What first? Aid or defence?
Discussion statement | This is for ages 10 to 13
Should countries reduce foreign aid to spend more on things like defence?
Governments have limited money to spend. Sometimes they choose to spend more on defence (protecting themselves or fighting with others) instead of foreign aid (helping others in need). What's the right thing to do?
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I think [your opinion] is most important because [the reason for your opinion]. I believe this because [a piece of evidence].
Make sure you read the comments from other Topical Talkers to see whether you agree or disagree with them.
Comments (59)
I think that countries should not decrease aid money given to other countries just to increase defence expenditure. Defence makes a nation safe from current threats, but aid prevents the formation of the initial problems that become defence concerns later on.
Forgetting about poor standards of living, poor levels of education, and poor government might cause wars to emerge and affect all countries in the globe regardless of their location.
Those who want to adopt a policy of increasing defence expenditure also believe that governments should think about their own people, particularly during difficult times. This is not an unreasonable position to take, but history has again and again revealed that power and military might alone are not sufficient to bring lasting peace and harmony. Today, many wars are being triggered by social and economic instability in various regions, which international aid directly prevents.
Foreign aid can also be used to build diplomatic relationships. For instance, two countries can forge strong diplomatic relationships if they helped each other during challenging times, such as disaster strikes or financial crunches.
Ultimately, defence and foreign aid must work together. Defence responds to immediate dangers, while foreign aid reduces long-term risks. A balanced approach protects not just a nation’s present, but its future stability as well.
I mostly agree, but sending aid money from a country to prevent a military conflict doesn’t form a good strategy most of the time. All conflicts nowadays wouldn’t have been avoided by foreign aid payments. A conflict nowadays is mostly caused by a regime or a dictator which exploits its people. If aid money is sent, most of it wouldn’t reach the people in need. As we saw in Somalia from 1992 to 1995 when a massive aid package was sent to stop the famine in Somalias population, an radical islamistic group seized the aid package and caused a military operation by the us, where dozens of Americans and hundreds of Somalis died.
I’m not saying, that we should stop providing aid for countries, who are stuck in times of crisis. We should rather think about who we really give our money to and if our money really serves its purpose in the place that it was sent to. In the end we and by we I mean all countries should be more critical about sending aid to other countries. And by aid I mean every payment that is made. Even payments for bycicle lanes in Peru. Aid is necessary to live in a healthy world but its not something that should be given around the world blindly.
I think there is no clear answer for this question.The problem is that the argument her is putting us on the horns of dilemma. Each country has the right to defend its own people.Charity begins at home. You can't be spending money on other countries where your own country is needy and your people are suffering or are liable to be in danger. On the other hand,these poor countries need aid so badly so that they can survive. i believe that since we are livig in the age of globalization,we need to think globally.Whatever happens in one place affects the whole world.So giving aid is a way of defense as well. There should be world treaties oblidging all counties to allocate a part of its income to the poorer countries.May be asa a form of taxes .It should be agreed worldwide that poverty is a threat to the whole world that needs global and radical solutions.Setting a balance between the two options is a must that requires a lot of wisedom.
I think foreign aid should be given equal or even greater importance than defence because preventing problems is better than reacting to them with force. I believe this because many global threats, such as conflict, terrorism, disease, and mass migration, often begin in places affected by poverty, weak governments, or natural disasters. Foreign aid helps address these root causes before they turn into larger security problems that may require military action.
For example, when countries invest in foreign aid by supporting education, healthcare, clean water, and disaster relief, they help create stability in vulnerable regions. Stable countries are less likely to experience conflict or become safe spaces for extremist groups. This means there is less risk of violence spreading across borders, which directly benefits the security of wealthier nations. In this way, foreign aid can act as a form of long-term defence without the need for weapons or conflict.
However, defence spending is still necessary to protect a country from immediate threats. Governments have a duty to keep their citizens safe, especially in a world where tensions between nations are high. The problem arises when defence budgets grow at the expense of helping others, as this can increase global inequality and resentment.
Overall, while defence is important, reducing foreign aid too much is short-sighted. A balanced approach that maintains strong defence while continuing meaningful foreign aid is the most responsible and effective choice for long-term global security.
i agree it is better if there is aid in case people are alive but need serious help because there hurt.
I agree with you; independent musician.
Could you elaborate on why you agree?
I agree with this comment very much indeed
Could you elaborate on why you think so?
I agree with this comment very much indeed .
Could you elaborate on why you think so?
I believe that aid to another country is more important than defence. Usually if you help someone when they need it, they will help you if you need help. If you aid another country, you can ally with them and you can be more powerful instead of being alone. For example, In World War II The Axis Powers had Germany, Italy and Japan. Why did countries in World War 2 have allies? They need to be stronger than the opponent to win the war.
I agree with you, giving foreign aid to me is a smart power strategy, it goes beyond simply giving handouts. Foreign aid can inspire a country to cooperate, when life saving assistance is given during pandemics, natural disasters liking flooding or even wars, countries begin to build soft powers and authority. This brings about loyalty, countries who will stand by the countries who have given foreign aids especially during international disputes, this i believe is even more important than any weapons systemt. Foreign is an like an investment in future market, helping a developing country become more stable economically is creating a new trading partner which is a win win for all involved as it is easier to support a struggling nation today than send a strong army to deal with a collapsed country tomorrow.
In my opinion, defense should definitely come first before aid. Defense prevents crises from happening, and aid only responds to them. Strong defense can stop invasions, terrorism, and tense wars before they destroy lives. Aid helps after the damage is done. In fact, without any defense and security, aid can’t even reach people who need it. In conflict zones or wars, people who provide help to communities are often blocked or attacked by the opposing army. Aid can’t reach people without security because violence will break every step of the delivery. For example, country A and country B are in a war. Although humanitarian workers are neutral, working for both A and B—their lives are at risk. They work in a dangerous environment. Without defense and security, they could come upon unstable routes (destroyed bridges, roads, etc). Aside from that, defense could stop aid from being weaponized. In some areas, armed groups often steal humanitarian aid like food and medicine, then use them to supply fighters, sell them to fund weapons, and even use it as a tool of war, making conflict last longer and increase suffering. Defense can prevent extortion and ensure aid reaches the ones who need it most, not armed groups.
In conclusion, I think that defense is the most important because it provides stability, safety, and control—while aid only works when those exist. Let me know what you guys think!
In my opinion, I think countries should spend money to defend themselves rather than helping in foreign aid. To emphasis more, defense spending is a necessary thing that enables any state to deter threat whenever a war happens or any other threat( like war threat or a communication shutdown in the state.
While foreign aid may also cause other problems like some countries would rely much more on aid rather than developing their country. Although money aid would be wasted or used against aider.
Hi! I understand your point of view on defense, and it´s true that a country needs to protect itself and be well-prepared for threats. However, I believe that international aid is very important because it helps improve the situations of vulnerable people and reduces poverty.
Investing in aid doesn´t have to mean ignoring defense. Helping other countries can even benefit the security of those who provide assistance. We should stop considering ourselves separate from other countries, because in the end, we are all part of the world and should contribute to making it a better place.
I think you should put aid first because if you give help to them they will give help to you, if you defend you might get criticised for not helping them and it might turn into war or something bad
you should defend first and then worry about aid.
Why do you think so?
I agree because we have to help the people in danger.
On the other hand, we also have to help our own people to have more for generations.
Why do you think both of these are the case?
I think aid is more important because say if you get shot you are going to need medical attention so therefore it is more important than defence.In defence you are just going to waste there money on your guns and the guns are very expensive meanwhile with the medical stuff it is actually useful because it can save lives.
I think that we should send aid to people so they can defend themselves but if i was in an emergency i would save myself then my family then other people. If me and my family are safe I will try to save other people because i am kind.
I think aid is most important because we need aid so we can survive then we are all alive and then we can build defence and the countries will be safe and live and not die.
So you might have heard of the shooting in Australia
Hi - why do you think the shooting in Australia is relevant here? Please do explain.
I think that people should help a bit less so they can save themselves. On the other hand, you should help others before yourself. I personally think that you should spend money on your army, then the rest leftover can be spent on others. On the other other hand, if you was on a plane, it says '' Help yourself before helping others''.
I believe defence should go first as aid can be important and can help but defending yourself is way better than relying on someone else
i learnt that the options that i thought could get a lot of points didn't so i know i need to think deeper. Countries should bring aid so in case anyone gets hurt,people are ready to treat them in time.It is safer and it makes sure everyone is ok when fighting.
I think we should defence
Why do you think this is the case?
I think that we should aid to other countries so they could protect themselves but i also think we should protect our country first because if we just give aid to other countries and don't care about about us, we would be harming our citizens in our country too. I think we should defend ourselves but also help other countries. This shows that there is no clear answer for this question and that we should just protect as many countries as we can but also protecting ourselves the most so we don't harm our people here in the UK. This is just my opinion, if you don't agree then i understand but this is what i think.
Personally, I think that defence should be put first. I think this because when your in a aeroplane and their telling you the safety checks, they tell you to put on your mask before you help any body else so this tells me you should put defence before aid. When you want to help struggling country in war you have to protect yourself so you don't get stuck in war you didn't start in. Also sometimes you have to know who to help because if you give money or supplies to somebody who doesn't, it can lead to corruption or incorrect use.
I think that aid should be first.Aid should be first because although its good to defence, aid should be first because you need to help yourself before you help any body else.
Helping other people is good and kind but you need to help yourself because you want to make sure your okay until you help other people.
We need to understand that helping yourself first is not selfish! If you want to help yourself first,don't think your selfish.
i agree helping others before your self is not selfish but if you can you should help other counties.
I agree because it is good not to be selfish and rude
I think we should spend money on our country but we also need to help other counties. We need to send aid to the middle east and other counties in war. It is also important to make sure everyone in our country is safe and have the right aid. It is important that we make sure our country is safe but other people around need aid and help. If we spend money on uk and there is no money to help people that are in need of aid people can donate. In conclusion i think the uk should spend money on aid for uk but we should make sure people from other counties are safe and have aid.
i think it's more important to defend first because if the county has sent aid but got invaded the county who recived the aid may not be able to help because they are still recovering and the county remains defencless but if the county defence it self first then the conty can support it's self and the other county after wards and both countries remain safe.
no,because we need to look after our own contry like if we had a flood or somethink wre will die will no help and we need to keep some money so we will stay safe and prepared,on the other hand we need to givce help to others so they dont get upset and think we are just trying to protect ourself and them but we need to look after ourself and then we can look after the others so yes i have 2 resons fir this qwueston:)
I think foreign aid is more important than spending more money on defence because supporting other countries in need helps create a safer and more stable world in the long run.
I believe this because foreign aid improves access to education, healthcare, and basic resources, which can reduce poverty, conflict, and instability.
For example, when countries invest in aid programmes such as schools, medical services, and clean water projects, it helps communities become stronger and more independent, reducing the chances of future global crises.
I believe the UK government should focus on giving aid because of our natural defences like the English channel
I think aid is more important because if people are in danger you can help, also if people are starving you can provide them food and medical assistance to help people in need. Defence is least important because you are only caring about your own country and not helping people who need it most. Aid also provides help to other countries and some countries won’t loose so many citizens. But defence won’t care about the poor and people in the world.
I think aid is important because you would be more respected for your support in the country because government should care for others first, then their own for people can be poor on stuff like education, food, money, ETC.
How do you think someone living in the country and paying their taxes would feel about that?
I think aid over defence because if they get defence first and then the country could be dying out and while you defend the country until eventually nobody will even use the defence as there could be a drop in population leading in weak army’s by the time you send aid.
I think that foreign aid is the most important because it helps in long term problems. I believe this because helping others will improve alliances and will give you more security if something bad happens to our country. Even though I think foreign aid is more important, defence if still very important if something happens out of the blue. For example, if a powerful country came on us like Spain or France we would have the defence to help us. But, foreign aid would also help us as well because any country that we supported might help us to.
I think aid is more important than defence because you should put other people first. I believe that aid is more important so other countries can see how much you support them.
I think aid is more important because then your country would give an good example and if we think defence is more important we are more likely to build dangerous things e.g bombs, that could of been stolen by different countries so that would be the start to another war
I think that country’s should keep on sending aid because a country only needs a certain amount of aid and if they don’t share it then people will die.
In addition, if the country’s government didn't send it and instead took the money and put it into the army and defences, they would have more enemies than friends and eventually they would takeover the country. Also the aid would be barely be any use to them
Thanks for your comment. Be careful when making sweeping statements... "if they don't share it people will die". Is this true? Can you support it with evidence? "Eventually they would take over the country" - again, is this true and based in evidence?
It should be aid because it's like helping other people when their needed when something goes wrong and it's really important if something bad happens and defence should be 50 per-sent because you won't know what's going to happen and you need to be ready at what terrible stuff is happening and you would be capable at what you are doing in some specific if someones aid is needed, and you don't help them they would be in danger.
I think defence is more important because if you can't protect yourself you will need more and more aid. Others may disagree because everybody needs food, water and many other things to survive.
I think that defence is key first because if you chose aid first then the other country might keep on attacking and you will run out of resources and aid so they can just keep launching attacks bombs and sending people to attack.Some evidence to back my answer was when USA sent aid to Ukraine which was only helpful for a couple of weeks.
I think that defence is more important because you don't want your country getting invaded but I also think aid is important because other countries are struggling more than us and we want to have allies so we're not a target to lots of other countries.I believe that if we are kind to other countries they will eventually be kind to us.
I agree with you, security is the foundation of life so I believe countries should first of all think of protecting their citizens before thinking of foreign aid. In a war or conflict it is important to have right equipment like advance weapons, body armour etc. A nation should be well secured and have the right to exist and govern itself, a strong military can very well prevent a war before it starts, when countries know that you can defend yourself they are less likely to attack. With what has been happening around the world, relying on other nations to protect you is very risky. I know someone might say helping a country with foreign aid like building a hospital or farm makes them your ally and this helps improves their economic growth which also makes them your trading partners. As good as these points are, i believe peace is a required for any meaningful trade to take place and it is only in an environment of peace that the workforce of any country can thrive.
I think that defence is more important because you don't want your country getting invaded but I also think aid is important because other countries are struggling more than us and we want to have allies so we're not a target to lots of other countries.I believe that if we are kind to other countries they will eventually be kind to us.
I think both aid and defence is most important because when you are hurt in war or injured , you can get aid to heal you then after you can get healed . Then after you get healed , you will already have defence with you such as weapons, shields and lots more. I believe this because when Ukraine got bombed by Russia , they got defence and came back to them. Both of these really are important.
I think that they should spend money for people and not only on there self because other people matter to but I would say that they should not spend too much money because if you are at a age were you are going to University you need to spend money on what your job is going to be.
i think aid is more important because defence is when you just defend your self but aid is when you help people and give them money, food , drink and maybe a home or some were to stay . My friend that does not go to my school l her mum on christmas when to a kitchen and cooked roast dinner for the people that dont have someone to celibrate with or that is poor so i think aid because you can help lots of people like my friend mum that is why i choose aid .
Thanks for sharing. This is an example of charity giving on smaller scale. Do you think it's the same when it's whole countries giving millions of pounds from their government's budget?
I think defence is the most important because if a country comes and raid you and they don't tell you but you have a equipment to help because what if the other country doesn't have as much defence as you , have weapons but they don't have as much . I believe this because they might just be doing this because they don't have as much it's like stealing from a country.
I think they should spend very little money because otherwise if they spend too much then they might not have enough money for future threats or conferences.But at the same time they should spend quite a lot of money so that they can have hygienic and healthy resources so maybe they should have a spend limit on the account they use to spend money.
I think defence is most important because if there is no defence you would have less protection and you will have less time to plan important things to save your contry
I think giving money to other countries is important because if you don't and the country suffers then you could be heavily criticised by other countries that have supported them throughout their times in war. I believe this because when the UK stopped giving resources they were heavily criticised.
I think that countries should try to send aid and build their defence at the same time because they could send out loads of aid to several countries, but by the time they have finished sending out aid, they would no more money for their own country to help themselves. I believe this even though I don't have any evidence because it has probably happened before , it is probably something that might happen in the next few years. Countries can be generous, but sometimes they might be too generous they might be too generous and not leave anything for themselves as a country. Therefore , I think countries should continue to send aid , but not too much.
Thanks for your comment. Is it wise to believe things without evidence? Can you do some research to support your point of view?
I think helping others in need because if you help, other people will help you back and maybe that country might be struggling and they will need a lot of support. I believe this because America helped Ukraine since Russia was invading them and now Ukraine has better resources because America spent billions of pounds on them and supported them. That shows that we can all help and make a big, good change.
Aid is the most important because someone could be in danger and they might end up losing their lives and some could be capable of surviving. Defence is kind of important because you might not know what your capable of and it's important to be safe in what your doing.
I believe that aid is more important than defence because people need food,water,houses.I believe this because sending aid is more important than caring about yourself. Also you should send aid to other people because they probably need it really much and you probably do not really need it so I would advise people to send aid to other countries because you might not need it as much as they do.
I said this because in class today we were learning about sending aid to other countries and for the first one,flooding, I picked A because sending aid to a countries that has a flood and needs homes is a good thing. I would love to send aid that have very bad disasters.😀
i think defence is most important because that if there is a surprise attack there is a defence already waiting to be prepared for war.there is also a 90 percent chance that you can win the war if you fight back instead of healing than going you might spy to see their plan for battle and to see their pick of battle field of obstacles and to train for it.i believe this because defence is a very good and there is not just guns and pistols to defend there is also walls and types of shield.
Hi, topical talkers.
In my opinion, a choice between foreign aid and defense depends on the situation of the country at that point in time. For instance, a country at war may rely more on foreign aid than defense, not because defense is unimportant, but during that period, such a country needs all available resources to survive and sustain essential operations. On the other hand, during times of peace and ongoing development, I feel it will be of better advantage for a government to invest in strengthening the defense of the country preparing for any future challenges as much as we hope that such threats never arise. In conclusion, I'll say defense is the foundation, and foreign aid is the reinforcement when threat presents itself.
As someone from India, I have seen why this debate between foreign aid and defense spending is not simple. Growing up, I remember news about floods in Kerala and cyclones on the eastern coast, where government aid and international support were crucial for rebuilding homes and other important places. At the same time India also faces security challenges on its borders, which shows why defense spending cannot be ignored either.
India currently spends around 2.4% of its GDP on defense, while foreign aid and humanitarian assistance form a smaller share on the national budget. This reflects a global pattern: according to the world bank, most countries spend over ten times more on defense than on foreign aid. Supporters of defense argue that without national security, economic growth and stability are impossible. for example, border tensions in recent years have pushed India to modernize its military to protect its sovereignty.
However, reducing foreign aid can have serious consequences. The OECD reports that over 700 million people worldwide still live in extreme poverty and aid plays a serious role in providing health care and education. During the COVID-19 pandemic, India both received and provided medical assistance showing how international cooperation can save lives.
I think the real solution is balance. Governments should not choose between aid and defense as if it must replace each other.
signing off: Fair minded elephant
I think aid needs more attention as if you spent more money on defending yourself, it might not work and people would get injured and not be attended to properly. Which in my opinion would be very bad because if everyone gets injured or killed you would be in a horrible position. It’s hard to think that we have to make a decision between the two as they are equally important for it’s what we need for protection and to live. If I had to choose I would be stuck as I would need to make a decision to save lives but I wouldn’t know which one would do it as if I choose wrong a lot of people may die.
But on the other hand, we need protection from stuff that could kill us for we don’t die from what the other countries might send in our way like bombs or tanks. We also need to fight against the enemy so they can’t attack us as they are to weak to fight against us. And if we protect then there might not be any poor living conditions, barely any education and everyone scared to go outside or just leave their homes if they have one. As being in those situations would be horrible for anyone and everyone, you might be homeless or injured because there wasn’t enough protection.
In conclusion, it would be hard to choose between them but I think after writing this I would go protection and attack because know one should feel unsafe and in danger. I would rather be protected and make sure who we’re fighting doesn’t have to go through that. So let them give up and both be safe. So protecting is the best thing for me but what about you, what do you think is the best way to solve this?
My personal opinion is that when a country spends money on aid for other countries with limited resources to help them live better and In a way that guarantees people a decent life, this is much more important than spending money on military defense, because the basis of life on earth is peace , not war , and cooperation between peoples is the highest goal of humanity.
You say "cooperation between peoples is the highest goal of humanity", can you say more on this?
International aid or defense? Actually, that is a significant question that does not have a stable answer. Spending more on aids or defense depends on the circumstances in every country. Every country is different like some countries use their money to spend on the military defense and others use it to provide other countries with help or aids like with education and healthcare.
If a country is full of wars and terrorist people, it is their right to upgrade their military yet if another country is living peacefully (without tension), it can provide others with support. Consequently, both of them are efficient. For example, in 1994, in Rwanda, there were a lot of conflicts between Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups also there was a civil war between the government forces and Tutsi-led rebels. This led to mass killing (over 800,000 people were killed over 100 days in Rwanda). This war started on April 6, 1994, and stopped in July 1994. (100 days in between). During this duration, Rwanda was spending their money on the military besides countries like USA, European countries and China were providing Rwanda with development, technical support and aids such as food, medical and shelter aids. Rwanda recovered from this war and became supporting other countries with aids specially in Africa.
To conclude, if countries are in a horrible situation, they cannot manage to provide others with aid, but they will work on upgrading their military yet if a country is in peace, it can support others. Therefore, it depends.
What do you think? Does it depend on the circumstances in countries?
Can you cite where you found your evidence?
I think the government should use the money on foreign aid because if we help other people in different places or countries we could form an alliance so if we helped them, they would help us in return when we need it.It could also help in wars as the more allies countries have together, the more people they can trust and rely on for defence.This could also make an impact on people as it would bring everybody together and boost people's morales because when people get what they need, they would feel happy just like we would if we got what we needed.However, if you give a place something they haven't got that they need, they could not have anything too give in return back too the country that gave something, maybe because they don't have enough to give but sometimes those countries may favour your country on international stages.
I think that it depends whether a country spends its money on itself or other countries. I believe that a country with a lot of wealth and power should give to others as they should be sophisticated enough to take care of themselves. However, if the country doesn’t have that power or wealth they should keep the money they earn as they will need it.
Although this could be a good solution I would think that many countries would keep money for themselves due to greed. So another solution could be that they can give a portion of their wealth to other countries as they will be doing a good deed and they get to keep some for themselves. Also, if many countries contribute then it will also bring them together leading to less conflict.
I think that if countries can only pick one or the other it should be helping others as it could lead to countries becoming allies and friends so they won’t want to cause conflict. As well as that, if there is no fighting then countries can spend more on others as they won’t need to spend their wealth on defence.
It is reasonable to question foreign aid for countries that spend more on military power than on the well-being of their people.
Foreign assistance is meant to support development, reduce poverty, and improve living standards. If a government choose to invest heavily in weapons instead of education, healthcare and basic services, it shows misplaced priorities.
When a nation has limited funds but still increases its defense budget while depending on international aid,it creates an unfair situation. In such cases,reducing foreign assistance can encourage governments to redirect their spending toward peace and social development.
I think they are both important because it is essential that a country is able to protect themselves against threats of war. Some of the defence money is also spent helping others when they are in need. For example, the UK sent money and equipment to Ukraine to help them in their war against Russia. Although this is defence money, not aid , it is still helping others.
But it is also important to help others when you can, and when natural disasters happen they need lots of help very quickly so they would not be able to do that alone. Which is why they need other countries around the world to help them, that is when aid money would be important.
I think it is okay to reduce some aid money in the budget as long as there is enough to help others when really needed, for example war, famine, drought and tsumanis.
I think that the countries dosnt have the righ of remove aid of the people that dosnt have any food for example .
Could you elaborate on your point?
Countries give aids for various reasons, including reducing poverty and suffering, promoting economic growth and development, enhancing global stability and security, fostering relations and advancing national and interests. Aid can also be used to address global challenges like climate change, pandemics and inequalities.
Seeing all of these, I would suggest that government spend more on aid because it keeps displaced family members going, gives hopes and also help the victims find their feet.
Defence is important too, but I believe the government could find a balance between building defence and giving out aids to improve people's standards of living.