A
Biblical Basis For Calling For Reparation
By
Choolwe M. Mwetwa
It has been hotly debated whether the developed world owes poor countries like Zambia, a significant level of material assistance. For a number of reasons they obviously do. For instance, because some of the effects of poverty such as ignorance (that can result in hazards such as environmental degradation etc.), crime and disease, cannot strictly be confined to any part of the world, it is for the good of the richer nations to help their poorer friends. The connected nature of the human race demands a measure of responsiveness from the West particularly. So, there is no doubt about the fact that these nations have a duty to offer significant, and not piecemeal assistance.
But there is a more foundational and critical obligation that the West has, to most developing countries than giving of aid, and this is the debt of compensation. The reason is simply that, during the days of colonialism especially, vast resources were illegally taken out of countries such as ours. This plunder included the externalisation of raw materials, slave labour and to this day, profits from unfair trade. What we are therefore dealing with, sorry to say, is the problem of THEFT.
This being a serious matter or charge, the pressure to carefully define the charge is irresistible. Simply defined, theft or stealing is taking another person’s property by any means, without their free consent (cf. Exodus 22:8,9). Stealing may occur in three different ways. First, it may be by coercion or force. Where a person, group of people or a nation forcibly grab(s) the possessions of another, there theft has taken place. Forcibly transferring minerals, other raw materials or labour from a country under domination to another country, is as much theft as robbing a bank. Non-tangible commodities like freedom, in its various strands, can also be subjects of theft. Occupying nations are guilty of this.
Second, stealing also occurs by fraud or deception. A company selling underweight flour is guilty of theft. They steal too who indulge in bribery. Therefore exploiting the ignorance or weakness of another for gain, engineering inflation or devaluation for gain, excessive interest or any unfair business practices are all forms of theft, which individuals, institutions, nations, or a group of nations, may be guilty of.
Third, stealing may even be couched in legislation. Laws that promote and protect stealing can be passed. When a legal contract is entered to buy goods cheaply from a poor man or nation, this is no less an evil than robbing a market store. This is the case too when laws that eliminate weaker nations from accessing the markets of the stronger are set and applied, whatever the screams of those who claim the legality of such transactions. There is such a thing as unjust laws. The mere fact that human institutions legalise an act, does not make that act morally correct. God’s law is the ultimate standard for right and wrong. Abortion and homosexuality may be legalised by a state. But no state can free the conscience from the shame and horrors of being guilty of these evils. Only God is Lord of the conscience.
From the foregoing definition of theft, there is little doubt that nations that have been guilty of building and sustaining their economies by either of these stated (or indeed other) means, are flatly guilty of theft. This may sound like a harsh thing to say, but what else can servants of truth call such actions?
If indeed theft is the crime these nations are guilty of, well the judge of the universe declares that theft is an evil, a sin (Ex. 20:15). It is an evil he expresses hatred for by sever forms of punishment (1Cor. 6:10). Even nations guilty of the stated theft have clear laws condemning theft in the most harsh tones. The main occupants of their jails are people guilty of theft - the very crime these nations are being charged with.
Since stealing is a criminal action deserving sever punishment, no one guilty of stealing must be freed until they make full payment for their crime. The bible recognises two forms of punishment for the crime of theft. The first is restitution and the second is the forfeiture of one’s freedom (imprisonment): “A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft” (Exodus 22:3b cf. New Testament for restitution Luke 19:8,9; Philemon 18,19). Absolution from the crime of theft must needs take one or the other of these two penalties. But the culprits in the case under consideration are nations. This obviously eliminates the second option, leaving us with the penalty of restitution as the most enforceable. But in biblical usage, restitution includes both restoration of stolen items and compensation for loss or damages (Exodus 22:4). Again restoration of stolen items such as minerals, freedom, labour, land and human life is currently impractical. The practical demand therefore, must be for reparation or compensation. This entails paying back the value of the things a people are robbed of, plus damages.
First, to be reconciled with the law. Stealing is wrong and criminal because the law of God describes it thus. For justice to be satisfied, the penalty set by this same supreme law must be met fully. In the case of theft (i.e. violating the law to respect the property of others), justice is decisively met when reparation is made. So the first concern by nations that have stolen from other nations, is to seek harmony with the supreme law and indeed the laws of every civilised people.
Second, to secure forgiveness. Compensation is made to the robbed party, to secure their pardon (Leviticus 6:5 - “to the owner”). Theft inflicts the most painful injury upon the robbed. It breeds bitterness, hate, vengefulness and violent reaction. Until repayment is made, peace between the thief and the robbed is tentative. To foster lasting global peace and trust, reparation by the erring nations would be a starter. The marvel of this wonderful grace of reparation is that, for those with morals, it secures the most valuable treasures mortal man has ever been in need of, namely, reconciliation with the offended neighbour, reconciliation with conscience and reconciliation with God (cf. Numbers 5:6,7 “unfaithful to Jehovah”) – yes, of all parties, God is the most offended, being absolutely holy.
Third, to regain honour. Reparation also restores to the thief the honour lost in his criminal act. By any standards, stealing is shameful. There is no honour in boasting about success achieved by criminal brilliance and the impoverishment of millions. A good name is to be preferred to great riches (Proverbs 22:1).
Reparation is not made according to the preference or capacity of the offender, but by principles set by the law-giver. In scripture you get varying criteria for compensation (Exodus 22:4 has double. Numbers 5:7 has a fifth). Whatever the reasons, one thing is clear, and this is that, the repayment is always more than the actual value of the goods stolen. Compensation in the absolute sense of the word, is the underlying concern. And this is inclusive of all damages. The varying applications suggested in scripture, are themselves reminders that fluctuating economic factors related to the theft, will ultimately determine the level of compensation over and above the base repayment. Some of these may be the degree of harm the theft will cause, and the amount of wealth the stolen goods will bring to the thief.
In the present circumstances, the reparation by the Western world may take any form that is not only in keeping with the principles just stated, but agreeable to the aggrieved party. Several options could be prospected, such as doubling for a duration, the price of goods sold to such countries, interest-free loans for a good duration, straight cash compensation, cost-fee developmental projects and of course, more simply, debt cancellation. Whatever the form, the reparation must be realistic and commensurate with the principle of repayment-plus. This is a matter of urgency. Time lost only increases the cost of debt repayment.
What makes it unpardonable for the West not to repay, are the facts that not only have they got the full ability to repay without impacting their economies, in curtain cases they have been actually guilty of sponsoring policies and actions that have brought about underdevelopment or even civil strife, for their own economic gain. The situation in Congo (Kinshasa) is a case in point. What is worse, all this exploitation is being done to poor nations.
It must be admitted plainly that much of the problems faced by our country cannot be entirely blamed on external factors, such as the kind we are holding the West responsible for. Poor economic management, corruption and theft by national leaders have been the root cause. But this is besides the point. Whether Zambia is a poor country or not, well managed or not, what has been stolen from her must be paid back. It is her due. This is the issue; the burning issue.
Answer: Time is never a factor in matters of justice. Have we not, at the surfacing of evidence, witnessed the trials of holocaust culprits, decades after the crime? In God’s judicial set-up, consequences of sin can be exacted after several millennia (Genesis 15:16). And have we forgotten that the sins of all human beings from Adam on, are yet to be exhaustively dealt with in the final judgement – 1000s of years later. So, justice may be delayed but never can it be disposed of.
Answer: By the same logic, debt repayment to Western nations and institutions like IMF and the World Bank should be abolished, since it is being demanded from “innocent” generations. Obviously this is short-circuiting justice. Governments borrow and repay on the principle of vicarious or federal transaction. They borrow and repay on behalf of their nations. For as long as their nations do not cease to exist, as nations they are required to repay all the debts entered into by their leaders. On this subject, the West is a better tutor.
Answer: Is this an imagined or a real problem? Besides, let us deal with first things first. The first thing must be for the guilty parties to admit guilt and acknowledge their obligation to compensate. Second, an attempt to calculate the theft and damage must be made from both the sides of the guilty and the aggrieved. Only after such an attempt yields little can such questions be raised. But even after no accurate assessment of the cost is safely arrived at, the principle of reparation, should nonetheless be pursued to some practical, realistic and fruitful end.
Answer: The question is, is this aid given as relief for the suffering or as reparation? The motive is crucial. What complicates matters is that much of this so-called aid, is often subjectively given. It is self-help aid. The donor countries give it in a manner that still promotes their own industries and labour needs. This aside, the point is, where reparation is the goal, it should be stated plainly. Reparation is a tangible expression of open regret, that should not be made covertly or in the spirit of a bribe. Unless the robbed party consciously receives the money as reparation and not aid, no reparation has been made.
Secondly, reparation is an act of repentance, it is an apology and a plea for mercy, done in a spirit of shame. Just how this can be reconciled with the conditionality annexed to the giving of aid, the mind begs to be excused.
Thirdly, if, by some misunderstanding, the aid happens to have indeed been given with the specific aim of compensating, the question is, is it given in accordance with the repayment-plus principle? In other words, is it equal to and beyond the value of the stolen wealth, to cater for damages?
Answer: Granted, that is our concern as well. But why not consider non-cash deals such as debt cancellation, massive developmental projects supervised by the compensating party, etc? Besides, it is not the prerogative of the thief to determine how the money he repays the owner is going to be used. Reparation is not a loan or grant, that is given conditionally. Even when property is stolen from a person who may have himself obtained it illegally, still it should be returned to him without hesitating; not even on grounds of the recipient’s moral worth to be compensated. I would also want to believe that each country has reputable non-governmental bodies that can handle cash reparation.
Answer: In this rare event, such property still is not retained by the thief. It must find its way to the heir of the robbed, if he is deceased. If none can be found, it goes to the principal giver of all good gifts, God himself (Numbers 5:8). Practically speaking, it must be given to charity, such as the church.
Well then, what shall we say in conclusion? There is little doubt that the African continent has suffered, and continues to suffer an incredible amount of exploitation and plunder in various forms. Nations of the developed world that have either actively done so, sympathised with it, did nothing when they had the means to reverse it, consented to it, or co-operated with the culprits, are guilty of the most shameful form of greed and theft. They have a moral duty to compensate this immense loss suffered by these poor countries. Unless the cry for justice in this appallingly dark phase of history is satisfactorily responded to, claims of civilisation remain a mockery. The quest for world peace will be smitten with endless miscarriages. And God the defender of the powerless, will exact his own justice. Fortunately, in God’s providence, he always gives the peoples of the earth opportunities to make amends. Will this grand opportunity offered by these loud pleas go begging?