CELAM: THE INTERNATIONAL DEBT, AN ECCLESIASTICAL PERSPECTIVE

Anthropological Considerations

1 - The existence of a foreign debt is considered as an obstacle for the development of the indebted countries.

2 - As a consequence, this status produces direct effects on the living conditions of the majority of the people in these countries (health, education, nutrition, etc.), because it prevents a greater investment in public spending. In those societies that are marked by social inequalities (the absence of a strong middle class), the State has an important role in the selection of equal distribution, without leaving aside, nevertheless, the private responsibilities.

3 - The Christian ethic addresses the problem of foreign debt in terms of a human problem, without ignoring the technical complexity that are connected to this. Consequently, this gives priority to the human factor and subordinates the technical mechanisms.

4 - Furthermore, when one talks about the human factor, there exists an anthropological comprehension by virtue of which an individual can fully realize his potential only if in a community of others. To live is to live together. Self-realization in self-transcendence. The individual conceived as a being open to others, and discovering himself through others. As a consequence, liberty is understood as a service. In this way, you move away from an individualistic vision (personal actions without taking into consideration others), but as well from a collective vision (the disappearance of the individual in the name of the group).

5 - The problem of foreign debt is understood principally in economic terms (in global numbers), but the Christian ethic evaluates the problem in human categories. To consider foreign debt in the commercial environment is something completely different from considering it in the environment of the perspective of cooperation.

In the first case, the context is of an economic sort, while in the second case, one thinks in terms of solidarity. Well, this thought is not unreal, because the solution to the ecological problem is either of a communitarian nature or does not have a solution. Moreover, the absence of solidarity and the presence of inequality tends to lead only towards social revolution, inequality increases the risk of a violent and bloody revolution.

6 - The horizon of solidarity puts forth a vision which starts with the disadvantaged, those who are the most excluded from the benefits that the society produces. The evangelical option in favor of the poor is born from a universal comprehension, because the universality becomes a reality only if it is realized in the particulars. In other words, the totality involves the singularity. It is from the singular that you construct the total. Therefore, progress is not necessarily and simply the presence of greater wealth, but rather the absence of poverty. With less poverty there is greater equality, because the fact that there are fewer poor people means that there is an increase in the middle class. However, the postulate of a greater wealth does not necessarily imply a better distribution, given that the criteria is quantity rather than an explicit sense of the receivers (such as in the case of the concentration of wealth in the context of a breach between the wealthy and the poor).

Ethical Considerations

7 - Well then, the principle of commutative justice stabilizes the payment of debts as defined by the relations between equals in terms of rights and duties. Nevertheless, with respect to the foreign debt, the reality does not correspond exactly to the principle because in the relations between a financial entity (public or private) and a population, the latter is not consulted, seeing that it is its representative who contracts the debt and the arrangement for payment, even if in the end it is the population that pays the consequences.

8 - On the one hand we have the principle of the hierarchy of values, according to which a fundamental value has priority over the other rights; on the other is the principle of the common good, which defends the body of the society above and beyond the private interests. In this way a debt ceases to have ethical obligations up until the debtor finds itself in the precarious condition of someone who can't provide the payments. From the other point of view, if the payment does not arrive, one can define it an international financial disaster, and the solution can become worse than the remedy.

9 - As a consequence, different alternatives are proposed. In the short term, first comes the principle of survival which has the duty of assuring that the financial aid or the missing debt payments are invested directly in the necessities of the needy populations. In the long term, the principle of solidarity puts forth a situation in terms of cooperation without making a profit.

10 - All of the aid comes under the context of the principle of subsidization, in the sense that the ultimate end is that of making the weak a protagonist in order that they grow and assume their responsibilities. The absence of such motivation is simply a help in terms of dependence and, in fact, is not help because it leaves in a disadvantageous situation those who are helped and it foments their irresponsibility.

11 - The presence of human weakness implicitly creates situations where errors are made and immoral decisions are taken (corruption, theft, etc.). Consequently, those who receive financial aid have the right to establish conditions which are clear for the correct use of that aid, both so that the money arrives at its true destinations and also so it is used for the development of the society (education, health, nutrition, etc.). Moreover, it is necessary to respect also the culture of those who donate because they feel responsible for their payments. On the other hand, the financial help is simply a form of economic colonialism.

Conclusions

12 - A purely economic vision (which does not take into account the human factor) reflects the personality of Cain. «The Lord said to Cain: Where is your brother? I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?» (Genesis, 4,9). The anthropology of Cain contrasts radically with the sensibility of Jesus: «Truly I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me» (Matthew, 25,40). While Cain refuses to acknowledge his brother, Jesus presents himself as a brother of humanity, identifying himself with the weakest members of society. The anthropological perspective (consideration of others) displays itself in ethical action (solidarity).