የኢህአዴግ መንግስት ለሁለተኛ ጊዜ ከግል የውጭ ባንኮች ለመበደር እየተንደረደረ ነው
መስከረም ፫ (ሦስት) ቀን ፳፻፰ ዓ/ም ኢሳት ዜና :-ፋይናንሻል ታይምስ እንደዘገበው ባለፈው ታህሳስ ወር 1 ቢሊዮን የአሜሪካ ዳላር ከግል ባንኮች የተበደረው መንግስት፣ ተጨማሪ በድር ለመውሰድ እንቅስቃሴ ጀምሯል።
በሚቀጥለው ሳምንት የመንግስት ባለስልጣኖች ከአበዳሪ ተቋማት መሪዎች ጋር ለንደን ውስጥ ይገናኛሉ። ላዛርድ የተባለ የመንግስት የገንዘብ አማካሪ ድርጅት ባለስልጣኖቹን ከጀርመኑ ዶች ባንክና ከአሜሪካው ጄፒ ሞርጋን ሃላፊዎች ጋር እንደሚያገናኛው የዘገበው ፋይናንሻል ታይምስ፣ ድርድሩ ከተሳካ አገሪቱ ከዚህ ቀደም ከተበደረችው 1 ቢሊዮን ዶላር በተጨማሪ በ10 አመታት ውስጥ በ6 ነጥብ 6 በመቶ ወለድ የሚከፈልበት ብድር ትወስዳለች።
የውጭ ኢንቨስትመንት እና አገሪቱ ወደ ውጭ የምትልከው የምርት መጠን መቀነሱን ተከትሎ አገሪቱ የገባችበትን የውጭ ምንዛሬ እጥረት ለመሸፈን ከፍተኛ ዋጋ የሚያስፍልገውን የብድር አይነት ለመውሰድ ሳትገደድ እንደማትቀር መረጃዎች ያሳያሉ። ገዢው ፓርቲ ከቻይና እና ከሌሎች አለማቀፍ አበዳሪ ድርጅቶች ከ17 እስከ 20 ቢሊዮን ዶላር የሚጠጋ ገንዘብ መበደሩን መረጃዎች ያሳያሉ።
We know ESAT is the mouthpiece of USA, that means mouthpiece of the USA establishment.
The USA establishment = banks, corporations and elites.
Why not write for what purpose the money was lent the last time, and for what purpose this time ?
And what are the collaterals for the loans ?
And does the author know what happened in Argentina and Greece ?
Does the author also know that bankers from the west are the worst criminals and subhumans ?
For example the leading western banks launder drug money, manipulate commodity prices, manipulate exchange rates, manipulate interest rates etc.
And does the author know about odious debt ?
Anyway this should be viewed as a criminal and hostile activity.
In international law, odious debt, also known as illegitimate debt, is a legal theory that holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, should not be enforceable. Such debts are, thus, considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion.
The doctrine was formalized in a 1927 treatise by Alexander Nahum Sack,[1] a Russian émigré legal theorist, based upon 19th-century precedents including Mexico’s repudiation of debts incurred by Emperor Maximilian’s regime, and the denial by the United States of Cuban liability for debts incurred by the Spanish colonial regime.
According to Sack:
When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders’ knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.
Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International (an environmental and public policy advocacy organisation in Canada), and author of Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World’s Environmental Legacy, has stated that:
by giving creditors an incentive to lend only for purposes that are transparent and of public benefit, future tyrants will lose their ability to finance their armies, and thus the war on terror and the cause of world peace will be better served.
You know what, this is the plan of the Anglo-Americans, the jews and the CIA to be able to influence Ethiopian policy after their puppet TPLF is gone. But they will not succeed.
Read below an example where the USA for the first time applied the “doctrine of odious debt” on Spain.
Quote:
“Excellent article, as usual, by Dr. Roberts. With reference to Correas repudiation of the foreign debt he refers to, President Correa determined it not to belong to the people of Ecuador, under the doctrine of odious debt having been contracted by pre-existing illegitimate dictatorial regimes. Gee, I wonder who thought THAT one up ? ( Turns out, it was the good ol US of A ). The US went to war in 1898, on the basis of pretext to get the American population aroused ( where have we seen THAT form of behavior before ? ) with the battle cry Remember the Maine ( a US battle ship which had managed to blow itself up (coal dust) in Havana Harbor ). After Spain lost, and the US took over Cuba ( and Puerto Rico and the Philippines ), Spain claimed that the US owed Spain all the money which Cuba owed to Spain. The US repudiated the debt claiming that it was odious debt incurred by the oppressive government Spain had put in place. So now, a hundred years later, the New York banks squawk when somebody claims the same rationale. ( Just a thought. Just maybe a good part of the US National Debt is odious debt. Like, maybe, half. You think ? ) .”