Wealthy nations should assist poorer countries with humanitarian relief during natural disasters. Do you agree or disagree?

It is argued that rich countries ought to help developing countries in case of natural catastrophes. In my opinion, I totally agree with

this

Linking Words

statement because those countries, who tend to help are capable financially, and they have a moral obligation towards the world nations.

To begin

Linking Words

with, developed nations are economically stable to support developing countries.

This

Linking Words

is because wealthy nations are usually dedicating a considerable amount of money from their annual income for those

such

Linking Words

universal emergencies.

As a result

Linking Words

, by helping countries in need, they decrease the global rate of poverty and decrease the crime rate. Tsunami disaster,

for instance

Linking Words

, is an obvious example of global collaboration, which rich countries,

such

Linking Words

as the USA, and the UK helped some developing nations like the Maldives, and the Philippines.

Furthermore

Linking Words

, developed nations have an international moral commitment to poorer countries. The main reason is that these human activities are enhancing the image of those countries, which offer help and give a sense of global collaboration.

For example

Linking Words

, the Katrina hurricane, which has affected Dominican country, has a catastrophic impact on their economy along with their local people.

In addition

Linking Words

, they are building long-term relationships with those countries, which are in trouble due to natural accidents.

Therefore

Linking Words

, if there were no enough help to injured countries, the number of refugees would be increased dramatically. In conclusion, I hold the notion that rich countries, which are assisting poorer nations have enough funds to assist those countries in order to improve their world reputation;

besides

Linking Words

, they have ethical commitments towards them.