The Moral Obligation of Foreign Assistance
The world as we know it today benefits from a system in which international states, at varying stages of developmental, collaborate and coexist peacefully (barring some obvious exceptions). Of course, states are also like human beings in that they are self-interested actors. One of the key tenets of the international order, state sovereignty, is what permits this self-interest. To what extent, then, must states cooperate with or provide for one another, even if it does not directly benefit them? I will make the argument that wealthy states with the capacity to assist foreign countries economically and developmentally, without sacrificing anything of domestic import to that state, are morally obligated to assist states that are in some way worse off. This does not just apply to the United States! It is a commonly held view that the US serves as a sort of global police force and international benefactor. While this may be true, my argument of objective morality should be applied to all states with sufficient resource capacity.
Development Aid: More Than Just Charity
The argument for international development assistance is derived from the following premises:
The international economic system works better the more states that contribute to it.
More developed states are more capable of contributing to the global economic system.
States with more resources have the capacity to assist worse off states in development.
Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that states are morally obligated to send foreign aid to developing countries if they have the capacity to do so without causing harm to themselves. This is a case in which morality and pragmatism almost always align. I would argue that helping a weaker or otherwise worse-off country advance, especially when that country lacks important resources/infrastructure, is objectively an act of beneficence; that is, it is morally praiseworthy. However, it is often the pragmatic choice as well. As stated in premise two, states are better able to contribute to the international economy the more developed they are– and a robust international economy is in the best interests of wealthy and poor countries alike.
Such aid also helps to develop something called “soft power:” the demonstration of a country’s might and capacity through diplomacy and nonviolent engagement. Essentially, it’s like taking the moral high route. This actually does directly benefit the country who sends aid. Being seen by allies, potential allies, and adversaries alike as ethical and morally upstanding is important for trade, security, and the safety of citizens abroad.
Beyond Human Control
Let us now consider circumstances outside direct human control– things like natural disasters, disease outbreaks, or famine. The impact of such events creates an unjust distribution of suffering as the ability of a state to recover from such events is highly correlated with wealth and quality of existing infrastructure. This creates an ethical imperative for intervention, as all states lack control over these events but poorer states bear the most severe consequences. In these situations, states with sufficient resources to help are often morally obligated to do so.
Like with development aid, this isn’t just a moral issue: it’s also a practical one. We see this all the time with programs such as the US response to the Ebola crisis in West Africa in 2014. Not only was this an extension of soft power (and morally the right thing to do), it kept Americans safe by stopping a deadly disease at its source before it could spread.
In essence, international assistance should be a collective effort. No single country should shoulder the entire burden. By working together, capable nations can provide meaningful help without creating harmful dependencies or undermining their own stability. This collaborative approach allows us to address global challenges more effectively, from development gaps to humanitarian crises, while maintaining a fair and balanced international order.