In times of natural disaster, wealthy countries should offer humanitarian aids to affected low-income nation. This essay strongly agrees with this statement for two reasons: wealthy nations have the resources to do so, and it builds a positive relationship between countries.
Wealthy nations should assist poorer countries because they are capable of it; these states are likely to generate massive income from their expansive economies, and some of those could be used for humanitarian purposes like rescue operations. Assisting poorer countries with these resources could save massive amount of lives that would’ve been lost due to the recipient’s limited capacity. Moreover, saving lives is a moral obligation – if someone came across a drowning child, they wouldn’t ignore it. A recent example aptly illustrates this claim. In 2020, a massive earthquake struck Tuvalu, a small pacific island nation; owing to Australia’s assistance in evacuating citizens of the country, two hundred thousand lives has been saved – a figure that wouldn’t be possible without the external support.
Another explanation for my opinion is that sending humanitarian aid fosters a good relationship among the sender and receiver. This is best illustrated through an analogy: if someone gifts you something, you would feel good. Likewise, if a country helps the other with humanitarian aid, the recipient would have a positive view of that country and want to reciprocate the assistance. Having positive relationships entails many benefits: trade, tourism, cultural exchange, and much more. A recent finding suggests that after the US donated living necessities like food and medicine to Jamaica, a recently tsunami-struck country, their trades improved by 70% after the latter had recovered from the disaster.
In conclusion, I strongly support the notion that rich nations should assist poorer countries in humanitarian endeavors because they are capable of it and it strengthen the relationship between the states.