Much has been made of the basic unfairness in how responsibility is shared between nations for ameliorating the refugee crisis. But the real question is the level of economic sharing that is needed to deal with its root causes, when the international response continues to be woefully inadequate.
The arguments for rich nation's moral duty and responsibility to help the distant needy are well known, but short-term political and commercial advantages are dominating the practice of redistributing foreign aid. And the underlying problem is a lack of critical public engagement and concern, writes David Hulme in an extract from his new book, 'Should Rich Nations Help the Poor?'.
Po tako številnih letih politične neaktivnosti lahko revščino v svetu obilja izkorenini samo množični izraz volje do dobrega navadnih ljudi na množičnih in nenehnih protestih v vseh državah sveta. Pojdimo torej po poti najmanjšega odpora in skupaj razglasimo že dolgo dogovorjene človekove pravice iz 25. člena Splošne deklaracije človekovih pravic, piše Mohammed Mesbahi.
Only when public conscience is sufficiently awakened to the critical needs of others, only when a huge swathe of the populace is standing up for the basic rights of the poorest among us – only then can we talk of a humanity that shares in any meaningful sense of the word.
In this thinkpiece for The Next System Project, David Korten sets out his 'natural case for sharing'. No-one has a right to own or control, for his or her exclusive private benefit, a share of assets essential to living far beyond any conceivable personal need, if this results in depriving others of a means to life, he argues. Redistribution to achieve a semblance of economic democracy is not only just, it is an imperative of a viable human future.