Debtocracy Page #3

---

with the poorest of the poor.

There are people who still maintain

some social security rights

but that is not enough,

as a poor woman-pensioner indicated.

She said:
"I buy either food or

medicine. I can't afford both".

The government's measures

are not simply worsening

the citizens' living conditions. They pose

an immediate threat to their lives.

Panos Papanicolaou: Neurosurgeon

-

In all of the countries "supported"

by the IMF up to now

there has been a dramatic drop

in average life expectancy

It's what we usually refer to

as the average lifespan.

There were countries where,

after the IMF ordeal

the average lifespan fell by 5-10 years.

With the cuts we are facing now

it's clear that our life expectancy

will be greatly reduced.

The citizens react.

The government's response is in breach of

even the basic principles of democracy

The penalisation of wearing a hood,

the unjustified arrests and

the hood-wearing policemen,

all border on the para-state.

This liberality with tear-gas leaves us

no money for free education

Alain Badiou Philosopher: Philosopher

-

Crises are always solved through measures

against society and against the people

which may be particularly harsh.

This is how capitalism

controls the situation.

The problem of capitalism is

how to get these measures accepted.

For that, violence is deployed.

In response to

the "financial gale" alert

Democracy makes way for

Debtocracy.

Poor people, don't eat each other.

Eat the rich, they're plumper!

A crisis of capitalism causes

extensive devaluation.

The value is lost through

financial speculation.

Somebody has to pay

for this devaluation.

However, the capitalists

do not intend to pay for it.

They're not at all altruistic.

But if those who caused the crisis

do not intend to pay for it

why should we pay?

In the past, dozens of countries

have successfully repudiated debts

not incurred by their citizens,

in accordance with provisions

of the international law, such as

the concept of odious debt.

The history of odious debt [animation]

Our story starts in the 1920s,

with Alexander Sack.

Sack was a minister and law specialist

in Czarist Russia.

After the 1917 Revolution, he taught

in universities of Europe and the USA.

In 1927, he came up with

a brilliant concept:

the concept of odious debt.

In order to define a debt as odious,

three prerequisites are needed.

receives a loan

without the knowledge and approval

of the people.

not beneficial to the people.

but play possum.

Sack's proposals sound progressive,

even revolutionary.

Actually, at that time, they served

the interests

of a rising superpower:

the United States of America.

The USA had found themselves in need

of the "odious debt" concept in 1898

when they won the Spanish-American war

and annexed Cuba.

Their problem was that,

together with Cuba

they acquired the debt incurred

by the Spanish colonial regime.

And, since Spanish colonialism

had lasted four centuries

from 1492, when Columbus set foot

in America, till 1898

that debt was quite heavy.

Of course, the USA had no intention

of paying for the mistakes of past regimes.

They decided that Cuba's debt

was odious

and simply refused to pay it.

The same had happened in Mexico

a few decades earlier.

When the Republicans overthrew

emperor Maximilian I

they decided that the debt

he had incurred was odious.

Maximilian had borrowed huge sums

at excessively high interest rates

to deal with the uprising

against him.

And since he owed a lot,

mainly to the people of Mexico

he was sentenced to death

and sent to the firing squad.

In the late 19th-early 20th century,

most instances of odious debt

concerned underdeveloped countries

on the American continent.

Actually, a rising superpower was

involved in all those debt repudiations:

the United States of America.

And this same superpower

brought the concept of odious debt

into the 21st century.

December 2002:
the White House

is putting the finishing touches

to the planned invasion

and occupation of Iraq.

Before the attack starts, however,

American officials

are preparing for the day after

Saddam Hussein's overthrowal.

The State Department knows that

they will have to deal with

Iraq's huge national debt.

Therefore, they are trying to prove

that this debt is odious.

A secret task-force is formed,

and they propose that

the first provisional government of Iraq

declare cessation of due payments

on the pretext that the Iraqi people

must not pay the odious debt incurred

by the Iraqi regime.

All is now ready for the attack.

ric Toussaint:
President of CADTM

-

In March 2003, the USA and their allies

invaded Iraq.

Three weeks later, the US Secretary

for the Treasury called for a summit meeting

of G8 finance ministers in Washington, and

announced that Hussein's debt was odious.

He said:
"Hussein's regime is dictatorial

and its debt must be repudiated".

"The new government of Iraq

must be free of Hussein's debt".

George W. Bush instructed former

Secretary of State, James Baker

to convince the international community

that Iraq's debt was odious.

And Baker claimed that Saddam Hussein

wasted his people's money

on building palaces and buying arms.

Among other things, American diplomats

proved that Iraq owed

billions of dollars to France and Russia,

for the purchase of Exocet missiles

and fighter aircraft such as

Mirage F1 and MiG.

Actually, Hussein's way

was not that different

from what many Western leaders do.

To the Arabs, palaces are

what the Olympic Games are to the West:

a demonstration of economic

and geopolitical dominance.

The American diplomacy finally proved

that Iraq's debt was odious

and the Iraqi people were

not obliged to pay it.

However, Washington suddenly realised

that they'd pried open a can of worms.

For the first time in the 21st century,

the ultimate superpower had legitimised

the concept of odious debt.

So, they chose

to sweep this case under the carpet.

The other countries said: "We'll cut 40%

off Iraq's debt through the Paris Club".

"But the concept of odious debt

must not be used officially"

"because other countries may claim

this right as well".

"For example, the DR Congo

will repudiate Mobutu's debt"

"the Philippines will refuse

to pay the debt of dictator Marcos"

"and South Africa will refuse

the debt of the apartheid regime".

To prevent the extension of the concept

of odious debt into the 21st century

they reached an ad hoc decision

on Iraq.

However, it is obvious to us that

the odious debt doctrine was used.

The USA continued to help Iraq

to cancel old debts.

But nobody in Washington

ever wanted to hear again

the expression "odious debt".

Iraq managed to write off

a big part of its debt

with the support of an empire.

But another country resolved

to stand on its own two feet

and stand up against the IMF

and its other big lenders.

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes