Some people said giving aid to poorer countries has more objective effects than positive effects, to what extent do you agree or disagree?

　　Afflicted with famine, wars, diseases, people living in those poverty-stricken countries are struggling for survival. From Vietnam to Burma, from Ethiopia to Cambodia, what they worry about is where is the next meal, how to save the long-suffering familys life and what next day will be. In face of this severe situation, it is suggested that rich countries should shoulder responsibility to help them out of such harsh situation.

　　The opponents are of the opinion that this well-meant aid may engender unfavorable effects on the current situation. To begin with, those aids are likely to be misused by local officials. Surprising is that the poorer a country is, the higher possibility of its governments corruption, which is, actually, the root cause for its backwardness. To make it worse, citizens, once granted food and daily necessities alike, are prone to produce strong independence and reliance. It is universally acknowledged that only those countries thriving for advance on their own can really make a difference. Once the counting-on habit, which serves as a barrier to further development, is formed, to eliminate it will be a tough job.

　　However, proponents also have strong reasons. Primarily, the supports, financially and technologically, have turned out to be of high importance to boosting economy of poor nations. For example, powerful economies, like France, Britain, America to name just a few, can invest in domestic industries, so that more job opportunities are brought and living standard enhanced. Furthermore, it is a win-win strategy to reach out an aiding hand. Without doubt, modern technology enables the world shrink into a Village, therefore, with a few villagers suffering, an overall prosperity is nothing but a Utopia. That is to say only when hunger is conquered, when wars are quenched globally can the real comprehensive prosperity be achieved. Most important of all, those super powers, historically, were major contributors to the current trauma of those have-nots.

　　Overall, rich countries are definitely duty-bound to help their poor counterparts out. For one thing, it mirrors the humanism; for another, it is an indispensable procedure in realization of global peace and flourish.

　　Some people said giving aid to poorer countries has more objective effects than positive effects, to what extent do you agree or disagree?

　　Afflicted with famine, wars, diseases, people living in those poverty-stricken countries are struggling for survival. From Vietnam to Burma, from Ethiopia to Cambodia, what they worry about is where is the next meal, how to save the long-suffering familys life and what next day will be. In face of this severe situation, it is suggested that rich countries should shoulder responsibility to help them out of such harsh situation.

　　The opponents are of the opinion that this well-meant aid may engender unfavorable effects on the current situation. To begin with, those aids are likely to be misused by local officials. Surprising is that the poorer a country is, the higher possibility of its governments corruption, which is, actually, the root cause for its backwardness. To make it worse, citizens, once granted food and daily necessities alike, are prone to produce strong independence and reliance. It is universally acknowledged that only those countries thriving for advance on their own can really make a difference. Once the counting-on habit, which serves as a barrier to further development, is formed, to eliminate it will be a tough job.

　　However, proponents also have strong reasons. Primarily, the supports, financially and technologically, have turned out to be of high importance to boosting economy of poor nations. For example, powerful economies, like France, Britain, America to name just a few, can invest in domestic industries, so that more job opportunities are brought and living standard enhanced. Furthermore, it is a win-win strategy to reach out an aiding hand. Without doubt, modern technology enables the world shrink into a Village, therefore, with a few villagers suffering, an overall prosperity is nothing but a Utopia. That is to say only when hunger is conquered, when wars are quenched globally can the real comprehensive prosperity be achieved. Most important of all, those super powers, historically, were major contributors to the current trauma of those have-nots.

　　Overall, rich countries are definitely duty-bound to help their poor counterparts out. For one thing, it mirrors the humanism; for another, it is an indispensable procedure in realization of global peace and flourish.