Cancelling Third World Debt

[Josh]

Seems to be a big "justice" related topic these days, with many advocates from NT Wright to Bono. What do you think and why?

[Michael]

I'm the first and will probably be the only one to vote "NO." I know I'm just a big meanie, but let me turn the question around: "Do third world nations have a moral obligation to pay back what they contractually borrowed, whatever the source of the loan?" Or do these "poorer" nations borrow from the "richer" nations* COUNTING ON their debts eventually being forgiven?

Let me break this down to a micro-level: I am like the third world nation. I'm poor (by American standards), I'm WAY upside down on my mortgage, my house is rotting, and I can't afford to fix it up right now. I would be better off, in the short term at least (and maybe even the long term), to walk away from the house and go rent a house from someone else. But I signed a contract, I made a promise to repay, and I intend to keep it. I believe that I have a moral obligation under God to keep it!

It's time we start being responsible with our own obligations, on an individual, corporate, and national level, and holding others to the same standards. Whatever happened to honor?

Wow, does that sound like venting? The topic of honoring contractual obligations is a sensitive issue for me right now. I do think we would be better off GIVING money to trusted organizations directly doing work in the third world to actually help the people, rather than loaning money to generally corrupt third world governments. But that's better done on an individual and corporate level, not on a governmental level.

Thanks for letting me rant. I feel better now.

* I would argue that the United States is heading toward third-world status pretty quickly, unless we make some major changes soon, but that's for another post

[robin]

You make a good point Mike. As I read your post I was reminded of Leviticus 19:15.

'You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.

Personally I think that this principle applies on a large scale, as well as individual disputes. What we are discussing is justice, and I don't see why it would be just to forgive only the debt of poor nations, and not all nations.

I also consider this. The year of Jubilee was for all who were in debt, and not just the poor.

Leviticus 25:8-13
8 ‘And you shall count seven sabbaths of years for yourself, seven times seven years; and the time of the seven sabbaths of years shall be to you forty-nine years. 9 Then you shall cause the trumpet of the Jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement you shall make the trumpet to sound throughout all your land. 10 And you shall consecrate the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a Jubilee for you; and each of you shall return to his possession, and each of you shall return to his family. 11 That fiftieth year shall be a Jubilee to you; in it you shall neither sow nor reap what grows of its own accord, nor gather the grapes of your untended vine. 12 For it is the Jubilee; it shall be holy to you; you shall eat its produce from the field.
13 ‘In this Year of Jubilee, each of you shall return to his possession.

The forgiving of debt and returning of property was for all inhabitants, not only the poor.

[Josh]

This is good conversation. A touche to Mike. I don't know much about the topic, so this is helpful.

One rejoinder to the arguments you guys are making would be that the reason African nations are so screwed up is the colonial "raping and pillaging" that stripped these peoples of their self-identity and of their ability to benefit from their own resources. The idea of cancelling the debt has an element of restitution in it.

Most advocates say that "Western" countries are responsible for this. I can see how this might be true of the major colonial powers (Spain, Portugal, England, France, Italy, Germany, the Low Countries) but I haven't seen a great case made for the United States. I suppose the argument would either focus on our participation in slavery or our ongoing taking advantage of resources in Africa to the detriment of Africans.

Anyway, to robin and mike, it seems like in your arguments you are assuming that the West has been "above board" in their interactions with these African countries. Is that really true?

Also, the "in a responsible way" option is an attempt to highlight the thorny issue of corrupt African governments. No one is saying we should hand corrupt governments a clean slate. But these advocates are looking for a way to cancel the debts simultaneously with helping establish more secure governments. And it could easily be argued that secure African governments are much more in our best interest than maintaining these debts.

Thoughts?

[Michael]

Dec 30, 2010 9:42:47 GMT -8 Josh said:

One rejoinder to the arguments you guys are making would be that the reason African nations are so screwed up is the colonial "raping and pillaging" that stripped these peoples of their self-identity and of their ability to benefit from their own resources. The idea of cancelling the debt has an element of restitution in it.Most advocates say that "Western" countries are responsible for this.

Ahhh, yes. The eternal guilt trip. Restitution, reparations, social justice. I'm sorry, here's another $20 billion. I'm really sorry, here's another $500 billion. I'm really, really, really sorry.

How long should we feel guilty? Do I owe reparations to the great grandson of the man that my great grandfather oppressed? This seems to me to always be the trump card for advocates of social justice. Well that, and we're richer than they are, so obviously we owe them.

...it seems like in your arguments you are assuming that the West has been "above board" in their interactions with these African countries. Is that really true?

The West has not always been above board. Obviously, the colonial powers did rape and pillage in times past. The United States participated in the inexcusable practice of slavery. It was atrocious what we did to the native Americans too. Horrid. Awful.

But my question is: where do we go from here (as a nation, I mean). We can't give all the land back to the Indians now. We can't turn back the clock and reverse slavery.

By the way, would you posit that before the West messed things up, African nations WERE "above board" and clean and pure as the wind-driven snow? Was Africa practically the Garden of Eden until it was colonized? Or did they always have problems (perhaps, back then, more on an inter-tribal level, rather than a national level)? It seems to me that now they just have someone to blame.

...these advocates are looking for a way to cancel the debts simultaneously with helping establish more secure governments. And it could easily be argued that secure African governments are much more in our best interest than maintaining these debts.

I don't believe that our governmental tinkering has ever done any lasting good, really. Name one exception, if you can.

Again, if we really want to aid the African people, we should support organizations that actually help them on the ground to spread the Gospel, distribute Bibles, give them farm animals, equipment and seed, and teach them how to become self-sustaining.

I just think most governmental solutions are like a monetary toilet flush. And I'm tired of having guilt placed upon me for every bad thing anyone has ever done. I feel enough guilt for all the bad things I've done.

Just my opinion.

In addition, take a look at this BBC video. It gives an interesting perspective on how the Evil West has affected the wealth and lifespan of the entire world. African countries are still toward the bottom, but look at how the "rising tide lifts all boats." Interesting.

[Josh]

I don't believe that our governmental tinkering has ever done any lasting good, really. Name one exception, if you can.

There is a huge and shining example of this working- the Marshall plan after World War II. Arguably the best $13 billion ever given away by the United States- to rebuild our former enemies. It was kind and it was wise.

[Michael]

Arguably the best $13 billion ever given away by the United States- to rebuild our former enemies. It was kind and it was wise.

Of course, we can't know what would have happened without that infusion of cash. I would question how much actual benefit it had on post-war European economies. In many cases, it accelerated post-war growth that probably would have happened anyway, IMO.

But I'll give you a touché for that.

The Marshall Plan didn't just rebuild our enemies, by the way, but it actually directed more aid toward allied & neutral nations. And I wonder if we're comparing apples to apples. The Marshall Plan gave aid to Westernized nations that were decimated by WWII. The people needed help in rebuilding the industry that was ruined during the war. In many nations in Africa, there would need to be a whole cultural shift and economic retraining of the people, as well as regime change, if financial aid would have any lasting benefit. I just don't think all that can happen at a governmental level. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that.

It's not that I don't want to help third world countries, it just seems to me that, at least since the Marshall Plan, money that's given from government to government often doesn't filter down to the people. It usually ends up only benefitting the government.

[Josh]

mike wrote:

Ahhh, yes. The eternal guilt trip. Restitution, reparations, social justice. I'm sorry, here's another $20 billion. I'm really sorry, here's another $500 billion. I'm really, really, really sorry.
How long should we feel guilty? Do I owe reparations to the great grandson of the man that my great grandfather oppressed? This seems to me to always be the trump card for advocates of social justice. Well that, and we're richer than they are, so obviously we owe them.

Mike, of course you bring up good and natural questions about things like reparations? But are you saying there should be absolutely no reparations for "dirty deeds" of the past?

mike wrote:

By the way, would you posit that before the West messed things up, African nations WERE "above board" and clean and pure as the wind-driven snow? Was Africa practically the Garden of Eden until it was colonized? Or did they always have problems (perhaps, back then, more on an inter-tribal level, rather than a national level)? It seems to me that now they just have someone to blame.

No (btw, I was just playing the "cancel third world debt" advocate as best as I can- I actually don't have a thought-out position on the subject). It's hard to analyze in the long run how much Africans benefited or suffered from their interactions with the west, but I think it's undeniable that they benefitted in some ways and that there was suffering before the white man came. And it's easy to forget that Africans themselves were part of the slave trade, etc...

But here's the thing- since the West came they have been expected to have formal governments that act like Western governments are supposed to act without, in many cases, the necessary training, resources, and kinship with Europe that countries like America benefitted from. Americans would like to think that our revolution succeeded simply because we're good, fair people, or that God specifically blessed us, etc. but it's more complicated than that. We really benefitted from our association with Great Britain- the most beneficent of all colonial powers. Our cultural and religious kinship with them (and Western Europe in general), our indebtedness to them philosophically and their relative laxity toward us helped us tremendously in getting started as a fledgling government (all this despite going to war with them). These are benefits most African countries never got from their colonial masters.

Anyway, I'm not in doubt that there is some culpability on the West's part. And if there was any culpability of our government in your current financial distressed wouldn't you be wanting them to
pay you some kind of restitution?

mike wrote:

It's not that I don't want to help third world countries, it just seems to me that, at least since the Marshall Plan, money that's given from government to government often doesn't filter down to the people. It usually ends up only benefitting the government.

This is why I included the phrase "responsibly" in the original question. People like Bono think they have it figured out how to make sure this benefits the people and not tin-pot dictators. But I don't know about why they think they can accomplish that.
A natural next question would be "what would responsible cancelling look like?"