The presence of a foreign power always helps when a country is facing problems 11A05
Agree
Side Score: 25
|
 |
Disagree
Side Score: 32
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign intervention is crucial in times of natural disasters when other countries provide aid to the country in need. Foreign countries can provide necessities, monetary aid and emergency personnel. Necessities such as food and water would be provided to the locals who do not have access to them to help to cope with the short term impacts. This would help them survive and better cope with the impact of the disaster. Monetary aid can be given to rebuild the affected country's economy. Emergency personnel can be flown in to help the country to rescue survivors and provide medical aid when needed. This can be illustrated by the 2011 Japan Earthquake of magnitude 9.0 where nations around the globe responded with offers of assistance - money, rescue personnel, food and equipment. Netherlands for example provided 1 million US dollars in financial aid. This aided Japan in their recovery efforts today. Therefore, the presence of foreign powers do help countries when they are plagued with problems. -Simret and Christine Side: Agree
1
point
Yes, the presence of a foreign power always helps, when a country is facing problems, and this can include the presence of poverty in many less developed countries. Many countries are trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty, and this is mainly due to corruption of government, leading to financial resources being abused instead of being utilized to improve the economy. As such, people trapped in poverty suffer from low standards of living, as well as malnutrition, as there is insufficient employment opportunities, along with a lack of education among citizens. Hence, foreign powers may choose to intervene by introducing cohesive programmes in the form of education, sanitation, monetary aid etc in the bid to eradicate poverty faced by the country. Some of these includes the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), who has decided to colloborate and create a joint venture with the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), AusAID, and the European Union (EU) to aims to provide new and improved access to appropriate, sustainable financial services, including savings, money transfers, insurance and loans for 250,000 people across the Pacific region. The long term benefits of such a plan will help to increase financial security of the poor, along with better access to heath and education, and this would help to improve their standard of living. Through such an example, it is evident that the presence of a foreign power is helpful in solving the problems faced by a country. Side: Agree
its a good point. Because it really benefits the people in the long run. But there may be instances when the country received the money to help its peeople, but the government may pocket the money instead. When it comes to giving loans to the people, it may first go through the government and not directly to the people. The government may also only give a small percentage of the money only. Therefore, this may cause further unhapiness among the people towards their government, it further brings out the corruption of the government and cause disunity in the country and another problem may surface . Thus it may not help a country. STILL gd. Side: Agree
1
point
A valid argument, backed up by a relevant example. However, a specific nation could be mentioned to better show the effectiveness of such intervention. Foreign intervention usually help relieve the problem of poverty and ineffective governance, though in varying degrees. A concrete example of how such intervention alleviate the problems of poverty and corrupt governance will make your argument more convincing. Overall, a decent paragraph! Side: Agree
The presence of foreign power helps a country to maintain peace and stability in the country. Foreign power send their soldiers to help keep peace and also at the same time provide military training to the country's soldiers to help the country fight terrorism. They invest money to provide funds for the country to purchase military weapons and equipment. To illustrate this point, the United States(US) military aid has increased mostly in line with the "War on Terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan. By helping to train Iraq and Afghanistan forces, these countries are able to better protect their people themselves. Side: Agree
1
point
HY - The example isn't the best to use as it isn't a very clear one. Much criticism has been upon the Iraq War and one of the interesting arguments is that in the past, US Forces were the very ones who funded and equipped the Taliban with modern weapons and weapon systems - e.g. Javelin Ground to Air missles, SAM Mobile turrets. Hence, though arguably, the conflict that the US faces is partly fueled by the sins of their fathers. Additionally, the war hasn't officially ended so it's success is still rather hard to judge. Side: Disagree
Yes, perhaps the US intervention was helpful in maintaining some peace and stability in the Middle East. However, you used many sweeping statements in your argument. Must the presence of foreign power necessarily leads to peace and stability? For instance, the presence of the US troops in the Middle East did lead to tension and unrest amongst the people. Other than that it should be alright.(: Side: Agree
Foreign intervention into newly set up countries by setting up of infrastructure, helps to in the lack of structure and development. This is because, when the country is newly set-up, there are hardly any amenities in the country. This is largely evident in less developed countries such as Kenya. The intervention of foreign power into such countries can help set up infrastructure such as public amenities such as transport routes and systems, street lamps and basic amenities such as housing and healthcare facilities. It would help the country to solve its weak economic problem to attract foreign investments into the country to boost its economy. This is because, in countries where it is newly set up, its economy is extremely weak and that it requires a strong economy to provide a high standard of living. For instance, in Singapore, Singapore was able to solve is weak economic problem was due to the British intervention during the colonial times by providing infrastructure such as building trading ports for Singapore to develop economically by transforming it from a fishing village to a busy trading hub. Hence, this could be seen that foreign intervention into newly set up countries helped to solve a country that is facing economic problems. -Loong Wai, Wen Bin Side: Agree
((;GOOD POINT. In Singapore's case. But this had implications too. Like it divided the society and excluded the chinese speaking people at that point of time. So it caused some unhapinessss.... and disunity in the country, STILL. The help had outweighed this small temporary unhapiness caused. So ... point supported! Side: Agree
Really good elaboration and exmaple used. The explanation of how a 'newly set up country' can evolve to a modernised one with the help of foreign aid does show a good point about how foreign pwoers can indeed help. However, maybe a better term for newly set up countries like Newly Industrialised Economies could be used because a country is not really new, it has always been there, just not industrialised yet. Side: Agree
1
point
Singapore was not under any nation's rule when the British entered and colonised, therefore it may not be the best of examples to illustrate your point, when the question specifies 'when a country is facing problems'. In addition, foreign intervention in newly set up countries may not be desirable unless such involvements by other nations are proposed by the country itself that requires assistance in setting up infrastructures. Forceful interference of a foreign power can be deemed as a blatant disregard for a nation's sovereignty and could lead to strained relations between the countries involved, from which conflicts could arise. Side: Disagree
I agree with your point on countries that are less developed such as Kenya needing foreign intervention in order to boost their economy. However, for the case on Singapore, I feel that you should take into account the dissatisfaction felt by Singaporeans due to several measures left behind by the British. The racial discord in the early 1960s were attributed to the British biasedness towards certain racial groups during their reign. Side: Agree
1
point
I would say that Singapore is an anomaly. Given it's geographical land size, infrastructure would have been easily established throughout the island by the political masters then. This is the same for Hong Kong. However, as we see examples of other post colonial countries, their current state says otherwise. Even from the same colonial masters, which was the British empire, countries such as Ugana, Swaziland, Sierra Leone and Sudan are in terrible state. The most infamous would then be Sierra Leone, where the adandoned infrastructure was used to fuel blood diamonds in the the 1960s. This is the same for even other colonial masters, from the Spaniards involvement in Angola to German colonies in the Gilbert Islands, infrastructure made by colonial masters seldom assist the affected country. Side: Disagree
|
SOCIAL AGENDA With the help of an external power, the country facing problems may still suffer as they could lose their sovereignty if they accept the external power's aid. Strings may be attached when external powers help countries in need, and that dependence on other's aid albeit temporary still puts a country in a vulnerable position. For instance, the United States (US) has agreed to give rations to North Korea on the condition that they cease nuclear testing. Even though Korea could benefit from the availability of food rations, it lost part of its sovereignty as they became dependent on the US for food. Hence a country in need is not always helped when an external power intervenes as there are certain implications such as a loss of sovereignty. Side: Disagree
2
points
Your point is good, but you could state the problem faced by the country more clearly. Also, you could choose a better example. North Korea is not a good example because it is a communist country, and it usually does not comply with the demands of other countries. In addition, would a loss of soverignty for North Korea have very negative implications? Side: Disagree
I support your argument as it is true that Korea would be very reliant on the US, especially in the long run. This would not be beneficial to Korea. Sometimes, the intention of foreign power would seem like it benefits both parties. However, it is not true as illustrated in your argument. Good argument. Side: Disagree
You could improve on the specific problems the country is facing and define the type of aid that is required by the country in need. Though they may lose their sovereignty in this case, more often than not, the LDCs are usually provided financial aid by the richer DCs. There are strings attached(though not political) but rather economic in nature, such as subsidies on imports into the country receiving aid which could actually worsen the country's economic problems. Side: Agree
3
points
Vested interest in politcal beliefs and ideals can lead to unfavourable implications on a country that is intervened during political and social unrest, which might exacerbate the present issues the country is facing. Through the intervention of a foreign entity in promoting it's political beliefs, many inviduals in the country might be against such ideals, leading to broader differences between groups of people in the country and this might lead to escalating conflict in the country. Case in point would be the Korean war of the 1960s, which is sometimes referred to a "proxy" war. Given that two foreign entities with polar political beliefs had intervened in Korea, war erupted due to the differences from their political alignments leading to severe consequences in the then Korea's economy along with emotional implications due to the losses of war and also environmental issues caused by using weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, Korea was then divided at the 38th Parallel into a democratic South Korea and the now infamous Communist North Korea, with the conflict still unresolved. Though the implications are not so evident today, intervention due to vested political interest led to severe consequences in the domestic country's economically, socially and environmentally. Side: Disagree
2
points
good para.. spelling: political.. good use of example but maybe you can use a more current example like Iran as foreign countries though do not support Iran's use of nuclear power and with the fear of a world war 3, countries are hesitant to intervene directly as Iran may see it as an aggressive act.. Side: Disagree
Yes this is true when the country intervenes in political conflict. Coherent paragraph and relevant examples. You could have included the different political alignments and the superpowers trying to spread their different ideologies. Maybe a clearer link could be established showing that foreign intervention do not work in countries facing high political tension. Side: Disagree
Good point, but this vested interest may not always be unfavourable as if the countries like US did not intervene in the war, South Korea might be taken over by communist North Korea, which lead to severe consequences in the economy since communist countries have been known to spend resources on military equipment rather than the welfare of the people. Side: Disagree
1
point
The presence of foreign power may not always help a country if it hinders self sustainability and innovation. When one country provides help to another that is facing poverty, the latter may become over dependent on external aid and be complacent in resolving their own problems. This is due to the fact that people might choose to make do with what foreign aid provides them with and not make the effort to break themselves out of their own poverty cycle. They will tend to regard foreign aid as what they deserve and not as a privilege. In the case of Africa, the donation of healthcare materials such as mosquito nets caused people to stop working as hard as they realized that they no longer have to purchase them since it is being provided for them. Also, this culture of dependency will discourage people from innovating new and sustainable products for development if they become contented with what they already have. In conclusion, foreign aid could possibly caused these poor countries to fall deeper into the quagmire of poverty if they are not motivated to fight out of this vicious cycle themselves. Side: Disagree
It may not always be beneficial for a country facing financial difficulties to seek foreign aid as it might worsen their situation. By borrowing money for an extended period of time may cause the debt to inflate due to the accumulated interest. An example would be the loans provided by the monetary institutes such as World Bank and IMF. The irony lies in that despite their aim to help third-world economy achieve both a high rate of growth and a substantive decline in poverty, their intervention was said to actually impaired economic growth rates instead. This is seen as in the third world countries they tried to help had failed to develop and get out of debt. They not only remained underdeveloped and poor but had also fallen deeper into debt. The effects of such hypocrisy helps to highlight the point that perhaps foreign intervention is not always helpful. Side: Disagree
2
points
you can give a specific example like: Cameroon's annual debt payments will be reduced by 40 percent over the next five years. But Cameroon will still pay, on average, $280 million per year during this period. The projected payments far exceed the amount the country spends annually on education ($239 million) and health care ($87 million). The total relief is about $2 billion, but it will be spread thinly over the next 20 to 25 years. The amount looks especially inadequate in light of the extremely high level of poverty in Cameroon, where one-third of the children are malnourished and 60 percent of the population lack access to clean water. Side: Disagree
Your argument lacks examples of countries who failed to repay their debts. Supporting data is required to support your point for the reader to support your argument. Also, there is a need to explain why they still remain poor. It could probably be due to a corrupt government and also over reliance on other countries which would lead to complancency. Hence, unable to get out of the poverty cycle. Side: Agree
Your argument lacks specific examples. Your argument may have provided examples but those are very generic. You should provide specific examples as to which country specifically encountered such a problem. However, there could be a point to counter this argument as such accumulated interest could easily be paid off if the country were to use foreign aid efficiently. For instance, Ethopia or North Korea, both countries received billions in foreign aid but all they spent most of it on military development instead of developing their economy by building infrastructure. Side: Agree
You can perhaps give an example of a country which has fallen deep in debt because they borrowed from financial institutions. However, in light of the ongoing financial crisis, Greece was going through a debt crisis since late 2009 and was offered a bailout package in 2012 by the EU member states, which assisted Greece and lightened their financial burden. Thus, foreign financial aid may not always cause an inflation of debt. Side: Agree
Clear and specific examples are lacking in your argument. Also your argument is weak as you did not explain or elaborate how the intervention of Word Bank and IMF impaired economic growth of the third world countries. Furthermore, corruption in third world countries are something common and this could be the reason why they remain underdeveloped and not because of foreign power. Side: Agree
|
