Essay on "should wealthy nations send humanitarian to assist poorer countries during natural disasters"

This is my 300 words essay, please take a look and give me feedbacks:

"

It is argued that wealthy countries are obliged to send human assists to countries which are suffering from natural disasters. This essay disagrees with this statement because it poses a huge risk to people in involved countries and it’s wiser if any help came after the disasters have taken place.

First of all, sending people to a country during disasters is a suicidal action. It is basically an unjustifiable exchange of lives for lives. For example, if a country were to send human support during a huge storm, everyone, including people from both sides, would likely be dead because of crashed planes, sank ships or simply severe wind power. At first, the decision might come across as a human way to solve the problem, but in fact logically and utterly wrong. In the end, no amount of reputation or worldwide recognition would be able to compensate for that loss.

Second, Instead of going all in the moment we hear about the news, it would be wise to offer help only after disasters have settled down. One can not take care of others without ensuring the well-being of their own first. Moreover, the financial perspective also should not be overlooked. Resources and human aids are of best use if it focus solely on helping the injured people and damaged facilities. For instance, by offering a hand to victims of Katrina storm only after it has vanished, the European Union made sure that only the minimum amount of money aids is used for personnel purpose and therefore most of it is directly delivered to the unfortunate.

In conclusion, even though the idea of aiding country with human force during natural disasters is sound, it is too big of a risk that nations should take and it is ultimately better if any helps is offered after the incident.

304 words