Okay guys, I want to preface by saying that I believe that I generally am a strong writer, but NOT UNDER TIMED CONDITIONS, LOL!!! I want someone to look at this practice I just did and tell me if it is generally okay- as in, I didn't completely tank it, and I'll be fine for the real thing. (I have inserted it below)
The role that any national government has in foreign affairs has been one of controversy for many years. While some people believe one’s government should help as many people out as possible, whenever they can, others believe that one’s government should be somewhat egotistical, in the way that they seek to act solely in their best interest. Some take the view of the middleman, where a government should involve themselves in foreign affairs, but only to a certain extent. This is especially a debate for nations with a strong economy, such as the United States of America. How much should a nation with such rich resources contribute to foreign affairs? A nation’s government should attempt to address problems outside its territorial boundaries only when lives are in danger, and we have enough resources to do so without the expense of its own citizens. Along with this, a nation should never intervene if its intervention would only exacerbate harm to other nations.
Using the United States as the prime example in this essay, a nation with such a rich economy is usually expected to lend a helping hand to others, but to what extent? I believe that when serious lives are in danger and/or at risk, foreign intervention is acceptable and even necessary. For example, nations like Sudan and even Puerto Rico are currently experiencing drought and famine, with many lives at stake. A case as such would be where a nation’s intervention would be absolutely acceptable. The world may be filled with separate nations, but they are all still sibling in a way, and siblings should help each other out when danger occurs. The USA, for example, has much more resources than the third-world countries struggling, and so if anything, they have an obligation to help out. Along with this, as perspective two points out, natural disasters are another situation in which a nation with such a large economy should be of aid. Perspective two brings up the example of having such great power that it comes with a “responsibility,” and that is exactly why those nations that are better off must help those nations who are less well-off during a crisis.
Now, although nations should generally help other nations, what should always come first is one’s own citizens. As seen in perspective one, it would be a “fundamental betrayal” to use a nation’s resources to help others out when a nation’s own people are struggling for survival. The United States of America may have a much larger economy and access to profound resources that others don't have, but we still have many in this nation who are starving, homeless, and struggling to make ends meet. Before we use our already scarce resources to help other nations out, we should make sure our own people are taken care of, first and foremost. For example, since 2025 alone, the USA has sent billions of dollars to Israel for weapons and military intervention. Simultaneously, there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are currently experiencing homelessness. Why should we be sending out BILLIONS of dollars to another nation to aid them in fighting a war, when our own people can barely afford a single meal? It is irresponsible, and as perspective one advances, a betrayal to involve a nation in foreign affairs at the expense of its own citizens. A nation should ensure that its own people have the basic necessities of survival before aiding in any military intervention or national affairs.
Now, some might say that this military intervention is necessary because it will protect us in the future from possible security threats. Although this may have some validity to it, there will be no future to secure if a nation's own people aren’t taken care of first. A nation should not be worried about possibilities in the future if its own people in the present are barely surviving. To think so far ahead in the future without taking care of issues within is a betrayal. Additionally, money that is sent to other nations to harm innocent lives in a war is never, by definition, “necessary.”
The role that any nation’s government plays in foreign affairs should be taken into consideration, with its own citizens being the number one priority. When lives are at stake and disasters have occurred, it is acceptable and necessary to intervene. If lives are not at stake, the only time nations should intervene, is if their own citizens are well-off first. Already scarce resources should not be used to fight wars across borders, while people are living on the street just a few feet away. Nor should a nation intervene if that intervention would exacerbate harm to other nations. A nation’s government should attempt to address problems outside its territorial boundaries only when lives are in danger, and we have enough resources to do so without the expense of its own citizens.
1 comments
^trust, I know I can write WAY better than this, and that it is filled with a considerable amount of mistakes