Aid During the Corona Crisis

"Why Rich Countries must Protect Developing Nations from Coronavirus Pandemic," the title of an article by Ed Holt, is a little bit ambiguous in its meaning because the word "must," (which isn't capitalized for some reason) could refer to an ethical obligation or a practical obligation. It could mean "rich countries must protect developing nations because it would be immoral not to," or "rich countries must protect developing countries if they want to survive". The second issue is what the article mostly deals with. The argument is mainly that if developed countries don't help developed countries fight corona, then they will not be able to fight it within their own borders either. That said, the article never outright states that. Although it quotes experts who say that, it only goes so far as to claim it is probably true. That's an odd thing to not definitevely state seeing as it is the claim made by the title, but at least it seems to be presenting what "experts" say as fact, so it seems at least somewhat reasonable to consider that a statement. Except the second possible meaning of the question complicates that. The article informs us that experts say "the costs cannot, and should not, be borne by developing nations alone." So apparently experts say that not only is there a practical obligation, but a moral one too. However, soon after it presents the idea that in the case a nation struggling with corona, other nations have a role to play, as an argument rather than a statement. In two different places, the article presents the ethical obligation of developed nations to help developing nations with corona as both a fact and an opinion. In one sense its quite clever, to say two things ambiguously enough that people can hear whichever they believe, but on the other hand various poorly connected strings of reasoning and grammatical issues that impede meaning lead me to believe the uncertainty about what this article actually means is more likely just a result of apathy and a poor revision process. Truthfully, I find this piece intriguing because it at once throws in too much bias to be an objective news piece and also fails to take a stance and thus can't be considered an opinion piece. In arguing the practical side while avoiding taking a stance on the ethical, the article essentially says "I won't say for sure whether developed nations should have to assist developing nations facing mass pandemics, but I'll point out that in this case it would probably be in the best interest of developed nations to do so." And while I understand how much more challenging the ethical side is to grapple with and why it wouldn't really be worth confronting if you were just pumping out a piece for a website with questionable journalistic standards and lots of shady ads, I think its difficulty is what makes it important. If analyzed, I believe this situation provides a lot of insight into the interaction between concentration of power and the narratives we have about how many resources we're capable of allocating to certain causes. So I have a question I'd like to hear from people on. Developing countries are now starting to recieve healthcare support that some believe they should have been recieving for a while, but others have argued is not feasible in the long term. Similarly, in the United States, we're seeing social programs rolled out in response to corona, with some arguing this is evidence they could have always been in place, and others arguing that they aren't sustainable in the long term. What I wonder is how y'all see the relation between these ideas of social benefit and sustainability in regard to social problems, and perhaps how reflection due to the corona situation might have affected that.

Comments

Persi Fossi said…
I thought the article seemed kinda wishy washy and didn't focus on clear points. In general with these social programs, I think they could be done longterm. I've seen in both the Netherlands and Singapore similar systems in place in regards to making sure people have adequate housing or salaries when struggling and these systems have been in place for a long time. After companies started allowing paid sick leave during this whole pandemic, it was glaringly obvious that they could have done this long ago if they could do it in under a day, but it is amazing how little people will do when they don't want to do something or lose a little bit of money over it. I think after this whole situation, the US government and many of the working policies that large companies hold may have the opportunity to rethink how they work and how they can serve to help regular citizens over the ultra-rich.
March 30, 2020 at 7:57 AM
Elliott Conely said…
I think that developed nations must give aid for both of the reasons you listed. They/we have a moral obligation and have a lot to gain in terms of influence. Many leaders in the US are comparing Covid-19 to a war and claiming that our response should as strong as it would be during a time of conflict. I agree with that assessment and I think the US should respond to foreign aid just as it would during a global conflict. It is possible that the US because of its population (which is younger than other developed countries and has better access to healthcare than other developing countries) will come out of Covid-19 much stronger than other countries. I think this is an opportunity for the US to use foreign aid like we did after WWII to recreate an global economy based around the US.
March 30, 2020 at 10:22 AM
Liam O'Gorman said…
I agree with your criticism of the article, in that it avoids real commitment in any direction other than "we must help." At the risk of being accused of being a nationalist, I will say that it doesn't make any sense to me that we would send money abroad when there are millions of (mainly poor) people who will die here in our backyard. This crisis has reaffirmed my view that the United States is more or less a failed state, and is incapable of handling domestic issues. For that reason, I do not trust our government to intervene abroad, especially given our inherently imperialist nature.
March 30, 2020 at 12:34 PM
Julian Porra Parks said…
I found the article to be irritatingly hollow, it seemed content with saying two sentences with undeveloped reasoning on why we should be helping and then went on to say almost nothing else. I do find Liam's assessment of the situation to be intriguing, though, as I am personally in favor of providing aid to developing nations so that corporations are not as readily able to exploit their instability, but the point of providing for our own impoverished first has a lot of argumentative weight to it.
March 30, 2020 at 2:45 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

COVID-19 Blog

As the coronavirus rages on, an important question arises: should western countries aid the so-called "third world," particularly Africa, in combating the pandemic? I believe the answer is no, for two main reasons. My first objection is rather obvious: the United States currently has more confirmed COVID cases than all of Africa combined, and it isn't close. There are several possible explanations, including the warmer weather, but the exact reason isn't necessarily relevant. After a domestic coronavirus response which can only be described as a disaster of earth-shattering proportions, who are we to go on an international health crusade? There are millions of vulnerable Americans who are currently unable to receive adequate care. Our resources need to be going to them first, not abroad, and most certainly not to parasitic, too-big-to-fail corporations. My second objection: when was America's last successful large-scale international intervention, viole...
Read more

SARS CoV-2, COVID-19, and The World

It's no secret that right now the SARS CoV-2 is wreaking havoc across the world. As of today, the United States has surpassed China as the nation with the most cases of the novel coronavirus, with over 86,000 cases in our country to date. This is all pretty crazy, especially considering that this is all because of a pathogen that supposedly started with either bats or pangolins (the only mammal in the world known to have scales) in a small localized region of China. Of course, it's not only the health effects that are wide-reaching; the social effects are also just as prevalent. One of the ways in which the world is rapidly changing in regards to social effects is through panic buying of goods at places such as supermarkets and hypermarkets such as Walmart. However, the good news is that food in general is not going to run out; there may be shortages of certain particular items, nevertheless, as certain nations have curtailed exports. What is bound to change, possibly permanent...
Read more

COVID-19 Blog

As the spread of COVID-19 becomes greater many opinions on how to respond to this global pandemic have surfaced. Just a few months ago much of the population in the United States felt unthreatened by the virus as it spread through China, being concentrated in Wuhan, and later spreading in Europe. It was not until the virus quickly erupted in the United States that we each understood the true severity of this pandemic. Now we are seeing how individuals are being greatly impacted by this virus as we are all being asked to stay home and the everyday parts of our lives have been flipped upside down. In the opinion piece about what responsibility developed countries have for helping less developed countries I both agreed and disagreed. My initial response is that if places, like the United States, are struggling with medical resources how can we even begin to be helpful in less developed countries. Hospitals all throughout the United States are beginning to have to make life or death decisi...
Read more