Until what
point, can or should, the US support and help other countries? This question crossed
my mind as I read: “Build Central America, Not a Wall” a critique published on February
25, 2019 by The Editorial Board on The New York Times.
If it was
brought to a smaller scale, for example, lets say the writers, of these comments
on this article, have a house and people just start to come over to stay in
their home. Would they be happy to feed them, support them, and cover their expenses?
Where would the writers get the resources to support the people? It’s easy to
make an opinion and say “support this” “support that” “support them” etc. when the
help is not being provided only by the writers, to the people.
The U.S. has
many problems of its own, many things they need to take care of, how can someone
(whether it’s a person or country) be able to help others when they themselves
need help?
“President Trump chose on
Monday to reaffirm his punitive bent, complaining about the exodus of
migrants and saying
he told the leaders of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, whose
countries receive millions of dollars in annual aid, “We’re not sending it
anymore.” But what if the United States truly prioritized helping these
nations?”
The writers said “…prioritized
helping…” yet, these countries have been helped and continue to be helped till
this day. If these countries have been receiving millions of dollars annually,
for some time now, then why is there no change? Why do people continue to flee
their homeland seeking a better future? Where is all the aid and money going
to? I suspect that it’s due to so much corruption. The government of these
countries probably keeps the money for themselves instead of helping their
people. Corruption is a major problem in many central and southern countries,
and it’s happened in the past; where aid is sent but it doesn’t reach nor is
given to those who are in need.
It’s very heartbreaking to
see a government/leader whose love for money is greater than love for their
people. They would rather feast and dine like kings, from the money that was sent
to aid the poor and needy, than to help them out.
“Plagued by corruption,
violence and gang terror…”
Yes, this article mentions
the corruption and violence faced in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras,
but these are problems that need to be addressed within the country, within the
leaders and by the leaders.
“…need stronger and more
honest judges and police officers, better schools and economic development.”
Yes, there need to be honest judges, police officers, and people
of authority. Also better schools, etc. so why not make propositions? Such as:
if the country doesn’t improve in areas of corruption, education, poverty, etc.
then the aid will be taken away, or less aid will be given. Why is this not
addressed in a meeting of some sort between the U.S. president and the
presidents/leaders of these nations?
“In the end, it is Central
American leaders who must carry out reforms. They are more apt to do that with
international support.”
I absolutely agree in the first
part of this sentence (that Central American leaders should be the ones to make
the changes) the changes to improve their country. But how much more help do
they want? Because if the leaders continue to be corrupt and keep most, if not
all, the money then there will be no real positive change.
It’s like having someone who asks
for money all the time instead of going out into the world and finding ways to
make money, to self-support. Anyone would be happy to just stay on the couch at
home all day and receive money, not having to worry about doing anything or
paying bills. But if that money is reduced or taken away then the person, due
to their needs and survival, will get up and work to get money (making a
positive change).
Similar to this, if the aid
is removed, then that might make/motivate those leaders to rise up, action, and
make a positive change. If the leaders don’t want to, nor rise up, and make the
changes no matter how much “international support” they receive, they will just
sit back and do nothing to help the country. It’s not only a matter of needing
the resources/aid but also wanting/desiring to help their people.
