Lewis Waters

Mr. King
WC Benchmark Final
7 May 2015
Wake County Benchmark Final
Corruption and greed plague the earth and prevents the good from getting help. With all
of this the real question is should we intercede? Aid is something that has always been given to
help people who are struggling, but it has been shown that this aid has been abused by venal and
unscrupulous leaders. These actions have been posing the question of whether should countries
aggressively intervene in these corrupt governments. The judicious answer to this question is no,
aggressive intervention and aid should not be given to corrupt governments because, evidence
that withdrawing aid has had good effects on these countries. Also, it is shown that our
intervention will lead to prolonging the battle or causing tensions.
To start with, aggressive intervention and aid should not be given to governments who
violate human rights because good changes in government have come out of the withdrawal of
aid. In 2006, the British government cut aid to Kenya due to corruption in their government.
Soon after this decision, the venal financial minister David Mwiraria resigned. This was a huge
step for the Kenyan government to purge the corruption inside. This shows the good effects that
the withdrawal of aid has.
Additionally, the use of aggressive intervention or aid can prolong the war and/or conflict
that is trying to be stopped. In an interview with Linda Polman, she talked about her time Sierra
Leone and she noticed that once the ones who were getting aid were the ones fighting. The
giving of aid or intervening really just goes back into making the soldier healthy again. Examples

like this show how aid and intervention can be detrimental. Alternatively, it is not a smart
decision to intervene in these countries because the system is easily broken and these corrupt
governments know how to use this to their advantage. The Ethiopian government did this exactly
by creating a famine to get aid to lead people away from their homes making easier to force them
into labor. Again, this demonstrates how intervention is not best option.
Furthermore, aggressive intervention should not be used for countries that violate human
rights because it can lead to more conflicts. This can proved by the ongoing conflict between the
United States and the Middle-East. Our intervention in 1953, when the CIA removed the prime
minister of Iran from power, this has led to many conflicts between the US and the Middle-East.
This shows how injurious mediation can be.
In conclusion, intervention is not the best option it leads to prolonging wars or starting
new ones. While it may be the popular idea to always help, there is a strong correlation that its
better not to. In many ways, the relationships between the countries giving aid and those in
violation of human rights is like a parent and a child that has grown-up because at some point
they need to live and function on their own.