Article 98 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea confers a duty on the master of every ship to render assistance to
"any person found at sea in danger of being lost", where such help can be given without serious danger to his own crew or vessel.
So far, so good - but what if they
aren't at sea? What about people "in danger of being lost" to hunger or epidemic? Not a matter for the Law of the Sea, obviously - but what is the moral difference between sailing past a sinking boat, and changing the channels when the latest earthquake/famine appeal begins?
We can't very well toss every tight-of-wallet viewer in the slammer, but shouldn't there be compulsion to help? There are limits to the means of the average viewer - but rich blocs like the EU could stop any famine you care to name without that contribution meriting more than budgetary footnote. Why not a fully-funded international disaster fund
guaranteed to provide all necessary assistance in the event of certain qualifying calamities? Seems a lot more sensible than the present arrangement of ad-hoc - or post-hoc fundraising.
Then again, why stop there? Famines and epidemics take lives and waste lives, but then, so do deficiencies in healthcare and education - enormously so. We talk about human rights to this and that - how about putting our money where our mouths are, and providing/enforcing a minimum standard of services (health, education, income) in
every country? Like the disaster relief idea, member nations could all contribute to a central pot, according to ability to pay. Instead of piece-meal development efforts, contributors would provide a steady and predictable flow of funding to maintain schools and clinics for the poorest members.
The best part about this scheme is that it would not merely restore some benighted region to pre-catastrophe condition, but instead would continuously improve
all those poor and quietly desperate regions where the suffering is insufficiently dramatic or unusual to be newsworthy. With better education and healthier populations, the benefiting members would have a real chance of increasing their living standards to the levels we lucky people have come to think of as the norm. One by one, dependent nations could be converted to paying ones, making the task in the remaining countries easier every time.
This idea isn't without precedence - think of the Marshall Plan, or EU aid to its members. The only difference is the scope - expanding the area of operations from now-wealthy Europe to cover the globe. Can we afford it? Well, I've seen estimates for similar, albeit more limited, proposals that put the bill at 0.7% or so of GDP, assuming we all join. Imagine, say, a modified sales tax - 21% VAT + 2% Global Development Levy - who wouldn't be proud to pay that tax? Finally, I have one question for doubters:
What about our "Duty to Render Assistance" to those "people in danger of being lost"?