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

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil

South Africa.

Ok "never" brings regime change is too harsh and unequivocal. "Rarely" is a better word.

My question is do people think that sanctions were the determining factor or was it the fact that changing attitudes re race both inside and outside South Africa made the racial divisions untenable in a country that otherwise tried to be a democracy ( among those that they considered to have status).

While South Africa had an inherently offendise form of government, I hardly viewed it as a dictatatorship.

[Lancer]

Imran, it might just be happening anyway. The Iraqis are going to get debt relief and the lenders can't help but notice, yes?

[Tingkai]

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--

G7, which are all democratic nations.

But a question is: Would banks tolerate such a rule, or would banks finance candidates who overturn the rule in the G7 countries? Afterall, there's lots of money being made on these loans. The risks are high, but so are the returns.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Lancer
Imran, it might just be happening anyway. The Iraqis are going to get debt relief and the lenders can't help but notice, yes?

The lenders are getting theirs. IIRC, the US is paying off the loans.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Flubber
My question is do people think that sanctions were the determining factor or was it the fact that changing attitudes re race both inside and outside South Africa made the racial divisions untenable in a country that otherwise tried to be a democracy ( among those that they considered to have status).

I would like to think it was a question of changing attitudes but I suspect it was the sanctions. Some countries don't seem to mind being international pariahs, SA wasn't one of them.

While South Africa had an inherently offensive form of government, I hardly viewed it as a dictatatorship.

Maybe not technically but they were a long way from 'representative'.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lancer
The time for 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is over, agreed.

Except that it hasn't. This "War on Terror" has brought in a nice number of strange "allies."

Originally posted by Lancer
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?

On what basis do you assume that a "democratic government" will use the money for the people while a "tyranny" won't?

The average Iraqi had done remarkably well until the US slapped an embargo on the country.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by 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.

He was never a U.S. ally. Unlike say, China and North Korea, or Zimbabwe or China's new bestest friends in Uzbekistan.

[Proteus_MST]

Although I think it would be a good thing,
it would be very difficult to realize.

After all there are a lot of country which have no representative governments, but are nevertheless important trading partners to the western world.
For example Sudia Arabia, whose government still is an absolute monarchy (with the sharia as law). I don´t think any state of the western world would to this date accept a trading ban to Saudi Arabia (considering how much oil we get from them )

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sikander
He was never a U.S. ally. Unlike say, China and North Korea, or Zimbabwe or China's new bestest friends in Uzbekistan.

Ah, of course not. Saddam was merely a lackey.

My take is the US is far more interested in Uzbekistan - why else would it block a probe into an alleged massacre?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
After all there are a lot of country which have no representative governments, but are nevertheless important trading partners to the western world.
For example Sudia Arabia, whose government still is an absolute monarchy (with the sharia as law). I don´t think any state of the western world would to this date accept a trading ban to Saudi Arabia (considering how much oil we get from them )

I don't know that a trading ban was being discussed. I thought it was merely the idea of not lending money to certain regimes.

Saudia Arabia does not need to borrow any money and would be unaffected by a lending ban. The same would hold true for the bulk of the middle east. The question is how you prevent these dictatorial regimes from lending money if they choose, to other dictatorial regimes.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Wezil


I would like to think it was a question of changing attitudes but I suspect it was the sanctions. Some countries don't seem to mind being international pariahs, SA wasn't one of them.



Maybe not technically but they were a long way from 'representative'.

The question then becomes what type of gevernment qualifies as "representative"

S. Africa was a democracy that disenfranchised and oppressed the bulk of its population

Many ME countries are run as shiekdoms with near absolute power

Women are disenfranchised in some countries

heck in some countries, the ruling elite holds power year after year with minimal or no representation at all from other parts

Where is the line?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Flubber


I don't know that a trading ban was being discussed. I thought it was merely the idea of not lending money to certain regimes.

Saudia Arabia does not need to borrow any money and would be unaffected by a lending ban. The same would hold true for the bulk of the middle east. The question is how you prevent these dictatorial regimes from lending money if they choose, to other dictatorial regimes.

O.K.
that´s correct,
the probability that Saudi Arabia might want to borrow money from western countries is very small, indeed.
And at the point in the near or far future where it might forced to do so it definitely has become worthless to the industrialized worlds, as it very probably means that their Oil deposits have been depleted.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


O.K.
that´s correct,
the probability that Saudi Arabia might want to borrow money from western countries is very small, indeed.
And at the point in the near or far future where it might forced to do so it definitely has become worthless to the industrialized worlds, as it very probably means that their Oil deposits have been depleted.

With the amount of money Saudi Arabia brings in now, if they plan and save at all, they should NEVER have to borrow money again. They should be able to set up endowment and legacy funds to keep the country affluent in perpetuity. Their population is relatively small after all.