“Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people; control money and you control the world.”
Henry Kissinger apparently said those words (Reilly, 2002) and could not have been farthest from the truth when foreign policy and world debt are closely scrutinized. The Department of Foreign Policy (U.S. Department of State, 2008) presented the rhetoric that “realism has influenced policy throughout the administration. For Kissinger, the concept of balance-of-power was a shibboleth. A proper balance, attained only if the great powers resisted the temptation to jockey for tactical advantage, created a stabilizing equilibrium, he argued.
He also believed that national interests (rather than ideals) measured in terms of security and power (military, economic, political, and psychological) should govern both international affairs and U.S. foreign policy.” The USDS also stressed that Kissinger believed Americans held on to ideals as peace or freedom and were uncomfortable to acknowledge power and interests as the basis of their foreign policies and objectives.
Realism was used by Nixon and Kissinger for geostrategy and a negotiating approach that dealt détente with the Soviet Union. Nixon announced in his inaugural address an often-repeated theme that the world was moving from “a period of confrontation” and “entering an era of negotiation.” (9) As compared to previous administrations, which aimed for agreements with the Soviets that lessen tensions or improve the atmosphere of superpower relations, Nixon and Kissinger accepted a fact that Soviet-American interests differed.
They aimed to negotiate in limited areas where mutual interest was at stake. Nixon told French President Charles de Gaulle in a conversation held in Paris in early 1969 that “we should be hard and pragmatic in dealing with the Soviets. They knew what they wanted and we must know what we want.” (13, 10). Nixon also repeated the message in the United Nations address in October 1970, stating that détente relied on mutual recognition of the power and national interest. Nixon was quoted saying, “Power has a role in our relations. Power is a fact of international life.” (78, 47, 52, 60)
Kissinger likewise echoed this sentiment in a speech before the Business Council in December 1971, presenting that Americans had a wrong presumption about Soviets on “mere personal misunderstandings and that the remedy for national differences is the development of interpersonal good will.” Likewise, he stressed that the administration would avoid confusing “foreign policy with psychotherapy. What we want to do is deal with concrete issues in our relationships.” (101)
In relation to debt, with the strategies and notions employed by Kissinger, this has been carefully and blatantly used by stronger and developed countries like many western countries in extending power and control over other weaker, less developed nations. Debt was said to have crippled many developing countries. Loans made by previous rulers and dictators believed to have been supported by various Western nations who had seen to suit their interests, cause millions poorer and living standards worsening as precious resources are diverted to debt repayment, which not only has impositions but interests, mainly for a few (Shah, 2007).
“Third world debt has long been recognized as a major obstacle to human development. Many other problems have arisen because of the enormous debt that third-world countries owe to rich countries. Debt has impeded sustainable human development, security, and political or economic stability,” Shah (2007) suggested.
The additional strain of an interest rate usually set at 14 percent increase rapidly, and third world countries would not be even able to organize their economies nor bounce back before they become saddled with a heavy burden of debt (Shah, 2007).
Odious Debt
One of the so-called loans is “odious debt,” which is an established legal principle that results from loans to an illegitimate or dictatorial government. The funds are usually used to oppress the people or for personal purposes, and as long as borrowed money was used in ways different to the people’s interest and the creditors fully aware of it, staunch critics argue that “the creditors may be said to have committed a hostile act against the people. They cannot legitimately expect repayment of such debts,” (G-8 Summit, 2003)
This has resulted in what many global activists call the world’s poor subsidizing the rich syndrome. Another cause pointed out by critics for the large-scale debt has been the thick-faced practices of the elite among developing nations through corruption and embezzlement of money. It was stressed these corrupt officials were often placed in power by the powerful countries, and funds are often placed in foreign banks, then used as loans again to developing countries. Loans come with conditions that include preferential exports favoring, of course, in one way the lender allowing more money to come out of the developing countries than was originally loaned (Global Issues 2008).
Reference
Reilly, Christopher, (2002). “Justice For Chile,” Counterpunch. Web.
G-8 Summit 2004; Iraq’s Odious Debt: Rhetoric to Reality, Jubilee USA, 2003.
Global Issues. (2008). “Causes of Poverty.” Web.
Shah, Anup (2007). “Third World Debt Undermines Development.”. Web.