China has dramatically curtailed its lending in recent years. Now, it’s emerging as the largest debt collector for many of the world’s poorest nations — a shift that threatens to undermine poverty reduction efforts and fuel instability, according to a new report.
Lending for China’s Belt and Road Initiative — which includes funding for a massive series of new railways, ports and roads in the developing world — began winding down before the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Peak repayment: China’s global lending, released this month by Australia’s Lowy Institute, a foreign policy think tank. The report points to diplomatic pressure within China to restructure unsustainable debt and to recover outstanding debts from abroad for the change.
This is false. In case of Sri Lanka, they did take the port back and arguably the whole thing was setup since the economic viability of the port is suspect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html
You’re either ignorant or a demagogue.
If the economic viability of the port is suspect what does China gain by taking it back? An asset that is losing them money instead of losing Sri Lanka money? Or are they managing it better so it produces a profit for them but not under Sri Lankan management? Are they selling off the assets to try to recoup as much of their investment as possible but still end up worse off than if they never paid for it in the first place?
What is the allegation here?
That China’s investments aren’t necessarily beneficial for the country host country.
There is an element of domination and geopolitics (having a de facto military port on India’s doorstep).
nytimes isnt necessarily a trusted source for unbiased information about china, or americas dealings. that aside, i wish i could read that article without them demanding or selling my information. so can you post a breakdown for us paranoids?
This article references the story of the OG port from 2018:
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/2/17/sri-lankas-chinese-built-port-city-stirs-white-elephant-fears
That article seems to focus on environmental sustainability, which, while important, doesn’t really mention the economic viability aspect that was part of the allegations earlier in this thread.
Different port. I am referring to the one from 2018.
I can’t get past NYT’s paywall, and it’s the NYT, they’re not going to give an unbiased assessment, but I found the wikipedia article. I’m failing to see how China “took the port back.” Looks like a Chinese company bought an 85% stake into Hambantota International Port Group, an entity created by the Sri Lanken government to run the port. The agreement allows the Chinese company to operate the port for 99 years.
Then there’s this bit:
Let’s not play dumb, ok?
Said the pot to the kettle… your claim was refuted by several people. Maybe reconsider your stance?
What wasn’t refuted?
The port has no commercial viability. If it does, show me its transactions relative to ports of comparable size in say south India.
Have you ever lived or visited the region? Sri Lanka or south India. Or any part of the Indian subcontinent. Or any part of Asia for that matter.
Prove me wrong! I will admit I am wrong and will appreciate the correction.
Well…you started with the idea that the financing of the port was a debt trap. I and others have already provided info stating otherwise. You appear to be moving the goalposts.