other countries i guess you could say is still no excuse for the absence of funding. the end of our countries' debt is nowhere in sight so i suppose one could say what's the point in not following through with the agreement. i dont think this is really a debatable issue. plainly stated; there is a huge problem, the answer is simple, and yet not being taken care of. to provide enough support to end world hunger is obviously close to impossible, but every life matters, and i think that's the big picture some officials lose sight of.
11 comments:
I think the most significant aspect of this article for international relations is rich countries have not delivered on their historical commitment made in 2005 to substantially increase their aid to fight extreme poverty. They showed a clear lack of leadership on bringing much needed funding to poor countries. "Rich countries failure to delieve on aid promises means millions of children denied a place in school, and mothers and children condemned to die." When quality long-term aid is given, it is making huge different; on the other side, if rich countries give less aid, poor countries may be getting worse and affect the development of the rich countries. So the rich countries should help the poor countries get out those bad situations, and fulfill "One world one dream, love for all mankind".
YMM
It is really sad to hear that rich countries didn’t keep their promises to help poor countries, and save millions people live whose suffer from the diseases, like Malarial, HIV/AIDS, and TB. It is shame on the leaders spending millions on global military every year instead of spending some of those millions to save children, and women’s lives, which need medication, and to go to schools.
MSA
I agree that the most significant aspect of this article is that countries that committed to distribute aid have failed to do so. It is important for governments to honor their commitments in order to establish trust between rich and poor countries. This is a good example of rich countries failing to lead by example. However, it is promising to see that poorer countries are increasing spending on health and education as this is a better solution to fighting poverty.
JA
This article is informative by giving a clear example of the funding and aid needed in the world.
The amount of money needed to prevent a fraction of this is significantly high, seeing that 94.4 billion was not enough. I think that wealthy countries should increase the present of aid funding. I also think that wealthy countries contriuting money should device plans that help poor countries and its people to prevent poverty instead of relying on billions of dollars.
RCW
Its very unfortunate that the richer countries arent keeping their promise to aid poorer countries, because there are many innocent people who are suffering for the financial defeciets in theor country. While this comment, "Rich countries failure to delieve on aid promises means millions of children denied a place in school, and mothers and children condemned to die," seems a little dramatic, I do believe the failure on the part of rich countries to aid poor countries is doing significant damage. It also seems like some countries who dont really have money to give, are actually the ones trying to help. Whereas the countries who do have money, arent really trying to help. Also, if rich countries dont give to those in need now, who will want to give money to them when they are in need? D Epperson
The most significant aspect of this article is that rich countries promised to increase aid by $50 billion annually by 2010. "Aid is less than one tenth of global military spending. Yet this aid could save literally millions of lives. In 1970, rich countries promised to give 0.7% of their income as aid. Yet no one has ever kept their promise to help. Maybe this time they should just do what they say they are going to do.
MH
I think it's unfair that the richer countries are not giving as much aid as was promised. I agree that this is the most significant piece of the article. If richer countries assisted in bridging the gap between rich and poor we would have no struggling countries. The world needs to work better together.
CH
I will have to agree with the majority and say that most significant part of the article is the in ability of these other countries to keep their word on providing foreign aid to under developed countries. I dont think anyone should be deprived as what the article points out as schooling and medical needs. If these countried like the UK and Japan promised to provide funding then they should be held to that promise.
TS
The rich countries promised to increase aid by $50 billion annually by 2010. The promises were not kept and to be realistic, are any of us suprised? it is vary sad that they made such a promise and did not fulfill it but i see it as something that was to be expected.
K.Lake
I think the most important aspect of this article can be found in the fourth from last paragraph where the article mentions that aid makes up only a tenth of military spending. That is incredibly unfortunate. Humanity should concentrate on saving lives, not taking them.
i dont see different aspects of this article. the fact that people are dying because of the lack of support is rediculous and unacceptable. the united states obviously has enough financial problems of its own, however it's debt to other countries i guess you could say is still no excuse for the absence of funding. the end of our countries' debt is nowhere in sight so i suppose one could say what's the point in not following through with the agreement. i dont think this is really a debatable issue. plainly stated; there is a huge problem, the answer is simple, and yet not being taken care of. to provide enough support to end world hunger is obviously close to impossible, but every life matters, and i think that's the big picture some officials lose sight of.
Post a Comment