*Should aid be tied to human rights?*
Europe and America have regularly but not consistently tied aid to developing countries to human rights. After all the US gives billions, and not just humanitarian aid but also dollars for military equipment, to Egypt,Israel and Saudi Arabia. More recently China has been willing
to invest in development programs with no strings attached, particularly if there is raw materials involved. If the west continues being hypocritical
and keeps tying some aid but not all aid to human rights then China will ultimately reign supreme.
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
Hypothetically and on paper it should be
but isn't. How can it be? when the U.S government itself is guilty of a number of human rights' violations that international human rights' organizations want answers for?
The U.S should at least try to be fair.
The U.S has put sanctions on a number of countries on the basis of human rights`violations. But putting sanctions on countries is dependent-on/allied/aligned-with in one or the other is difficult/different. Because imposing sanctions on these countries is also punishing the U.S(of A not I,that`s a different country) and her people.
Why should Americans(civilians and businessmen) suffer when foreign countries are violating human rights? As long as they`re paying up(in oil/arms/toys) and not violating American rights it`s all good.
The American government cares for the American people; the American people benefit from friendly relations with Israel,OPEC-countries et al.
There are countless Americans employed all over the middle-east making ten times the money they would in the U.S. Blocking their jobs and businesses in the name of trade sanctions is not desirable/feasible.
Jordanian journalists protest a 48% increase in U.S funding after a negative report by human rights' watch on the Jordanian govt
It is odd, but not quite.
Jordon sells oil to the U.S; the U.S buys oil from Jordan: both governments are mutually-happy.
These journalists don't seem to be patriotic; shouldn't they be happy that their country received unconditional funding?
But they don't trust the government and why should they?
Are they upset that their govt was rewarded not punished?
A common excuse for governments to act up is:
Not enough funding;too much pressure and so we take it out on our people; colloquially put.
The U.S has always been monetarily kind to Israel; it would be hypocritical not to be nice to other countries with horrible human rights`records.
The U.S itself has a deplorable human rights' record; so what of that? Different States have the freedom to define human rights(the rights of citizens,travelers and immigrants) as they please.Some states consider gay marriage to be a human right; other states do not.
Also the U.S's human rights' violations in other countries are infamous.
here's a list of human rights' treaties not ratified by the U.S: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States#Other_human_rights_treaties_not_signed_or_signed_but_not_ratified]]
Tying aid to human rights puts pressure on countries to act responsibly
towards their citizens. If leaders are aware that the amount of AID they receive is conditioned upon how they value and practice human rights, then they automatically put human rights first(as should be).
When U.S.AID is distributed unfairly; some uncivilized governments are off the hook while others are punished harshly; it gives out a negative impression of foreign policy. The United States is then putting money&power/economy first and human rights second.
conditional funding does not translate to economic-sanctions/no-funding. It means money should be given to these governments once they ensure that they spend it on providing/practicing human rights and not in any other sector.
Money should be put first. Without money human rights' such as the right to an eduction/gender-equality cannot be met without funds/money.
To pressure governments by cutting funds and imposing sanctions is counterproductive.
Government and citizens are often not the same entity.
The government in low -income countries is sometimes not interested in its country. We must remember that aid is supposedly to help the countrymen, NOT the government. If the people are already suffering from bad human rights, how is it helpful to stifle what is sometimes their only hope, in terms of the basic needs? I agree that Western governments should assess whether the recipient country's government deserve the aid, but only to consider whether they would spend the aid wisely. It is not fair to punish the countrymen as a result of bad governance which is not their fault.
What do you think?