A Fit Case for Pakistan to Demand from the IMF & the WB Odious Debt Write off
By Nadeem M Qureshi
In 2008 when the PPP government of President Asif Zardari took office Pakistan’s total foreign debt was about $40 billion. Today, at the end of the PPP government’s term, it is $60 billion. Twenty billion dollars of new debt has been added. As the Government of Nawaz Sharif begins negotiations with the IMF to seek more loans, the people of Pakistan need to ask two basic questions. The first is: What happened to this money?
By almost any economic indicator people are worse off today than they were five years ago. Unemployment and inflation are higher. Vital infrastructure – railways, roads, public transport, hospitals, schools, water supply and sewage systems – have deteriorated to unprecedented and unacceptable levels. It is almost as though the $20 billion has vanished into thin air.
Well, some of it has. Consider, for example, the single case of the purchase of Boeing 777 aircraft by Pakistan International Airlines in 2011. Transparency International Pakistan maintains that of the $1.5 billion paid for the aircraft, $500 million were diverted as kickbacks to the government functionaries. Multiply this by dozens of multibillion dollar deals over five years, across different economic sectors, and it is clear that many of the billions taken in the name of the people of Pakistan have disappeared into private bank accounts.
Not all of the $20 billion is unaccounted for. Some of it is on rude display in the fleets of bullet proof luxury vehicles of politicians and bureaucrats. Less visible is the money spent on acquiring and maintaining the fleet of private jets at the disposal of the country’s ‘leaders’ and their acolytes. Also hidden from view but widely reported are the luxurious lifestyles of the people’s ‘servants’. A distasteful example of this was the news that the government planned to spend Rs. 260 million to renovate the President’s kitchen.
The second question that the people of Pakistan are entitled to ask is this: Should they be liable to pay back money taken in their name but used almost exclusively to enrich the ruling coterie? It is clear that the highly paid international bureaucrats who work for the IMF are not stupid. It cannot have escaped them that the money they are doling out is misused, or worse, stolen. Why then should the people of Pakistan pay for their willful negligence? This raises issues of legality and precedent. Is it lawful for a country to refute debt taken on by corrupt politicians? And, are there any precedents for this? The answer to both questions is yes.
The concept of odious debt was established in international law by Alexander Nahum Sack, a Russian born jurisprudence expert, in a paper published in Paris in 1927. Odious debt “is a legal theory that holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, should not be enforceable. Such debts are, thus, considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state.”
The doctrine further suggests that since odious debt is deemed the personal debt of the rulers in power at the time the debt was secured, recovery should be from their personal assets. There are also several precedents in which countries have repudiated national debt. The United States set the first precedent of odious debt when it seized control of Cuba from Spain. Spain insisted that Cuba repay the loans made to them by Spain. The U.S. repudiated that debt, arguing that the debt was imposed on Cuba by force of arms and served Spain’s interest rather than Cuba’s, and that the debt therefore ought not be repaid.
The debt was annulled. In recent times, there is the example of Haiti. When the dictator Jean Claude Duvalier was overthrown in 1986, 66 US senators supported a resolution calling for cancellation of Haiti’s debt on the grounds that the money was misused. In the end, half of Haiti’s debt was written off.
By far the most effective use of the ‘odious debt’ doctrine in recent times is by President Rafael Correa of Ecuador. In 2008 he repudiated Ecuador’s national debt of $ 3 billion and announced the country would default and fight creditors in international courts. He succeeded eventually in getting a 60% write off on Ecuador’s debt.
Sadly, it is doubtful that Pakistan’s current leaders will be able to take the IMF bull by its horns. They lack the competence, integrity and, yes the intelligence, to do so. What a tragedy for the poor people of Pakistan who will continue to pay for their leaders’ larceny.
(The writer is Chairman of Mustaqbil Pakistan)
Moreover, Mr. Naeem Sadiq wrote on 12, July 2013 in the daily “The News” quoted as below.
Quote.”Dear Bank
Naeem Sadiq
TheNews
Friday, July 12, 2013
Many thanks for the $5.3 billion loan. One small step for a bank, a giant leap for a chronic borrower. I can proudly claim that my debt, steadily rising every year, has now reached $66.17 billion. This would mean that every member of my family must cough out $366 to repay this loan. This can only happen if we all stop eating, drinking – in fact living – for the next 10 months. Is that what they also call collective suicide? I made sure not to consult my unenthusiastic family, on whose behalf these loans were taken. They never seem to agree with my lifesaving – or should I say death-delaying? – initiatives. You too must be equally ecstatic. After all you end up gaining the most. You will retain most of this amount as repayment of the earlier loan, while my unflinching yearly debt-servicing will keep you charmed for a long time to come.
You had raised a number of questions before you approved the loans. Why is it that despite such massive borrowing, my family shows no signs of getting any better? Why are 50 percent of the family members illiterate and 60 percent below poverty level? Why are half the children out of school? Why is there no electricity half the time? Why does no one in the family have access to clean tap water?
You also wanted to know the reasons for the striking disparity in the lifestyle of some other members of our family. They move about with armed guards in obscenely large vehicles (often smuggled), live in luxury homes, have properties and cash stacked in foreign lands and drink corporate soda or water only from those neat-looking plastic bottles. It is only this segment of the family that is forever pushing for more loans. They are the ones who justify the bank’s slogan of ‘poverty alleviation’ – since this is the only group whose poverty gets truly alleviated.
My sixth sense tells me that you already know the answers to all these questions. You were merely going through the motions, filling forms, giving an impression of officious formality and appropriateness. The fact that I earn little, waste a lot and pilfer the most, makes me an ideal customer for the sort of business you are in. I have learnt to plead my case by closely studying beggars who flock the streets of Karachi during the holy month of Ramazan every year. I use exactly the same techniques with only three minor variations – dress, language and location.
Now, some bad news for you. My entire family, except those very few who gained the most from your loans, got together last night to say that they would no longer tolerate being pushed into this bottomless cesspool.
When I gave them your message that they needed to tighten their belts, they said they were too poor and did not have any belts to tighten. They said they were fed up of the loans taken on their name – the loans that make the elite of the family get richer and have still more fun. The mounting loans have made them poorer than before and taken away the last shreds of dignity that covered their half-naked bodies. Getting crumbs like 0.8 percent for health and 1.8 percent for education made them still more unhealthy, and yet more uneducated.
In simple words, my family has decided not just to stop seeking any further loans but to also stop any further debt-servicing. An unemployed maths teacher in my family spent some time to calculate that we paid $37.2 billion as debt-servicing alone in the last eight years. This is many times more than the principal amount that we borrowed during this period.
We are absolutely sure that there is no law that can force us to close our schools, starve our children, privatise our resources and abandon our welfare, simply because our selfish elders borrowed huge sums on behalf of those who cannot even spell the word ‘loan’ or have ever seen a bank from the inside.
Having paid off the principal amount several times over, we have a good reason to ask for total debt cancellation and an immediate freeze on any further debt-servicing. Do you realise that discovering a new mode of dying – by getting trampled while struggling to receive free food donations – speaks volumes about the poverty that your loans have been able to alleviate?
Sincerely,
Issac.dare@gmail.com
naeem sadiq
twitter : @saynotoweapons ” Unquote.
Visitors
Flag counter, effective from 9th May, 2013
-
