he question of whether governments should provide aid internationally or domestically has drawn much attention from the public. Although I understand why helping everyone in the world is unachieveable, I strongly disagree that governmental support should solely be concentrated on satisfying local needs.
On the one hand, I suppose the world’s leaders’ hesitation over the provision of international aids to deprived regions is legitimate. Firstly, it is unfeasible for governments’ support to reach all of the underprivileged as their number is enormous in many separated places around the globe and the type of support they need also varies. For example, developed nations may encounter numerous obstacles in terms of transportation upon sending food and medicines to unwealthy regions scattered around Africa where people are facing the threat of famine or contagions. Secondly, I believe leaders of a country should prioritize the well-being of their citizens and stabilize their economy and politics before carrying out any acts of global assistance.
On the other hand, I still believe governments should help as many people as they can regardless of the fragile odds for worldwide comprehensive support for all people. To begin with, in many underdeveloped countries, their leaders are unable to bear the burden of eradicating domestic poverty or crises due to, for example, terrorism, which calls for the involvement from other affluent nations. Also of great significance is that this national act of charity could have a huge impact upon individuals living in prosperous areas. If the government takes actions to help people overseas, citizens of that country will idolize the idea of self-devotion toward a better world.
In conclusion, I truly believe the world leaders should lend their neighbors a hand to offer help to people in need on their doorstep.