Should countries refuse to honor debts run up by dictators?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
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

You're catching on...

[VJ]

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

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc

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.

[/SIZE]

You are mixing up two problems : the sales of armament and the loans financing the sales. It is the good way not to find a solution.

I was referring to the financial side of any transactions. It seems pretty obvious that the repayment of loans made for not productive purchases will be extremely more difficult to document convincingly than the repayment of loans made for financing peaceful projects.

[Boris Godunov]

Absolutely in favor. Considering all the rhetoric conservatives throw around about how evil dictators are and how they oppress their people with their excess, it seems quite fair to not expect the oppressed people to have to foot the bill for the dictator's said excesses.

Making loans to dictators should be as risky as possible.

[Mr. Harley]

Vince, I peaked back onto this before going to sleep. I just had one horrifying thought, before I get to your post. Ted and Tuomerehu, if you make defining Odious Debt part of UN sanctions, then the bastards who loaned the dictator money for the weapons (if this is the case) are more than likely going to be on the security committee. Think about it. Who supplies weapons on credit - Soviets (I don't know about Russia, I have seen indications they are largely cash and carry now, like the Israeli's), EU and the USA big time, PRC. See a problem. Great idea, but it's going to have to be some exterior body, maybe working starting off the world court.

Vince, I suspect we are looking at this from a totally different vantage point. Unless I get it wrong, alot of your arguments look at the dictator and the civilian population. I brought that up as background.

I am going for the free market solution. To borrow an analogy that I think largely works - the moves by banks in the USA to make bankruptcy laws work in their favor. The banks make credit easy to get, knowing the rules, and now want to change the rules so they don't have to actually judge someone's credit history.

I want the arms trade to get stuck in that paradigm. If you are loaning money to a dictator, let's use Saddam as an easy case, then your cash is at risk. If he gets overthrown, greedy/stupid, monstrous, or in some combo of the three, then you're going to lose your debtor. The country is not responsible for those things you loaned the dictator money for. Only permanent items still there (aka collateral - plus certain other items as in food aid) are things you still get money for, like a house in a bankrupcy.

I know the analogy is not perfect, but it suffices. Shut off the arms/money to these states, and it gives the opposition forces a chance. Without it, you just have lots of dead Kurds or Shia. That's why Davout's case won't change a thing, of course the dictator will plunder the country's national resources and pledge them for the weapons to keep him in power. No duh.

Dictators will still exist if Odious Debt becomes recognized and accepted. At least some of them won't have much more than light infranty units. Insurgents will have a chance. Please note this does not apply to Turkmen's in western China, people in that kind of situation don't have a chance, period. However, that is the exception, not the rule.

[:) Smiley]

What would happen if some nation refused to pay its debt. Is there any real means of enforcement?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Smiley
What would happen if some nation refused to pay its debt. Is there any real means of enforcement?

They have their foreign properties seized (if any), and a very bad mark for future credit ratings. Their access to credit will certainly be limited to Word Bank for major infrastructure projects, and IMF for restarting the economy.

[Whoha]

Well Germany was forced to pay war reparations after WW1, wasn't exactly the smartest thing to have done.

[Ned]

Shawn, et al., you make very good point about illegal arms trade to dictators under UN sanction. The people who are doing it are on the SC. In the case of Saddam, he was able to acquire large amounts of Russian and French arms even while under sanction.

I would make it a rule (international treaty) that when large amounts of illegal arms are found in a country under sanction, the country that produced the arms may no longer collect on any debt from a liberated people. This would really put teeth into UN sanctions.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned
In the case of Saddam, he was able to acquire large amounts of Russian and French arms even while under sanction.

You are able to document that statement I am sure.

[Ned]

Davout, I have listened to embedded reporters giving eyewitness reports of huge amount of new French and Russian weapons. Naturally the French had denied selling the weapons (directly) to Saddam as most of them are contained in crates marked "Jordan." But what I propose is "strict liability" so that countries like France cannot do what they obviously did, sell to Jordan knowing that Saddam was the ultimate buyer.

[DAVOUT]

Ned,
I am desappointed with your evidences. You did not yet affirm that the crates contained WMD, but you are likely thinking about it.

[Q Classic]

reparations are different from honoring old debts.

[Ned]

Davout, I never implied France was supplying WMD, did I?

Besides, would the French media honestly report what American embedded reporters found in Iraq? I am not surprised at all that you have never heard of this before.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
reparations are different from honoring old debts.

Good point, Q. We should impose on Saddam's backers the requirements that they assume Saddam's reparation obligations to his victims!

[JohnT]

I like the idea in principle and I think that any possible negative effects to implementation would be mitigated if the law was not retroactive and does not affect any debt outstanding at the time of passage.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Vince, I suspect we are looking at this from a totally different vantage point. Unless I get it wrong, alot of your arguments look at the dictator and the civilian population. I brought that up as background.

I am going for the free market solution. To borrow an analogy that I think largely works - the moves by banks in the USA to make bankruptcy laws work in their favor. The banks make credit easy to get, knowing the rules, and now want to change the rules so they don't have to actually judge someone's credit history.

I want the arms trade to get stuck in that paradigm. If you are loaning money to a dictator, let's use Saddam as an easy case, then your cash is at risk. If he gets overthrown, greedy/stupid, monstrous, or in some combo of the three, then you're going to lose your debtor. The country is not responsible for those things you loaned the dictator money for. Only permanent items still there (aka collateral - plus certain other items as in food aid) are things you still get money for, like a house in a bankrupcy.

You're probably correct about my vantage point. I try to look at it from the point of view of the oppressed (as well as the oppressors). Looks like you are discussing it from an economic POV. The last paragraph above sounds like you are discussing an financial investment. It does make sense that anyone making a risky investment should be willing to accept the risk.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Whoha
Well Germany was forced to pay war reparations after WW1, wasn't exactly the smartest thing to have done.

Its true that reparations were a contributing factor to what followed but they were largely forgiven by the middle 30's in part to appease Hitler and that they slowly became unenforcable. Two nations opposed to forgiveness? France and Poland.
It was a lose-lose situation. If you were in favor of forgiveness you were aiding Hitler. If you were against it you were aiding Hitler by giving him someone to blame for Germany's problems.
Forgiveness is not always the answer.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Ned,
I am desappointed with your evidences. You did not yet affirm that the crates contained WMD, but you are likely thinking about it.

Ned is quite correct about France sending weapons and supplies to Iraq via Jordan. Doing it that way gave them deniability. So why was France (and Russia) doing it? Money and influence. By helping Iraq under the table (and in the UN) they stood to gain alot of business in reconstruction contracts after things calmed down.
Sorry to see them cut out of the bidding for reconstruction now.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned
Davout, I never implied France was supplying WMD, did I?

Besides, would the French media honestly report what American embedded reporters found in Iraq? I am not surprised at all that you have never heard of this before.

I may be wrong, but your testimony that you have heard nine months ago a report from an American embedded reporter is not what I had in mind when I asked for some evidence.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Vince278


Ned is quite correct about France sending weapons and supplies to Iraq via Jordan. Doing it that way gave them deniability. So why was France (and Russia) doing it? Money and influence. By helping Iraq under the table (and in the UN) they stood to gain alot of business in reconstruction contracts after things calmed down.
Sorry to see them cut out of the bidding for reconstruction now.

The less evidences you have, the strongest are the accusations.

[Ned]

DAVOUT, here is a recent story that some of the missiles used against Wolfowitz were French. The story also speaks of the recent discovery of French weapons in Iraq.

The embedded reporter I am talking about was Oliver North who made reports from Iraq only two or three weeks ago. He was probably reporting the very same finds that the article aludes to.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1008654/posts

[Ned]

Here is a story of a find of vintage 2001 French bomb fuses together with a large number of Russian cluster bombs.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1006099/posts

[Vince278]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
The less evidences you have, the strongest are the accusations.

My, aren't we in denial.

Evidence can be presented (and manufactured) to support any point of view. In any case I'm sure you'll find fault with anything that is presented that counters your argument.
(besides, how much hard evidence of such a transaction do you expect to find?)

Your quote above means nothing. Weaker accusations have stronger evidence? People who are typically losing an argument will stray from the factual discussion and resort to semantics, emotion, and rhetoric.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Vince278
Its true that reparations were a contributing factor to what followed but they were largely forgiven by the middle 30's in part to appease Hitler and that they slowly became unenforcable. Two nations opposed to forgiveness? France and Poland.
It was a lose-lose situation. If you were in favor of forgiveness you were aiding Hitler. If you were against it you were aiding Hitler by giving him someone to blame for Germany's problems.
Forgiveness is not always the answer.

Your example falters, however, because the negatives of such forgiveness came after Hitler was already in power, which was a result, in large part, to the lack of forgiveness beforehand. The dye had been cast well before the 1930s. Had the allies never instituted the harsh reparations, things in Germany likely would have followed a dramatically different course.

[Lefty Scaevola]

I think that debt run up for purchases: banned under sanctions; for the purposes aiding dictator control and oppression over his people; for the perosnal consumption of the dictator and his elite; should be voided

[DAVOUT]

The question of the indebtness of developping countries is routinely discussed in the Paris Club which was created specifically for that.

http://www.clubdeparis.org/en/

I guess that M. Baker will be answered that the US suggestion will be promptly submitted to the Club.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Vince278


My, aren't we in denial.

Evidence can be presented (and manufactured) to support any point of view. In any case I'm sure you'll find fault with anything that is presented that counters your argument.
(besides, how much hard evidence of such a transaction do you expect to find?)

Your quote above means nothing. Weaker accusations have stronger evidence? People who are typically losing an argument will stray from the factual discussion and resort to semantics, emotion, and rhetoric.

You are sarcasm proof, are not you ?

There have been so many lies about France (French passports to Saddam, rockets manufactured in 2003, etc) that i think necessary for the discussion that statements about supposed misconducts be solidly supported. Once again this is not the case. May I add that would it have been the case, I believe that it would have deserved some headlines in nexspaper specialized in french bashing.

And yes, there are some newspapers able to bring to attention very nasty subjects, past or present, to the point that I sometimes believe that the French are masochists.

[:) Smiley]

The odd thing is that practically every government in the world is in debt. Who knows, one of these days they might all get together and say "screw you" to the lenders.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
I think that debt run up for purchases: banned under sanctions; for the purposes aiding dictator control and oppression over his people; for the perosnal consumption of the dictator and his elite; should be voided

What about the accumulated and capitalized interest on those loans? What if the indebted country tried to refinance? These are real questions, as many of the countries that emerged from dictatorship tried to meet wht they thought were their loan obligations, only to face ever mounting and ever more crushing debt, especially as IMF restructioing tanked their economies.

I think of places like the former Zaire, where Mubutu Sese Seko stole more than ten billion from the country, or the Philippines where the Marcos' did the same. Nicaragua, whose 6 million dlllar loan was compounded by an illegal war forced upon it by the United States, and to whom the US refuses to pay awarded damages.