Shoulda Woulda Coulda

I have already looked at a few blogs that have been posted in response to this question and I’ve noticed a trend. Everyone seems to focus his or her attention on the connotation of the word “should”. This focus makes sense. It is one of those words where you can mold it into any meaning you want it to be, which means especially good things for politicians. “Should” doesn’t have any strings attached to it. “Well I really should, and I would… if I only could!” Well, in most cases when someone says that, they actually can, they just choose not to.

            Of course powerful states should look after the interest of the less powerful states. They should always, “Spread the wealth!” In fact, many countries do, do this. However, the help that they extend varies from being bountiful to being very meager. It’s all about power; that’s what it seems to boils down to. The humanitarian in us all wants to reach down and offer a helping hand to those who are so desperately reaching for higher ground, but the politician in us asks, “What’s in it for us?” I feel as though, in many cases, unless the powerful state will become more powerful in the process of helping the state in need, they wont offer any help at all. When a wealthy country offers aid to a third world nation, beyond helping the poor, they are also shining a positive light on their own nation by being generous and kind. Thus, there is no harm in offering help, for it benefits both the giver and the receiver. However, there are some exceptions.

            It may not be especially wise for a more powerful nation to take on a substantial amount of responsibility in caring for the interests of a less powerful nation. The powerful nation has it’s own set of national problems to deal with. It should not jeopardize it’s own success and quality of life of it’s own citizens in order to help a less powerful nation toward prosperity. It’s relatively similar to the topic we discussed in class this past Tuesday. Just because the President is an international figure does not mean that other nations, other than the United States, should be able to vote in the election. If international elections were to occur, the President would be expected to look after the interest of nations other than his or her own, which is not in the job description, nor should it be, for his primary concern should be for a more promising future for his own country. Similarly, although powerful nations are active and predominant in international affairs and politics, they cannot solely focus on the betterment of a less affluent state, for although they may have the authority and power to do so, they can not be held responsible for problems they did not create. 

            Furthermore, the world is not a peaceful place, as much I would love it to be, and politics comes into play even when concerning matters such as charity. Just because a nation is in dire need of help, does not mean that they will receive it. Based on whatever international history the said nation has acquired, the nation could either be allies or enemies of the more powerful nation. Because of how the world is currently, a more powerful nation cannot make the choice to offer help based solely on the exigency of the less powerful nations problem. Rather, the powerful nation has to think about what this potential course of action will mean for it’s own nations future and standing in world politics.

            I don’t personally agree with any of this. Personally, I think we should be able to see a nation for what it really is, a home to thousands of desperate individuals and families, rather than seeing a nation as an entity with whom we may or may not be friendly with. We should be able to look after the interests of less powerful states without having to worry about sparking a conflict of losing our own power. But then again, when I say we should, don’t I mean we would, but only if we could? And by that, don’t I really mean we can?