Eric
Tousaint’s study of the odious debt doctrine
by
Eric Toussaint
Part
5 - The trivialization of wars of conquest
Sack
considered perfectly normal that States should wage wars of conquest
and make the conquered pay a tribute. He deemed that in the case of
war, creditors’ rights were secondary to those of the State. “The
government may wage a war that incurs considerable expense, material
losses, losses in terms of human lives, etc. The war may even result
in extremely burdensome peace conditions for the State which will
have to pay out war indemnities in cash and in kind (railway
rolling-stock, ships, artillery, etc.). Such actions on the part of a
government, and their consequences, may have a negative impact on the
debtor State’s finances and ability to pay. These are all risks to
be borne by creditors who have no power to bind the government either
in its right to dispose freely of private estate and State finances,
or in its right to wage war.” (p. 58)
In the
hierarchy of the values that Sack adopts, there is manifestly no
place for peoples’ rights to self-determination and peace.
Furthermore, as indicated above, in face of States’ inalienable
right to wage war with all that entails, he considers that creditors
have no other choice than to bow before the raison d’Etat.
He cites
uncritically a decision of the French Conseil d’Etat which clearly
indicates that the right to wage war includes the right to plunder:
“Does the fact that the French army helped itself to the public
funds of an occupied country (Venice) mean that the French State owes
the said funds to the creditors of the occupied State? — Nay. —
Here we have an act of war which does not permit of any claim.”
(p. 58)
This
sentence rather undermines Sack’s affirmation that there is
continuity of the obligations of public borrowers towards their
creditors (see the next point).
It is worth
remembering that at the time when Sack was working on his book,
peoples’ right to self-determination had become an element of
official doctrine, both in the USA and in the Soviet Union.
This right
is inconsistent with colonialism and the annexation of territories of
nations dominated by the major powers. Yet as will be shown further
on, Sack is plainly convinced of the “benefits” of imperialist
politics as implemented by the former Tsarist empire, for example,
over the non Russian peoples under its yoke, or the German empire in
its African colonies.
Source
and references:
Comments
Post a Comment