Should there be an international law against loans to non representative governments?

[Lancer]

Iraq is pushing for debt relief. Saddam borrowed and spent a ton of money on palaces, torture chambers, underground bunkers, cronies, weapons...

Iraq doesn't want to pay it back. Was it the rich west's fault that we loaned it in the first place?

[Urban Ranger]

And?

What gives you the idea that a "representative government" is better at paying back loans? Or, for that matter, what if a "representative government" gets overthrown by a "tyranny?"

[Lancer]

What's the deal UR? Are you worried about loans to China because they don't have a representative government?

[Dinner]

Yes, the Democratic world should not be in the business of helping the dictatorships of the world thus we should be actively blocking loans and trade with dictatorships and one party states.

[Urban Ranger]

Lance, Lance, Lance. By now you should be old enough to recognise realpolitick.

Saddam Hussein had always been a nasty bloodthirty bastard, but he was okay as long as he remained an US ally.

[Lancer]

"Yes, the Democratic world should not be in the business of helping the dictatorships of the world thus we should be actively blocking loans and trade with dictatorships and one party states."

I agree Oerdin. This might actually help bring them down too. With the Sovs being history I see no good reason to put up with dictators.

"Lance, Lance, Lance. By now you should be old enough to recognise realpolitick.

Saddam Hussein had always been a nasty bloodthirty bastard, but he was okay as long as he remained an US ally."

The time for 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is over, agreed. So unless a government can obtain a loan in the name of the people, it shouldn't be given, agree UR? Would you agree even though it would mean no more loans for China?

[Zulu Elephant]

What about loans to dictators with conditions attached - like "We'll lend you £Xbn if you hold free local elections"

The time for 'my enemies enemy is my friend' has gone but that doesn't mean democracies shouldn't try to engage with dictatorships if it's possible to get progress.

[Flubber]

My question is who gets to decide whomis a non-represenatative government . . . Lets see, the UN general assembly-- err no-- How about the Security Council err no--


Actually I don't think it is the sort of thing that the international community would ever get together on.

Also I wonder is it really helpful to try to hurt such countries. Time and again we have seen that it is the common folk that get hurt by things like sanctions and it never seems to bring regime change

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber
My question is who gets to decide whomis a non-represenatative government . . . Lets see, the UN general assembly-- err no-- How about the Security Council err no--


Actually I don't think it is the sort of thing that the international community would ever get together on.

Excellent point.

Also I wonder is it really helpful to try to hurt such countries. Time and again we have seen that it is the common folk that get hurt by things like sanctions and it never seems to bring regime change

South Africa.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Wezil
South Africa.

Cuba

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Lance, Lance, Lance. By now you should be old enough to recognise realpolitick.

the term is written realpolitik

[Wezil]

DD - We don't have a consensus on Cuba. Your nation has sanctions while our government encourages Cdns to vacation there (while simultaneously accepting political refugees... ). The international community was much more united wrt SA (eventually).

[lord of the mark]

you dont need to make it illegal to make loans to non-representative govts, just to make it law that subsequent democratic govts have NO obligation to repay them - you can lend to anybody you want, but at your own risk. That still leaves the troublesome question of definitions - but then even Kofi Annan is on board that dictatorships should not sit on the UN Human Rights Council, so he must have some definition in mind.

[Lancer]

Zulu, what does a dictator borrow against if not the future earnings of the people he rules? Yet they have no say in how that money is spent...imo they shouldn't have the debt.

"My question is who gets to decide whomis a non-represenatative government . . . Lets see, the UN general assembly-- err no-- How about the Security Council err no--"

Flubber that's an excellent question. Considering it I think I was wrong to suggest an international anything. However if the people get rid of the dictator and can prove that they had no say in the process by which the money was borrowed, they shouldn't have to pay it back. Make it a legal matter, use the courts. Then nobody will be willing to make such a loan and the problem will be solved.

"Also I wonder is it really helpful to try to hurt such countries. Time and again we have seen that it is the common folk that get hurt by things like sanctions and it never seems to bring regime change"

Flubber, another good one. I just wonder if those palaces helped the Iraqi people. Remember this is different from aid, which incurs no debt. Food and medicine could still come in.

Wezil, yes, I was wrong about the international bit.

"you dont need to make it illegal to make loans to non-representative govts, just to make it law that subsequent democratic govts have NO obligation to repay them - you can lend to anybody you want, but at your own risk. That still leaves the troublesome question of definitions - but then even Kofi Annan is on board that dictatorships should not sit on the UN Human Rights Council, so he must have some definition in mind."

lotm, I have read your reply first, excellent point. One thing though, isn't Kofi Anon about to be sent up the river because of the oil for votes mess?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Woot, Lancer.. your proposal would utterly derail the "War on Terror" (not that that is a horrible thing seeing where it has been going lately).

Anyway, if you don't want to lend to dictatorships, tell your country not to do it. There isn't going to be a treaty that passes on this.