Now, as the world faces one of the worst health and economic crises since World War II, this demand begins to reverberate in different parts of the world.

Recently, Pope Francis, during the Mass on Easter Sunday, asked that the external debt to the poorest countries be forgiven. A call that, shortly before, had already been made from Latin America by several former presidents and world political leaders such as Rafael Correa, Gustavo Petro, Evo Morales, Álvaro García Linera, Dilma Rousseff, Fernando Lugo, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Ernesto Samper, among others .

In this campaign, led by the Latin American Strategic Center for Geopolitics, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank have been asked to forgive the foreign debt.

“WE CANNOT REQUIRE COUNTRIES TO MAKE EFFECTIVE PUBLIC HEALTH POLICIES TO DEAL WITH THE CURRENT PANDEMIC AND, AT THE SAME TIME, EXPECT THEM TO CONTINUE TO MEET THEIR DEBT OBLIGATIONS; WE CANNOT REQUIRE THEM TO IMPLEMENT ECONOMIC POLICIES THAT COMPENSATE FOR THE DAMAGES OF THIS CATASTROPHE AT THE SAME TIME THAT THEY MUST CONTINUE TO PAY THEIR CREDITORS," THESE POLITICAL LEADERS MAINTAIN IN A LETTER RELEASED IN LATE MARCH.

On this new reality that humanity is going through, Sputnik talks with Eric Toussaint, spokesman for the international network of the Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debts (CADTM).

You recently said that in order to face the economic crisis that the Covid-19 pandemic will leave, it was “urgent to free financial means, but to resort as little as possible to more debt”. How to achieve it in the middle of such a difficult situation?

There are two fundamental means:

1. Suspend the payment of the debt and use those funds to invest in the purchase of medical and sanitary equipment, and making the necessary expenses to face the health and economic crisis that the coronavirus will leave.
2. Applying an exceptional tax on the richest to have the necessary funds.

To give you an example. In France, the wealthiest person is named Bernard Arnault and has a wealth of 110 billion euros, which is exactly the figure decided by President Emmanuel Macron to intervene in the crisis in France. So, imposing a tax on the richest, who are a handful, because they are 1% of the population, could be credited to a fund to fight the crisis.

In Spain, public debt stands at 96% of GDP. You, for several years, maintain that the debt that this country has is “illegitimate and hateful”. Why do you categorize it in this way?

Because it must be remembered that before the 2010 crisis, Spain had a public debt that represented less than 40% of GDP. With the crisis and bailouts of banks, financial and real estate companies in Spain, the debt rose, doubled, almost reached 100% of GDP. So, it is illegitimate and hateful because it is a debt that has been accumulated to rescue bankers responsible for the previous crisis, that of 2008-2010. It is a debt contracted to serve the private interests of a minority without respecting the general interest of the majority of the population, therefore, it is an illegitimate debt.

The Russian jurist Alexander Nahum Sack introduced this term of odious debt into International Law in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. For him, a debt is odious if it meets two criteria: if it has been contracted against the interests of the population or the nation, and second, if it has been contracted with the lenders knowing that it played against the nation. So I affirm that Spanish debt after 2009-2010 is odious because the lenders knew that the government was rescuing the same bankers who lent the money to the state to rescue them. It is the vicious circle of always in which the bankers accumulate wealth while the State and the people are impoverished.

How do they lend the money to the State to rescue them?

The situation is scandalous with what has to do with the European Central Bank. Until last year, the European Central Bank granted loans to private banks at interest rates of zero percent and these same banks lent the money to states such as Spain, Italy or Portugal, via the purchase of sovereign bonds, at interest rates 2, 3 or 4%.

It has been a great gain for banks thanks to gifts from the European Central Bank. The situation is worse now because the European Central Bank grants loans to private banks at a negative rate of 0.75%, that is, that a bank borrowing money from the European Central Bank earns money. It is scandalous.

And what should be done?

What should be done in these circumstances of greater crisis is to get the European Central Bank to grant loans directly to the States, to Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and other countries in the euro zone, to combat the crisis, instead to grant credits to private banks. In other words, the European Central Bank gives a monopoly to private banks with privileges, adhering to the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which says that a public body cannot grant credits directly to public powers. It is a totally neoliberal policy that must be fought because it goes against the interest of the population.

You are one of those who supports stopping paying foreign debt, but for any government it is a very difficult decision. On what legal arguments could governments rely to suspend the payment of their external debt?

In the current circumstances, in the midst of a brutal health and economic crisis, there are three arguments of International Law:

1. The state of need: which is a concept that establishes that when a country, a State faces a crisis in which the life of its population is at risk and constitutes a serious problem, that State is not obliged to respect its international obligations, for example, in terms of payment of debt because it must respond to the humanitarian or health crisis. Solving this crisis is a priority against this type of international financial obligations.

2. Fundamental change of circumstances: This concept establishes that when the conditions completely change from those when it was signed, the execution of this contract can be suspended.

3. Force majeure: Here it is determined that for reasons of force majeure a State can no longer be in a position to respect its debt payment obligations. In this case, the illegitimate or hateful nature of the debt is of no importance. The debt can be totally legal, legitimate, but it can be suspended for those reasons of force majeure and for the other conditions met, that is, the state of necessity and the change of circumstance.

How do you evaluate the position of the European Union that, until now, has refused to issue reconstruction bonds, to mutualise the debt and has proposed to resort to the European Stability Mechanism without payment conditions? How do you assess the role of the European Union in this health emergency?

The European Union is a disaster. They don’t even have a team of ten doctors to send to northern Italy or Spain. The European Union does not have stocks of masks, respirators.

This European Union is a disaster in this health crisis. We see that other states like Cuba have sent more than 100 doctors to northern Italy and are able to help in the emergency. In other words, it is a new sign that the European Union is a construction that works in favor of big capital, to integrate markets in favor of big companies that control the means of production and compete with other economic powers. But the European Union does not serve its own peoples, much less when it comes to international solidarity.

It is warned that the world will go through an unprecedented economic crisis. It is compared to the economic devastation that occurred after the Second World War. What response should be given to this crisis?

This crisis is going to be the biggest in the last 70 years. We are facing a crisis like that of the 1930s, with the cataclysms that occurred in those circumstances.
For me, we must face this crisis completely breaking with the normality that brought us here, that is, we must rethink and fundamentally change the mode of production, property relations, the relationship of human beings with nature, the way of living, relocating production, giving another dimension to relations in production. For me, that is called revolution. We need a true revolution not only in the minds, but also social so that 99% of the world’s citizens take back the reins of their destiny with respect to that 1%, who until now, took advantage of the situation to accumulate wealth.

The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) has just said that the coronavirus will have the greatest impact on the region’s economy in Latin America. How do you see the situation for Latin America?

It is clear that Latin America is only entering the crisis that is now affecting, mainly, Europe and the United States. Latin America and Africa enter a situation in which they have to face an epidemic with a high risk of accelerated spread. It is very serious because for reasons, totally independent of the peoples and States, it affects them.

Latin American exports are going to be reduced very strongly because that region depends on its exports of raw materials, that will be brutally reduced by the economic crisis in the north and in China, therefore, the countries will enter in greater payment difficulties, such as Venezuela and Argentina, which were in suspension of partial non-payment. Other countries in the region will also find themselves in this situation, such as Ecuador, which is already on the verge of default. That is why I insist that the three concepts of state of necessity, force majeure and fundamental change of circumstances must be used to declare a total suspension of the payment of the external debt and use those funds to face a crisis, which is only beginning.

But there are former presidents, such as Juan Manuel Santos, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Ricardo Lagos and Ernesto Zedillo, who have asked the IMF for help in dealing with the health crisis. How do you see this request?

I am against asking, again, for help from the International Monetary Fund. IMF aid packages are always conditioned on implementing a neoliberal model.

As I explained at the beginning, there are alternative sources at the financial level to face the crisis and not have to resort to the IMF, which is part of the problem and not part of the solution. It can be remembered that Argentina in 2018, with the Mauricio Macri government, requested a loan from the IMF of about 50,000 million dollars and is now in a tremendous crisis. It was the IMF that ordered Lenin Moreno to increase the price of fuel last year and that sparked a fully justified popular rebellion. So it is not surprising that former neoliberal presidents like Santos or Cardoso again ask the IMF for help. We have to say that our peoples do not need that help.

We see that the Covid-19 pandemic has sharpened the struggle, the confrontation between political, social and production models. We see, more than ever, capitalism faced with socialist proposals. How is the post-coronavirus world outlined?

It will depend entirely on the ability of the world’s citizens to retake their destiny. We see that in most cases, governments are incapable of really facing the situation, such as the Bolsonaro government, which is totally crazy in managing the health crisis, or the Trump government. The organization, the political and citizen participation of the majority are essential to build new perspectives and new experiences.

Source: MBS NEWS