Should third world ex-dictatorships have their debts forgiven?

[Shi Huangdi]

What do you guys think about the collection of debt in third world countries, which used to by a dictator, but have since lost their dictatorship? I think in such cases we should not continue collecting on their debts for loans taken out by dictators. Dictators, IMO, are not legitmate representatives of their people and in fact often through their regimes plunder their own country. It is not right to hold their people accountable for what the dictators do. Furthermore, if third world countries have their debt removed upon becoming a democracy, they will be in a better economic situation, and economic stability aids political stability, helping to ensure the safety of the new democracy.

[Worthingtons]

Removing the debt is not fair on the lenders - If you lend out your money to a Man who says he needs to feed his family but wastes it on drink you've still lost that money and would want it back.

What would be more fair would to remove all Interest associated with the loan and allow them to pay it back on terms which would suit them better.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Rothy
Removing the debt is not fair on the lenders

Maybe lenders would stop lending to dictatorships.

[Worthingtons]

There is always the situation where money is borrowed on false promises. Remember a Dictator is often voted into power before turning his country into a dictatorship, In many cases the money is borrowed before the political freedoms of the citizens are removed.

I do agree however, that in the case of Companies purposefully trading with dictatorships (like France) that there should not be protection to the companies/countries involved.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Rothy
Companies purposefully trading with dictatorships (like France) that there should not be protection to the companies/countries involved.

What an interesting example

You've pointed out yet another thing France and the US have in common

[Worthingtons]

Best Example there is , since it's a well known fact France were Iraq's (previous) best trading partner.

[Sandman]

Best Example there is , since it's a well known fact France were Iraq's (previous) best trading partner.

Better than Syria? I take it you don't support the erasing of Iraq's debt to Russia?

Even though Zaire/Congo has had a change of government, it's expected to keep paying for the excesses of the Mobutu regime, when the country is falling apart. Debt cancellation is a way to help them get back on their feet.

[Frankychan]

What they should do is remove third world debt....wipe the slate clean. It sounds drastic, but the Third World will stay in debt indefinetely (but maybe this is what some countries want? )

I propose that when countries wipe the slate clean, they instead propose different legislation. For example:

Let's say Zimbabwe has a huge debt to the United States. The US wipes out the debt by Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe in return signs legislation where they only import goods from the US for a certain amount of time. That way, Zimbabwe can develop their country with US goods, and the United States get's a buyer for their goods.

Everyone is happy. US gets money, Zimbabwe develops their economy resulting in more money being flowed into the US exclusively.

[Saras]

I wonder why Russia didn't repudiate USSR's debts? It's a completely new country...

[uh Clem]

I you lend money to some third-world scumbag, not only do you richly deserve to lose all of it, you should be liable as an accessory for crimes committed by the scumbag's government.

[Saras]

How about everyone on the London money markets that lent to Vneshtorgbank in the late eighties-early nineties? The money was used to suppress freedom movements all over CEE...

[David Floyd]

I'm opposed to cancelling any of this debt. As has been pointed out, it's unfair to the lenders, regardless of the supposed (il)legitimacy of the government in power at the time.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm opposed to cancelling any of this debt. As has been pointed out, it's unfair to the lenders, regardless of the supposed (il)legitimacy of the government in power at the time.

You are worried about unfairness to the rich lenders? What about the impoverished third world people who suffered under the dictatorships? They never had a choice whether or not to enter into the debt at all.

[David Floyd]

You are worried about unfairness to the rich lenders?

What does their economic status have to do with anything? If they lent money, they should get it back.

What about the impoverished third world people who suffered under the dictatorships? They never had a choice whether or not to enter into the debt at all.

That's funny. If I made that argument about taxes, you'd laugh.

And of course, many of these people don't even support individual freedom and capitalism and the like - take the people in Iraq, for example. I read in the NYT today that the US was disbanding the Iraqi armed forces, yet the former Iraqi soldiers threatened to fight if they didn't keep receiving paychecks. Duh, how stupid are these people?

Or, say, Nigeria. Do you really think that, in the absence of debt, Nigeria would develop a truly free society? Please

[Shi Huangdi]

"And of course, many of these people don't even support individual freedom and capitalism and the like - take the people in Iraq, for example."

But if there rights are indeed naturally existant, do their political views really change that? Do you have a right to go rob Che because he wants to take away your freedom? The fact is I don't see how you are justifying making the people pay a debt they never agreed to.