Should countries refuse to honor debts run up by dictators?

[Mr. Harley]

I'm not familiar with the technical term, but some economists have evidently floated the idea that when a country gets rid of a dictator (like Iraq) then that nation is not obligated for the international debts run up that had to do with anything except economic development. In the case of Iraq that would mean honoring debts concerning oil field or infrastructure development, but not debts for building palaces, nerve gas production, equipping internal security forces, military weapons, etc.

Most industrial nations and international banks are utterly opposed to the idea. They say it would stop economic growth in third world countries. I like it. If banks and countries have to be careful on what the money they hand out goes to, maybe they will be a little more careful about who they load money to.

[Jon Miller]

yes

than maybe corporations will quit lending to dictators

and people will quit proping them up

Jon Miller

[Dis]

no

mainly because Bush is considered a dictator. And I expect countries to pay up their debts to the U.S.

[Ned]

I think this is an idea long overdue. If a regime is under UN sanction one of the sanctions could be that any debt entered into in violation of the sanctions is void. (I would almost hope that this is the law anyway.)

[Vince278]

Against.

It seems to me that a vast majority of the third world never intended to pay back the loans in the first place. The trend to "demonize" first world countries that do not "forgive" the loans is just plain wrong. It encourages the financial irresponsibility that plagues the third world.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
no

mainly because Bush is considered a dictator. And I expect countries to pay up their debts to the U.S.

[Mr. Harley]

Vince, how can a "third world" country never intend to pay when a dictator is running it. The DICTATOR may not have intended to pay, but the people had no choice.

Once the people regain their rights, should they be obligated to pay for the weapons used to kill them? That's exactly whats happening right now in many countries, not just Iraq. Try telling the Kurds that they owe France, Germany, and Russian.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Once the people regain their rights, should they be obligated to pay for the weapons used to kill them?

Are you saying we should be obligated to pay for the weapons used to kill them?

[Mr. Harley]

If you voted for the dirty bastard who approved the arms sales? Yes. If your company sold them to a dictator, who used them to keep his people oppressed, read as in butcher civilians. Yes. Maybe that way people will stop supplying the weapons, or at least be more careful and insist on cash and carry, limiting the weapons distribution.

[Vince278]

It would be better if we just refuse to sell to certain dictators in the first place instead of forgiving their country's debts.

I am against people who think they are actually entitled to have their debts forgiven.

A change in government does not wipe the slate clean. The nations on the losing end of WW1 and WW2 were still responsible for their debts and reparations (even though some were eventually forgiven).

After a change in government how will you separate a dictator's supporters from non-supporters? Will we only require them to pay off the debt? A country bears a certain responsibility for its own leadership. The government should not be able to maintain power for long if a majority of the people are against it.

Lets also not forget that alot of the debt is non-military in nature.

[Serb]

Yes of course.
Russia owes sh!tloads of money since Tsar's times. Tsar was an evil dictator, communists who came later were evil bastards, USSR was an evil empire. Why should we pay hundreds of billions now? Modern Russia is not responsible for debts of those evil freaks.

STOP THE DEBTS!!!









P.S.

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
yes

than maybe corporations will quit lending to dictators

and people will quit proping them up

Jon Miller

Or maybe it would make the life under a dictator even more miserable.

It's very difficult to know...

[Q Classic]

i agree with vince.

[chequita guevara]

Of course you do, you conservative bastard!

The term is odeous debt. Under most legal systems, you cannot be held liable for debts you did not enter into voluntarily. For example, a thug holds a gun to you and makes you take out a loan at usurious rates. You could go to court and have the debt declared null and void. If individuals have this right, why should not groups of people?

What would be more interesting to to force the supporters of the dictators, internally and internationally to pay the debts.

[Q Classic]

@che

[Q Classic]

It would be better if we just refuse to sell to certain [all] dictators in the first place instead of forgiving their country's debts.

I am against people who think they are actually entitled to have their debts forgiven.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Vince278
Lets also not forget that alot of the debt is non-military in nature.

Hence the point about loans for structural improvements not being forgiven. It would really help if yuo read the first post if you want to contribute to the debate.

[Q Classic]

odeous

odious

[chequita guevara]

Whatever. We can't all be good enough spellers to to U of C.

[DAVOUT]

IMHO the issue should be examined case by case, loan by loan, dictator or not. The point is to ensure that WHEN THE LOAN WAS MADE, the bank checked that the repayment plan was reasonnable. If this is confirmed, the loan should not be forgiven, otherwise normal business could no longer be done.

If the loan was made lightly, or for whatever uneconomical reason, and from the beginning was clearly impossible to be repaid, then it could be forgiven, at least partially.

For the future, it could be offered to the developping country, as a condition of the loan, to choose between 1) total control of the actual use of the money, and such a monitored loan could be forgiven in case of crisis; and 2) no more control than presently, and such an unmonitored loan could not be forgiven.

Under 1), the corruption would be severely hampered.

[Q Classic]

Whatever. We can't all be good enough spellers to to U of C.

@che.

*yank* *yank* how much more can i piss him off today?

[Ned]

As I said, it should be part of UN sanctions, otherwise it generally is unworkable in principle.

Still, the formerly oppressed peoples could issues non convertible bonds in lieu of hard currency to pay off the dedt! Right Che?

[The Andy-Man]

I agree in principle, but, well, I did not vote for tony blair, and Mike Howard did not increase national debt. If he, therefore, comes into office as PM, why should he pay for Mr Blairs debts?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Try telling the Kurds that they owe France, Germany, and Russian.

There are many nationalities who want the rights of statehood but without the responsibilities of statehood (koff, koff, *Palestinians* koff, koff).

Originally posted by Serb
Yes of course.
Russia owes sh!tloads of money since Tsar's times. Tsar was an evil dictator, communists who came later were evil bastards, USSR was an evil empire. Why should we pay hundreds of billions now? Modern Russia is not responsible for debts of those evil freaks.

STOP THE DEBTS!!!

At first I thought you were serious but now I'm sure you are just pulling my leg. I'm sorry, sometimes I'm slow to pick up on such things.

Originally posted by yaroslav
Or maybe it would make the life under a dictator even more miserable.

It's very difficult to know...

That is so true.
It is the moral dilemma the U.S. and other countries face when considering to whom to send aid. I remember the controversies in the 70's over sending food aid to the Soviet Union and the current debate over aid to North Korea now.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Of course you do, you conservative bastard!

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The term is odeous debt. Under most legal systems, you cannot be held liable for debts you did not enter into voluntarily. For example, a thug holds a gun to you and makes you take out a loan at usurious rates. You could go to court and have the debt declared null and void. If individuals have this right, why should not groups of people?

Apples and oranges. Your logic here is faulty. An individual is not a group. A group acting together can fight back (or passively allow it to happen).

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What would be more interesting to to force the supporters of the dictators, internally and internationally to pay the debts.

Everybody's definition of dictators, supporters, and even debt vary. Try to nail that down to everyone's satisfaction. (We could start entire threads just on the subject of dictators)
This all seems to be the "Have-nots" trying to get something from the "Haves".

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Hence the point about loans for structural improvements not being forgiven. It would really help if yuo read the first post if you want to contribute to the debate.

I made my statement in support of the first post, not in ignorance of it. On the other hand you don't seem to get any of it. Maybe you live in a country with a large debt. Guess which country has the largest national debt?

Originally posted by DAVOUT
IMHO the issue should be examined case by case, loan by loan, dictator or not. The point is to ensure that WHEN THE LOAN WAS MADE, the bank checked that the repayment plan was reasonnable. If this is confirmed, the loan should not be forgiven, otherwise normal business could no longer be done.

If the loan was made lightly, or for whatever uneconomical reason, and from the beginning was clearly impossible to be repaid, then it could be forgiven, at least partially.

For the future, it could be offered to the developping country, as a condition of the loan, to choose between 1) total control of the actual use of the money, and such a monitored loan could be forgiven in case of crisis; and 2) no more control than presently, and such an unmonitored loan could not be forgiven.

Under 1), the corruption would be severely hampered.

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

Whatever. We can't all be good enough spellers to to U of C.

@che.

*yank* *yank* how much more can i piss him off today?

Happy to do my part. See my signature line.

[Mr. Harley]

Che, thanks for posting the precise terminology. That's the one thing I couldn't remember.

Vince, you have one problem with your analogy. It doesn't apply to all dictatorships, and frankly to very few, where

Apples and oranges. Your logic here is faulty. An individual is not a group. A group acting together can fight back (or passively allow it to happen).

Ask the Tutsi now in power in rwanda if they would feel obligated to repay France for the Assault Rifles (not the anti-gun types, I mean as in capable of fully auto fire, military grade) that were shipped to the Hutu regime and used to shoot any Tutsi who resisted the round-ups. Bullets for the resistors, machetes and clubs for the rest. Cheap, efficient genocide.

By the way, if you hadn't noticed, the Kurds and Shia make up close to 80% of the population of Iraq. They did fight back. The result. Multiple mass grave sites with thousands of remains in each. After enough people die, it's not "passively allowing it to happen." It's realizing that you cannot win. The Shia never won, they just died. The Kurds got some help, but without military intervention from the outside, they would have died. Which they did prior to outside intervention, in the tens of thousand. Now Europe and Russia want them to honor all the debt. I know what I would tell them to do with those portions that were Odious.

Pressure from the world financial community will probably force the governing council to reaffirm the debts. Bankers don't want to have to actual pay attention to the consequences of their loans, they just want to be paid back. When it's for weapons to a man engaged in genocide, I think that they should be held accountable.

Vince said: Everybody's definition of dictators, supporters, and even debt vary. Try to nail that down to everyone's satisfaction. (We could start entire threads just on the subject of dictators)

Thats a confusor. There is a certain commonality of definition for a non-democratic state. No free elections. Period. There have been periods where many democratic countries have come periousily close to dictatorship. Look at what the democratic machines did in the southern USA during when the free-soilers almost upset the entrenched two-party system in the 1890's. Murder, beatings, other forms of intimidation, ballot stuffing/losing ballots, etc.

A democratic state does not have to be nice, the tyranny of the majority plus one. Look at the treatment of the Kurds in Turkey, or the Bedouin of the Negev Desert in Isreal (who are those? ), the Tamils of Sri Lanka, the various native Indian populations from the Yucatan on south, etc. We are talking about dictatorships.

Yaroslov siad: Or maybe it would make the life under a dictator even more miserable.

Vince said: That is so true.
It is the moral dilemma the U.S. and other countries face when considering to whom to send aid. I remember the controversies in the 70's over sending food aid to the Soviet Union and the current debate over aid to North Korea now

More confusors. This is not about food aid, which would be treated like infrastructure. It's about weapons, palaces, bribes, etc. The number of dual use items are small, like the corporate jet for the head of state. However, the UH60's sold to their military are NOT dual use. Nor are APC's, AK47's, etc. How can not supplying arms to a dictatorship make life under him worse? For those who will be on the receiving end. Remember, the Iraq embargo was different in that it was only for food, and took control of the oil sale money away from Saddam. I'm talking making the people selling him things on credit nervous. People who don't care about ethics or morals, will respond to financial disincentives. Free market types have that correct.

Davout said:IMHO the issue should be examined case by case, loan by loan, dictator or not. The point is to ensure that WHEN THE LOAN WAS MADE, the bank checked that the repayment plan was reasonnable. If this is confirmed, the loan should not be forgiven, otherwise normal business could no longer be done.

This misses the entire point! So it's OK to sell the arms to a genocidal monster, aka Saddam Hussein, as long as he controls the oil wealth to fund it? There's nothing wrong with China and the Europeans funding the high tech weapons (we are talking attack helicopters here) used in the Sudan to wipe out the black Christian and nativists in the South, so oil development can continue under the control of an Arab dictatorship in the North. Talk about Odious Debt.

Ted had an interesting point, at least for a starter, about using UN sanctions as a starting point. The problem is how many of the nations in the UN are dictatorships or oligarcies (as in multiple families sharing the dictatorship ). I would think a venue like the world court, a body I'm not paticularly fond of, my be a good starting point. You then build a framework from that, so that governments, bankers, and arms manufacturers know that dealing with dictatorships may put you money at risk.

It won't stop the killing, but if the lack of higher tech weapons slows the slaughter, and several thousand people survive, wouldn't that be worth it? In addition, it will actually reinforce Vince's point I quoted first. People WOULD resist, guns against light infranty units. They have a chance. But against attack helicopters, poison gas, etc. you have to have a culture and the terrain of an Afghanistan, and they still had to get Stingers (shoulder launched SAM) from outside before the really had a chance.edited because I accidently posted it while righting it

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
I agree in principle, but, well, I did not vote for tony blair, and Mike Howard did not increase national debt. If he, therefore, comes into office as PM, why should he pay for Mr Blairs debts?

Because both were democratically elected, and because Mr Blair's government oversaw the recovery from the economic meltdown of the late 80's and early 90's?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Vince, you have one problem with your analogy. It doesn't apply to all dictatorships, and frankly to very few, where

Both our analogies are flawed in that the very definition of "dictator" can be very fluid.

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Ask the Tutsi now in power in rwanda if they would feel obligated to repay France for the Assault Rifles (not the anti-gun types, I mean as in capable of fully auto fire, military grade) that were shipped to the Hutu regime and used to shoot any Tutsi who resisted the round-ups. Bullets for the resistors, machetes and clubs for the rest. Cheap, efficient genocide.

Lets not forget that while one side in Rwanda was getting arms from France the other side was getting arms from Burundi. The Hutu-Tutsi hatred has been around since before colonial times in the region.

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
By the way, if you hadn't noticed, the Kurds and Shia make up close to 80% of the population of Iraq. They did fight back.

They were uncoordinated and splintered into numerous factions, some of which hate each other as much as Saddam. He was expertly playing one group off against another. Now if they all acted as one...

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Vince said: Everybody's definition of dictators, supporters, and even debt vary. Try to nail that down to everyone's satisfaction. (We could start entire threads just on the subject of dictators)

Thats a confusor. There is a certain commonality of definition for a non-democratic state. No free elections. Period. There have been periods where many democratic countries have come periousily close to dictatorship. Look at what the democratic machines did in the southern USA during when the free-soilers almost upset the entrenched two-party system in the 1890's. Murder, beatings, other forms of intimidation, ballot stuffing/losing ballots, etc.

A democratic state does not have to be nice. Look at the treatment of the Kurds in Turkey, or the Bedouin of the Negev Desert in Isreal (who are those? ), the Tamils of Sri Lanka, the various native Indian populations from the Yucatan on south, etc. We are talking about dictatorships.

Sounds like you are proving my point.

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
More confusors. This is not about food aid, which would be treated like infrastructure. It's about weapons, palaces, bribes, etc. The number of dual use items are small, like the corporate jet for the head of state. However, the UH60's sold to their military are NOT dual use. Nor are APC's, AK47's, etc.

More confusors? Don't lose sight of the fact that most aid is non-lethal.

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
still editing

Don't worry. We are both getting tired...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

Whatever. We can't all be good enough spellers to to U of C.

@che.

*yank* *yank* how much more can i piss him off today?

Hey -- that's my job.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by MrFun

Hey -- that's my job.

Can we share? Perhaps tag team style?

[Nubclear]

Ha!!! This would be great!!!
Russia creates an even LARGER debt with every nation in the world, and then the regieme in Russia changes

I'm in FULL support of this