This explanation by Noam Chomsky puts the facts and the legal case very
clearly. Everyone should be clearly informed about this urgent world issue.
He writes: (see Znet Free Update / April 16 / Chomsky Comment on Debt, sent
out by Michael Albert, sysop @ zmag.org, Internet)
The simplest answer to the argument that countries who borrowed from the
WB/IMF have no right to ask for debt forgiveness is that the presupposition
is false, so the argument is vacuous. E.g., the "country" of Indonesia
didn't borrow; it's US-backed rulers did. The debt, which is huge, is held
by about 200 people (probably less), the dictator's family and their
cronies. So those people have no right to ask for debt forgiveness -- and
in fact, don't have to. Their wealth (much of it in Western banks) probably
suffices to cover the debt, and more.
Of course, this response assumes the capitalist principle. According to
this principle, if I borrow money from you, use it to by a Mercedes and a
mansion, and send most of the money to a bank in Zurich, and then you come
and ask me to repay the loan, I'm not supposed to be able to say: "Sorry, I
don't want to pay you back, take it from the folks in the downtown slums."
And you're not supposed to say: "I got the high yields from this risky
investment, but now that the borrower doesn't want to pay it back, the risk
should be transferred to other folks in my country through socialization of
the debt. That's the capitalist principle. It would suffice to largely
eliminate the debt. Of course, that principle is unacceptable to the rich
and powerful, who prefer the operative "capitalist" principle of
socializing risk and cost. So the risk is shifted to northern taxpayers
(via the IMF) and the costs are transferred to poor peasants in Indonesia,
who never borrowed the money.
The argument that "their country" borrowed the money so that they are
responsible surpasses cynicism, and need not be considered. In fact, it
doesn't even stand up under international law. When the US conquered Cuba
in 1898 to prevent it from liberating itself from Spain (what is called
"the liberation of Cuba from Spanish rule"), it cancelled Cuba's debt to
Spain on the reasonable grounds that the debt had been forced on the people
of Cuba without their consent. That doctrine, called "odious debt", was
later upheld in international arbitration, with US initiative. The current
US executive-director at the IMF, international economist Karen Lissakers,
pointed out in a book a few years ago that if this principle were applied
to third world debt, it would mostly disappear. But that would mean that
the capitalist principle would have to be observed: borrowers have the
responsibility, lenders take the risk. And that plainly won't do, when the
concentration of power makes it possible to socialize cost and risk.
On first-world responsibility for the debt crisis, it is huge -- and in
this case, the responsibility extends to citizens, insofar as their
countries make possible some degree of participation in policy formation,
and they do. The current debt crisis can be traced back to policies of the
IMF and World Bank encouraging lending/borrowing to recycle petrodollars in
the 1970s. Their very confident recommendations that this was just great
for all concerned continued up to the moment of the Mexican default in
1982, when the system threatened to crash, and the same institutions
stepped in to socialize cost and debt. Another factor was the sharp rise in
interest rates in the US under the late-Carter/Reaganite policies of a form
of "structural adjustment" here, undertaken with no concern, of course, for
the fact that this would impose a crushing burden on third world debtors,
as it did.
Another factor, of course, is Western support for the murderers, gangsters,
and robbers who borrowed the money for themselves and, naturally, don't
want to pay it back, when they can get the burden shifted to the poor by
the same institutions that created the debt in the first place.
First world responsibility is enormous, so much so that if honesty were
conceivable, those who supported folks like Suharto in Indonesia, drove the
lending-borrowing craze (then bailing out the banks), and sharply increased
interest rates as part of the further shift of power to the rich and
privileged in the US (and that's not all), should be paying the debt
themselves.
The culpability of third world governments -- say, Suharto in Indonesia --
is enormous, but remember that these governments are western clients,
outposts virtually, whose task is to open their countries to foreign
plunder, repress the population (by huge massacres if necessary), and
enrich themselves if they feel like it (that's not a responsibility, just
an incidental benefit accorded them). Suharto was "our kind of guy", as the
Clinton administration put it, as long as he fulfilled this role. Much the
same hold for other third world governments. Those that try to follow
another course typically get smashed. E.g., Nicaragua has one of the
highest debts in the world. The Sandinistas were doubtless corrupt, though
not by preferred US standards, but that's not the reason for the debt:
rather, the fact that the US waged a brutal and murderous war to get them
back into line.
Note again that culpability of our governments (and their institutions,
like the IMF-WB) are also our culpability, to the extent that we have the
capacity to influence policy, and don't.
Noam Chomsky
--
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html
Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
