Responsibility for debts and the interest of the people

The volume of global debt recorded unprecedented levels, amounting to about 297 trillion dollars, equivalent to 353% of GDP, affected by the repercussions of the Corona pandemic, which is the highest level in its history, with an increase of about 36 trillion dollars over what it was before the pandemic. The Institute of International Finance expects it to exceed $300 trillion before the end of this year.

According to the institute’s report, the volume of emerging market debt increased at its fastest pace in the second quarter of this year, reaching about $92 trillion, while the debt of developed countries rose to $205 trillion, equivalent to 418 percent of its GDP. With the trend of central banks to ease monetary policies, the world faces a serious gap between global output and global debt, where the debt is 3.5 times the GDP. But the risks of this are linked to the wide disparity that occurs between the creditor and the debtor.

Poor countries are drowning in debts that may become sustainable, which makes them permissible for the creditor countries that will exercise forms of pressure and influence on them, to control their sovereign decision and resources. It is noted that about 62 of the middle- and low-income countries are under a debt burden of $ 691 billion.

Total debt servicing between 2021 and 2022 is estimated at $330 billion. With the exacerbation of consumer spending, away from development spending, and the accompanying deals and political corruption, the big difference between the types of contracted debts emerges.

A convincing theory, developed by the expert Alexandersak, indicates that if a despotic authority concludes a religion, not for the needs of the people or the interests of the state, but to strengthen its tyrannical regime and oppress its people, then this religion is considered “abhorrent” to the people of that state, and does not constitute an obligation on the nation, but rather “The debt of the system” means a personal debt to the authority that concluded it. To complement the application of this theory, Hanlon’s proposal, the UN Special Rapporteur on the issue of public debt, highlights four categories of debt that can be considered illegitimate, namely:

1- Unacceptable loans, which include “hateful” loans or those granted to corrupt officials, or allocated to projects that cannot be implemented.

2- Loans that include usurious interest rates and violate national laws.

3- Inappropriate loans and grants are more appropriate. 4 – Loans that carry terms contrary to public policies. Proceeding from the fact that debt is “odious” when there is a mixture of “abhorrent” system and “bad” use of debt that does not serve the public interest, “Sack” believes that the system has the right to repudiate any debt burdens entered into by its predecessor, in which three conditions are met. It is done without the consent of the residents, and that the purpose is to achieve private interests, and that the creditor is aware of the two preceding conditions when paying the loan money.

In this context, the efforts of a number of experts in several countries to expand the scope of “odious” debts to include all debts that accumulate and burden the public treasury as a result of opaque and opaque fiscal and monetary policies, and corrupt policy practices, tighten their grip on the country’s institutions and capabilities, and manage the rudder of governance with a non-national background. Since some studies call “obnoxious religion” the term “disgraceful religion,” it can be directly linked to the “disgraceful crime” in the concept of the Penal Code, and thus criminalize the creditor and consider him a partner and criminally responsible, and not only civil, for the damage resulting from the “disgraceful debt.” A Lebanese writer specializing in economic issues


Next Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *