Moved, left no forwarding address
Published April 17, 2003
It's been suggested that France, Germany and Russia might begin to be involved in the reconstruction of Iraq as they have requested by considering forgiving loans to Iraq.
This seems to be putting it extremely mildly by my lights. I don't see how they could even think about beginning to ask for a penny of repayment.
Monsieur de Villepin comes to Baghdad playing loan collecter. He shows up at the former Hussein presidential palace, now hosting a fledgling ministry of the new government. In Iraqi the guy says, "Brother, they moved and left no forwarding address. You might try looking in Syria for some your other partners. If you can get an address for any of them, call this beeper number at Tommy Franks' place. Everybody's looking for them." Then he'll probably be babbling something about Franks having negroes hiding in bowls of rice in Indochina waiting for Baathists.
Anyway, all those debts and contracts were with the Baath party. It's not like France was giving money or doing anything whatsoever to actually help the Iraqi people. How would this be THEIR responsibility? It's like some mobster has died, so his creditor goes to collect his debt from the shopkeepers the dead guy used to shake down. How is this legitimate?
My people are from Kentucky, so I may be a little slow on the uptake here. Are Iraqi citizens somehow expected now to pay the Germans for the nasty shit they sold Hussein to use in oppressing and killing them? This is akin to the practice of the Chinese government of sending a bill to the families of executed prisoners charging them for the price of the bullet.
Some countries bet on the wrong horse, and they lost. In this case, they acted in exceptionally bad faith in helping to prop up a particularly wicked dictator for reasons of protecting petty business interests. They valued their few lousy billion dollars in trade over the safety of the world or the good of Iraqis.
Now the longsuffering Iraqis should be expected to pay the French money because...?
Psst, the guy you're looking for is named 'Hussein'. You might try calling the front desk in HELL. Maybe he can wire you your money.
- Moved, left no forwarding address
- Published: April 17, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Books: Nonfiction
- Writer: Al Barger
- Al Barger's BC Writer page
- Al Barger's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
isn't that sort of like saying that if the republicans are in power first and the democrats take over, then the republicans debts should be forgiven? Just because the Baath party was in power doesn't mean the only thing iraq got from france and germany etc was "the nasty shit they sold Hussein". The world revolves on trade...
Lioness,You seem to think that the Iraqi people got something from France and Germany. The only thing that Iraq got was the tools necessary for Saddam to keep his foot on their necks and you're saying they shoud PAY for that?
Would YOU?
a transition of power from rep. to dem. in america is a COMPLETELY different ballgame than what happened in iraq. for you to even make the coparison shows your ignorance.
Politely put, the Ba'ath party wasn't "in power" in the same way that the Repubocrats or Demolicans are "in power". The latter (generally) represents the will of the people expressed every four years, while the former was the result of an aggressive act perpetrated from within on a country that the rest of the world simply got used to and started treating like they weren't simply an occupying enemy.
It's not quite as completely simplistic as Mr. Barger makes it out to be, perhaps, since there might have been things purchased that will be of some use to the Iraqis in addition to the gilded sinks and chandeliers for Hussein's palaces, but it also is well establish by historical precedent and (for most people at least) common sense that you don't ask a newly-liberated people to be responsible for the debts of their oppressors.
The New Yorker wrote about this.
Naturally, I would expect the U.S. and the World Bank (essentially U.S.-controlled) will remain consistent about this. In other words, the U.S. will never again ask for a loan repayment from a nation if the prior regime was repressive.
It's a good rule. I hope the U.S. makes it a rule--not just a one-time thing that won't apply when the U.S. doesn't like the rule any longer. We'll see.
I'm with Brian on this one. Some bank bureaucrats want to hand money to some or other thug, then they're figuring to get paid back by this guy thugging it out of his own people. They deserve to lose their money to start with.
On top of which, why are you looking to ME for your money. You didn't give ME jack. I didn't sign any contract. You better back on up away from my door before I release the hounds.
Holding the populations to account for the debts of dictators they have gotten rid of is not an example of "capitalism" or the "free market". It's just bogus slightly subtle state-imposed robbery.
The world revolves around trade. So then the lesson that the trading community should learn is to be skeptical and guarded about doing business with vicious thug governments. For one thing, they may not be around to pay off your contracts.
Caveat emptor, and all that good capitalist crap.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/4665)
Oh, come now. The Chinese aren't THAT bad. They only send the bill for the bullet if the relatives want the body back.