Let’s say someone has no money for food, clothing, or shelter, and so for lack of other options is forced to turn to friends and family for support. And a cousin living close by, by no means rich but also definitely not poor, decides to help out by giving only one nickel. Should the recipient say thank you, because even though a nickel is hardly anything, the cousin was under no obligation to give at all? Or does the recipient have a right to be angry and indignant that their relative didn’t assist in a more substantial way?

Haiti is one of the gravest, ongoing human rights disasters currently taking place. It is plagued by gang violence and a lack of law and order. According to a UN report released last April, more than 1 million people have been displaced from their homes, often multiple times. Half of the population, approximately 5.5 million people, face acute food insecurity and two million are suffering emergency levels of hunger.

For the last year or so, a multinational security support team, led by Kenya, has deployed to help Haiti’s police. It faces many challenges, high among them a lack of funding. In general, both the United Nations and NGO’s have struggled to raise sufficient funds for both humanitarian and security assistance for Haiti, and there have been numerous pleas for more aid.

This week Mexico announced a donation to help fund the multinational security mission to Haiti. Mexico declined to state the sum, but news reports based on documents available from the United Nations placed the amount at $100,000 U.S. dollars.

It’s of course unfair to single out Mexico, as many other countries have either refused to contribute at all or made very limited contributions. But to put this sum into perspective, note that in 2024 Mexico’s defense spending was $16.7 billion U.S. dollars. The total expenditures of Mexico’s government were just over $200 billion U.S. dollars. This means the Haiti contribution was 0.0006% of Mexico’s defense spending, and 0.00005% of spending overall. In other words, a proverbial nickel. It’s fair to assume that if Mexico had been inclined to do so, it could have come up with a little more.

Of course, Mexico can say that it has its own problems, including the fact that in spite of recent reforms one third of its citizens still live in poverty. Why should any country devote its limited resources to helping solve problems abroad, while it has its own population to care for?

But there are valid reasons why countries should assist. Humanitarian catastrophes have a way of spreading, as desperate citizens attempt to escape and become refugees elsewhere. It may be cheaper, more politically palatable, and also achieve better outcomes for the affected population to invest in resolving a humanitarian crisis abroad rather than having to absorb a tidal wave of refugees later.

Second, there may be a straightforward human rights imperative. When millions of people are hungry and displaced from their homes, with no government to provide them security or any assistance at all, the whole world may be called upon to act. If governments do this, it necessarily means sacrificing spending on some domestic priorities. But is that what a commitment to universal human rights demands?

What do you think? Are countries obligated to help generously when foreign populations suffer a humanitarian crisis? Was Mexico’s small donation insufficient? Or are countries entitled, or perhaps even required, to prioritize their own needs first, and Haiti should consider itself lucky to get any foreign aid at all? I’m curious to hear your thoughts.