FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Floods and Debt

Because of torrential rains lasting several days Pakistan is facing one of the worst predicaments in human and material terms for the last 80 years. The damage inflicted is stunning. About 22 million people are affected by the floods. Many infrastructures have been unable to withstand the onslaught of rain. Roads and harbours can no longer be used. Millions of people have had to leave their houses, and the UN estimates that there are 5 million left homeless. Makeshift refugee camps have been set up, and some 1 million people already live there in disgraceful sanitary conditions. The south of the country, and more particularly the province of Snidh, has been badly shaken by this catastrophe. Economic losses amount to billions with the farming industry severely hit, large tracts of farmland having been destroyed.

Pakistan needs help. On 20 August 2010, UN member countries committed to giving USD 200 million, but this was a mere promise, and past experience has taught us that only a limited portion will actually reach the country. The Asian Development Bank, which was to manage the consequences of the December 2004 tsunami, declared that it would lead the reconstruction effort in Pakistan and already announced a USD 2 billion loan. The World Bank added a loan of USD 900 million. Deeply damaged by a natural catastrophe, Pakistan now has to face a significant increase in its debt.

While emergency aid is essential, we have to consider what is at stake in Pakistan. In August 2008 the country was close to defaulting. Compelled to accept the help of the IMF, it has received so far a total of 11.3 billion dollars in loans with particularly harsh conditionalities: the sale of a million hectares of farmland, an end to government subsidies on fuel, an increase in the price of electricity, drastic cuts in social expenditures, etc. Only the military budget has been spared. Finally this loan has made living conditions even more difficult while jeopardizing the country’s sovereignty.

Today Pakistan’s external debt amounts to 54 billion dollars with 3 billion paid back every year. This debt, which exploded after 2000, is largely odious. The former regime of General Pérez Musharraf was a strategic ally of the US in the region, particularly after 9/11. Major creditors never baulked at granting Musharraf the funds he needed to pursue his policies. In the fall of 2001 the US asked for Pakistan’s support in its war against Afghanistan. Musharraf had accepted that his country be used as a support base for US troops and those of its allies. Later the Musharraf regime contracted more debts, with the active help of the World Bank and major powers. The loans granted have no legitimacy: they were used to buttress Musharraf’s dictatorship and did not improve the living conditions of the Pakistani people. The debt contracted by this dictatorial regime is odious. Creditors were aware of the situation when they granted their loans, and given these facts it is outrageous that the Pakistani people be made to pay for the odious debt contracted by Musharraf.

In such circumstances outright cancellation of the debt is a minimum demand. As Ecuador did in 2007-2008, several countries have now carried out an audit of their debts in order to cancel their odious parts. Pakistan can and should follow such an example.

Another legal mechanism of non-payment should be taken into account in this country devastated by floods – namely the state of necessity. In this context it can claim that funds must be used to meet vital needs and not to repay its debt, without being sued for reneging on its commitments. The potential savings of three billions dollars could then be used for social expenditures to help the population.

It is therefore high time for the government of Pakistan to suspend payment of its external debt, to carry out an audit of the same, and to decide on a repudiation of the part of it that is odious. Far from being an end in itself, these measures should be a first step towards a radically different model of development based at long last on a guarantee of fundamental human rights.

Damien Millet is spokesperson for CADTM France (Committee for the Cancellation of the Third World Debt, Sophie Perchellet is vice-president of CADTM France, and Eric Toussaint is president of CADTM Belgique.

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
Weekend Edition
February 21, 2020
Friday - Sunday
Anthony DiMaggio
Election Con 2020: Exposing Trump’s Deception on the Opioid Epidemic
Joshua Frank
Bloomberg is a Climate Change Con Man
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Billion Dollar Babies
Paul Street
More Real-Time Reflections from Your Friendly South Loop Marxist
Jonathan Latham
Extensive Chemical Safety Fraud Uncovered at German Testing Laboratory
Ramzy Baroud
‘The Donald Trump I know’: Abbas’ UN Speech and the Breakdown of Palestinian Politics
Martha Rosenberg
A Trump Sentence Commutation Attorneys Generals Liked
Ted Rall
Bernie Should Own the Socialist Label
Louis Proyect
Encountering Malcolm X
Kathleen Wallace
The Debate Question That Really Mattered
Jonathan Cook
UN List of Firms Aiding Israel’s Settlements was Dead on Arrival
George Wuerthner
‘Extremists,’ Not Collaborators, Have Kept Wilderness Whole
Colin Todhunter
Apocalypse Now! Insects, Pesticide and a Public Health Crisis  
Stephen Reyna
A Paradoxical Colonel: He Doesn’t Know What He is Talking About, Because He Knows What He is Talking About.
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A New Solar Power Deal From California
Richard Moser
One Winning Way to Build the Peace Movement and One Losing Way
Laiken Jordahl
Trump’s Wall is Destroying the Environment We Worked to Protect
Walden Bello
Duterte Does the Right Thing for a Change
Jefferson Morley
On JFK, Tulsi Gabbard Keeps Very Respectable Company
Vijay Prashad
Standing Up for Left Literature: In India, It Can Cost You Your Life
Gary Leupp
Bloomberg Versus Bernie: The Upcoming Battle?
Richard Klin
Loss Leaders
Gaither Stewart
Roma: How Romans Differ From Europeans
Kerron Ó Luain
The Soviet Century
Mike Garrity
We Can Fireproof Homes But Not Forests
Fred Baumgarten
Gaslighting Bernie and His Supporters
Joseph Essertier
Our First Amendment or Our Empire, But Not Both
Peter Linebaugh
A Story for the Anthropocene
Danny Sjursen
Where Have You Gone Smedley Butler?
Dave Lindorff
What’s a Social Democratic Political Program Really Mean?
Jill Richardson
A Broken Promise to Teachers and Nonprofit Workers
Binoy Kampmark
“Leave Our Bloke Alone”: A Little Mission for Julian Assange
Wade Sikorski
Oil or Food? Notes From a Farmer Who Doesn’t Think Pipelines are Worth It
Christopher Brauchli
The Politics of Vengeance
Hilary Moore – James Tracy
No Fascist USA! Lessons From a History of Anti-Klan Organizing
Linn Washington Jr.
Ridiculing MLK’s Historic Garden State ‘Firsts’
L. Michael Hager
Evaluating the Democratic Candidates: the Importance of Integrity
Jim Goodman
Bloomberg Won’t, as They Say, Play Well in Peoria, But Then Neither Should Trump
Olivia Alperstein
We Need to Treat Nuclear War Like the Emergency It Is
Eleanor Eagan
As the Primary Race Heats Up, Candidates Forget Principled Campaign Finance Stands
Jesse Jackson
Kerner Report Set Standard for What a Serious Presidential Candidate Should Champion
ADRIAN KUZMINSKI
Home Sweet Home: District Campaign Financing
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
The Latest BLM Hoodwinkery: “Fuel Breaks” in the Great Basin
Wendell Griffen
Grace and Gullibility
Cesar Chelala
Brazil’s Bolsonaro Says No to Democracy
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail