Sample 1:

The role of one government to support citizens of other countries has been a major topic of concern in today’s society. From my perspective, this practice is feasible, and there are compelling reasons why governments should help people in the global community rather than only focusing on the citizens of their own countries.

In this context of globalisation and international integration, the provision of assistance for peoples of all countries in the world is not an impossible task anymore. One explanation for this is that modern means of transport have transformed the way that international assistance could be given, and now assistance could reach even the most remote places on Earth. For example, thousands of victims of a deadly earthquake in a mountainous city in Nepal were rescued by US and German military helicopters in 2014. One further explanation is that thanks to international banking, the international community could offer a helping hand to any country where the financial system is on the verge of collapse. An excellent example of this is that the saving money of millions of taxpayers and pensioners in Greece was saved by a timely act of the European Commission of injecting a huge amount of bailout money into Greek banks in 2009.

I strongly believe any government must assume the responsibility of helping citizens in other countries. This is mainly because assisting inhabitants in other countries, to some extent, is synonymous to assisting people in the home country. In 2014, hundreds of US and UK doctors and nurses were sent to African countries to cope with the outbreak of Ebola, a dreadful plague, which had killed many thousands by that time. This action prevented the plague from further spreading to other nations, including the US and the UK themselves, considering that there was a free movement of people between countries and there were millions of African migrant workers in the US and the UK at that time. Besides, the act of supporting people all around the world may promote a sense of humanity, which is essential to the sustainable development of the world, because humanity is the foundation of peace and stability.

To conclude, governments must assist citizens of other countries for a clear reason that this feasible act could simultaneously enhance a global sense of humanity and assure their own nationals of a proper living environment.

Sample 2:

Some people believe that we should not help people in other countries as long as there are problems in our own society. I disagree with this view because I believe that we should try to help as many people as possible.

On the one hand, I accept that it is important to help our neighbours and fellow citizens. In most communities there are people who are impoverished or disadvantaged in some way. It is possible to find homeless people, for example, in even the wealthiest of cities, and for those who are concerned about this problem, there are usually opportunities to volunteer time or give money to support these people. In the UK, people can help in a variety of ways, from donating clothing to serving free food in a soup kitchen. As the problems are on our doorstep, and there are obvious ways to help, I can understand why some people feel that we should prioritise local charity.

At the same time, I believe that we have an obligation to help those who live beyond our national borders. In some countries, the problems that people face are much more serious than those in our own communities, and it is often even easier to help. For example, when children are dying from curable diseases in African countries, governments and individuals in richer countries can save lives simply by paying for vaccines that already exist. A small donation to an international charity might have a much greater impact than helping in our local area.

In conclusion, it is true that we cannot help everyone, but in my opinion national boundaries should not stop us from helping those who are in need.

Sample 3:

In this economic-driven world, some think it is impossible to help all people in the world, so countries should focus on helping their people first. I disagree with this view because many individuals and organisations contribute significantly to the betterment of the people all over the world. Even top companies, celebrities and millionaires are supporting people through various means. One such example is donating crores to ensure school education in Africa. 

Improving access to knowledge and education strengthens young people’s capacity to act as agents of change in future. According to the 2023 Global Hunger Index recommendations, governments must invest in and support diversified rural economies, improve employment conditions and plan a comprehensive food system to alleviate people's hunger and malnutrition. Similarly, the Human Development Index 2023-24 report suggests planetary public goods for climate stability to battle the Anthropocene and embrace new technologies for equitable human development. 

Since 2023 has witnessed extreme weather and climatic conditions affecting middle and low-income people, the United Nations, neighbouring countries and friendly nations have provided humanitarian aid to survivors all over the world. On the other hand, OECD member countries supply medical aid to victims of war, especially in the Middle East. 

Therefore, I disagree with the idea that governments must only focus on their own countries rather than the whole world. Helping all people is nothing but a moral obligation to all countries. Subsequently, it mutually benefits everyone. I hope governments will recognise that global cooperation is the need of the hour. They must work together on common terms and provide sustainable solutions long-term.

Sample 4:

It is merely impossible to help all human beings in the world, so countries should only focus on their citizens first. This idea reflects narrow-mindedness and a lack of empathy. So I disagree with this idea as it leads to regionalism, discrimination and unrest in society. 

Firstly, developed countries like the USA, UK, Japan, etc must provide aid to third-world countries as they suffer from political instability, huge poverty, and high mortality rates. According to the IMF, richer nations can assist poorer countries by gathering their resources, initiating their own bilateral development programs, and funding the work of the IMF, World Bank and other multilateral agencies. Moreover, the IMF continues to work with all partners to ensure economic and financial stability in poorer countries.

A classic example of helping all people in the world is Covid-19 pandemic aid. Many countries rapidly scaled up emergency financial assistance and programs with new commitments reaching almost $9 million people in 2020 alone. In post-pandemic, when countries open up to trade, they mostly benefit because they can sell more and buy more. Since the Covid-29 lockdown has triggered an economic collapse, trading has become a lifesaver for all people. Trade is not about charity; it is about providing developing countries with the necessary tools to achieve their development goals.

Overall, it is possible to help all people in the world, if there is the right perspective, strategy, and above all empathy. In a way, it promotes peace and harmony between nations. So governments should start helping everyone in the world, irrespective of their nationality, religion and age. 

Sample 5:

Everybody says that it is impossible to help all people in the world, so all presidents must only focus on their citizens first. I strongly agree with this statement because if each country helps their own people, automatically all people in the world would be benefitted. It sounds fair and not discriminating against any community or social group. People are the backbone of a country. If the government doesn’t help them, other countries can’t. 

Achieving self-help and economic independence is a long-term goal. It can be achieved through meticulous planning, building strategies, and good implementation. If the government is serious about helping their people first, they will lay a strong foundation first. The government would eradicate poverty, provide equal access to education and employment, and curb crime from society. 

Let’s take India. With a population of over 1.4 billion people, India is the world’s largest democracy. However, inequality persists across all sectors of society. Child malnutrition has remained high. India’s growing aspiration to achieve developed countries status by 2050 requires a climate-resilient growth process that comes with broad-based gains to the majority of the population. If the government starts focusing only on their people and addresses these critical issues, it would benefit a majority of the world population. 

From the above, it is clear that fully supporting their own people is a challenge for countries, given the vast population and limited resources. So they should work on their own people and develop their economy slowly and steadily. It promises a bright future and eventually helps all people in the world.

Sample 6:

Many people believe that governments should only support their own inhabitants and not assist residents from other countries. While it is true that the government must prioritise its own citizens, I believe it is also possible to provide assistance to others around the world.

To begin, there are several reasons why governments should assist citizens in their own countries. To begin, because there are an increasing number of homeless persons in local communities, such as people who do not have their own homes and live under bridges or metro stations, authorities should prioritise assisting impoverished people who cannot afford shelters. The government, for example, may provide public housing and free meals. Second, as a result of the transitional economy, the unemployment rate has skyrocketed.

For example, in Vietnam, the labor-intensive economy has evolved into a knowledge-based economy requiring a large number of educated workers. As a result, policymakers must prioritise the issue of unemployment. Governments, for example, might provide employment training to unemployed people. This may help to minimise the number of unemployed persons.

However, I believe that we can also assist civilians from other regions of the world. First, because there are many undeveloped countries with low living standards, such as Haiti and Ethiopia, governments in wealthier countries must assist these poorer countries. This could assist them in overcoming adversity. For example, when individuals in African countries die of curable diseases, wealthy countries might give drugs and provide medical assistance. Furthermore, diplomacy is critical to economic development. Japan, for example, typically provides untied loans to several developing countries. This could strengthen diplomatic relations between states and ensure countries' long-term development. In conclusion, while governments can aid their population, I believe it is equally feasible to help individuals all around the world.

Sample 7:

Countries are classified into three types: developed, developing, and underdeveloped. So the governments in the countries I listed provide a different type of welfare benefit to their citizens. I feel that such affluent countries have the ability to assist countries that are experiencing challenges, but they cannot assist all people on the planet. As a result, I agree that governments should prioritise residents in their own countries before attempting to assist other countries, as described in the following paragraph of this article.

Nowadays, technology has advanced to the point that many things are faster and easier than they were in the past. As a result, the effect of this development has been felt by all countries throughout the world, and it is the responsibility of governments to increase domestic money circulation. Because in today's world, people can utilise their money anywhere and at any time. For example, we can buy an ebook from an online store or conduct numerous financial activities without having to go to the bank.

On the other side, in the present, countries that lack authority, whether developed or emerging, are unable to reap the greatest benefits from technology. As a result, some countries face challenges that their governments are unable to address. People, for example, did not receive assistance when a natural disaster struck, and governments did not provide compulsory education for their inhabitants. As a result, some developing countries must seek assistance from other countries.

To summarise, I agree that the government should prioritise its people, but if their people have a decent quality of life, they can come to aid other countries in need. So, while we can assist others by collaborating with other governments or countries, it is impossible to assist everyone on the planet.

Sample 8:

The subject of nations attempting to provide overseas aid has recently captured the public's attention. Many people say that it is difficult to support all of the world's citizens, and that countries should prioritise domestic happiness over foreign aid to other societies. Although I agree that it is hard to assist all of the world's residents, I believe that governments should focus primarily on local concerns. In this essay, I shall elaborate on my point of view.

On the one hand, the world's governments' reluctance to provide international help to underdeveloped regions is understandable. It is unrealistic to expect government assistance to reach all of the impoverished because their numbers are large and they exist in different parts of the world. Furthermore, communities have a wide range of demands, which can create a slew of problems when it comes to assisting them. Due to poor transportation and extreme weather conditions, developed communities, for example, may face several challenges while sending food and medical aid to destitute regions in Africa. Because of such concerns, governments spend money to help other countries while struggling to care for their own citizens due to local budgetary constraints. In other words, leaders should prioritise the well-being of their citizens before spending large sums of money on global assistance, which could have a significant impact on their economy.

Officials, on the other hand, should assist as many societies as possible, regardless of the notion of assisting all people on the earth. Rich countries should help poor countries in critical humanitarian sectors such as health, nutrition, and education. Nations such as Yemen, which face the domestic threat of famine or contagions caused by war and terrorism, should get assistance from wealthy communities. This humanitarian cause of help will have a significant psychological impact on residents of both rich and impoverished areas. This is evident as they discourage any sense of alienation, fragmentation, or loss in favour of the enjoyment of charity and belonging to the global public. As a result, assisting people overseas not only assists the poor in living properly, but it also promotes the idea of self-devotion and belonging to achieve a better world among wealthy audiences.

Finally, I believe that world leaders should provide a helping hand to their struggling neighbours in order to support those in need. In addition to achieving political rivalry among nations, governments should provide their citizens' domestic needs and assist others in promoting good humanitarian ties.

Sample 9:

It is an undeniable fact that helping all individuals around the globe is not possible at all. Although I agree that governments should focus on people in their nations, I also believe that some poor countries do not have enough money to meet their basic needs, so other nations should support them.

For a variety of reasons, some people assert that the government should help people in their own country. The principal reason is that it is the responsibility of higher authorities to make the citizens of their own country satisfied. To explain it, individuals elect the higher authorities because they need support. That is why the important role of government is to fulfill the basic needs of people and provide them with better facilities. Moreover, billions of people live in the world. So, it is impossible to help them all. As a result, the world is divided into countries, and every nation has its own government, which makes a lot of effort to provide facilities to individuals, such as schools, hospitals, banks, etcetera.

On the other hand, rich nations should also help undeveloped countries. The predominant reason is due to national calamities and other technical problems. Some countries become poorer, and they do not have enough money to fulfill the basic needs of their individuals. So, at that time, other nations should support them not only financially but also they can provide food to them. Apart from this, in this modern era, some nations are also there which are undeveloped. So, developed countries should help them in the construction of schools, colleges, and hospitals. Due to this, the children of poor countries get a better education to become successful in the future.

To conclude, I opine that it is impossible to support all individuals around the globe. I also assert that rich nations should help undeveloped countries by giving them sufficient money and food.

Sample 10:

The question of whether governments should provide aid internationally or domestically has drawn much attention from the public. Although I understand why helping everyone in the world is unachieveable, I strongly disagree that governmental support should solely be concentrated on satisfying local needs.

On the one hand, I suppose the world’s leaders’ hesitation over the provision of international aids to deprived regions is legitimate. Firstly, it is unfeasible for governments’ support to reach all of the underprivileged as their number is enormous in many separated places around the globe and the type of support they need also varies. For example, developed nations may encounter numerous obstacles in terms of transportation upon sending food and medicines to unwealthy regions scattered around Africa where people are facing the threat of famine or contagions. Secondly, I believe leaders of a country should prioritize the well-being of their citizens and stabilize their economy and politics before carrying out any acts of global assistance.

On the other hand, I still believe governments should help as many people as they can regardless of the fragile odds for worldwide comprehensive support for all people. To begin with, in many underdeveloped countries, their leaders are unable to bear the burden of eradicating domestic poverty or crises due to, for example, terrorism, which calls for the involvement from other affluent nations. Also of great significance is that this national act of charity could have a huge impact upon individuals living in prosperous areas. If the government takes actions to help people overseas, citizens of that country will idolize the idea of self-devotion toward a better world.

In conclusion, I truly believe the world leaders should lend their neighbors a hand to offer help to people in need on their doorstep.

Sample 11:

It has been argued in the past that since it is not possible to help the whole of the world’s population, national governments should only lend their assistance to citizens within their jurisdiction. I only agree with this view, since while I believe that governments can only effectively and legitimately exercise their power over their own population, it would nonetheless be in their interest to support weaker states.

It could be said that governments can only effectively govern in a certain geographical area. If a population is too large, or if jurisdictions overlap, there could be confusion as to which government’s authority applies. This is why countries today try to have clearly defined borders, in order for the government to focus on governing only the people enclosed within it. Further, it would also be cost-inefficient for a government to help other people across their borders - the job might better be left for their national government, who is more attuned to the needs and demands of the citizens.

Nonetheless, it might conversely be argued that some richer countries should still have some responsibility to assist poorer and weaker governments who cannot govern themselves. This could produce goodwill between countries and promote international cooperation. Furthermore, by helping countries that cannot effectively govern, this reduces the possibility that there will be refugees as a result of political instability or war. For instance, the reason why aid is given to developing countries in South America by the United States is to make the countries more stable and to reduce immigration into the latter country.

Overall, I argue that it is true that in most cases, governments should only focus on its people since spreading its resources to other nations would be ineffective and wasteful, it should be said that it can sometimes be in their interest to support those from other countries in order to ensure cooperation and stability.

Sample 12:

Countless people today have recommended that governments should prioritise supporting their own people over donating overseas. I strongly agree with this statement as global involvements generally do more harm than good, and governments get better control regarding national help.

First, foreign help could be a bit difficult for every nation to acquire. Amidst the ones that are facilitated by external relief, a majority of nations either end up misusing the contributions or become overly reliant on them. A good instance of this would be the assistance sent to numerous African countries during times of public chaos. Certain dishonest governments would often control the aid, whether food supplies or financial support, to preserve their autocratic position. Even in the occasional cases where help reaches its planned targets without intrusion from governments or non-governmental organisations, there is a strong probability of establishing a dependency. People usually profit more long-term from developing features related to self-reliance rather than becoming submissive in a dependent relationship.

Furthermore, governments can impact their own population better. There is an array of techniques that these authorities can choose, for example, subsidizing a comprehensive social government assistance net, letting individuals keep a greater amount of their tax money, and more. A good illustration of this would be in China where the public authority has colossal influence over both public and private elements. This guarantees that their help isn’t abused and that it upholds really weak fragments of the populace. Their oversight and information on their own nation means a more productive allotment of assets, and this applies for the most part to governments all around the world.

Although contributing to the global economy periodically is acceptable, it’s better if it does not become a habit.

All in all, governments can mediate most successfully in their own countries. Consequently, unfamiliar assistance ought to be restricted to situations of outrageous emergency.

Sample 13:

Many today have suggested that governments should prioritise supporting their own citizenry over offering foreign aid. I strongly agree with this statement as international interventions often do more harm than good and governments have greater control concerning domestic assistance.

Firstly, foreign aid is notoriously difficult to manage. The majority of countries helped by foreign aid either end up exploiting the charity or become overly dependent. A good example of this would be the aid sent to many African nations during times of civil turmoil. Certain corrupt governments would often leverage the aid, whether it be food supplies or financial support, to maintain their autocratic position. Even in the rare cases where aid reaches its intended targets without interference from governments or non-governmental organisations, there is a strong likelihood of establishing a dependence. Individuals generally profit more long-term from developing characteristics related to self-reliance rather than becoming subservient in a dependent relationship.

Moreover, governments are able to affect greater change over their own populace. There are many different tactics that governments can choose ranging from funding a comprehensive social welfare net to allowing individuals to keep more of their tax dollars and contribute to the economy. A standout example of this would be in China where the government has tremendous sway over both public and private entities. This ensures that their assistance is not misused and that it supports truly vulnerable segments of the population. Their oversight and knowledge of their own country translate to a more efficient allocation of resources, and this applies generally to governments globally.

In conclusion, there is little support for the efficacy of foreign aid and governments can intervene most effectively in their own nations. Therefore, foreign aid should be limited to times of extreme crisis.

Sample 14:

The global scenario is such that on one hand the world is becoming more and more developed and linked due to increase in trade and movement of people between countries. However, billions of people still live in poverty and are in need of help. This essay will look at the arguments for and against helping poor countries.

If we look at reasons for helping poor countries, the first reason can be a humanitarian one. It can be said it is the social duty of industrialized nations to help people in countries who are suffering from famine, drought, war, or disease. Interestingly, many rich countries also have a political or diplomatic agenda behind donating money. They want to maintain a relationship of dependency with the recipient, or simply to influence the government and direction of the country. But the fact is that the developed nations are much less than the nations needing help. The question here arises up to what extent a poor country can be helped.

Many experts opine that aid is not necessarily the best way to help a country. Many a time, billions of dollars of aid often don’t reach the needy, getting seeped off into corrupt governments and inefficient administrations. Also, many foreign aid projects are unsuitable for the target country. There are many examples in economic magazines and newspapers of aid-funded projects in Africa that failed miserably. This kind of situation not only proves to be a setback for the poor countries but also is a blow to the economies of the rich ones.

The statement that it is impossible to help everyone does seem true. However, it is our duty to try and make a difference. There are many other ways in which we can help poor countries. Flexing trade restrictions allowing countries can sell their goods is one way. There is a dire need for basic necessities in such countries, so awareness and facilities for say water, sanitation, hygiene and such should be deployed.

In closing I’d say, even though the richer countries seem prosperous, there is not enough money in the world for everyone. Everybody, rich or poor, needs to make do with what they have, and try to expand the resources appropriately.

Sample 15:

It is argued that supporting masses all over the world, who really need help, is not possible for governments, so the regime should focus on indigenous people of their own native land. I agree with this statement, aa it is the prime responsibility of any government to assist it’s a citizen first then others.

First and foremost, native people pay a tax to the government of their country, and they help in generating income. Thus, their contribution to the development of a country is immense. Moreover, it is a moral obligation for the rulers who rule the country to provide a healthy living standard to its countrymen. So, the upliftment of a nation’s people is an indispensable task for the government. For instance, if developing countries support their people to raise their living conditions like creating employment, free education, reservation for downtrodden in various sectors, then people will flourish, and they can give an utmost contribution in making their country stand on foot and also in the line of developed nations. Afterward, that country can assist a lot of other nations in many ways.

In addition, it is impossible for a single nation to assist people all over the world due to the scarcity of funds. It is a shared responsibility. So, every government is liable to their masses in order to create harmony in the country and for shaping their country in a new world. Besides, there is no use in helping other people by depriving one’s people and making them handicapped to lead a life full of miseries. Thus, people will experience trial and tribulations. So, people must be assisted by their own government.

In conclusion, serving people worldwide in supporting them in times of difficulty is impossible. It is because every government has its own responsibilities for its ...