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.
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).