Debt; Reformation; North Korea

BBC Radio Ulster - Sunday Sequence, Debt; Reformation; North Korea

"‘In the Old Testament, it was very clear that the Old Testament law given to Moses suggests that to lend money was not acceptable when it was to somebody who was in poverty. However, it was permitted to land money in a commercial sense to the foreigner, to the person outside of the country or the faith of Israel. So I think there is a principle there, that lending in a business context is usually ethically acceptable. But where we're lending on the back of somebody’s misery and then really squeezing them. I think from an ethical and particularly from a Christian point of view, that is worrisome’

‘So where... in your view is the responsibility on the part of the lender when things go wrong and the debt can't be repaid? What responsibility does the lender have in those situations?’

‘Well, arguably, by that stage, it's too late. In that case, that there shouldn't have been the loan with the interest attached and hence getting the person or indeed, as Chris was saying entire countries as in the context of the European Union, the eurozone, Greece, etc’...

‘Coming from the credit union point of view, when we lend money, we lend money that belongs to other members. You know, we don't have this pool of money that just belongs to the credit union that we lend. So for members in the credit union to borrow, they’re borrowing from their friends or neighbors, people that they work with, people that they have a common bond with. So for them not to repay that debt is a great difficulty for us’...

‘If you actually think of that word, credit, it comes from the Latin word credo. Which means, you know, I believe... it's based on the fact that credit, the idea of credit is based on a relationship. It's based on a relationship with two people who know each other, the creditor and the debtor’.

[In 2017] ‘He believes that a Chinese takeover of North Korea may be the safest method of containment.’

‘The history of North Korea is that after the Korean War 1950 to 53, North Korea was essentially a Chinese protectorate. China had sent in a million troops then to beat back the Americans and the South Koreans and forced the ceasefire, really the armistice that was there in 1953. But then, in the ensuing half century, the two countries drifted apart. What I'm saying is that there is a logic at least for resuming that protectorate status. North Korea says, or is said to want a security guarantee. The country that could give it a security guarantee and place it under its nuclear umbrella would be China. And China would benefit from gaining greater influence over the Korean Peninsula. So I think the possibility of a Chinese military intervention or threat of it, to force a regime change or change of policy by the regime in North Korea, is a pretty serious possibility if things continue to escalate.’...

‘I think that a China takeover or threat of a takeover has a higher possibility of working than an American one because the Korean People's Army, the military force in North Korea that supports Kim Jong Un, would be much more inclined to to say yes to China, would be much more inclined to think that their future could be credibly guaranteed as an autonomous state under Chinese protection, so that such a threat would divide the North Korean People's Army perhaps away from the hardliners and, and towards a more pro China position. So there's a negotiation to happen but also, China has a long border with North Korea, tanks can run over it and quickly overcome the North. And also, I don't think North Korea in those circumstances would be as likely to attack Seoul and South Korea as it would be in the case of a conflict with America. So the, the odds are better for a Chinese military intervention than for an American one, but let's not be an armchair general about this, all military interventions are terribly risky and no intervention could be described as low risk, and that certainly would not be the case with the Chinese one, either’"


If you don't lend to people who want it (because you doubt they can pay you back, e.g. redlining), is it discrimination?