No, but assuming that aids alone provide solutions for the increasing difference of wealth distribution is a mistake. A systematic approach should be applied, investments, and supporting education, student, and other exchange programs are critical. Also, the developed countries should consider what is fair trade or be taking an unfair advantage of developing countries.

Dear Kirk,

Dambisa Moyo would say they have not failed. Other former World Bank research honchos would say it is morally wrong, that Africa, for instance as a whole, has received less than the aid the US has given to South Korea and Israel (two tiny nations) in the past 60 years, etc. But which aid are we talking about: development of capital markets in countries like Uganda? Encouraging companies from rich nations to undertake meaningful technology transfer (process minerals from Kinshasha, Kisangani, instead of exporting them; manufacture world-class furniture from Butembo instead of exporting timber - that is, intra-country VALUE ADDITION INSTEAD OF EXPORTING RAW MATERIALS)? Encouraging rich investor-companies to partner with and mentor weaker investor-companies and groups in countries like Uganda? Simply taking over the burden of infrastructure development and people-capacity development? Provide market access and favourable trade conditions? Promoting joint training and innovation and inventions (teaming MIT with Makerere University, Yale with Uganda Martyrs University, Cambridge with the University of the Philippines, Harvard with Ibadan, rich-nation think tanks with poor nation think tanks, etc)? Or simply support the nascent civil society in these countries to hold talk-shops and nothing more? Maybe strong support for evidence-based policy advocacy targeting strategic areas of development in these countries, pressuring governments to become more efficient and less corrupt, supporting pockets of less corrupt and more efficient governments in order to demonstrate that good governance pays, etc.

I am hesitant to recommend unconditional grants and instead advocate infrastructure and capacity-development grants, if ever such assistance were to be considered. Unlike eastern (Southeastern, Eastern, etc) Asia, which is almost entirely maritime save for China-India-Pakistan land-linkedness, 99% of Africa is a single land mass. But it would take billions and billions of dollars to finance/construct post-modern road highways and railway systems connecting the East to the West, the North to the South, to promote intra-Africa trade. So, how can a Singapore help Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar? How can the US help its many poor southern neighborhoods? Maybe on this respect someone can say that rich nations have not been helpful, but as an African, I am unable to judge whether or not this is morally wrong.

Aid can be a lot. It can be for building a factory nobody needs, or a road only the rich use, or it can be for schools or health centers in rural areas, which governments never would build. Aid rarely is provided just for humanitarian reasons, reason to help without any second thought. These second thoughts are be legitimate, but at times they also serve purposes that benefit more those who provide aid rather those receiving it. Maybe after the end of the cold war the intention to get countries onto one's side have weakened, but there are still plenty of reasons, how aid might benefit those who give...... I would not even suggest that the rich nations always failed in their support of poor countries. Today we have since a while the Newly Industrializing Countries, which at least partly emerged with support of the rich nations. Korea as investment from Japan, and the USA, or Taiwan. One could discuss, if this mainly happened through aid or just economic investment, driven also by political considerations, but it is not yet so long ago when the people of most of the Asian Tigers were rather poor, very different than these countries are today.   After the Korean war South Korea was one of the poorest economies in the world with a per capita GDP of just USD79. This was less than some of the Sub-Saharan countries at that time. Today South Korea is among the top ten countries in the world and the country with this highest proportion of people who have completed a tertiary education.

So changes are possible, but it depends a lot on the small details, the time and the commitment of people to use funds that are given for the betterment of their countries and not for their own pockets.

That rich nations help the poor is moral and ethical. It could even be a retribution since the wealth of many of them depended on the plunder and exploitation of the invaded and colonized countries; example: Spain, Portugal, England, Holland; just to mention some of the countries that were enriched at the expense of the discovery of new lands and the colonization of their populations.

Definitely yes. Thanks for sharing your question.

Thank you so much dear Dr. Kirk for inviting me to this session. My so simple answer is YES, at the same time I advice you my colleague to investigate the Islamic legislation in this regards, and I am sure that you will find a wonderful and great results.

Hope you nice investigation time.

Regards, Emad

Yes, rich countries are looking only for their interests and greetings

yes....it is morally wrong....the very objective of our existence itself is to serve / help others who are in need of our service....it is not morally appropriate, seeing a person / nation suffer without lending our helping hands....

-Selvam...

thank you dr._Selvam_Ramasamy

Dear All,

Providing aid for undeveloped countries is a delicate question. Many recipient countries – or their generally not democratically voted leaders – use the aid intended for cultural, scientific or humanitarian aims for themselves, their cronies, weapons or even luxury cars. Unfortunately, the poor people get practically nothing. We have an RG peer, he indicated earlier with many examples how the ruling class in Ethiopia wasted enormous sums from the EU for their private goals.

Dear Colleagues, Good Day,

"Do developed countries have an obligation to help poor ones?

By: Alvin Yuen , Naomi Ng

Naomi Ng, 17, Diocesan Girls' School

We live on the same planet, and use the same resources. But developed countries have taken advantage of the unfair distribution of resources to help their citizens become very wealthy. The rich have an obligation to help poor countries who were exploited by their colonial rulers. The United States had a head start with its vast natural resources. But many countries in Europe, such as Britain, became rich due to their colonial reign in Asia.

They expanded their empire to include poor, resource-rich nations in Asia. They exploited the region's cheap labour, with workers getting little in return for their hard work.

Hong Kong was different though. Britain ruled Hong Kong for more than 150 years and I think both sides benefited. Today, the city is an international financial centre with a strong economy. But some countries did not benefit from colonial rule.

Bill and Melinda Gates set up the Gates Foundation to help poor countries. We take a lot of things for granted. This cannot go on. A spirit of give-and-take is essential for world harmony. Developed countries may not be bound by law to help poor nations, but they have the responsibility - and the power - to do so.

Alvin Yuen, 19, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Developed countries should help less developed ones. But whether this is an obligation is a matter for debate. I believe the government of a country should be responsible for the well-being of its people.

It is wrong to allow outsiders to influence the development of a country. This could lead to serious problems.

A developed country faces various difficulties when choosing who to help. First, its choice could leave a lot of people unhappy and damage its relationship with other countries. Second, allowing foreigners to have a significant influence on a nation could lead to negative consequences. Some donors do not have the best intentions. They could use their power for their own advantage. This could lead to corruption and financial loss in the less developed country.

Third, a developing nation may become dependent on foreign aid. And some donors might charge a hefty interest for their financial assistance. This could pose a bigger headache than not receiving aid at all.

Rich countries have to be careful when helping poor nations. It involves a lot of politics so the rich have the right to choose the recipient and ensure the aid does not get into the wrong hands.",...

Please, refer to the link, ...

http://www.scmp.com/article/712693/do-developed-countries-have-obligation-help-poor-ones

Kirk, you have asked another deep question. The simplest and most elegant answer is, yes giving aid is a moral and ethical obligation. The question, however, is on what basis do we say it is a moral obligation. A number of writers have referred to the fact that the developed countries have taken so much from poorer countries and become rich because of this exploitation. The James Bond movie Quantum of Solace exposes part of this reality - the rich take and keep on taking. Personally, I have seen first-hand some of the destruction and poverty that has resulted from centuries of exploitation and agree that the developed world has benefited from what they have seized and wrested from others and thus owes something to the developing world. That being said, the practice of "giving aid" has its own problems. For example, is it aid if a country becomes indebted to pay off a loan for which it does not have the infrastructure or markets to generate the income? Indeed, is it aid if the developing world expects an aid recipient who has already been exploited to pay for the privilege of receiving development money? setting aside the problems of re-exploiting a nation, there is also the implicit imbalance of power that exists when someone who "has" seeks to share with someone who "has not."

In conclusion, not only do I believe that the developed world has a moral obligation to aid others, I also believe that this aid needs to provided in a moral and ethical fashion that does not result in the re-exploiting of those who have already been exploited.

Of course it is wrong. They should copy Canada's program of International Aid to poor countries. After all, those countries is where the future immigrants to Canada will come from.

A closed fist to the needs of another while it is in one's power to do so is not just morally wrong but it is an act of wickedness and a barricade to the continued blessings of such one (person/country).

Dickson Adom

No.

It depends on policy matters of the country.

Money paid to poor countries to use it to keep the president and government on their chairs. Using that money to buy tear gas and weapons to shut the voices of revolution. The money is distributed also around loyal people to the president. We may also see the show of acting in poor countries to distribute the left over of money to poor actors. Why developed countries do this? and pay money to poor countries! is that for the sake of god! or because their interests?. If am a poor man is to work and do my best to improve my income but policies are mistakes and god is good.

Best regards

Aly R Abdel-Moemin

Again , Nope !!!!!!!! I am sorry ... Poverty is a universal problem (from the rich to the poor countries ) . Enable self- sustainable methods , use home resources (don't expect ) , have law and community based solutions for your own problems , educate and be practical :(

Moral grounds applicable when natural disaster occur , when war happens then it is obligatory (Vietnam /Afghanistan/Iraq ) , let the people be more responsible collectively . No I am not saying easy said than done kind of statement it is a mandate because there are geographical boundaries !!!!!!!!! Don't we ????

Thanks so much to my colleagues for their valuable insights!

Since aiding a poor country is like giving beg what we say when looking a begger same concept applied here

It is certainly a moral duty (or itś failure), because morality is not just about reciprocity, but also about spontaneous helping with urgency. But the problem is with the collective dimension of morality of a nation or state.

hello michal patarak

how the morality is considered when the aiding is useless