The real meaning of debt

Interesting story in this morning's FT about Argentina (Andrew Balls and Scheherazade Daneshkhu, "Argentina rejects calls to reopen credit talks," 18/04/2005):
The IMF's governing body, the IMFC have issued a statementwhich "suggests they have lost all patience with Argentina." But why?
"Argentina is off-track with its current IMF programme which means that while it is repaying the fund it has effectively abandoned its programme in part owing to its failure to meet the structural reform targets it signed up to."
Hmmm. Argentina apparently has to come up with "a strategy to resolve the remaining arrears outstanding to private creditors." But it seems "repaying the fund" is insufficient. Hidden in the detail of the story is the fact that "Both the IMFC and the G7 also said there should be no backsliding on structural reforms needed to promote sustainable growth in the country." And this is the real point. What's the point of Argentina simply repaying its debt if it does not deregulate its markets and open them up to private investment? Why bother with any of this globalisation stuff at all if G7 companies are unable to cream off massive profits?
This is the real world of global trade, all over the world. And this is the reason why Argentina, along with most of the rest of the world, is consigned to poverty and exploitation, until we start playing by very, very different rules.