Can one country solve global problems?
When many organisations work together on one problem, who should be most responsible for the final outcome?
In this video, Ashvin explains that most global problems cannot be solved by one country or one organisation alone. He argues that foundations can make a real difference when they work in coalitions, bringing together governments, businesses and community groups.
Watch his video and share your thoughts in the comments below.
Video not working? Follow this link: https://vimeo.com/teef/ashvin-dayal
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I think [donor governments / local governments / charities / businesses] should be most responsible because [your reason]. One example is [from the video or lesson]. However, others might argue that [a different point of view].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers to see whether you agree or disagree with them.
Comments (37)
I agree with the statement; while it is tempting to imagine a "superpowered" country stepping in to fix all the world's problems, the world's most pressing issues are too complex, interconnected, and geographically diverse for one country to handle. For example, some problems don't respect borders; problems like climate change, pandemics, and economics don't care about the border of a country, and they will cause as much havoc as long as they are there. Another point is limited resources; even the wealthiest country in the world has its own budget and its own people to take care of, and the cost of some of the aids to help against these problems is very costly. These are my points on why one country cannot handle all the world's problems but can only help one at a time.
I can totally see what you’re saying here and your point about global problems such as global warming etc. is completely overlooked and discussed rarely. That’s why worldwide organizations such as the United Nations Environment Programme and World Health Organization or WWF and GEF to help get one step closer to solving problems that affect people all around the globe.
I think everyone involved in the development of the project should be held accountable and should be given credit. As was said, one man, business or organisation cannot solve a global problem on its own, therefore it would need multiple hands and ideas. So, I think that anyone involved should be remembered and honoured.
For example, the discovery of the structure of the DNA of human beings was discovered by James Watson and Francis Crick, both were amazing scientists and both are still remembered for the discovery today; no one was left behind or forgotten. All hands on deck means progress only happens when every person's effort is valued and acknowledged, and therefore, no ones work goes unseen.
I think local governments should be the most responsible for the final outcome because they understand their communities and are directly accountable to the people affected by decisions. But what’s different about local governments is that unlike large corporations, foundations and businesses, local governments are aware of what the difficulties and struggles are in their area.
One example is Ashvin explains that he disagrees that one country can solve a problem or crisis on its own, but if many foundations and organisations come to contribute in this problem it can make a huge difference. Without the local governments in this corporation and mission it would be a fail, as local governments know what their area and place is like, so are most suitable in the mission as they provide information, which they certainly know is correct.
However, others might argue that donor governments are more important because they provide funding for low and middle income nations to support stability and economic growth in the country. Donor governments fund education, health, infrastructure and governance. I believe that local governments are primarily better because imagine the donor is a wealthy neighbour who assists you money to fix your broken bathroom, but they don’t shower or do anything in that bathroom. The local government is the person who uses that bathroom and are aware of where the leaks and broken pipes are, and they’ll still always be there to fix it again if it breaks.
In addition, I think local governments are most responsible for the final outcome.
Thank you!
i don't think that any of the mentioned parties can be most responsible.international aid is a global job.It needs so much coordination .These parties should share the responsibility and celebrate the success of aid and bear the responsibility if the outcmes were not as expected.yes,some may argue according to the video that this party should be in charge or that party.However,I still support the point that it is a no one-man job.It has to e divided equally among all those particpating in the aid process.The donner government should follow te flow of the aid and make sure it reaches those who deserve it.The local governments should report to the donor government and make sure that the aid reaches the worthy ones. Charities should contact the previous parties and provide accurate information on the needy. Businesses should provide support to the charities to facilitate this process and suprvise the work of charities.We say everybody's job is nobody's job.Such integration is needed to guaranteee the flow of the aid so as to make the world a better place.
the principal of the idea somewhat makes sense and could be achieved under the right circumstances but recently this idea has been somewhat of a disaster. this has worked before for example in 1995 canada solved the trubin war with spain where they made a law with the european union to protect turbin stocks and fishing in international waters. another example while yet not technically by itself during the cold war the Soviet Union and the U.S.A calibrated on the World Health Organization which helped to eradicate disease like small pox and the polio vaccine keep in mind they were in the middle of a war at that time. Yet more recently this concept has in a word sabotaged by the donald trump recent presidential election. for example he tried to use this principal for the russia ukraine dispute yet he failed. in his election he said that he would be able to end the conflict within 24hours he failed and ukraine and russia still hasn't made an agreement. another example of this is trump bombing iran on june 22 2025 because they were expanding they nuclear arsenal. donald trump in a way is making us closer to world war three then we ever have.
in conclusion this principle has worked before yet with current events USA etc this principle would have to have a precise management and out of the box solutions for this to work yet history has shown us that this is a very possible and achievable feet for not just america. thank you for reading my case.
I think local governments should be the most responsible and I will explain how.
1- First of all, it must never be a donor government because the local government and the people of this city are the ones who know their needs, issues and local obstacles best and they should be the ones who manage and build their own future with their own interests not outsiders deciding what should happen which to me seems like some kind of soft occupation
2- Second it can't be charities or businesses because they are not governments. They don't have the full responsibility, legitimacy or deep understanding of what is going on or what the country needs for its future.
One example is that after the war in Gaza there was massive destruction. The USA government announced that it will be responsible for rebuilding Gaza strip in calibration with Qatar, UAE and Egypt and they ignored the people of the Gaza to manage their internal affairs which seems to me as a hidden occupation ,and the proof is that Gaza people were able manage their issues over two years of war and siege, but the only need was funds.
However, others might argue that the donor governments should be responsible because they are the ones who pay for aids and without these funds the people of the city wouldn't be able to do anything.
I think donor governments should be most responsible for solving global problems, but only if they work together with local governments, charities, and businesses. One country alone can’t fix big issues like climate change or poverty because these problems happen in many places at once. Donor governments have more money and power to support big projects, like building schools, hospitals, and clean water systems. For example, in the video, Ashvin says that foundations can help more when they work in coalitions with governments and businesses, and I agree because teamwork makes solutions stronger.
Global problems like climate change, disease outbreaks, and armed conflicts can’t be solved by one country alone. These issues affect many countries, so international cooperation is essential. For example, when refugees flee from war, like in Syria, the global community must work together to provide aid and help them rebuild. Similarly, with climate change, no country can solve it alone; the world must collaborate. If one country reduces aid or acts alone, the problem only worsens. That’s why donor governments need to work with local groups to address global issues more effectively.
Some people might say charities or businesses should be most responsible because they are closer to the community or can move faster. But I think without the money and influence of donor governments, charities and businesses can only do small parts of the job. Global problems need big teamwork, not one hero.
I agree with you that donor governments should be most responsible because from word donor governments it means more than one government coming together, with the pooling of their collective resources, they can afford to invest in long time projects that don't have immediate profits. I also believe no one country can fix the problem alone just like Ashvin said in the video a coalition of governments and organisations will go a long way in solving issue. These government are able to provide the stability that these projects need. Someone might argue that businesses are in a better place at turning researches into real products people use since they are non profit organisations.
I agree with you. No single group can fix the problem all by itself, a coalition of all the groups will yield a far reaching result. I think donor governments can help oversee the entire global systems of trade and security and because the local government acts on the behalf of their people, they represent the democratic will of the people, they also manage the specific needs of their people. Businesses are very good at delivering a product to a customer, they also train the workforce and provide jobs that lift the people out of poverty while charities are very good relating how social change happens and most times they are the first responders in a crises situation. One example is from what Ashvin said about coalitions creating a real impact, this is often achieved by creating strength in number, diversifying expertise and pooling resources.
I think donor governments should be most responsible because they possess large financial capital and foreign aid required to provide solutions for global issues. One example is what Ashvin says about coalitions, governments can act as the anchor and they are also able to attract other organisations or partners. I think some people might argue that local government know their own people and their needs better than a foreign donor will ever do.
I think donor governments should be most responsible because they can use trade agreements to get other countries to adopt better environment and labour standards. One example is what Ashvin says about coalitions countries can invite others to join through economic incentives. However others might argue that the grassroots and local government will be the ones to suffer from such fallouts from such trade deals.
I think that doner governments should be more responsible because richer countries or governments are richer than others. However other people might say that if the richer countries give out too much they are going have to go to other governments for help.
i think donor governments should be responsible because once the donor governments meet together because they all have the same goal then they will be able to help other struggling nations and at that they will be able to achieve their goal with efficiency and speed.
I think all parties involved should get credit for the final outcome, because they all contribute in different ways. You could say that donor governments are the most responsible for outcomes because they provide most of the resources to make changes happen, but you could also ague that local governments are responsible because they are the ones actually making the decisions that affect people, and on the other hand, charities are the ones who raise awareness and some of the money, so changes couldn't happen if it weren't for all these sides working together.
I think that donor governments/NGOs should work in partnership alongside each other WHILE leaving the actual logistics of how aid gets delivered and whom it gets to delivered to to the local government. If multiple governments and NGOs all work together in coalitions (as stated in the video) then aid will be able to be transferred with higher quantities as well as the fact the local governments will be able to better handle logistics due to their understanding of the region. This will ensure that aid is transferred quickly and efficiently while also maintaining the fact that the country should have their own independence and control of their own denizens.
I think local governments should be most responsible because they understand their people’s real needs better than anyone else. They live with these problems every day, so they know what is urgent and what can wait.
In the video, Ashvin explains that no country can solve global problems alone. One example he gives is how foundations work in coalitions with governments, businesses and community groups to create real change. This shows that cooperation is more powerful than working alone.
However, some people might argue that donor governments should be most responsible because they provide most of the funding. I understand this point, but I believe money alone is not enough. Real change happens when local governments lead and different groups work together.
I think local governments should be most responsible because everyone working the organizations like this have an impact at what the result will be. One example from the video is that only a few problems can be solved from one actor one actor alone. That leads me to the conclusion that if all the countries work together to solve some problems , they will get along with them.
I agree because it connects directly to the idea of the video that few problems in the world can be solved by one actor alone, like you said too. Mr. Dayal also said that real change happens when foundations, governments, private sector and civil society work together and that is not subjective thinking, but a fact.
For example, if Ukraine wants to stop the war with Russia they can't do it alone and it will be harder to do it without other countries help. If people in Croatia help than it will maybe inspire other countries and the war mght end. I don't say that one or maybe two contries don't have influence but world needs much more than just that to solve some global problems.
I also think that local goverments should be more responsible because they work with organizations and communities from all around the world. If every local government would be more into making good decisions and helping others I think the world would be better place, but not everyone thinks about everyone just about themselves.
Nice point! I fully agree.
Yes I agree with sir Ashvin, and one country can't solve any global problems there should be a interconnection with all countries and cooperation of solving these global problems and about 32 countries are giving aid that's a good thing but there is an another responsibility for the countries which are receiving these aids that is they need to make sure that the aid in the form of food money or military services reach the people and army people properly but the best aid a country can give would be a financial aid because in my point of view a country needs money as because it would help them to make their military weapon by their own and to repair the damages cost due to military attacks or natural calamities and other things.
I think that No single country can solve global problems on its own. Challenges such as climate change, poverty, disease, and conflict cross borders and affect many nations at the same time. Even the most powerful countries do not have enough resources or control to fix these issues alone. Because the world is so connected through trade, travel, and technology, countries depend on each other more than ever before.
However, some countries may have a greater responsibility than others. Wealthier and more developed nations often have more money, advanced technology, and stronger political influence. This means they are in a better position to lead international efforts and provide support. At the same time, every country, no matter its size, should take responsibility for its own actions and contribute in ways it can.
When many organisations work together on one problem, responsibility should be clearly shared. Governments, international organisations, charities, and local communities all have different strengths and roles. Clear planning and cooperation are important so that everyone understands their duties. If one group does not do its part, it can affect the success of the whole project.
In my opinion, no single country should be completely responsible for the final outcome. Instead, responsibility should be divided fairly, based on each country’s power, resources, and level of involvement. Global problems require teamwork, shared commitment, and trust between nations if real and lasting solutions are to be achieved.
I think donor governments, charites and businesses are most responsible because for example governments have a lot of money , but some country's governments, charities and businesses aren't well supported or skilled meaning they are lacking money,food and clean water. However some countries may support these governments charities and businesses meaning they would advance their country like sending engineers if there are floods or doctors if there are illnesses. So in conclusion it depends whether they have the right amount of money or not.
Bye for now topical talkers
I think local governments should be most responsible.
I believe this because, their job is to collaborate, and deal with issues. Whether that’s on the global scale or not, a government should function with it’s country in a situation where the community leans on the government, and provides aid so that the government is able to assist. It’s unfair to give any smaller organizations the responsibility, because of charities, donor governments, and businesses have multiple isssues they seek to aide, so if sole responsibility is given to them, it limits their ability to spread their help in more than just a single concentrated spot. One example, is from the video where Ashvin states that “it’s hard for once actor to change the world by itself”(an actor is an organization, person, or community), which shows that support is needed for the government to actually function, but despite the fact that they need ulterior help, they still should be held responsible as the largest organization in the issue, and should in most cases be the thing overseeing it all.
As an example, an organization called WarChild has been working together with many countries to assist countries in civil war, or in need of help. They need the support of the government to function, as they need to be able to access increased amounts of supplies to aid them.
Some may think that the organization WarChild should be responsible for this due to it being the main cause of aid and support, but at the end of the day it’s still the governments responsibility to help, as they are leaders which should be the aide,
Hi Inquisitive_atom, you argue that it's local governments who should be the most responsible, do you agree that organizations like WarChild also have a role to play and what is the main value that they can add?
Throughout history, global issues have taken over regions on Earth, from health crises like the Bubonic Plague to political corruption evoked by rebelling groups, making it important for charities, businesses, and governments alike to work together in order to responsibly solve them.
I believe that by collaborating, these groups are able to share and distribute resources funded by the more fortunate and allocated by more local communities. One example of a collaboration between nations is the United Nations (UN), an organization formed post-WWII, aimed at bettering various aspects of society. Recently, the UN has been mediating conflicts within nations such as Yemen and ensuring the protection of all, stressing the safety of children. For them to have as much authority as they do, many government and partnered officials cooperate to fund safety programs and aid, ultimately allowing groups to be more powerful and united.
However, others might argue that this form of collaboration may lead to higher risks and an unhealthy form of hierarchy. During the Gilded Age in the U.S., local government in New York created an operation known as Tammany Hall, which created a justified place to bargain for loyalty and votes in exchange for welfare programs. Today, in the 21st century, it is probable that situations such as that may exist; however, there are many guidelines and regulations set in place to reduce their effects and authority.
All in all, nations and their subsections of power are all responsible for discussing the most important path to solving global issues.
Can you cite where you found your evidence?
Thank you for your question! The context and analogies to Tammany Hall are information from my past and current coursework, while the information about the UN comes from the UN News article about decisions made by the UN Special Envoy.
Global problems, by definition, go beyond borders. Issues such as climate change, poverty, pandemics, and conflict affect multiple nations at the same time. Even the most powerful country in the world cannot solve these challenges alone, because their causes and consequences are interconnected. For example, climate change cannot be reduced by one nation if others continue to increase emissions.
However, one country can play a leading role. A strong nation can invest in innovation, set positive examples, provide funding, and encourage cooperation. Leadership can inspire others to act, but real solutions require collaboration, trust, and shared responsibility.
In today’s interconnected world, progress depends on partnerships. When countries combine their resources, knowledge, and determination, they create stronger and more sustainable solutions. Global problems demand global cooperation, not individual action.
thank you topical talkers 🌹
Do you think that international aid should be only used for important war situations or should always be used to help and protect other countries,if you think it’s only for war situations may I ask why you think that?
i do not think one country can fix global problems because one country would not have that much resources for many many country's because there is hundreds of countrys
Can you expand on your point?
I strongly believe that governments should be most responsible because they have the authority to make laws, provide funding, and coordinate organisations. For example in Ebonyi State, Nigeria, the government works with charities and businesses to improve education and reduce poverty, showing that leadership matters. Global agreement like the Paris agreement also prove that countries must work together to solve problems like climate change.
However, others might argue that charities or businesses should lead because they often bring innovation and financial support.
Overall, no single country can solve global problems alone - strong leadership and cooperation are both essential.
I strongly stand with the point that donor governments should be the most responsible but at the same time, cooperation is highly needed from other organisations, charities, etc as Ashvin mentioned that most global challenges like climate change and pandemics needs the collective effort of different countries and organisations.
Imagine if the problem of COVID-19 was only controlled by a country?. Firstly, the country might struggle with access to necessary equipment and the country's economy would struggle seriously and if not intervened, the pandemic would spread quickly globally due to lack of coordinated and cooperative response.
In conclusion, a tree cannot make a forest, so teamwork, cooperation and collaboration should be prioritised in handling projects or problems to result in a better and satisfactory result.
While a single country can lead the way, the idea that one natione can solve a global problem alone is a geographical myth. Global challenges like climate change, pandemics, and economic inequality are borderless ; they don’t need a passport to spread. Therefore, they cannot be fixed with a single nation's policy. Even the wealthiest nations lack the total resources or influence to force global change. However one country can act a ‘catalyst'. By setting on example- like achieving net-zero emissions or developing a vaccine— one country can inspire a domino effect of positive action. But untimely, for a global solution to be sustainable, it requires multilateral cooperation rather than ‘solo heroism.' In short, one country can start the fire of change, but it takes the whole world to keep it burning.
I strongly agree that the higher authority should go to a designated leg organization, project owner of steering committee and in terms of politics,
Based on modern constitutional law, public law and economic, multi stakeholder framework, for the organization in leads, typically the sovereign government or a delegated public authority hold the ultimate responsibility for the final outcome.
This is because the posses suffering power within a specific territory derived from the consents of the governed to create, enforce and interpret laws.
This includes their offer in bases like sovereignty and Legal authority like final say, legitimacy and Monopoly which could be of help to hearing the voices of the people in an international aid. Remember everyone needs guide and for a country to be led in unity, one general rule is to be promoted, that which comes from the constitution that needs a leader to enforce it on others, but mostly the leaders plan should always correspond to the needs of his people in order to satisfy all interests and rights.
Let's take for instance, if everyone is allowed to make their decision on how to promote international aid in a country, everyone would make different or some with similar choice and this could result to conflict or zero promotion. This is why a leader is needed to analyze the people say and make final decision, so it's full confidence I agreed that the power is to be vested on the government in terms of a political rule or ventured on the leader in order to promote progress and avoid degradation of the respective international aid.
in my opinion,I think everyone involved in the development of the project should be held accountable and should be given credit.I think donor governments should be most responsible because they can use trade agreements to get other countries to adopt better environment and labour standards.
I think that charities should be the most responsible for any outcome of the money collected because they know people better and have direct communication with them, knowing all their severe needs.
I think not only one organisation can solve world problems, but only one individual can do most of the work leaving the rest for local communities/charities to do the rest of the work.
An example could be Elon musk, the founder of Tesla and the current owner of X (Twitter previously), heading to hit one TRILLION dollars by the end of 2027, having more that enough to solve world hunger and offering other necessities to struggling countries.
The ones who should be the most responsible, should be the ones who knows the locals struggles most and has the discipline and passion to solve no matter what.
However some might claim that all if the globe citizens should have a say in it, as participating acts like encouraging organisations on and forward.
I think that local governments should be most responsible because they understand their own countries best. They know where and what their biggest problems are, whether that is healthcare, education, clean water, or energy. When local governments take the lead without corruption or abuse of power, aid is more likely
I believe that although some countries may have the ability to help solve the problems of other nations, there are significant challenges that would make this idea difficult to apply in reality.
To begin with, no country is completely free from internal issues. Every nation faces economic, political, or social difficulties. Therefore, it would be unrealistic to expect one country to neglect its own responsibilities in order to focus entirely on solving the problems of others.
Furthermore, it would be extremely challenging to find a country capable of ruling in a completely fair and unbiased manner. There is always the risk that the ruling country might act in its own interest, show favoritism, or use its authority to gain political or financial advantages.
In addition, other countries may question why they are not the ones in control. This could lead to feelings of jealousy, rivalry, and conflict rather than unity and cooperation.
Another important issue is the vast differences between countries in terms of culture, traditions, economic status, and social values. A ruling country might unintentionally favor one group over another, which could result in inequality and dissatisfaction.
Finally, concentrating too much power in the hands of one nation could be dangerous. If that country makes poor decisions or misuses its authority, the negative consequences could affect many countries at the same time.
In conclusion, while the idea of one country solving the problems of others may seem beneficial,challenges make it a complicated and a risky solution.
Thank you for reading.
I agree because international aid is widely known because we give it to people who need it so that they can survive. that is why I support International aid. I think we should focus on aid because we all need aid so that we can survive. if some countries don't have aid how can they survive? I guess they won't because of the unimaginable social and economic problems facing them. these concerns are what drive international aid by donors. imagine Donald Trump said that their won't be any aid for the next 12 months, do you actually think they will survive?
When too many groups take charge, nobody’s really on the hook. Local governments need to take the lead. They’re the ones sticking around after donors and international organizations pack up and leave. Real change lives or dies with national policies, public systems, and enforcement, and all of that lands in the government’s lap.
Ashvin Dayal, in the video, talks about how big problems need everyone—foundations, governments, businesses, community groups—working together. Sure, foundations can bring people together and hand out money, but just coordinating things doesn’t keep projects alive. If the government isn’t fully invested, even the best ideas dry up once outside help disappears.
Some people think donors or charities should take the main role, since they write the checks. Others say businesses get things done faster. But honestly, local governments run the show when it comes to schools, healthcare, and laws. They have the staying power. If we want solutions that stick, responsibility has to match up with real, lasting authority. That’s why the buck stops with them.
Can one country solve global problems? Honestly, I don’t think so. Problems like climate change, poverty, or global conflicts affect many countries at the same time, so it wouldn’t make sense for just one country to handle everything alone. Even powerful countries need cooperation from others. I think real solutions happen when countries work together, share responsibility, and support each other. One country can start an initiative or lead the way, but lasting change usually needs global teamwork.
I truly believe that donor governments need to step up when it comes to tackling global issues, and for good reason—they hold a lot of financial and diplomatic power!!!! Take the Paris Climate Agreement, for instance. It gained momentum because major economies committed billions to support renewable energy and assist less wealthy nations. And during the COVID-19 pandemic, things shifted dramatically. Wealthy countries funded vaccine research and distribution through efforts like COVAX, making sure that vaccines reached everyone, regardless of their country’s wealth. Without their leadership, many low-income nations would have struggled immensely.
Remember the Ebola outbreak in West Africa? The U.S. and the EU provided crucial aid and coordinated resources that local governments and charities couldn’t manage alone. This really highlights a key point: global challenges need global solutions.
Now, I get it—some would argue that local governments should take the lead since they know their communities best. They can often respond more quickly, while international donors may take time to mobilize. Plus, charities and NGOs often reach the most vulnerable populations when government efforts fall short.
At the end of the day, no single country can tackle these huge challenges alone. Issues like climate change, pandemics, and poverty require us all to work together. While donor governments can provide the funding, local governments, charities, and businesses must also play their part. This is a shared responsibility, and together, we can truly make a difference!
Can a single person work along and achieve any objective? Were we able to learn to walk, to talk, to write or to ride a bike alone? Nobody can do things by their own. For example to write this comment, I was helped by the teachers who taught me English in my whole life, by the different techniques and types of writing I have studied previously, and by my parents, that taught me to read and write.
For this reason, in my opinion, it is impossible that a single government can solve a problem just by their own, without considering their power, development, economy or leadership. A country that is suffering a conflict or a problem in their area can not work alone to defeat it successfully. Even the governments responsible of provoquing wars, or the people doing terrorist attacks, or the virus that produced a great global pandemic, were helped! At the same time, an only government can not solve a problem by their own. They also need help. Even, what can happen to this country, is that it can also be involved or can have then economic or social problems. For this reason, it is important to collaborate and to work together, so that problems can be solved through a faster way. By this, we can even be benefecited, and also, we could realize that we have done a good thing for the population, helping each other by a human way, making an alliance with other ones.
To achieve objectives, we need to work together, as a team. For this reason we live in community, because we can learn to help and support other ones, and to be helped and supported by them. And the same happens to countries.
I believe that businesses should be held most responsible for the final outcome, not just governments or charities. In many global issues such as climate change, public health, or inequality, businesses are one of the biggest contributors to creating these issues through the systems they help create. Therefore, they should be held more responsible when they are working as coalitions. When foundations are bringing together governments, businesses, and charities, it is usually the businesses that have the tools and resources to help these issues on a larger scale. For instance, it could be a government that makes a policy change, a charity that makes awareness, but it is the business that can change its products, its production methods, or its technology that can help solve these issues. Therefore, they are more likely to change these issues directly. Others might argue that it should be the government that is held most responsible because they are elected officials and are therefore accountable to their citizens. While that is a good point because they are the ones that set the rules, I believe that in today’s world, many businesses are as rich as countries. Therefore, if they benefit from these global issues, they should help solve these issues. In fact, it is only through coalitions that all parties are contributing that they can be effective. But it should not be without being held accountable for results.
I think everyone would agree with my point of you, and eager to hear others views!!
I think donor governments should be the most responsible, but only if they work together with local governments, charities and businesses, because one should not be the most responsible for an outcome without others taking responsibility as well. Donor governments are the ones who donate money to build essential services such as hospitals and schools. In the video, Ashvin explains that one country alone cannot fix global issues like climate change and global warming, but if many come together, fixing these problems will be possible.
However, others might argue that local governments should be the most responsible because they’re the ones who know what their areas are like and can come to a solution to fix all of them. I disagree with this because donor governments are the ones who can offer financial help to provide resources and money for long-term projects.
In conclusion, I think donor governments are the most responsible because they offer financial support to complete and enhance the project and with the pooling of their collective resources they can invest in long-time projects, which don’t have immediate profit. Global issues cannot be solved by one country, but my many coming together.