 |
| |
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
"Yes, the Democratic world should not be in the business of helping the dictatorships of the world thus we should be actively blocking loans and trade with dictatorships and one party states."
I agree Oerdin. This might actually help bring them down too. With the Sovs being history I see no good reason to put up with dictators.
"Lance, Lance, Lance. By now you should be old enough to recognise realpolitick.
Saddam Hussein had always been a nasty bloodthirty bastard, but he was okay as long as he remained an US ally."
The time for 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' is over, agreed. So unless a government can obtain a loan in the name of the people, it shouldn't be given, agree UR? Would you agree even though it would mean no more loans for China?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
What about loans to dictators with conditions attached - like "We'll lend you ĢXbn if you hold free local elections"
The time for 'my enemies enemy is my friend' has gone but that doesn't mean democracies shouldn't try to engage with dictatorships if it's possible to get progress.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
My question is who gets to decide whomis a non-represenatative government . . . Lets see, the UN general assembly-- err no-- How about the Security Council err no--
Actually I don't think it is the sort of thing that the international community would ever get together on.
Also I wonder is it really helpful to try to hurt such countries. Time and again we have seen that it is the common folk that get hurt by things like sanctions and it never seems to bring regime change
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
Zulu, what does a dictator borrow against if not the future earnings of the people he rules? Yet they have no say in how that money is spent...imo they shouldn't have the debt.
"My question is who gets to decide whomis a non-represenatative government . . . Lets see, the UN general assembly-- err no-- How about the Security Council err no--"
Flubber that's an excellent question. Considering it I think I was wrong to suggest an international anything. However if the people get rid of the dictator and can prove that they had no say in the process by which the money was borrowed, they shouldn't have to pay it back. Make it a legal matter, use the courts. Then nobody will be willing to make such a loan and the problem will be solved.
"Also I wonder is it really helpful to try to hurt such countries. Time and again we have seen that it is the common folk that get hurt by things like sanctions and it never seems to bring regime change"
Flubber, another good one. I just wonder if those palaces helped the Iraqi people. Remember this is different from aid, which incurs no debt. Food and medicine could still come in.
Wezil, yes, I was wrong about the international bit.
"you dont need to make it illegal to make loans to non-representative govts, just to make it law that subsequent democratic govts have NO obligation to repay them - you can lend to anybody you want, but at your own risk. That still leaves the troublesome question of definitions - but then even Kofi Annan is on board that dictatorships should not sit on the UN Human Rights Council, so he must have some definition in mind."
lotm, I have read your reply first, excellent point. One thing though, isn't Kofi Anon about to be sent up the river because of the oil for votes mess?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wezil
South Africa. |
Ok "never" brings regime change is too harsh and unequivocal. "Rarely" is a better word.
My question is do people think that sanctions were the determining factor or was it the fact that changing attitudes re race both inside and outside South Africa made the racial divisions untenable in a country that otherwise tried to be a democracy ( among those that they considered to have status).
While South Africa had an inherently offendise form of government, I hardly viewed it as a dictatatorship.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
Imran, it might just be happening anyway. The Iraqis are going to get debt relief and the lenders can't help but notice, yes?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
My question is who gets to decide whomis a non-represenatative government . . . Lets see, the UN general assembly-- err no-- How about the Security Council err no--
|
G7, which are all democratic nations.
But a question is: Would banks tolerate such a rule, or would banks finance candidates who overturn the rule in the G7 countries? Afterall, there's lots of money being made on these loans. The risks are high, but so are the returns.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wezil
I would like to think it was a question of changing attitudes but I suspect it was the sanctions. Some countries don't seem to mind being international pariahs, SA wasn't one of them.
Maybe not technically but they were a long way from 'representative'. |
The question then becomes what type of gevernment qualifies as "representative"
S. Africa was a democracy that disenfranchised and oppressed the bulk of its population
Many ME countries are run as shiekdoms with near absolute power
Women are disenfranchised in some countries
heck in some countries, the ruling elite holds power year after year with minimal or no representation at all from other parts
Where is the line?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
I don't know that a trading ban was being discussed. I thought it was merely the idea of not lending money to certain regimes.
Saudia Arabia does not need to borrow any money and would be unaffected by a lending ban. The same would hold true for the bulk of the middle east. The question is how you prevent these dictatorial regimes from lending money if they choose, to other dictatorial regimes. |
O.K.
thatīs correct,
the probability that Saudi Arabia might want to borrow money from western countries is very small, indeed.
And at the point in the near or far future where it might forced to do so it definitely has become worthless to the industrialized worlds, as it very probably means that their Oil deposits have been depleted.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Proteus_MST
O.K.
thatīs correct,
the probability that Saudi Arabia might want to borrow money from western countries is very small, indeed.
And at the point in the near or far future where it might forced to do so it definitely has become worthless to the industrialized worlds, as it very probably means that their Oil deposits have been depleted. |
With the amount of money Saudi Arabia brings in now, if they plan and save at all, they should NEVER have to borrow money again. They should be able to set up endowment and legacy funds to keep the country affluent in perpetuity. Their population is relatively small after all.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-06-2005 14:03
). The international community was much more united wrt SA (eventually).
)
|