generalspeaking

The Morality of Humanitarian Aid

It is most certainly incumbent on wealthy countries to allocate a significant proportion of their wealth for the purpose of aiding and assisting other less well endowed countries to adequately care for their populations' well-being. There are such a large number of under-developed countries in this world, countries whose people exist on the edge of starvation, deprived of opportunities to advance themselves.

Countries such as Canada have an obligation to assist where they can. To provide assistance with sanitary and hygiene improvements, medical assistance, potable water, and food availability. Canadians expect no less of their government than to observe that obligation. In the best of all possible worlds charity should have no strings attached. One gives because one has a need to, to help others.

It's a basic act of humanity to respond to the needs of others whose lives are constrained and irretrievably restrained by endemic poverty.

Philanthropy requires that charitable acts are engaged upon and the one who gives withdraws himself from earning anything from the transaction; praise, thanks or any type of recompense. The purest type of charity is that which is given without identifying the donor. Altruism at its very best, earning the giver nothing but the personal satisfaction of self-respect.

It should not, then, be entirely surprising that it is also in human nature to not particularly feel gratitude when someone else extends themselves to help. To take such things for granted, as is their due. To take, sometimes, with a sense of aggrieved deserving. Even to resent the giver, attributing to him some manner of underhanded privilege denied themselves.

The way the world is structured, wealthy nations of conscience have for so long made it a commonplace to pledge a certain amount of their treasury to international assistance, that those who gain from the philanthropy take it as an entitlement. In addition, there are sometimes ties from a colonialist past, and a certain guilt associated with assisting one-time satellites.

Canada, for example, not having ever been an imperialist country, part of the British Commonwealth and perhaps in that way seen as a colonized country of Great Britain, extends aid and assistance to a good many under-developed countries of the world. The Canadian International Development Agency, which is the aid arm of the federal government - also acts for the purpose of assisting "developing countries ... promote democracy and human rights".

Canadians also give their support to the idea of the use of military force internationally to combat the scourge of ethnic cleansing; the situation in various countries of mass starvation; human rights abuses and other humanitarian concerns. The majority of Canadians are comfortable with the idea that Canadian troops can be used for peace-keeping purposes or the apprehension of other countries' administrations abusing their populations.

There is little pay-back on these initiatives, other than the self-knowledge that it is the ethical, moral thing to do. It would be attractive to think that in offering critical assistance to countries incapable of serving the best interests of their own populations, we could motivate them to institute more balanced and humanitarian resolve in the interests of serving their people.

As it is, Canada also extends funding to assist nations are involved in abusing their own populations, reasoning that the assistance is needed, regardless. And for our pains, our attention to the needs of others, we need not really be all that surprised when recipient countries fail to identify with us, and seek instead to support countries with whom Canada is at odds.

For example, Canada's long-time pursuit of Iran as a human-rights abusing government, to name and shame that country in the United Nations. Canada just narrowly avoided having its draft resolution stopped before it could come to the full plenary session of the United Nations for discussion and voting, several weeks earlier with the support of a bare majority of voting countries.

The draft resolution issued yearly by Canada - strenuously resisted by the (Islamic) Revolutionary Republic of Iran, holding that country to account for "torture ... including flogging and amputations", along with violent discrimination against other faith groups, ethnic and other minorities - to censure Iran, stands in danger of rejection by a wide range of countries seeing it in their best interests to support Iran.

Included among those countries are many who are recipients of aid from Canada. Those countries include Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mali, Senegal, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Pakistan, Zambia, Malawi, Bolivia, Cambodia and Nicaragua. And inclusive of Afghanistan and South Africa, where Canada has spent billions in infrastructure and defence, and aid in combating HIV/AIDS, respectively.

These are countries who have learned to rely on Canadian generosity in extending aid in an attempt to alleviate their burdens of caring for their people. But who see little need to support Canada's initiatives toward supporting human rights, and democracy. Some of the countries are Islamic, and tend to support another Islamic country; some are themselves human-rights abusers, and tend not to want to condemn another human-rights-abusing country.

Canada will continue to do as it always has, hoping that its generosity will eventually impinge upon the consciences of other countries, to encourage them to want to bring safety, security and a better life to their own people, rejecting the perceived need to imprison internal dissenters or those who campaign for women's rights.

That they will eventually join other countries who also receive Canadian aid, like Honduras and Ukraine, who have backed the Canadian-led initiative to censure Iran for its human-rights abuses.

Labels: Canada, Justice, United Nations

posted by Pieface @ Monday, December 01, 2008