There is a belief that the governmental bodies shouldn’t provide international help due to personal poverty in their country. I support the view that at first, the government should provide financial aid to its own country’s development and then can allocate money to others.
In spite of spending money on international aid, governments should prioritise improving the quality of life in their countries. When funds are invested in education and jobs, the economy and population are growing. As a result, the country can become wealthier and stronger in the political arena while supporting citizens in the long term. For instance, financial aid could help low-income families, which would reduce their living needs, but instead, money is spent on foreign assistance.
The country can provide monetary aid without damaging its own well-being, only if it is financially stable.
Another important reason to prioritise the development of one’s own country is to prevent a possible increase in crime. Financial hardship affects not only public facility conditions but can also influence residents’ mental well-being. The problem is that, while the chaos in the country leads to social instability, the government directs money to international support. For example, Brazil has problems with social inequality and poverty, but also participates in international cooperation and provides money to other countries. As a result, the lack of appropriate attention to poor environment poverty can lead to higher criminal rates.
In conclusion, I agree with the idea that the first priority should be to alleviate poverty among their own citizens, to prevent underdeveloped public facilities, economic decline, and crime.