Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt

Since the Second World War and the horrors of the Holocaust, the International Community has been committed to putting an end to the impunity of those responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Nuremberg judgement led the way by declaring that “the official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment”.

But there is an obvious gap between international commitments and reality. A recent illustration of this is the peaceful death of Pieter Willem Botha, on 31 October 2006 at the age of 9O. Botha was at the head of the apartheid regime in South Africa, as Prime Minister from 1978 to 1984, and as President from 1984 to 1989. His entire political career was profoundly marked by racism: after having been a member of a Nazi organization (the Ossewabrandwag) during the Second World War, he entered the South African parliament in 1948, the year in which apartheid legislation was introduced.

Nicknamed “the Great Crocodile”, he ruled the apartheid regime with an iron hand. The few reforms presented by those who, despite all, insisted on paying tribute to him are rather meagre. In lifting restrictions on marriage between people of different races and in creating a tricameral parliament in 1983 (with separate chambers for mixed-race and for Indians) Botha was just looking to re-legitimize a policy that was increasingly in dispute.

In reality, segregation did not decline: the regime remained based upon white supremacy and the black population still could not vote. At this time there were some 30,000 political prisoners. Indeed, Botha consistently refused to free the most famous prisoner: Nelson Mandela. As these “mini reforms” had not changed the racist nature of this regime, South Africa was the object of new economic sanctions imposed by the UN in 1985. Despite these international sanctions, the following year Botha launched the worst repression in the history of apartheid by declaring a state of emergency after violent clashes between oppressed blacks and police.

In 1989, following a heart attack, he retired from power leaving the position to Frederick de Klerk who then began a progressive dismantling of apartheid, for which he was strongly criticized by Botha. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission before which Botha had refused to testify in 1997 concluded that the latter had ordered the secret services to launch an attack on a building in Johannesburg housing an anti-apartheid group and that he was directly responsible for the attack against the African National Congress (ANC) premises in London in 1987. He was then given a one year suspended sentence but won his appeal on a technicality. Shortly before his death, during a television interview in 2005, he declared that he would never apologize for apartheid.

Despite blatant violations of human rights, for which he was directly responsible, and his refusal to apologize for his active participation in the crime of apartheid, which is a crime against humanity (since the 1968 Convention on the imprescriptibility of war crimes and crimes against humanity), Botha has received tributes from the leaders of several South African parties, such as the ANC, even though this party was classified as a terrorist organization under Botha’s regime and by Heads of State such as Omar Bongo, current President of Gabon. This tribute is quite simply an insult for South African people, in particular for the black population who have suffered Botha’s violent racist politics and who have not obtained justice.

Those who, like Botha, are guilty of international crimes must no longer be allowed to enjoy an intolerable impunity. Indeed, a new opportunity to reiterate this fact has now arisen: the German State Prosecutor will be able to take legal action against the former American Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, for war crimes carried out in Iraq and in the American detention camp in Guantanamo. A suit filed in the criminal courts on behalf of 11 Iraqi victims and a prisoner in Guantanamo by the Berlin lawyer Wolfgang Kalek, who represents several human rights associations, is founded on the law of universal competence adopted by Germany in 2002. U.S. political pressure is very strong when legal action is taken abroad against certain American nationals. Three years ago Belgium considerably limited the scope of its law of universal competence, mainly under U.S. pressure.

Today, social movements must mobilize themselves so that Donald Rumsfeld and those like him are accountable for their actions and so that other governments introduce the law of universal competence and recognize the competence of the International criminal court.

For justice to be done, one must not ignore the active part played by the World Bank World Bank
WB The World Bank was founded as part of the new international monetary system set up at Bretton Woods in 1944. Its capital is provided by member states’ contributions and loans on the international money markets. It financed public and private projects in Third World and East European countries.

It consists of several closely associated institutions, among which :

1. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD, 189 members in 2017), which provides loans in productive sectors such as farming or energy ;

2. The International Development Association (IDA, 159 members in 1997), which provides less advanced countries with long-term loans (35-40 years) at very low interest (1%) ;

3. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), which provides both loan and equity finance for business ventures in developing countries.

As Third World Debt gets worse, the World Bank (along with the IMF) tends to adopt a macro-economic perspective. For instance, it enforces adjustment policies that are intended to balance heavily indebted countries’ payments. The World Bank advises those countries that have to undergo the IMF’s therapy on such matters as how to reduce budget deficits, round up savings, enduce foreign investors to settle within their borders, or free prices and exchange rates.

and the IMF IMF
International Monetary Fund Along with the World Bank, the IMF was founded on the day the Bretton Woods Agreements were signed. Its first mission was to support the new system of standard exchange rates.

When the Bretton Wood fixed rates system came to an end in 1971, the main function of the IMF became that of being both policeman and fireman for global capital: it acts as policeman when it enforces its Structural Adjustment Policies and as fireman when it steps in to help out governments in risk of defaulting on debt repayments.

As for the World Bank, a weighted voting system operates: depending on the amount paid as contribution by each member state. 85% of the votes is required to modify the IMF Charter (which means that the USA with 17,68% % of the votes has a de facto veto on any change).

The institution is dominated by five countries: the United States (16,74%), Japan (6,23%), Germany (5,81%), France (4,29%) and the UK (4,29%).
The other 183 member countries are divided into groups led by one country. The most important one (6,57% of the votes) is led by Belgium. The least important group of countries (1,55% of the votes) is led by Gabon and brings together African countries.

http://imf.org in financing the apartheid regime. These two institutions disregarded the numerous UN resolutions (of 1966, 1976, 1980, 1985) condemning the help given to the racist regime in the form of large loans to South Africa. In 1976 - 1977, aid given to South Africa by the IMF and World Bank exceeded the total amount granted to the rest of Africa. Over the period 1948-67, the World Bank granted loans far higher than those given to any other African country. Beyond the actual figures, the IMF and the World Bank sent a clear signal of support, both financial and political. Botha then received support from the large European banks that took over from 1980 to 1985 with loans increased fivefold (going from 13 billion to 71 billion). As we see, there have been many players contributing to the longevity of this racist regime and openly infringing the UN rulings.

Debts contracted by this regime - a regime guilty of crimes against humanity - are odious debts, or in other words, regime debts that the South African population cannot bear. In accordance with the doctrine of odious debt Odious Debt According to the doctrine, for a debt to be odious it must meet two conditions:
1) It must have been contracted against the interests of the Nation, or against the interests of the People, or against the interests of the State.
2) Creditors cannot prove they they were unaware of how the borrowed money would be used.

We must underline that according to the doctrine of odious debt, the nature of the borrowing regime or government does not signify, since what matters is what the debt is used for. If a democratic government gets into debt against the interests of its population, the contracted debt can be called odious if it also meets the second condition. Consequently, contrary to a misleading version of the doctrine, odious debt is not only about dictatorial regimes.

(See Éric Toussaint, The Doctrine of Odious Debt : from Alexander Sack to the CADTM).

The father of the odious debt doctrine, Alexander Nahum Sack, clearly says that odious debts can be contracted by any regular government. Sack considers that a debt that is regularly incurred by a regular government can be branded as odious if the two above-mentioned conditions are met.
He adds, “once these two points are established, the burden of proof that the funds were used for the general or special needs of the State and were not of an odious character, would be upon the creditors.”

Sack defines a regular government as follows: “By a regular government is to be understood the supreme power that effectively exists within the limits of a given territory. Whether that government be monarchical (absolute or limited) or republican; whether it functions by “the grace of God” or “the will of the people”; whether it express “the will of the people” or not, of all the people or only of some; whether it be legally established or not, etc., none of that is relevant to the problem we are concerned with.”

So clearly for Sack, all regular governments, whether despotic or democratic, in one guise or another, can incur odious debts. , debts contracted by a regime without the people’s consent and from which they have not benefited, should not be repaid by the succeeding government if at the time of the loan the creditors were aware of the intentions of the borrower. There is no doubt in the case of the apartheid regime. Consequently, the portion of these odious debts that has been repaid must be given back to the people of the country. The rest of the odious debt must be abolished.