Skip to main content

Demystifying Alexander Nahum Sack and the doctrine of odious debt

Eric Tousaint’s study of the odious debt doctrine

by Eric Toussaint

Part 13 - Unilateral debt repudiation by Costa Rica with Washington’s support

In January 1917, the government of Costa Rica, under President Alfredo González, was overthrown by his Secretary of the Army and Navy, Federico Tinoco, who called new elections and established a new constitution in June 1917. The Tinoco putsch was supported by the oligarchy, who rejected the policies of the previous government. For good reason – it had decided to levy a tax on property and a progressive income tax. Tinoco also had the support of the director of the infamous North American transnational United Fruit Company (known since 1989 as Chiquita Brands International), known to have contributed to the overthrow of several governments in Latin America in order to maximise its profits.

The Tinoco government was then recognized by several South American States, as well as by Germany, Austria, Spain and Denmark. The United States, Britain, France and Italy refused to recognize it.

In August 1919, Tinoco left the country, taking with him a large sum of money which he had just borrowed in his country’s name from a British bank, the Royal Bank of Canada. His government fell in September 1919. A provisional government then restored the former constitution and called new elections. Law No. 41 of 22 August 1922 declared null and void all contracts entered into between the executive power and private individuals, with or without the approval of the legislature, between 27 January 1917 and 2 September 1919; it also annulled Law No. 12 of 28 June 1919, which had authorized the government to issue sixteen million colones (the Costa Rican currency) in paper money. It is worth pointing out that the new president, Julio Acosta, at first vetoed the debt repudiation law, arguing that it went against tradition, which was to honour international obligations contracted towards creditors. But the Constitutional Congress, under popular pressure, maintained its position and the President finally rescinded his veto. The law repudiating debts and all contracts entered into by the previous regime constitutes a clear break with the tradition of continuity of obligations of States despite a change of regime. The unilateral sovereign decision by Costa Rica clearly resembles the decisions made in 1861 and 1867 par by President Benito Juárez, supported by the Congress and the people of Mexico, to repudiate the debts claimed by France. It is also in line with the Bolshevik decree repudiating Tsarist debts adopted in 1918.

Great Britain threatened Costa Rica with military intervention if it did not compensate the British companies affected by the repudiation of the debts and contracts. These companies were the Royal Bank of Canada and an oil company. London sent a warship into Costa Rica’s territorial waters.

Costa Rica held to its position of refusing compensation by loudly and clearly proclaiming that: “The nullity of all the acts of the Tinoco regime was definitively settled by a decree of the Constitutional Congress of Costa Rica, which was the highest and ultimate authority having jurisdiction upon that subject, and its decision on that question, made in the exercise of the sovereign rights of the people of Costa Rica, is not open for review by any outside authority.

In order to find a solution, Costa Rica agreed to call in an international arbitrator in the person of William Howard Taft, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, to express his opinion on the two main disputes with Great Britain – the Royal Bank of Canada question and that of an oil concession that had been granted by the dictator Tinoco to British Controlled Oilfields Ltd.

By involving Taft, who had been president of the United States from 1909 to 1913, Costa Rica hoped to win its case by taking advantage of Washington’s interest in marginalising Britain in the region. And that is indeed what happened.

Taft’s decision was to reject London’s demands for compensation.

It is important to look closely at Taft’s arguments. Firstly, he clearly establishes the principle that the despotic nature of the Tinoco regime was of no importance.

In his opinion, William H. Taft says: “To hold that a government which establishes itself and maintains a peaceful administration, with the acquiescence of the people for a substantial period of time, does not become a de facto government unless it conforms to a previous constitution would be to hold that within the rules of international law a revolution contrary to the fundamental law of the existing government cannot establish a new government.” Which means that Taft rejects Costa Rica’s argument involving the nature of the Tinoco regime. According to Taft, Tinoco, who de facto exercised control over the State even if he did not respect the constitution, had the right to contract debts in the name of that State. He even adds that Tinoco had the assent of the population.

Taft’s argument, cited above, opens the way to the recognition of revolutionary governments who come to power without respecting the constitution. Taft declares that if we exclude the possibility of an unconstitutional government becoming a regular government, it implies that international law would prevent a people who have carried out a revolution from setting up a new legitimate government – which according to Taft is inconceivable. Of course, in practice, what has happened most often over the last two centuries is recognition (and support by the government in Washington, in particular) of dictatorial regimes who have overthrown democratic regimes, support for these dictatorial regimes in getting financing abroad, and pressure being put on democratic regimes which succeed them to shoulder the debts contracted by the dictatorship. This underscores the difference between the theory, based on the history of the birth of the United States out of rebellion against a constitutional British regime in 1776, and the actual practice and policies of the United States.

Taft’s opinion contains a passage which affirms that the rule of continuity of obligations of States must be respected despite a change in regime: “Changes in the government or the internal policy of a state do not as a rule affect its position in international law. (…) though the government changes, the nation remains, with rights and obligations unimpaired (…). The principle of the continuity of the states has important results. The state is bound by engagements entered into by governments that have ceased to exist; the restored government is generally liable for the acts of the usurper (…)” This clearly shows the conservative nature of Taft’s position.

On the other hand, Taft supports Costa Rica against Britain on the basis of other important arguments. Taft says that the transactions between the British bank and Tinoco are full of irregularities and that the bank is liable for them. He adds that “The case of the Royal Bank depends not on the mere form of the transaction but upon the good faith of the bank in the payment of money for the real use of the Costa Rican Government under the Tinoco régime. It must make out of its case of actual furnishing of money to the government for its legitimate use. It has not done so.

Let’s follow Taft’s reasoning: Tinoco could contract loans even though he took power in violation of the country’s constitution, but he needed to do so in the interest of the State. Taft says that Tinoco contracted the loans from the Royal Bank of Canada for his personal benefit. Taft adds that the bank was fully cognisant of the fact and was therefore a direct accomplice. According to Taft’s reasoning, had Tinoco borrowed money to develop the railway network, the regime that succeeded him would have been under obligation to repay the debt.

Source and references:


[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

New York Times accidentally destroys the Western propaganda on Venezuela

globinfo freexchange
In another rare 'real journalism' short crisis, the New York Times decided to reveal the truth about the trucks with 'humanitarian aid' on the Colombia-Venezuela border, that were set on fire.
As The Interceptreported:
On February 24, CNN told the world what we all now know is an absolute lie: that “a CNN team saw incendiary devices from police on the Venezuelan side of the border ignite the trucks,” though it generously added that “the network’s journalists are unsure if the trucks were burned on purpose.
Other media outlets endorsed the lie while at least avoiding what CNN did by personally vouching for it. “Humanitarian aid destined for Venezuela was set on fire, seemingly by troops loyal to Mr Maduro,The Telegraph claimed. The BBC uncritically printed: “There have also been reports of several aid trucks being burned – something Mr Guaidó said was a violation of the Geneva Convention.
That lie – supported by…

The underground war between Venezuela and the US big oil cartel confirmed through WikiLeaks

The WIKILEAKS Public Library of US Diplomacy (PlusD) holds the world's largest searchable collection of United States confidential, or formerly confidential, diplomatic communications. As of April 8, 2013 it holds 2 million records comprising approximately 1 billion words. The collection covers US involvements in, and diplomatic or intelligence reporting on, every country on earth. It is the single most significant body of geopolitical material ever published. The PlusD collection, built and curated by WikiLeaks, is updated from a variety of sources, including leaks, documents released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and documents released by the US State Department systematic declassification review.
globinfo freexchange
A document under the title VENEZUELA: AMERICAN OIL AND SERVICE COMPANIES ENGAGE AMBASSADOR, from July, 2009, depicts the agony of the US oil corporations to stay in Venezuela, as they had already lost control over country's rich reserves.
The summary…

Neoliberal fascists attempt to regain control over the European continent to prevent a Leftist revival

While the neoliberal regime is pushing Jeremy Corbyn for a second Brexit referendum, Brussels bureaufascists visit Greece to make sure that the country will remain on the path of neoliberal destruction.
globinfo freexchange
UK's neoliberal regime is now pushing Jeremy Corbyn to promise a second Brexit referendum, hoping to reverse current Brexit vote. As the Independentreported:
Jeremy Corbyn is under new pressure to fully back giving the public a Final Say on Brexit after his own version of EU withdrawal was emphatically rejected in the Commons. His vision of the UK leaving Europe was defeated by a margin of 240 votes to 323, meaning the leader will now be expected to fulfil a promise to bring forward or support a vote to approve a new referendum. The 83-vote defeat comes after Mr Corbyn told Labour MPs on Monday that he was ready to support moves to demand a public vote, having lost a string of MPs who resigned in part over his Brexit strategy.
It appears that the blackmail worked …

Fraudulent neoliberalism was born when it was assumed that the banking parasites produce real value

Democracy At Work
Adam Smith looked on bankers as if they were unproductive. Essentially said they're parasites who kind of live off the value created by others. Bankers - if you have a labor theory of value - it's hard to see how bankers can be producing value.
Before the 1970s, financial services were not included in the calculation of gross domestic product (GDP). In other words, they were considered as adding nothing to the total value of gross domestic product. Only after 1970 did they get included, and now, of course, they're considered to be great value producers. So, do financiers produce value? This starts to become a very important kind of question.

To save Labour from the wreckers, Corbyn needs big balls (and a willie)

In 2015, anti-war socialist Jeremy Corbyn caused a stunning shock when, as a 500-1 shot, he became elected as Labour Party leader. Corbyn’s campaign engendered great enthusiasm among those desperate for Labour to make a clean break with elite-friendly pro-war neoliberal Blairism.
by Neil Clark
In the 2017 general election Corbyn defied the odds, and the smug inside the tent pundits again, with Labour achieving its biggest increase in its share of the vote since 1945.
Corbyn seemed to be on an unstoppable path to Number 10. But since then momentum has been lost. Literally.
Let’s call out the elephant in the room. The pro-Israel lobby in Labour and outside of it has never been reconciled to having a pro-Palestinian peace activist as party leader and potential Prime Minister.
They have done everything possible to destroy Corbyn personally and professionally, with charges of ’anti-Semitism’ the weapon of choice. But Corbyn hasn’t done himself any favours by failing to fight back forcefully ag…

As mainstream journalists acknowledge Douma attacks were “staged,” the “humanitarian” Syria regime-change network tries to save a sinking ship

There is increasing desperation on the part of the “humanitarian” regime-change network to protect its influence and the power of its narratives, not just in Syria but in future conflicts.
by Whitney Webb and Vanessa Beeley
Part 3 - Global Public Policy Institute’s place in regime-change network
Beyond Schneider’s conflicts of interests by virtue of his work history and current associations, the organization that employs him — the Global Public Policy Institute — is directly connected to an oligarch-directed and oligarch-funded regime-change network that specializes in manufacturing “humanitarian” justifications for Western military adventurism abroad. The main oligarchs who drive this network, as detailed in a recent articles series at MintPress, include Jeffrey Skoll, George Soros, Pierre Omidyar, and Ted Turner — philanthrocapitalists aligned with the neoliberal, globalist agendas of the U.S/U.K alliance.
In addition to its stated mission of “improving global governance,” in line with…

Βενεζουέλα: Διαβολική επανάληψη της ιστορίας 120 χρόνια μετά

Ως «αδιόρθωτο» και «απαίσιο» περιγράφουν οι New York Times, η New York Herald και το Associated Press τον ηγέτη της Βενεζουέλας. Ο τελευταίος «απεχθάνεται τις πιο ιερές αξίες των πολιτισμένων εθνών», γράφουν τα δυτικά ΜΜΕ που υποστηρίζουν τον φιλελεύθερο «επαναστάτη», ο οποίος προσπαθεί να εξουδετερώσει τον «τύραννο». Ο τελευταίος είναι ο πλέον μισητός στον δυτικό κόσμο, το κράτος του, αν και πλούσιο σε πόρους, είναι υπερχρεωμένο, η διακυβέρνηση της χώρας διεκδικείται από έναν επαναστάτη που έχει συγκεντρώσει έναν στρατό και βαδίζει προς το Καράκας.
Βαγγέλης Γεωργίου
Μέρος 3ο - Η «κατασκευή» υποχρεώσεων
Οπωσδήποτε η Βενεζουέλα είχε νομικές και οικονομικές υποχρεώσεις απέναντι σε ξένα κράτη. Ωστόσο, αυτές δημιουργήθηκαν και χρησιμοποιήθηκαν με τέτοιο τρόπο από τις Μεγάλες Δυνάμεις που οδηγούσαν ουσιαστικά στην πλήρη υποταγή του αδύναμου λατινοαμερικανικού κράτους.
Ο ίδιος ο Βρετανός επιτετραμμένος στο Καράκας Richard Edwardes είχε ανακαλύψει από τη δεκαετία του 1860 τον μηχανισμό απάτης πο…

UK's panicked neoliberal regime desperate to build a third loyal party to halt Corbyn's progressive counterattack

globinfo freexchange
Right after the seven neoliberal Blairites left the Labour party towards the formation of a new "independent" party, three Tories decided to join them.
As the Guardianreported: “Three Conservatives have quit their party to join the new Independent Group of MPs, declaring that hard Brexiters have taken over and that the modernising wing of the party has been 'destroyed'. Anna Soubry, Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen explained their decision to join the new group, founded this week by seven Labour MPs, who also left their party.
It all happened too fast and someone would be rather naive to believe that these moves were not pre-agreed and fully coordinated.
All the picks appear to be carefully selected. The establishment takes back those who has raised carefully with the 'principles' of the neoliberal ideology in order to save them from the collapsing conservative party and the Corbynism-'contaminated' Labour. Next step, a third 'ind…

The war criminal Elliott Abrams and the liberals who love him

Elliott Abrams, who is steering Trump’s Venezuela policy, has a long track record of war crimes. Yet a number of liberal commentators are rushing to his defense.
by Paul Heideman
Part 1
Practically the entire American political establishment and corporate press are repeating the Trump administration’s claims to have humanitarian motives in Venezuela. As that administration inches closer to full-blown military invasion, whether direct or by proxy, it behooves us to look into the track record of the officials steering this so-called “humanitarian policy.” None other are more deserving of scrutiny than Elliott Abrams, whose crimes have spanned the globe, from El Salvador to Nicaragua to Iraq.
Before this month, Elliott Abrams was likely glad to have been largely forgotten by the U.S. public. When the Trump administration announced Abrams’ appointment as U.S. Special Representative in Venezuela in late January, the news caused some ripples on the Left, but across mainstream media outlets, the…

Βενεζουέλα: Διαβολική επανάληψη της ιστορίας 120 χρόνια μετά

Ως «αδιόρθωτο» και «απαίσιο» περιγράφουν οι New York Times, η New York Herald και το Associated Press τον ηγέτη της Βενεζουέλας. Ο τελευταίος «απεχθάνεται τις πιο ιερές αξίες των πολιτισμένων εθνών», γράφουν τα δυτικά ΜΜΕ που υποστηρίζουν τον φιλελεύθερο «επαναστάτη», ο οποίος προσπαθεί να εξουδετερώσει τον «τύραννο». Ο τελευταίος είναι ο πλέον μισητός στον δυτικό κόσμο, το κράτος του, αν και πλούσιο σε πόρους, είναι υπερχρεωμένο, η διακυβέρνηση της χώρας διεκδικείται από έναν επαναστάτη που έχει συγκεντρώσει έναν στρατό και βαδίζει προς το Καράκας.
Βαγγέλης Γεωργίου
Μέρος 1ο
Θα μπορούσαν όλα αυτά να συμβαίνουν το 2019, αλλά συνέβαιναν στη Βενεζουέλα του 1899, όταν η Δύση έπρεπε να τακτοποιήσει πάλι έναν μισητό δικτάτορα κάπου στην Καραϊβική.
Οι ομοιότητες διαβολικές. Η κατάληξη ίδια;
Πράγματι, η Βενεζουέλα την τελευταία δεκαετία του 19ου αιώνα είχε βυθιστεί σε εμφυλίους οι οποίοι ακύρωναν τις όποιες προσπάθειες είχαν γίνει από τις κυβερνήσεις των φιλελεύθερων των προηγούμενων δεκαετιών.