Should a country’s first responsibility be to help its own citizens or to help people in need around the world?

A country’s first priority is generally assumed to be its own citizens, and this is certainly understandable. After all, a country’s leaders were elected to serve the people who voted for them. However, a look at the way things actually work shows us that this is not the only priority.

When it comes to things like natural disasters or famines going on in other countries, millions of people may be suffering while back home things are relatively fine. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, some countries were stockpiling vaccines while others were donating them around the world. Not only were they helping other populations around the world, they were also protecting their own citizens indirectly from the spread of the virus and the creation of new strains at home.

While some people believe it is irresponsible for a country to be sending aid to other countries when they still have problems at home, I believe this is not necessarily true. While it is true that problems at home need to be addressed, this does not necessarily mean that international aid is a zero-sum situation. Smart aid uses resources effectively, and it has the potential to make the world a more stable place, which means everyone benefits.

My suggestion for the best way forward? Pragmatic compassion: helping at home, yet understanding that troubles elsewhere can have a way of coming home too. A nation that looks outwards responsibly is not forgetting its citizens at home, it is protecting them in a globalised world.

So, the question isn’t: ‘Should we help them, or should we help us?’ It’s: ‘How can we protect and uplift people everywhere, so that our world – and our nation – becomes a more secure and resilient place?’