We tend to pick and choose when to be humanitarian and the decision-point is usually an economic one.
Historical precedent does not support this.
How has the U.S. provided real humanitarian aid in an equitable way even in the last 100 years? How many humanitarian crises exist and have existed that are simply outside of our frame of reference because there is little or no economic interest in the people/country experiencing crisis? I would add, political expedience and motivation are part and parcel of the economic interests. How does the U.S. choose whom to provide with aid?
I would like to hear your ideas as to how we haven't historically chosen when to be humanitarian based on economic interests (and I know I'm late adding political/geopolitical interests). I'm asking seriously because I can learn in the process. Maybe it's cynical of me but I think the U.S. government is most bipartisan when it comes to provision of aid. We tend not to do it unless it benefits us in some discernable way, short- or long-term. Social Exchange Theory at its best. And I believe this is not unique to the U.S.