tions refuse to pay the vast interest rates which condemn their countries to indefinite poverty? Surely the obvious solution for Brazil, other large debtor nations is to simply default? Indeed, this would be the best solution, turning the tables on the IMF, World Bank and the corporate loan sharks like Citicorp and Barclays.
The reason they don't is political. It is extremely difficult for an individual country to default. Foreign credits and loan rescheduling are vital to gain the foreign currency especially dollars - needed to finance imports. If one country defaulted the response from the West would be immediate and massive. When former Peruvian president Alan Garcia declared à 90-day moratorium on debt payment, Peru was hit by devastating financial sanctions.
Io be politically effective, default would be better carried out by several countries acting together. The issue is one of political will - the willingness to perialism.
If a revolutionary working class government came to bower in one country, especialy in a strong country like Brazil, refusal to pay the debt, at least in its present form, would be essential. But the consequence would be an immediate confrontation with the imperialists. It would mean having to fight to mobilise support in other debtor countries, and fighting for political solidarity from the workers movement in the West.
The ruling classes in the debtor countries dare not contemplate a fight with imperialism over the debt, because they are dependent on imperialism themselves. In any case it is not the rich elites who suffer from the debt crisis, but the poor. The rich can get their money out of the country. Their whole livelihood is linked to trade and financial deals with the United States and other imperialist nations. Repudiation of the debt, which means a revolutionary mobilisation, is directly against their own interests.
Repudiation of the debt is therefore highly unlikely without the revolutionary conquest of power by the popular