Aid Should 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.
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Hypothetically and on paper it should be
The U.S should at least try to be fair.
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
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?
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
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.
To pressure governments by cutting funds and imposing sanctions is counterproductive.
Government and citizens are often not the same entity.
What do you think?