Some people think that charity organizations should only offer help to people of their own country. But others believe that these organizations should give aid to people in great need wherever they live.
Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Some individuals believe that philanthropic organizations should prioritize domestic needs rather than international ones. In my opinion, although charity organizations can make a more significant impact by allocating their funds to citizens of their own nation, providing aid to individuals regardless of their nationality is a better approach as it helps strengthen a country’s international reputation.
Proponents of the provision of aid for one’s own country argue that this can engender a more profound impact. As the resources of these charity organizations are finite, directing them towards their own population can at least ensure that domestic problems such as education, poverty, and healthcare are adequately addressed. On the other hand, when aid is sent to foreign countries, it typically only offers a short-term relief, leaving most of their underlying problems unresolved. For instance, when humanitarian organizations globally sent food, water, and medical supplies to countries that suffered from earthquakes, this aid was withdrawn once media attention faded, leaving the citizens of recipient countries to cope with problems such as rebuilding homes and restoring infrastructure.
However, I would contend that charity organizations should extend their support to people in need across the globe. This action can help a given nation increase their influence and power on a global stage, which can translate to economic, political, and security advantages. For instance, in exchange for the US’s financial aid, many countries allow the US military to set up bases within their territory, further enhancing their geopolitical influence and their ability to quickly respond to global security threats. Offering support to other countries also strengthens diplomatic relations and increases the likelihood of receiving assistance in times of crises. A pertinent example of mutual aid can be seen during natural disasters, as Indonesia swiftly sent rescue teams to assist Japan after severe earthquakes and Japan later returned when Indonesia was struck by a tsunami.
In conclusion, although the allocation of resources towards one’s own country can translate to a more meaningful impact, humanitarian organizations should help other countries as well to build a better international reputation.
Words: 341
philanthropic organizations: tổ chức từ thiện / nhân đạo
prioritize: ưu tiên
domestic needs: nhu cầu trong nước
international: quốc tế
significant impact: tác động đáng kể / ảnh hưởng lớn
allocating (phân bổ): phân bổ
funds: nguồn quỹ / kinh phí
regardless of: bất kể / không phân biệt
international reputation: danh tiếng quốc tế
engender (tạo ra): tạo ra / gây nên
profound impact: tác động sâu sắc
finite: có giới hạn / hữu hạn
domestic problems: vấn đề trong nước
addressed (giải quyết): được giải quyết
foreign countries: các quốc gia khác / nước ngoài
short-term relief: cứu trợ ngắn hạn
underlying (nền tảng / cơ bản) problems: vấn đề cơ bản / gốc rễ
unresolved: chưa được giải quyết
humanitarian organizations: tổ chức nhân đạo
struck: bị ảnh hưởng / bị tàn phá
faded (lu mờ): phai nhạt / lu mờ
cope with: đối phó với / xử lý
restoring infrastructure: khôi phục cơ sở hạ tầng
contend that (cho rằng): cho rằng / lập luận rằng
extend: mở rộng / tăng cường
influence and power: ảnh hưởng và quyền lực
global stage: tầm quốc tế / phạm vi toàn cầu
translate to: chuyển thành / mang lại (dẫn đến kết quả)