"...the idea to declare the hundreds of billions of dollars owed to foreign creditors as "odious debt" is being promoted by some conservatives in the Bush administration."
Can you imagine them ever writing:
"...the idea to declare the hundreds of billions of dollars owed to foreign creditors as "odious debt" is being promoted by some liberals in the DemocratX administration." ?
It just wouldn't happen.
Of course not, in part because DemocratX would be wanting to forgive debt owed to the American Taxpayer, not debt owed by odious socialist dictators.
Just because a new government governs the same territory as an old one doesn't neccessarily mean it's the same entity. Russia kept lots of old commies in place, and not just the peon level ones either. Will Saddam's thugs be kept around in the new government? I don't think so. The new government is not merely a slightly modified continuation of the old one, but an entirely new entity. Why should it deprive it's people some more, to pay the costs of their own enslavement. Let the Arab fatcats pay the debt to nations and individuals outside the region, and forgive that owned to them. Repudiation of these debts could be looked on a form of declaring bankrupcy I suppose, but I prefer to look on it as I describe above.
In the case of debts run up by one's ex, one at least theoretically was a party to the actions that resulted in the debt, I don't see how debts for Saddams Palaces, his missles and his WMDs are the responsibility of the Iraqi people. The Russians/Soviets, the French and the Germans knew what sort of person they were advancing credit to, let them eat the debt, just a lenders have to eat bad loans here.
Yeah, Reuters has an undeniable anti-conservative/anti-Republican bias, but this particular attribution is an occasion for pride rather than complaint. For the last twenty odd years (at least) conservatives have unquestionably been the most systematic thinkers, and effective actors, in the struggle against tyranny.
The policy here discussed is not an opportunistic one purpose built for Iraq (as the Reuters spin attempts to imply) but reflects instead neo-conservative thinking about how dictatorships and autocracies are maintained. A flow of "booty" (from confiscation and piracy, or from aid money and loans, etc) which can be distributed, by the dictator, among the small, priveledged elite that supports his rule and runs the apparatus of repression, is essential. Cutting off or reducing such moneys will almost certainly reduce the duration of the regime. The doctrine of "odious debts" is part of this strategy. It is not actually so much about relieving newly free and representative governments of debts in incurred by dictators, as it is about discouraging loans, grants, etc to dictators in the first place.
See also: