Political conditions on Humantarian Aid just?

[Atra Mors]

Well, since there are a lot of places needing humantarian aid right now in the world. (like Somalia, Horn of Africa, or any place with a recent disaster) I was wondering whether putting political conditions for giving humanitarian aid in foreign countries are just. I believe that its good to give humanitarian aid, and if you can get something out of it, thats even better as long as it isn't to a greater disadvantage than the gain. Since technically, you are using your own resources that could have been used to benefit your own citizens. However, if the political conditions were very unfair to the other party, then I believe that we should give help freely, but limit the quantity of resources expended, since it will not go well if one helped another country, used up all their resources, and let their own country die.

So, in your country, do you consider giving humanitarian aid with a political condition just?
Do you consider it a good idea to use humanitarian aid as a political leverage? (morally and legally)
If not, why?

Feel free to extend arguements and discuss.

[Ashmoria]

i dont know about just but when it seems only natural for politicians to hand over money with politics in mind.

NGOs on the other hand probably ought to try to keep politics out of it.

[Agritum]

Regarding political conditions, I'd guess that humanitarian aid sould be administered by the NGO tthemselves, in case of a non-collaborative or corrupt government.

[Purpelia]

The only condition that can ever be justified for offering someone aid is some sort of assurance that the resources you give will be used in the way they are intended to. Anything else is just blackmail and political extortion disguised as help.

[DesAnges]

Well it depends, I guess.

If you say "We'll give you $20,000,000,000US a year if you make teh gayz illegal", then that's not exactly what I'd call, you know, good. If you say "We'll give you $20,000,000,000US a year if you take large steps to eradicate government corruption using this team of spanky new investigators we're also sending you" then that's a much fairer idea.

But ideally you'd want to politicise the process as little as possible. If you're going to give the money, give the money.

Unless you're Sepp Blatter. Then you can just do whatever the hell you want and no one will care.

[Zottistan]

Sounds absolutely fair. No country is entitled to aid, so it's completely justifiable that we only offer it if they meet our standards.

Not necessarily good, mind you, but justifiable.

[Olimpius]

Say a corrupt government runs a country. The government has many ties to the black market, and the officials/governors are just increasing their own power while the people suffer. In this scenario, NGOs will not be able to make any moves since they don't have enough power to. So the only option is for another government to step in. In this instance, a political process needs to be made, whether it is a political sanction or economical sanction against the country so that the government can be overthrown and re-established. And in normal cases, most transaction has a give and recieve default. So if you are asking whether it is just, as in fair, then it is fair. But morally, that is another question.

[Gallup]

If it's "We'll give you money if you ban evolution from being taught", that's not good. If it's "We'll give you money if you cut back on corruption/scale back on your nuclear program", that's good.

[DesAnges]

If it's "We'll give you money if you ban evolution from being taught", that's not good. If it's "We'll give you money if you cut back on corruption/scale back on your nuclear program", that's good.

Hey now. Why scale back on their nuclear program? Half the world doesn't have a nuclear deterrent, that puts them at a massive disadvantage.

[Gallup]

If it's "We'll give you money if you ban evolution from being taught", that's not good. If it's "We'll give you money if you cut back on corruption/scale back on your nuclear program", that's good.

Hey now. Why scale back on their nuclear program? Half the world doesn't have a nuclear deterrent, that puts them at a massive disadvantage.

So Iran and North Korea should get nukes? Sorry Ayatollah DesAnges.

Either that or Kim Jong DesAnges. You chose.

Edit: Just found out I've been linked in DesAnges sig. Yay me.

[DesAnges]

Hey now. Why scale back on their nuclear program? Half the world doesn't have a nuclear deterrent, that puts them at a massive disadvantage.

So Iran and North Korea should get nukes? Sorry Ayatollah DesAnges.

Either that or Kim Jong DesAnges. You chose.

Well where the fuck did that come from? Easy there.

I wasn't aware that Iran needed any humanitarian aid, anyway. I was thinking more like the Central African Republic.

[Gallup]

So Iran and North Korea should get nukes? Sorry Ayatollah DesAnges.

Either that or Kim Jong DesAnges. You chose.

Well where the fuck did that come from? Easy there.

I wasn't aware that Iran needed any humanitarian aid, anyway. I was thinking more like the Central African Republic.

Those were just examples. I didn't EVERY country needed to scale back, it was just an example.

[DesAnges]

Well where the fuck did that come from? Easy there.

I wasn't aware that Iran needed any humanitarian aid, anyway. I was thinking more like the Central African Republic.

Those were just examples. I didn't EVERY country needed to scale back, it was just an example.

I think nuclear weapons are silly, personal. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is not. It is safe, efficient and a lot cleaner than "fossil fuels"*. The whole world needs access to that sort of energy, in order to advance the species.