Subscribe to my Feed
« Did Investment Banks Deliberately Sell Faulty Loans? | Home | Chef Emeril Demonstrates How Trust Enhances Your Business »
How will the next President handle emergency aid?
By Lauren | June 13, 2008
Environmental disasters around the world carry with them interesting ethical questions when humanitarian needs and international politics collide. The recent devastation in Myanmar made headlines when the generals who head the Myanmar government declined to accept emergency supplies from the United States because they were being delivered by military ships and aircraft. While the Myanmar government eventually allowed aid to trickle in, we’ll never know how many people died waiting for aid that was within reach, but delivered too late.
Some commentators suggested that the United States should have forced its way past the Myanmar government if necessary to deliver the needed supplies. We certainly had the military might available to do so, but should we have? While I can hardly applaud the Myanmar government for declining our aid on political grounds, I question whether our government would have reacted any better if other nations had tried to fight their way into New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. What takes precedence: human need or national pride?
If the climate worldwide continues to deteriorate, the next President may well have to address the ethical dilemmas poised by emergency situations in unfriendly countries. Would it be ethical to use military force override a sitting national government in order to provide humanitarian relief? Would it be ethical to let innocent people die because politicians don’t want to admit that their government can’t or won’t provide essential assistance? How would your candidate address this issue, and are you okay with that? You decide.
Topics: Presidential Campaign, Social Ethics, ethics |