should???

As BA Baracus points out “should” removes this question from the real world.  In reality the question can be broken down into two separate components.  First, do powerful states have the obligation to look after lesser states?  The answer is no.  Powerful states have internal problems, just as lesser states do.  Take the United States for example, we are trillions of dollars in debt, we are in the midst of a mortgage crisis, the US dollar is weaker than ever, we are in the middle of a war, and our education system is horrible in comparison to other well developed nations- just to name a few of the problems.

Despite the fact that powerful states are not obligated to help lesser states I cannot ignore the fact that responsibility comes with power.  Being a powerful nation means other nations will follow the nation’s example.  If a powerful nation aids a lesser known nation it is more likely that other nations will follow.  In many cases the global community cannot (or will not) progress until powerful nation(s) encourage the process.  One argument for powerful states to look out for lesser states is the question if lesser nations cannot take care of themselves who will care for them?  No one is not an acceptable answer- when it comes to an extreme issue such as this the concern is not usually for the state itself, but for the people in the state.

Yes, I am contradicting myself- the ideal situation of a powerful state looking after its own interest and the interest of less powerful states is not always possible.  The question becomes an issue of morality.  No different from an individual’s question of should I help myself or those in need?  We all know what is the right answers is- but what is right is not always the easiest.  As bad as that sounds- its human nature.