Mar 082014
 

Posted by SnakeArbusto, 99GetSmart

Source: CADTM Europe

arton10003-9e4a1-1

The CADTM affirms its full and complete solidarity with the people of Cyprus and their organisations struggling against privatizations in the energy, telecoms, and shipping sectors – privatizations required by the Memorandum imposed by the Troika in March 2013. Cyprus is the fourth country to be placed under the budgetary supervision of the European Union, after Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

In the face of the demonstrations of 27 February (a 3-day renewable strike by Electricity Authority of Cyprus workers and a strike by longshoremen at the ports of Limassol and Larnaca), the Parliament was unable to reach a majority to adopt the initial bill (25 votes for, 25 against, 5 abstentions; a majority of 29 is required for adoption). The following day the government handed in its resignation. The media, in total complicity with the Troika, have observed total silence over this situation – an extraordinary one, to say the least.

Despite the refusal expressed by the population in the streets, the Cypriot legislators have just adopted (4 March), by a vote of 30 to 26, a bill that is only a slightly modified version of the one they had themselves rejected the preceding week and which would result in the privatisation of the major public services: EAC (electricity), CYTA (telecoms), and CPA (the port authority). This new version of the law claims to guarantee the jobs of the employees of these companies, but no one actually believes that.

Adoption of the law was a condition for the granting of a new 236-million € tranche of the 10-Bn € loan granted by the Troika in March 2013.

The causes of the crisis in Cyprus have been clearly identified: 

1) A hypertrophied banking system
 that was completely out of control. The banks, who have considerable liquid assets provided by the “financial markets,” have recklessly made risky investments.

In 2012, Cyprus’s banks speculated on the restructuring of the Greek debt – 40% of their external commitments, which cost them 4.5 Bn €, or the equivalent of a quarter of Cyprus’s GDP, and brought on the collapse of this overinflated sector (whose assets represent seven times the country’s GDP).

These private losses were then promptly transformed into public debt. These debts are totally illegitimate and must be abolished, along with those stemming from the assistance plan!

graph-3-ca531

In 2009 and 2010, Cyprus’s public debt was only 52.4% and 60.8% of GDP, whereas in the Euro zone as a whole it was 80% of GDP in 2010.

In Germany, the percentage was 74.5% in 2009 and 82.5% in 2010.

2) A tax situation that is highly advantageous for companies: Corporate tax, which until the Memorandum was at an official rate of 10%, has only been raised to 12.5% (not enough to resolve the budget deficit).

To obtain the 10-Bn € assistance plan from the Troika (9 Bn € from the ECB and 1 Bn € from the IMF), Cyprus’s government also agreed to the restructuring of its banking system, a 10% reduction in public expenditures, and the privatization of the island’s main public sectors.

The IMF, represented in Cyprus by a former executive of Lehman Brothers, itself recognizes the economic ineffectualness of such measures. The IMF’s goal is not to provide support for the population of Cyprus, but to protect and guarantee the interests of the creditors! That is why the agents of the IMF must be run out of Cyprus, along with the representatives of the European Commission and the ECB!

Aside from the obvious risk of growth in unemployment (forecast to reach 19.4% in 2014), Cypriots fear skyrocketing prices, with wages and pensions already reduced by 20% in one year. The people’s mobilisation, practically uninterrupted for months, goes well beyond the industry sectors that are directly concerned.

Rubbish bins brought by the population are piled up in front of bank branches. There are regular interruptions of electrical power and the people are besieging the Parliament and official buildings. All sectors, both private and public, are present around the Parliament, demonstrating their opposition to the Troika’s structural adjustment plan.

The CADTM considers:

  • that the entire debt of Cyprus to the Troika is illegitimate and odious, and must be abolished in its entirety;
  • that the austerity plan imposed by the Troika must be revoked.

The population does not want to pay for the speculators and the wealthiest 1%. International solidarity must organise as soon as possible in support of this exemplary struggle. The CADTM will do all it can.

Translation by Snake Arbusto

Photo : CC – Eu Council Eurozone
Discussion before the meeting begins : Christine LAGARDE, IMF ; Thomas WIESER, President of the EFC (Economic and Financial Committee) and Michael SARRIS, Finances Minister of Cyprus (on the right).

Nov 142013
 

By J. Iddhis Bing, 99GetSmart

Greeks protest austerity cuts in Syntagma Square, Athens. Photography by Elias Theodoropoulos

Greeks protest austerity cuts in Syntagma Square, Athens. Photography by Elias Theodoropoulos

It’s hard work getting the news from the news these days, especially if you want to know about a country like Greece. Far-away birthplace of democracy, a bit exotic, Mediterranean lifestyle, Zorba, rumored to be different. What does any of that mean? Strange things are happening there but what is going on precisely? The Greeks ran up quite a tab at the bar, or so the financial dailies tell us on a regular basis.

Almost everything we read is filtered through the point of view of the Troika – the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European Commission – or the Greek government. We know that representatives of the Troika – established during the first stage of Greece’s “rescue” in May 2010 – have been in Greece since Tuesday of last week, meeting with the Greek government about the latest round of potential bailouts for that country. Beyond the leaks from either side, the rest, for us at any rate, is guesswork.

As of Tuesday evening, November 12, no decision had been announced. The Troika is typically very business-like with its clients, out with the whip, sign here, see you later – and then the next round of what the press like to call “belt-tightening” begins. The coalition government survived a no-confidence vote on Monday the 11th but that hardly quelled the sense that they are a very fragile edifice indeed. The people are out in the streets on a constant basis. They’re an after-thought, at least as far as the world’s media is concerned.

We do know a few things: that the Troika is a quasi-legal junta, created during the first stage of Greece’s trauma. The IMF was invited to the party at the insistence of Angela Merkel. Readers with long memories may remember that Dominique Strauss-Kahn was on his way to meet Merkel to present his plan to “save Greece,” when he was abruptly detained in New York.

The Troika’s mission is to enforce an austerity program that includes the selling-off of government assets and the decimation of public services, and that even within the IMF, there is dissension over the absurd goal of turning Greece into a productive satellite of Germany. We also know or suspect that any “bailout” of Greece will only impoverish the country yet further. That’s the public record regarding employment, savings, pensions, access to housing and food. You can read it here on Ground Report and find it many other places as well.

Language, meanwhile, gets so knocked around by the pros it throws its hands up in despair. Defeat comes at the price of rational thought: being rescued by the Troika means becoming a pauper in your own country, means your pension has vanished, you are a month or so away from losing the roof over your head and your hand is in the garbage looking for food.

None of the rescues perpetrated by the Troika have successfully rescued their target countries but instead have pitched them ever further into chaos. Bailouts are not a transfusion of money but a way of channeling money from one country (Germany, in this case) to another country (Greece) where the money is then re-routed to banks in, among other places, Germany and France in the form of debt payments.

The conservative government of Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, along with his coalition partner, Socialist Evangelos Venizelos, is said to be desperate not to tamper with what they consider Greece’s “success story,” one which includes massive unemployment and at least 20 percent of the population dependent on soup kitchens for the next meal. His figure is 700 million Euros to meet the debt payment schedule. The Troika is said to be looking for 2.9 billion Euros in savings from the current budget.

That explains the lack of an agreement since last Tuesday at least in part. The Troika is being held hostage. Round One to Greece.

Spectacularly, no one in the government mentions the list of 2,062 Greeks who are holding at least $1.95 billion in secret Swiss bank accounts. A list the government has had in its possession for at least three years without a single prosecution. (Interested readers can learn more here.) Articles in the local press do muse a bit about “tax collection” being a bit in arrears but without much enthusiasm.

Rumblings, such as they are, continue to be at such a low volume they can be hard to hear. Internal documents leaked from the IMF last week reveal that as early as May 2010, more than 40 IMF member states, all outside Europe, were opposed to the aid plan drawn up for Athens. (This in a report from last week’s Wall Street Journal.) The Troika itself is said to be headed for divorce. “The ECB must refrain from intervening in highly political decisions with its advice on taxes or cuts in spending. And yet that is just what it has been doing inside the troika. It must get out of it as soon as possible,” says Paul De Grauwe, a professor at the London School of Economics. In June of this year, a high official at the IMF publicly disagreed with the Troika’s agenda in Greece.

Even the pro-government publication Ekathimerini paints a decidedly gloomy picture: “Unfortunately, what this means in practical terms is that the current political system is not in a position to lead the country any further in terms of reforms. It doesn’t truly believe in these reforms and it does not have the stamina to clash with its traditional clientele,” writes Alexis Papachelas on November 10. Not exactly a ringing endorsement from a pro-government journo.

In other words: it isn’t working, it isn’t working at all, and yet our bedazzled technocrats continue to insist that it does, even if they don’t particularly believe it either. It’s the way the world does its “business.” Consider this: the Financial Times reported last weekend that Stephen King, chief economist at HSBC, “discovered” that nearly all of his bank’s country forecasts stated that the country-in-question planned to export its way to growth. (Ah, growth, endless growth. The Holy Grail, the never-ending rainbow at the end of the road. Line it up next to the other sacred cows, bailouts and rescues, and fire away.) Where they will all export to is the question, with every other country on earth frantically exporting its way to prosperity. Mars and Venus are at the head of the list, and why not? (William Pfaff has more on this.)

Greece lost some 35,000 jobs in October. So much for that success story. My sense is that the Troika’s technocrats simply live too high up in the stratosphere – somewhere near their very own cloud 9 – to be concerned with anything so gritty as jobs or hunger or survival. For them “the people” are an abstraction on the order of heroic rescues and bailouts.

The Washington Consensus is dead. Long Live the Consensus! The world, meanwhile, hangs by a thread. No one believes, fewer and fewer people vote and countries like Greece twist in the wind. Who reaps the advantage? The far right, the angry ones, the xenophobes who see us lined against each other in a global race to the End of the Line. One wonders exactly when Angela Merkel and that ardent enemy of finance François Hollande will get the message. (Before or after the rainbow? Place your bets here.)

The Troika, intent on getting in and out of Greece quickly with as few questions asked as possible, seem to have gotten stuck in transit. On Tuesday night, they were so afraid of angry cleaning ladies demonstrating in front of the Finance Ministry that they crawled on hands and knees out the building’s fire-escape to an underground garage en route to their own private cloud. That might not be, to employ yet another word that’s taken a few body blows, progress, but if a modern-day Aristophanes was anywhere nearby, he can make use of it.

As of Wednesday morning, November 13, no agreement between Greece and the IMF was in sight.When there is one, we’ll take a close look at it to see if there are any changes to the formula that has had such devastating consequences for Greece.

Nov 132013
 

Posted by greydogg, 99GetSmart

* IT’S BUSINESS THAT REALLY RULES US NOW

Lobbying is the least of it: corporate interests have captured the entire democratic process. No wonder so many have given up on politics

By George Monbiot, The Guardian

equal-protection1

It’s the reason for the collapse of democratic choice. It’s the source of our growing disillusionment with politics. It’s the great unmentionable. Corporate power. The media will scarcely whisper its name. It is howlingly absent from parliamentary debates. Until we name it and confront it, politics is a waste of time.

The political role of business corporations is generally interpreted as that of lobbyists, seeking to influence government policy. In reality they belong on the inside. They are part of the nexus of power that creates policy. They face no significant resistance, from either government or opposition, as their interests have now been woven into the fabric of all three main political parties in Britain.

Most of the scandals that leave people in despair about politics arise from this source. On Monday, for instance, the Guardian revealed that the government’s subsidy system for gas-burning power stations is being designed by an executive from the Dublin-based company ESB International, who has been seconded into the Department of Energy. What does ESB do? Oh, it builds gas-burning power stations.

On the same day we learned that a government minister, Nick Boles, has privately assured the gambling company Ladbrokes that it needn’t worry about attempts by local authorities to stop the spread of betting shops. His new law will prevent councils from taking action. […]

READ @ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/11/business-rules-lobbying-corporate-interests?CMP=fb_gu

—————————————————————–

* BANKOCRACY: FROM THE VENETIAN REPUBLIC TO MARIO DRAGHI AND GOLDMAN SACHS

By Eric Toussaint, CADTM

debt-mountain-cartoon-525x330

From the 12th century to the beginning of the 14th, the Knights Templar, present in much of Europe, had become the bankers for the powerful and had taken part in the financing of several crusades. At the beginning of the 14th century, they were the main creditors of the King of France, Philip the Fair. Faced with a debt burden that was straining his resources, Philip the Fair eliminated both his creditors and his debt by demonising the Knights Templar, accusing them of many crimes |1|. Their Order was outlawed, the leaders executed and its assets seized. Its army (fifteen thousand men, including one thousand five hundred knights), its patrimony and its credits to rulers failed to protect it from the power of a State set on eliminating its main creditor.

During the same era (11th – 14th centuries) Venetian bankers were also financing the Crusades and lending money to the powerful of Europe, but they manoeuvred much more deftly than the Knights Templar. In Venice, they took control of the State by founding the Venetian Republic. They financed the transformation of the Venetian city-state into a veritable empire including Cyprus, Euboea (Negroponte) and Crete. They made use of a clever strategy to gain lasting wealth and guarantee reimbursement of their credits: they decided to drive the Venetian state into debt towards the banks they owned. They were the ones who set the terms of the loan contracts, as they were at once bank owners and rulers of the State.

While Philip the Fair had an interest in physically ridding himself of his creditors to be free from the debt burden, the Venetian State reimbursed the debt to bankers in cash. The latter came up with the idea of creating public debt titles that could circulate between banks. This was a step towards the establishment of financial markets |2|. This type of loan is the precursor to the major form of State debt as we know it in the 21st century.

Today, seven centuries after Philip the Fair crushed the Knights Templar, the bankers of Europe, just like their Venetian or Genovese forebears, clearly have nothing to fear from governments. […]

READ @ http://cadtm.org/Nouvelle-traduction-Bancocratie-de

—————————————————————–

* PONZI AUSTERITY: A DEFINITION AND AN EXAMPLE

By Yanis Varoufakis, yanisvaroufakis.eu

austerity-george-osborne-desktop

For a while now I have been arguing that Europe’s policies for reducing the public debts of fiscally stressed member-states can be described as a Ponzi austerity scheme. In this post I attempt precisely to define ‘Ponzi austerity’.

Ponzi growth

Standard Ponzi schemes are based on a sleight of hand that creates the appearance of a fund whose value grows faster than the value that has come into it. In reality the opposite is true, as the scheme’s operator usually helps himself to some of the incoming capital while the scheme is not managing to create new capital with which to replenish these ‘leakages’, let alone pay the returns it promises. The appearances of growth that does not really exist is, of course, the lure that brings into the scheme new participants whose capital is utilised by the Ponzi scheme’s operator to maintain the facade of genuine growth.

Ponzi austerity

Ponzi austerity is the inverse of Ponzi growth. Whereas in standard Ponzi (growth) schemes the lure is the promise of a growing fund, in the case of Ponzi austerity the attraction to bankrupted participants is the promise of reducing their debt, so as to liberate them from insolvency, through a combination of ‘belt tightening’, austerity measures and new loans that provide the bankrupt with necessary funds for repaying maturing debts (e.g. bonds). As it is impossible to escape insolvency in this manner, Ponzi austerity schemes, just like Ponzi growth schemes, necessitate a constant influx of new capital to support the illusion that bankruptcy has been averted. But to attract this capital, the Ponzi austerity’s operators must do their utmost to maintain the façade of genuine debt reduction.

Ponzi austerity’s inventor: The Eurozone’s great and good

Ponzi growth has been around for yonks. But it took the collective wisdom of Europe’s great and good to create the first Ponzi austerity scheme. The Greek, Portuguese, Irish, Spanish and Cypriot loan agreements were the first ever examples of such a scheme. Bankrupted states, in a death embrace with bankrupted banking sectors, were forced to take in ever-increasing capital inflows (from the IMF, from the ECB, from the EFSF-ESM, shortly under the ECB’s OMT threat) on condition of belt-tightening austerity. As the scheme progresses, more capital is coming into it, debt-to-GDP ratios actually grow (just as in Ponzi growth schemes the value of the total fund is depleted) and, therefore, even more outside capital has to be brought in in order to maintain the pretense. […]

READ @ http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2013/11/08/ponzi-austerity-a-definition-and-an-example/

—————————————————————–

* A FULL-FRONTAL ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES

We are in the dark about treaty that would let rapacious companies subvert our laws, rights and national sovereignty.

By George Monbiot, The Guardian

transatlantic-corporate-bill-of-rights-300x140

Remember that referendum about whether we should create a single market with the United States? You know, the one that asked whether corporations should have the power to strike down our laws? No, I don’t either. Mind you, I spent 10 minutes looking for my watch the other day before I realised I was wearing it. Forgetting about the referendum is another sign of ageing. Because there must have been one, mustn’t there? After all that agonising over whether or not we should stay in the European Union, the government wouldn’t cede our sovereignty to some shadowy, undemocratic body without consulting us. Would it?

The purpose of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is to remove the regulatory differences between the US and European nations. I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago. But I left out the most important issue: the remarkable ability it would grant big business to sue the living daylights out of governments which try to defend their citizens. It would allow a secretive panel of corporate lawyers to overrule the will of parliament and destroy our legal protections. Yet the defenders of our sovereignty say nothing.

The mechanism through which this is achieved is known as investor-state dispute settlement. It’s already being used in many parts of the world to kill regulations protecting people and the living planet. […]

READ @ http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/full-frontal-assault-democracy-europe-and-united-states?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

—————————————————————–

* ENOUGHNESS: RESTORING BALANCE TO THE ECONOMY

Source: firstpeoples

How we see the world determines how we act. Western thought sees us at war with each other over resources. Indigenous philosophy, we are all related as individuals in balance with nature. Watch ENOUGHNESS: Resorting Balance to the Economy and learn more at www.FirstPeoples.org. Share on Facebook and Twitter using #ENOUGHNESS.

VIDEO @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPVrr44KHI

—————————————————————–

* HOW ECONOMIC GROWTH HAS BECOME ANTI-LIFE

An obsession with growth has eclipsed our concern for sustainability, justice and human dignity. But people are not disposable – the value of life lies outside economic development

By Vandana Shiva, CommonDreams

'Water extracted beyond nature’s capacity to renew and recharge creates a water famine'. (Photograph: Joe McNally/Getty)

‘Water extracted beyond nature’s capacity to renew and recharge creates a water famine’. (Photograph: Joe McNally/Getty)

Limitless growth is the fantasy of economists, businesses and politicians. It is seen as a measure of progress. As a result, gross domestic product (GDP), which is supposed to measure the wealth of nations, has emerged as both the most powerful number and dominant concept in our times. However, economic growth hides the poverty it creates through the destruction of nature, which in turn leads to communities lacking the capacity to provide for themselves.

The concept of growth was put forward as a measure to mobilise resources during the second world war. GDP is based on creating an artificial and fictitious boundary, assuming that if you produce what you consume, you do not produce. In effect , “growth” measures the conversion of nature into cash, and commons into commodities.

Thus nature’s amazing cycles of renewal of water and nutrients are defined into nonproduction. The peasants of the world,who provide 72% of the food, do not produce; women who farm or do most of the housework do not fit this paradigm of growth either. A living forest does not contribute to growth, but when trees are cut down and sold as timber, we have growth. Healthy societies and communities do not contribute to growth, but disease creates growth through, for example, the sale of patented medicine.

Water available as a commons shared freely and protected by all provides for all. However, it does not create growth. But when Coca-Cola sets up a plant, mines the water and fills plastic bottles with it, the economy grows. But this growth is based on creating poverty – both for nature and local communities. Water extracted beyond nature’s capacity to renew and recharge creates a water famine. Women are forced to walk longer distances looking for drinking water. In the village of Plachimada in Kerala, when the walk for water became 10 kms, local tribal woman Mayilamma said enough is enough. We cannot walk further; the Coca-Cola plant must shut down. The movement that the women started eventually led to the closure of the plant.

In the same vein, evolution has gifted us the seed. Farmers have selected, bred, and diversified it – it is the basis of food production. A seed that renews itself and multiplies produces seeds for the next season, as well as food. However, farmer-bred and farmer-saved seeds are not seen as contributing to growth. It creates and renews life, but it doesn’t lead to profits. Growth begins when seeds are modified, patented and genetically locked, leading to farmers being forced to buy more every season.

Nature is impoverished, biodiversity is eroded and a free, open resource is transformed into a patented commodity. Buying seeds every year is a recipe for debt for India’s poor peasants. And ever since seed monopolies have been established, farmers debt has increased. More than 270,000 farmers caught in a debt trap in India have committed suicide since 1995. […]

READ @ https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/11/01-2

Apr 072013
 

By Marie Dufaux, Eric Toussaint, CADTM

images

This is a historical moment. On 23 and 24 March 2013, a coalition of left secular Tunisian political parties (in which there are 11 political formations) organised a meeting of Mediterranean region progressive parties to call for the abolition of the odious and illegitimate debts of Northern and Southern Mediterranean countries. Two half-days of debate produced a final declaration and were followed by a grand public conference bringing together over one thousand people and all the strength of the left-wing groups united for a common cause. |1|

Below are highlights of Eric Toussaint’s speech at this first Mediterranean coordination meeting against debt, austerity policies, and foreign domination, and for a free, united, democratic, social, solidarity-based, feminist, and environmentally responsible Mediterranean region.

Eric Toussaint, President of CADTM Belgium stressed that this budding political alliance is the continuation of the struggle initiated by Thomas Sankara, President of Burkina Faso, who was assassinated on the 15 October 1987, after he called on the people of Africa and the rest of the World to unite in a common combat for the non-payment of the illegitimate debt. It also extends the struggle of the martyrs of the Arab Spring, including Chokry Belaid, assassinated on 6 February 2013, not to forget Ahmed Ben Bella, the first President of independent Algeria, who died in April 2012, |2| and who, towards the end of his life, had made the abolition of illegitimate debt one of his principal struggles.

This new coordination is facing another major challenge. All too often, left-wing parties limit their engagement to a radical denouncement of illegitimate debt without giving the question further importance in their day to day public activities. Once they start to approach positions of power, some of them abandon their promises to put an end to illegitimate debt, and end up agreeing with the terms of repayment.

Eric Toussaint presented the initial definition of odious debt as debt taken on by a dictatorial regime such as that of Ben Ali. According to international law, when such a regime falls, the part of the debt that is odious falls with it, and therefore should not in any case be repaid. Of course, we must often fight for international law to be respected. To achieve this goal, only a strong social movement can convince a government to suspend payments and repudiate odious debt. It is therefore essential to create a favourable balance of power in order to defy the creditors.

Today, international law defines odious debt in terms of three criteria: |3|
the non-consent of the people in the indebted state;
the lack of advantages for the people in the indebted state;
the creditors were aware that the loans they consented were not in the interest of the people and were not approved by them.

The debt “owed” to the Troika (European Central Bank, European Commission and the IMF) by countries like Greece, Ireland, and Portugal should be denounced because it corresponds to these criteria: 1. The people in the countries concerned did not give their consent, and many governments elected on anti-austerity programmes bend to the will of the Troika once they are in power; 2. This debt is not favourable to the people, on the contrary, it is linked to violations of their economic, social, and civil rights (reductions in social services and wages, large scale lay-offs, difficulty in gaining access to health services and education, repeal of collective bargaining agreements, disregard for the democratic choices made by electors, legislative power that bows down to the executive); 3. The creditors (the Troika and bankers), know perfectly well that the loans they advance are not in the interest of the people, because they are made in order to pay off the debt and in exchange for drastic austerity measures. It is the Troika itself that imposes these violations of human rights and dictates its conditions to governments and parliaments of indebted countries.

As for the governments that have come into power since 2011 after the dictators Ben Ali and Mubarak, they have themselves taken on new debt, which is much more to the advantage of the creditors than to the people. This is done to pay back the odious debts inherited from the previous dictatorial regimes and to pursue policies weakening their countries. Therefore, this new debt is also odious.

Tunisia and Egypt are currently negotiating new arrangements with the IMF. |4| This is a fruitless process. If these loans are granted, they will be illegitimate for at least two reasons: they will be used to continue making repayments on inherited odious debt, and they will be linked to policies that are contrary to the interests of the people in these countries.

Other elements that may make a debt illegitimate

On the one hand, the debt may be the consequence of unjust fiscal policies. In real terms, states accord fiscal advantages to big (national and international) companies and the wealthiest households, this reduces tax revenues and deepens public budget deficits. These practices increase public debt, because the governments must again borrow in order to finance their budget. Debt taken on in these conditions is illegitimate to begin with because it is socially unjust.

On the other hand, it may derive from bank bail-outs. Since 2007, governments of the most industrialised countries have flown to the assistance of private banks, that are responsible for the crisis, injecting billions of euros into their capital and/or providing other guarantees. Any debt taken on to finance these bail-outs is equally illegitimate.

Creditors and governments maintain that debt must always be repaid without questioning its origins, even if they are illegitimate. Then they justify the imposition of anti-social austerity policies by insisting on the effort necessary to balance the budget. It is within this context that a growing percentage of the people in Mediterranean countries (and beyond) are rejecting the repayment of illegitimate debt. In some countries (Tunisia, Greece, Portugal, Spain, and France) citizens audits have been called for in order to identify the illegitimate part of public debt. They are seeking to establish how, why, and by whom the debt was taken on, and if it has really been used in the interest of the people. These citizens audit committees are seeking to convince as many people as possible that illegitimate debt must be repudiated.

Saying “NO” to the Creditors

It is possible and necessary to defy the International Financial Institutions and the Troika, to refuse the diktats of the private creditors in order to create leeway for improving the situation of a country and its people. As we can see in the following examples of several countries that have dared to say “No” to their creditors, it is worth being adamant.

Argentina’s suspension of debt repayments

At the end of December 2001, after three years of economic recession (1999 – 2001) and pressure from a massive popular rebellion that caused the fall of President De La Rua, Argentina decided to suspend payments, amounting to about $90 billion. This represented an important portion of its commercial debt.

Part of the money freed up was reinvested in the social sector, particularly in benefits paid to unemployed ’Piqueteros’. Some would claim that the real reason why Argentina recovered as of 2003-2004 is only because of the increase in the prices of its exports.

This affirmation is, however, false, because if Argentina had not suspended its debt repayments, the revenue from exports would have been swallowed up by them. The government would not have had the means necessary to stimulate economic activity. In addition, thanks to this suspension of payments that lasted until March 2005, Argentina was able to impose a 50% reduction of this debt on its creditors.

The CADTM, as well as numerous social movements and leftist parties proposed to Argentina to abolish, not only the debt that concerned private creditors, but also the IMF and other public creditors. The Argentine government did not follow this recommendation.

It is important to note that Argentina has also suspended payment of $6.5 billion to the Paris Club since 2001. So we see that twelve years later Argentina is still holding out against the Paris Club. In spite of the 44 law suits brought before the World Bank and recent threats of expulsion from the IMF, Buenos Aires maintains its position. Argentina has not borrowed on the financial markets since 2001, but the country continues to function!

The Argentine experience must not be misinterpreted. It is not to be taken as an example, and we always need to adopt a frankly critical point of view. The Argentine government has maintained Argentina within the bounds of capitalism, no structural reforms have been undertaken, Argentine economic growth is largely based on the extraction and the exportation of primary products (genetically modified soya beans, ores,…). Nevertheless, what Argentina has demonstrated is that saying “No” to the creditors is possible. Elsewhere, an authentic left-wing government could go much further on the basis of this precedent.

Ecuador: audit and suspension of payment

Ecuador gives us another example. In July 2007, seven months after his election, the Ecuadorian President Raphael Correa decided to instigate an audit of the country’s debt and the conditions in which it was contracted. An audit commission, made up of 18 experts including the CADTM, was created for this purpose. Its final report was presented after 14 months of investigation. It showed in particular that numerous loans had been contracted in violation of basic rules. In November 2008, the new administration, on the basis of this report decided to suspend the repayment of bonds payable in 2012 and 2030. Finally, the government of this small country came out on top in the tussle with North American bankers and those holding Ecuadorian securities. It repurchased bonds for less than $1 billion, which had a nominal value of $3.2 billion. Public finance thus saved $2.2 billion dollars of debt stock to which must be added $200 million a year (between 2008 and 2030) in interest payments. This allowed the government to allocate more means to social projects in health, education, social assistance, and communication infrastructure development. The Ecuadorian constitution now prohibits private debt from being transformed into public debt and illegitimate debt from being contracted. |5|

In addition, Ecuador no longer recognises the World Bank’s jurisdiction in international disputes court. It has rejected free trade treaty propositions from the US and UE. The Ecuadorian President has announced his intention to audit the current bi-lateral investment treaties. Finally, the Quito authorities have put an end to the US military presence on its territory.

In the case of Ecuador, we must again be careful not to hold up this ongoing experience as a model to be emulated. Critical analysis remains indispensable. Nonetheless, the Ecuadorian audit and unilateral suspension of payments experience shows that saying “No” to creditors is perfectly possible, and there are advantages to be gained in terms of making more means available for public health, education, and other sectors.

Iceland’: refusal to pay the demands made by the Netherlands and the UK

After its banking system collapsed in 2008, Iceland refused to compensate the British and Dutch savers who had put deposits amounting to €3.9 billion into subsidiaries of Iceland’s failed private banks. The British and Dutch authorities covered the losses to their citizens and presented the bill to Iceland. Under popular pressure (demonstrations, occupations, and referendums), the Reykjavik authorities refused to pay. Britain put Iceland on its terrorist list, froze its assets and, in conjunction with the Netherlands, sued Iceland the EFTA court. |6| Meanwhile, Iceland has completely blocked the outflow of capital. In the end, Iceland is faring better than the other European countries that accepted the conditions imposed by creditors. Here again we must not present Iceland as a model to be imitated, but learn from its experience.

These examples demonstrate that saying “NO” to creditors leads neither to catastrophe nor to the collapse of a country.

We must also recall that these experiences were preceded or accompanied by a popular movement that put pressure on the governments concerned. It is therefore important, as Eric Toussaint reminded us, that knowledge of this at times, complex question must conveyed to the whole of the population. The task of a public audit is to raise public awareness. The illegitimacy of public debt must become visible to the majority of people.

To conclude this workshop, Eric Toussaint repeated that the above examples are not to be taken to as political models to be followed, but that these experiences are a source of important political lessons!

Translation : Mike Krolikowski and Charles La Via

 

Footnotes

|1| See Pauline Imbach, “Tunis: Birth of a Common Front of Political Organisations Against Debt”,http://cadtm.org/Tunis-Birth-of-a-C…, published 25 March 2013.

|2| See Eric Toussaint, “Remembering Ahmed Ben Bella, first President of independent Algeria who passed away on the 11th April, 2012 at 96”, http://cadtm.org/Remembering-Ahmed-…, 12 April 2012.

|3| See CADTM, http://cadtm.org/Droits-devant, and in particular Stéphanie Jacquemont, “Que retenir du rapport de l’expert de l’ONU sur la dette et les droits humains ?”, http://cadtm.org/Que-retenir-du-rap… , 25 January 2013 (articles in French only).

|4http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/…

|5| See Eric Toussaint, “La Constitution équatorienne : un modèle en matière d’endettement public”,http://cadtm.org/La-constitution-eq… , 27 December, 2010 (in French only).

|6| The EFTA (European Free Trade Association) court, which is in no way a progressive organisation, has judged in favour of Iceland’s position. See CADTM, “EFTA court dismisses ’Icesave’ claims against Iceland and its people”, http://cadtm.org/EFTA-court-dismiss…, 29 January 2013.

Mar 202013
 

By Renaud Vivien and Cécile Lamarque, CADTM

2012-10-10_debt_03

There are several legal arguments on which a suspension, or even a cancellation, of repayment of public debts can be based. In order to establish the invalidity of a loan agreement it is necessary to take into account not only the dispositions of the agreement but also the circumstances in which it was signed and the actual use of the borrowed money |1|. It will obviously be necessary to audit the debt to shed light on those various elements. Governments that wish to reduce their debts can use arguments from public international law, among which are those appearing below, in order to find legal grounds for cancellation/repudiation of part of their public debt |2|.
Defects of consent

The 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties and the 1989 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties between States and International Organizations point to various defects of consent that can result in the loan agreement being void, among which are included:

absence of competence in a contracting party |3|. For instance, this violation was the legal motivation for Paraguay repudiating a debt amounting to USD 85 million in 2005. Indeed the Consul of Paraguay in Geneva who had signed the loan in the name of its government had no legal power to contract a loan with the private bank Overland Trust Bank |4| ;

direct or indirect corruption of a contracting party during negotiations |5|. An example could be contracts signed between Greece and the TNC Siemens, which has been charged by the German and Greek justice with paying Greek political, military and administrative officers commissions and bribes amounting to about one billion euro ;

coercion |6| through acts or threats of a contracting party. Coercion was used by the French in 1824 to force Haiti to pay a colossal ransom for the recognition of its independence. To this end thirteen French vessels with 494 cannons surrounded the island’s coasts with clear instructions: in case of refusal ports were to be closed by force. Coercion also raises the issue of a political balance of power that is favourable to creditors. Indeed when there is a lack of balance beteween the contracting parties, debtors’ freedom to negotiate is restrained, while creditors can have their way. This is how in 2010 the Greek government was under the pressure of the French and German authorities that wanted to guarantee their arms exports. The military-industria lobby managed to maintain an almost intact defence budget while the PASOK government agreed to major cuts in social expenditure ;

fraud |7|. If a State was led to contract a loan through the fraudulent conduct of another State or of an international organization that participated in the negotiations, it can point to fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the said contract. We can describe as fraudulent the acts of the IMF and of the World Bank considering the abyssal gap between their discourse and reality. Indeed in article 1 of its statutes the IMF defines one of its main purposes as to facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade, and to contribute thereby to the promotion and maintenance of high levels of employment and real income and to the development of the productive resources of all members as primary objectives of economic policy |8|. In fact this institution, in coordination with the WB, does exactly the opposite and thus violates its own statutes. Unemployment steadily increases as a consequence of implementing measures that were recommended by the IMF and/or the WB. We can also notice a frequent diminution in the incomes of wage earners, small producers and the lower middle class. Not to mention widening social discrepencies in most countries where these institutions have been active |9|.

Illicit or immoral cause of the contract

This legal ground can be found in the civil or commercial national law of several countries. Among the illicit or immoral causes invalidating a loan contract we find:

the acquisition of military equipment. Article 26 of the 1945 Charter of the United Nations specifies that States have to regulate arms trade and limit to a minimum the resources they dedicate to military expenditure. Now we know that military expenditure increases globally year after year in violation of the UN Charter;

tied aid. Confronted as they were with massive recession and unemployment in the 1970s, rich countries decided to give purchasing power to the countries of the South so as to prompt them to buy goods produced in the North by granting them state to state loans, often in the form of export credits: this is called tied aid. For the borrowing countries it results in a significant increase in the cost of purchased goods and services and higher levels of indebtedness. According to a survey by the WB, from 1962 to 1987 African countries paid more for imported steel products than industrialized countries (up to 23 % more in the case of France ). This practice is all the more illegitimate as in most cases those tied loans do not meet the actual needs of the country but the commercial interests of the creditor. This motivated Norway to unilaterally and unconditionally cancel the debts of five countries, namely Ecuador, Egypt, Jamaica, Peru, and Sierra Leone in 2006 ;

The example of Norway

On 2 October 2006, during a press conference in Oslo, the Norwegian minister for international development, Erik Solheim, announced the unilateral and unconditional cancellation of debts owed by the five following countries: Ecuador, Egypt, Jamaica, Peru, and Sierra Leone, thus ackowledging Norway’s responsibility in their illegitimate debt. These cancellations amounted to about USD 80 million |10|. The decision was motivated by the fact that ‘the claims derived from a failed development project – the Ship Export Campaign of the late 70’s’: This campaign represented a development policy failure. As a creditor country Norway has a shared responsibility for the debts that followed. In cancelling these claims Norway takes the responsibility for allowing these five countries to terminate their remaining repayments on these debts |11|. For the first time in history, a country of the North admitted to being responsible for inadequate loan policy and took measures to remedy what had occurred. The decision represented a break with today’s tacit consensus within the Paris Club. Norway’s move is a significant step towards the recognition of creditors’ responsibility in the process of illegitimate debts. │

financing conditioned to structural adjustment. As claimed by special rapporteur Mohammed Bedjaoui in his draft article on succession in respect of State debts for the 1983 Vienna Convention: From the standpoint of the international community, an odious debt could be taken to mean any debt contracted for purposes that are not in conformity with contemporary international law and, in particular, the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations |12|. In this respect multilateral debts contracted in the context of structural adjustments are odious and therefore illicit debts since the damaging nature of such policies has been abundantly shown, notably by UN bodies. Conditionalities atached to these debts manifestly violate various texts on protection of human rights. Surrender of the sovereignty of States is further aggravated by dispositions in most international loan contracts that stipulate that jurisdictions in the North are competent and that rules favourable to creditors have to be applied in case of dispute among contracting parties. In Ecuador the Commission of integral audit of public debt (CAIC) highlighted that the enforcement of policies by the World Bank and other multilateral institutions via programmes they have financed and conditionalities attached to loans means denying state soveneighty and interfering into its internal affairs. Many multilateral loans also violate economic, social and cultural rights. In its recommendations the CAIC proposes to stop paying several debts cliamed by multilateral institutions ;

projects that are either unprofitable or detrimental to populations or to the environment. Included amongst these projects are « white elephants », such as the Inga dam in the DRC (ex-Zaïre) which has been of no benefit to the population whatsoever: to date, less than 10 % of the Congolese population has access to electricity. Examples of debt generating projects are equally common in the north. We can cite the scandal of the 2004 Olympic games in Greece, to name but one. Although the Hellenic authorities foresaw expenditure in the range of 1.3 billion dollars, the cost of these games in fact exceeded 20 billion dollars ;

private debt transformed into public debt. The financial crises which occured during the 90s in south east Asia, Equador, Argentina, Brazil and Russia originated from measures extolled by the World Bank and the IMF, who impose the deregulation of the financial system and the prohibition of State control of the movement of capital. The result is that as a consequence of the reduction in the profits perspective, foreign capital has fled from these countries, causing a chain reaction of bankruptcy of banks. The debts of these private banks then became the public debts of States under the impetus of those responsible for these crises: the World Bank and the IMF. The world crisis, which erupted in 2007, aggravated the situation with regard to public finances and accrued the level of public debt (mainly in the north), so that banks in the north intervened in order to save the banks that had gone into bankruptcy. The cause of this public indebtedness in the south and in the north (linked to the nationalisation of debts in the financial sector) is, at the very least, immoral, given that those directly responsible for these crises are international financial institutions and private banks. The staggering increase of this public debt is also the result of neoliberal politics practiced during the 80s and 90s, the main characteristics of which were to reduce the taxes of the rich and of large companies. The State revenue was no longer sufficient and it was necessary to resort to public debt in order to finance the State’s expenditure. In Equador the CAIC condemned the transfer of private debts to the State, which occured in 1983 and 1984 under pressure from the IMF and the World Bank, while the country was crippled by a severe financial crisis. After this operation, which was extremely damaging to the nation, was made public, the new Constitution of Equador, adopted in September 2008, expressly forbade the transformation of private debts into State debts ;

the repayment of old illegal loans. According to the judicial argument regarding continuity of an offence, an illicit debt does not cease to be illegal following a renegotiation or restructuration process. To this effect, it retains its original vice and the offence lasts through time. Consequently, all public loans aimed at repaying old illegal debts are themselves illicit. The debt audit will allow light to be shed on the original illegal debt. For example, the argument of continuity of an offence has been used by the Audit commission in Equador (CAIC) to denounce the numerous irregularities (since the socialisation of private debts, of the Brady Plan |13| and of the restructuration of debts… |14|) which has led to the issuing of bonds for the commercial debt. Based on the audit results, the Equadorian authorities refused to pay this commercial debt to private international banks (« Global 2012 and 2030 » bonds). In June 2009, after a showdown with the bankers who held the titles of the Equadorian debt, the holders of 91% of the bonds in question accepted their repurchase by Equador at a reduction of 65% of the nominal value;

the repayment of debts already paid. The obligation of a state to honor its debts is notably limited by broad legal principles, such as equity, good faith, abuse of rights or the accumulation of wealth without cause. Yet the debts of developing countries have been repaid several times over: according to the statistics provided by the World Bank, the governments of developing countries have already repaid the equivalent of 98 times of what they owed in 1970, but in the meantime their debt has been multiplied 32 times. This implies that developing countries have the right to repudiate their debt and reclaim what has been unduly taken by their debtors, on the basis that they have been accumulating wealth without cause. This is also the stance taken by several national civil codes: the Argentinian civil code in articles 784 and those following, the Spanish civil code in articles 1895 and those following, the French civil code in articles 1376 and those following. Developing countries, but also countries in the north, are trapped in a vicious circle in which they borrow each year in order to be able to meet their repayments. This situation is namely the consequence of the brutal and unilateral increase in interest rates by the United States in 1979, the application of usurious interest rates or of the capitalisation of interest (anatocism), which is moreover prohibited or strictly controlled in several national judicial orders, for example in Équador, France, Italy, Germany…

Illicit use of lent money

The destination of borrowed funds is a determining factor when it comes to deciding on the legality of a debt. For this it is necessary to examine the nature of the lending regime, its behavior in terms of human rights, as well as the actual allocation of these funds. To this effect the following cases are deemed to be illegal:

 debt born of colonialisation. During the 50s and 60s the World Bank granted several loans to colonial metropolis nations, such as Belgium, France, Portugal and Great Britain, for projects that permitted them to maximize the exploitation of their colonies. The majority of these debts of colonial power issued by the World Bank were subsequently transferred to the ex colonies at the moment of their independence in the 60s, without their consent. Yet these debts arising from colonialization are void in the eyes of international public law. The Treaty of Versailles of 1919 states in article 255 that Poland is exonerated from paying « the fraction of the debt of which the Reparation Commission attributes the origin to measures taken by the German and Prussian governments for German colonialization of Poland ». A similar stance was taken in the 1947 peace treaty between Italy and France, which declares « inconceivable that Ethiopia should take on the burden of debts contracted by Italy in order to assure her domination of the Ethiopian territory ». Article 16 of the Vienna Convention of 1978 which governs the law of the Treaties does not say anything different : « A newly independent state is not under obligation to maintain a valid treaty nor to be party to it merely because on the date of succession of States the treaty was valid with regard to territory referred to in the succession of States» ;

 loans granted to dictatorships. The dictatorial nature of a regime under which a debt has been contracted allows its repayment to be challenged, even if the State representative who has concluded the loan had the competence to do so, by virtue of internal state law. In effect, in international law, debts contracted under dictatorships take on the qualification « odious debt », according to the doctrine of the same name written by Alexander Sack in 1927 : « If a despotic power contracts a debt not for the needs and in the interests of the State, but in order to strengthen his despotic regime, to repress the population combatting it, etc, that debt is odious for the population of the entire state […]. This debt is not obligatory for the nation, it is a regime debt, a personal debt of the power that has contracted it, consequently it falls along with the fall of this power ». Alexander Sack adds that when the creditors of such debts are aware of the cause they are lending for, they « have committed a hostile act towards the people ; they cannot therefore assume that a nation liberated from a despotic power will take on the « odious » debts that are the personal debts of this power |15| ». The doctrine of the odious debt therefore gives scope for invalidating several loans such as those contracted by dictatorships in Latin America from the 60s to the 80s, in Africa, with the emblematic case of Mobuto’s Zaire (1965-1997), by former Soviet bloc regimes such as the dictatorship of Nicolae Ceaucescu in Roumania, the dictatorships of South East Asia and the Far East (Ferdinand Marcos from 1972 to 1986 in the Philippines, Mohamed Suharto from 1965 to 1998 in Indonesia, dictatorial regimes in South Korea between 1961 and 1981, in Thailand between 1966 and 1988), the military junta in Greece from 1967 to 1974, the dictatorships in North Africa which fell at the beginning of 2011, such as that of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia (1987-2011) and Hosni Moubarak in Egypt (1981-2011). Commenting on this doctrine of odious debt, legal counsellors of the First National Bank of Chicago point out that « the consequences for the loan agreements of a change of sovereignty partly depend on the use of the funds by the former State. If the predecessor’s debt has been qualified as « odious », in other words, if the funds have been used against the population, the successor cannot be made responsible for the debt » and adds that « commercial banks have to be on their guard about this doctrine [...] because succeeding governments have invoked doctrines based on the « odious » or « hostile » use of funds. The lenders should describe in detail the use to which the lent funds shall be put and, as far as possible, involve the beneficiary in the representation, guarantee and surveillance of the use of said funds |16| » ;

 loans to supposedly “democratic” regimes which violate jus cogens . All debt contracted by governments violating the imperative norms of international law as per jus cogens are also null and void, without it being necessary to prove that the creditors intended to become complicit in the exactions of these regimes. This assertion is upheld by the Vienna Convention on the 1969 Law of Treaties, which, in its Article 53, provides for the nullity of acts contravening jus cogens, bringing together, amongst others, the following norms: the prohibition of waging aggressive war, the prohibition of practicing torture, the prohibition of committing crimes against humanity, and the right of peoples to self-determination. As such, any loan granted to a regime that does not respect the fundamental principles of international law, whether democratically elected or not, is null. For example, we can cite the regime of Apartheid in South Africa or the Israeli Government. In this case, the destination of the loan is not requisite in classifying the debt;

loans misused with the complicity of the creditors. The Odious Debt Doctrine also touches on this category: “loans incurred by members of the government or by persons or groups associated with the government to serve interests manifestly personal — interests that are unrelated to the interests of the State.” Indeed, “debts must be contracted and the ensuing funds must be used for the needs and in the interests of the State.” In order to illustrate this aspect of the doctrine, we can cite the arbitral award handed down in 1923 in a case between the United Kingdom and Costa Rica. In 1922, Costa Rica enacted a law annulling all contracts passed by the former dictator Federico Tinoco between 1917 and 1919, and thus refused to honor the debt that it had contracted from the Royal Bank of Canada. This was therefore a case in which the doctrine was applied to a commercial debt. The ensuing dispute between the UK and Costa Rica was arbitrated by the President of the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice William Howard Taft, who declared that the decision of the Government of Costa Rica was valid, highlighting: “The case of the Royal Bank depends not on the mere form of the transaction but upon the good faith of the bank in the payment of money for the real use of the Costa Rican Government under the Tinoco regime. It must make out its case of actual furnishing of money to the government for its legitimate use. It has not done so. More recently, the CAIC in Ecuador demonstrated that certain loans had been deviated from their original “development” aims. Indeed, three loans from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), which were supposedly intended to benefit the agricultural, financial and transport sectors, were partially used to purchase Brady Bonds.

For unilateral action against illegitimate debt

There is no absolute obligation to repay debts under international law. By contrast, international law does require state authorities to protect human rights as a priority. Given the burden of sovereign debt and the impact of austerity measures on the populations of the Global North and South, governments must use their right to unilaterally suspend the repayment of their national debt, following the example of Argentina (in 2001), and Ecuador (in 2008); the latter having done so partially. During this period of debt-payment suspension (with a freeze on interest rates), it would be in the interest of these governments to audit their sovereign debt, both internally and externally, in order to identify any irregularities tarnishing loan contracts. They can then call upon the provisions of public international law (amongst others) in order to unilaterally declare the nullity of any illicit debts, as Paraguay did recently, in 2005. This example is not an isolated case. Throughout history, many governments have refused to repay debts inherited from preceding regimes, arguing that this debt was only bound to the regime in question, and not to the State |17|.

These unilateral actions do not contravene international law, as the sovereign decision to annul/repudiate debt does, indeed, come under the category of unilateral actions, which are sources of international law and can be used against creditors |18|. The CADTM is, of course, in favour of this type of unilateral action to protect human rights.

In this respect, initiating international arbitration on debt is not desirable. Indeed, this mechanism can only be fair and effective if human rights take precedent over creditors and if the people are not confined to the simple role of “witness”. However, the current political balance of power in favour of creditors threatens being detrimental to the peoples of the Global South and North. The rules of procedure underpinning arbitration and subsequent rulings are the result of negotiations between creditors and debtors. In this context, the legal notions that we have put forward would certainly not be accepted by the majority of creditors. We will, of course, recall the hostility of the World Bank toward the Odious Debt Doctrine in its report published in September 2007, entitled “Odious Debt: Some Considerations |19|.” The same is true for other legal arguments such as the unfounded accumulation of wealth, wilful misrepresentation, the misuse of powers, equity, good faith, etc.

Beyond the controversy over the notions of “odious debt” and “illegitimate debt,” the quasi-general hostility of creditors toward establishing a link between debt and human rights should be noted. Here we can refer to an interview with the current UN Independent Expert on Foreign Sovereign Debt, held in 2009: “the States of the North believe that the debt problem is in no way related to human rights, that it is purely economic, and that it should therefore be dealt with outside of the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly […] The opinions of the officials of the World Bank with whom I have consulted differ on this matter. Some categorically refute a human-rights-based approach in order to only consider the economic aspects of debt |20|.”

Therefore, if an arbitration action were to be initiated, the people would certainly be the losing party. This is because, on the one hand, the ensuing ruling would risk legitimising debts classified as “odious” and “illegitimate” by the social movements or governments that had identified them as such via an audit. The government of the indebted country would then be bound by the ruling and thus have to repay these debts to the detriment of the fundamental needs of its population. On the other hand, these rulings would constitute international jurisprudence, which would serve as a source of inspiration when ruling on future actions. When applied in this way, to the benefit of creditors owing to the current political balance of power, these rules would not favour “responsible” lending policies.

For all of these reasons, it would therefore be in the interest of these governments to take immediate, unilateral action on debt. This aligns with the example of the jurists in attendance at the 1st International Conference of Jurists held in Quito in 2008: “We support the sovereign actions of States which, on legal grounds, declare the nullity of illicit and illegal national debt instruments and with it the suspension of payments. |21|” The classification used (“illicit debt” or “illegitimate debt”) is of little relevance, we call on all borrowing governments, and also lending governments, to repudiate/annul all debts and austerity policies that are not in the interests of the population.

This is why the CADTM is also encouraging legislative initiatives and referendums against laws, regulations or agreements that are contrary to popular sovereignty or the respect of fundamental rights, whether these are currently in force or under negotiation. Public consultations on the non-repayment of a debt, similar to the referendum held in Iceland on the “Icesave” Act , are another example of the mechanisms that must be promoted and of which the results must be heeded by state authorities |22|.

 

Footnotes

|1| The consequences of re paying debts on human rights can be called upon to suspend repaying debts up to declaring some debts void.

|2| We must be aware that States can also use their own (public and private) law, which is not discussed here.

|3| Article 46 of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions.

|4| See Hugo Ruiz Diaz, ‘La dette du Paraguay auprès des banquiers privés : un cas de dette odieuse,’ 2nd section in ‘L’audit citoyen de la dette : un instrument de démocratisation des relations économiques et de contrôle démocratique des actes des gouvernements,’ http://www.cadtm.org/L-audit-citoye…
Article 50 of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions.

|5| Article 50 of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions.

|6| Article 51 of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions. Article 52

|7| Article 49 of the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions.

|8| See http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft…

|9| Éric Toussaint, The World Bank, a never ending coup d’état, VAK, Mumbai, 2007

|10| Contrary to current practice, this has fortunately not been included in the accounts of the Aid to Public Development (APD).

|11| See article, ‘Why Norway took Creditor Responsibility – the case of the Ship Export campaign’, written by Kjetil G. Abildsnes, March 2007. www.forumfor.no/noop/file.ph…

|12| Mohammed Bedjaoui, Ninth report on succession in matters other than treaties, Definition of an odious debt, 129, http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/document….

|13| In May 1989 the United States renouced the Baker plan (the call to private banks to finance only « well reputed » countries, to the advantage of the Brady plan which consists of reducing the debt, namely by creating parallel guarantees, and by applying tax relief on debts on the secondary market.

|14| These irregularities and illegitimacies have been underlined in the report presented by the sub commission of the commercial debt of the CAIC. See the CAIC website: www.auditoriadeuda.org.ec.

|15| Alexander Nahum Sack, Les Effets des Transformations des États sur leurs dettes publiques et autres obligations financières, Recueil Sirey, 1927.

|16| CAIC, Informe juridico, p. 191, available on the CAIC website
, www.auditoriadeuda.org.ec.

|17| CADTM, “Topicality of the Odious Debt Doctrine”, 2008, http://cadtm.org/Topicality-of-the-…

|18| Hugo Ruiz Diaz, “The Sovereign Decision to Declare Debt Null”, 2008, http://www.cadtm.org/La-decision-so… (Available in French only)

|19| See: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/…. This report, largely botched, biased and condescending toward organisations acting for fair solutions to debt, sparked strong reactions.

|20| Renaud Vivien, “Interview with the UN Independent Expert on Foreign Debt: “I encourage all States to carry out debt audits””, http://www.cadtm.org/Entretien-avec… (Available in French and Spanish only)

|21| Conclusions of the 1st International Conference of Jurists, Quito, 8-9 July 2008, http://www.cadtm.org/Conclusions-de…. (Available in French and Spanish only)

|22| For information on the legal aspects of public consultation, read Alejandro Teitelbaum, “International, Regional, Subregional and Bilateral Free Trade Agreements”, CETIM Report No. 7, 2010, p. 24, http://www.cetim.ch/en/documents/re…

Translation: Christine Pagnoulle, Ümit Hussein and Matt Jenkins

SOURCE @ http://cadtm.org/How-debts-can-legally-be-declared

Mar 262012
 

 

* WHY DO WE PROTEST THE NATO SUMMIT?

By Buddy Bell, Truthout

After the end of World War II, a group of nations in the north Atlantic established NATO to impede Russian influence over the reconstruction of Europe and to facilitate their own. The economic blueprint begun under the Marshall Plan and continued with NATO saw European member countries shift their energy dependency from coal to oil at a time when the U.S. was the world’s leading oil producer, supplying more than a third of worldwide production from within its own (today, greatly oil-depleted) borders. A couple of decades earlier, the U.S. had already wrested from Britain effective control over vast petroleum reserves in Venezuela. This arrangement ensured that U.S. oil companies stood to make a fortune, setting a high price to fulfill Western Europe’s manufactured demand.

After the Cold War ended, the U.S. rebranded NATO and extended its mandate as a defender of liberty in regions beyond the north Atlantic. Seeing military action as a suitable solution to various global conflicts, it has had the effect of sowing discord and violence instead of alleviating these problems.

In Kosovo, NATO claimed that bombing the countryside would stop Yugoslav forces from invading homes and practicing summary executions of the Kosovars. Instead, Belgrade’s atrocities at ground level “kicked into high gear,” as was widely predicted by international aid workers, described in the Washington Post as “the only remaining brake on Yugoslav troops” and who were forced to leave their host villages when NATO commenced aerial bombing. Two years later, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia would issue an indictment against Slobodan Milosevic on 17 Kosovo-related war crimes, 16 of which happened after NATO’s entry into the conflict. […]

READ @ http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/8079-why-do-we-protest-the-nato-summit?

—————————————————————–

* SOLIDARITY VERSUS AUSTERITY: A REPORT FROM THE GREECE SOLIDARITY DELEGATION

Tansy Hoskins reports on her experiences on the trade union solidarity delegation to Greece organised by the Coalition of Resistance and the People’s Charter.

By Tansy Hoskins, Coalition of Resistance

Athens is a city of lit fuses. Graffiti covers buildings, pavements and statues like an angry rash. Burnt out and boarded up buildings are dotted around the city. Tension is palpable as people await the next demonstration, the next riot and the elections in April.

However, the crisis in Greece has gone beyond something that an election or a riot can resolve. It runs deeper than the question of who should sit in parliament, of how the debt should be paid off, or if it should be repaid at all. The crisis is now about the very fabric of society, of who should have control and for whose benefit society is run.

The 45,000 homeless people in Athens – many of whom spent a frozen winter sleeping in caves – are testimony to the total failure of capitalism to provide a decent standard of living. The loss of healthcare and unaffordable food prices means people are literally struggling to stay alive.

At the same time Athens still has its luxury shops, hotels and restaurants. There are multi-national corporations feasting on whatever the parliament decides to add to its corrupt garage sale of national assets.

But amongst the chaos and the poverty – and abandoned by traditional power structures – people have been taking control of their lives and communities. They face the huge opposition of international capital and all its manifestations but they have no choice – it is do or die.[…]

READ @ http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/2012/03/solidarity-versus-austerity-a-report-from-the-greece-solidarity-delegation/

—————————————————————–

* ABOUT BOROUME

Source: Boroume

“WE CAN”

“Boroume” or  “We Can”, is a voluntary initiative  that fights food waste and that coordinates the daily donation of surplus food to orphanages, soup kitchens, old age homes and other welfare institutions. Seeing the paradox that 1 in 11 citizens in the Attica region are struggling to secure enough food to feed themselves whilst at the same time tonnes of  good food is being thrown away everyday by restaurants, hotels, bakeries  and other food points, we decided to do something about it.

How we work

We work closely with welfare institutions, social workers in municipalities  and soup kitchens all over Greece in order to learn about their daily needs.  Everday we ensure that food from eateries, bakeries, fast food shops, restaurants and other companies gets donated to the above organisations. We do not stock or transport food, but make sure that it gets picked up directly by those who need it most. Our aim is for the food to be donated within the same neighborhood in order to strengthen the ties between people living in the same area.

In addition to the above:

  • we assist companies that want to donate food in  Corporate Social Responsibility programmes
  • we give personal advice to people who are in need of food and help them secure food on a daily basis
  • we hold food drives in schools
  • we work with hotels in the Attica region to help provide welfare institutions with necessary equipment as well as food […]

READ @ http://www.boroume.gr/english/

—————————————————————–

* COLLECTIVE KITCHEN – ATHENS, GREECE

Source: EL CHEF

This is a video of direct action by El Chef the Che Gourmet and stands as a shining example of how a few people can make a positive difference when they take their power and use it to empower the community.

READ @ http://tinyurl.com/6tqg73j

—————————————————————–

* MONSANTO, A HALF-CENTURY OF HEALTH SCANDALS

By Soren Seelow, Le Monde

Original article published in Le Monde - Translation by Siv O’Neall, Axis of Logic

The giant U.S. agribusiness Monsanto was found guilty on Monday Feb. 13, after being sued by a small farmer from Charente who had been poisoned by a herbicide. This event is a first in France. On the scale of the history of the one-hundred-year-old multinational, this sentence constitutes just one more episode in an already long record of court procedures.

PCBs, Agent Orange, dioxin, GMO, Aspartame, growth hormones, herbicides (Lasso and Roundup) … a number of products that have made the fortune of Monsanto, have been marred by health scandals and trials sometimes leading to their prohibition. But nothing has so far hindered the irresistible rise of this former chemical giant who converted back to biogenetics and has mastered the art of lobbying. Portrait of a multinational multi-recidivist. […]

READhttp://www.opednews.com/populum/printer_friendly.php?content=a&id=147725

—————————————————————–

* THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MONSANTO – FULL LENGTH FILM

There’s nothing they are leaving untouched: the mustard, the okra, the bringe oil, the rice, the cauliflower. Once they have established the norm: that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected. We will depend on them for every seed we grow of every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food, they know it — it’s strategic. It’s more powerful than bombs. It’s more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world. The story starts in the White House, where Monsanto often got its way by exerting disproportionate influence over policymakers via the “revolving door”. One example is Michael Taylor, who worked for Monsanto as an attorney before being appointed as deputy commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. While at the FDA, the authority that deals with all US food approvals, Taylor made crucial decisions that led to the approval of GE foods and crops. Then he returned to Monsanto, becoming the company’s vice president for public policy.

Thanks to these intimate links between Monsanto and government agencies, the US adopted GE foods and crops without proper testing, without consumer labeling and in spite of serious questions hanging over their safety. Not coincidentally, Monsanto supplies 90 percent of the GE seeds used by the US market. Monsanto’s long arm stretched so far that, in the early nineties, the US Food and Drugs Agency even ignored warnings of their own scientists, who were cautioning that GE crops could cause negative health effects. Other tactics the company uses to stifle concerns about their products include misleading advertising, bribery and concealing scientific evidence.

VIDEO @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml_k005tsU

—————————————————————–

* TOKYO SOIL SAMPLES WOULD BE CONSIDERED NUCLEAR WASTE IN THE US

By Fairewinds Energy Education

VIDEO @ http://vimeo.com/38995781

—————————————————————–

* ARE THE GOP JUSTICES POLITICAL HACKS?

By Robert Parry, Consortiumnews

[…] For instance, in a Nov. 8, 2011, legal opinion affirming the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, conservative U.S. Appeals Court senior judge Laurence Silberman recognized this legal reality (even though he might not politically like “Obamacare”).

Silberman, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan but a serious constitutional scholar, explained how the law – including its most controversial feature, the individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance coverage – fits with the Commerce Clause.

“We look first to the text of the Constitution,” Silberman wrote in his opinion. “Article I, § 8, cl. 3, states: ‘The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.’ (Emphasis added by Silberman).

“At the time the Constitution was fashioned, to ‘regulate’ meant, as it does now, ‘[t]o adjust by rule or method,’ as well as ‘[t]o direct.’ To ‘direct,’ in turn, included ‘[t]o prescribe certain measure[s]; to mark out a certain course,’ and ‘[t]o order; to command.’

“In other words, to ‘regulate’ can mean to require action, and nothing in the definition appears to limit that power only to those already active in relation to an interstate market. Nor was the term ‘commerce’ limited to only existing commerce. There is therefore no textual support for appellants’ argument” that mandating the purchase of health insurance is unconstitutional.

Silberman’s last point bears repeating: There is “no textual support” in the Constitution for people challenging the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. […]

READ @ http://consortiumnews.com/2012/03/25/are-the-gop-justices-political-hacks/

—————————————————————–

* A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF WHAT LEGITIMATE AND NON-LEGITIMATE (ODIOUS) DEBT ARE

Source: youtube

Une vidéo très pédagogique sur la question de la dette publique, réalisée par Joris Clerté, Clémentine Autain, Cédric Durand, Razmig Keucheyan et Stéphane Lavignotte.

Translation and Subtitles by SnakeArbusto, it-just-keeps-getting-better

VIDEO @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPKkphMQSPo&context=C4c2a8b9ADvjVQa1PpcFMbHfiFoEU9wluGHxV9WYW9tWkkieLMUj8=