- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
Vulnerable countries to pay record $22bn this year, mostly relating to loans issued under Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative
The most vulnerable nations on Earth are facing a “tidal wave” of debt repayments as a Chinese lending boom starts to be called in, a new report has warned.
The analysis, published on Tuesday by Australian foreign policy thinktank the Lowy Institute, said that in 2025 the poorest 75 countries were on the hook for record high debt repayments US$22bn to China. The 75 nations’ debt formed the bulk of the total $35bn calculated by Lowy for 2025.
“Now, and for the rest of this decade, China will be more debt collector than banker to the developing world,” the report said.
The pressure to repay was putting strain on local funding for health and education as well as climate change mitigation.
Oh I’m suuuure China has no ulterior motives… good guys you know
Oh, they certainly do, but their ulterior motives aren’t “see if we can grind poor people into cash powder”, like the IMF’s is.
Don’t be naive. If it benefits China, they would be more than happy to grind people to “cash powder”.
Surely, but the difference is that China isn’t going in with the express intent of creating a debt trap to leverage poor countries to adopt austerity. They’re not saints, but it turns out that being 100x better than the IMF is a very low bar, like being more ethical than the CIA.
They are not better than the IMF or more ethical than the CIA. They are most likely far worse.
Why?
The American government (I think that’s what you are referencing when using the term CIA) has done a lot of very bad things. I don’t they’ve done anything as bad as the concentration camps and cultural genocide in Xinjiang (in the last ~100 years).
IMF can actually be flexible in some situations and there is measure of accountability. Chinese loans are managed by the CCP; an authoritarian criminal group.
I would like to suggest that you read the Jakarta Method. The CIA is directly responsible for multiple reactionary movements around the world, and those efforts very reliably led to mass murder, in some cases at the direct request of the CIA. The OSS, the precursor to the CIA, overthrew Guatemala’s government because they had the gall to pay United Fruit what they said their farms were worth in tax filings when they nationalized the farms, and they went ahead and re-instated chattel slavery there, as a treat. Dulles apparently did a jig in his socks he was so happy about it.
X
Why would China want to force a country to evolve their economy in any way? China is in it for the assets they get. A perfect example is the Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. China lent their money to Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka spent it unwisely and China accepted a 99 year lease on the newly built port as partial debt repayment. The lease agreement said “no military use” and 3 years ago China docked a military survey ship at that port.
So tell me which is worse: a few years of austerity, or a 99 year loss of your largest and newest port to a foreign nation ?
That doesn’t seem uniquely terrible to me, as an American. That’s just kind of what empires do, and I doubt I’d have to go very far to find a dozen examples of the US doing something quite similar. And it’s not a few years of austerity, the austerity causes long-term disturbances in the well being of the population, and is sometimes never undone. The IMF are some of the biggest bastards on the planet, you’d almost be better off dealing with the devil.
Our discussion is between China lending and the IMF lending, not the USA.
Long term disturbances like losing your port nation’s seaport to China for 99 years? Also with the distance possibility it will be a Chinese military base on your own soil without your consent?
Also you’re mixing to concepts as equal when they aren’t. IMF austerity is an imposed condition for getting a loan. A country considering an IMF loan can choose to not take IMF money and therefore not impose austerity. China is doing worse here where they’re allowing bad loans with no conditions, but write into the agreements that China gets national assets when the country defaults. As in, the country doesn’t have a choice to forgo the Chinese money and keep their assets that ship (pun intended) has already sailed.
I’m not defending the IMF’s actions. They’re no angels. However it seems you’re answering you’d prefer to deal with China and lose your countries land and national assets.
Now hold on, so if someone agrees to the conditions of the loan for the IMF (austerity), that’s just business, but it isn’t if they agree to the conditions of the loan from China (99-year lease on a port on default)? Those both sound like Caveat Emptor to me, but only one of them is laser targeted on hurting the most disadvantaged in a country.
With the IMF terms, the negatives are all up-front. As in: you want this money, you will have to have this negative. The China deal is “take the money and spend it on whatever you want. Oh, you’re broke now and can’t pay us back? Well, we’re going to break your legs now for non-payment.”
The IMF loan would be the equivalent of having a bank loan with a high interest rate (meaning you have less money to spend on other things). The China deal is getting deferred payment on drugs from your drug dealer. He knows you’re not going to be able to pay him back and will extract the value of the drugs in some other worse way. Its predatory lending only apparent on the back end after the choice is removed from you.
Do the Uyghurs not count?
They certainly do. China is straight up a police state, and what they’re doing to the Uyghurs is ghastly and draconian. I hate it and I think it’s really backwards, but there’s little evidence I’ve seen that actually meets the qualifications for genocide. Unlike what our best buddies in the whole wide world are doing in Gaza and the West Bank. What’s more is that it turns out we’re also a police state, and that the IMF promotes instability and oppression via austerity measures. So, pick your poison, I guess.
Lets start with: What is your definition of genocide?
So, that would be working towards the eradication of a people. There’s various ways to get there, forced sterilization (which we did with native Americans), outright slaughter or famine (which we did with native Americans), forced removal campaigns (spoiler alert), and, of course, the eradication of cultural identity (like the boarding schools for native Americans).
AFAICT, the evidence for what’s happening in Xinjiang is mostly around re-education camps, which could arguably qualify on the fourth criterion, but we don’t really have any reliable details on it because authoritarian governments generally don’t share their secret squirrel bullshit publicly. Also, people get sent to prison hella easy and locals generally aren’t free to walk around unaccompanied. That’s all batshit insane police state shit that Trump would implement today if he thought he could get away with it, but it’s not Genocide. To my understanding, there is no evidence to support the idea that Uyghurs are being slaughtered in masse or that there is any kind of effort to depopulate them. And there’s certainly nothing like we’re seeing in Gaza, I seriously doubt even China could hide something like that.
I’m glad to see we agree on the definition of genocide to include intentional destruction of the culture.
I’m not sure you’ve looked very hard at the “destruction of culture” aspects China is imposing. Here’s an article from CNN from 6 years ago:
“Chinese Uyghurs forced to welcome Communist Party into their homes: Government statements and state media reports show that families are required to provide detailed information during the visits on their personal lives and political views. They are also subject to “political education” from the live-in officials– whose stays are mandated to be at least one week per month in some locations.”
"In numerous photos posted online, the authorities paint a picture of ethnic unity, showing smiling Han officials and minority families jointly preparing meals, doing household chores, playing sports and even sharing the same bed – images that Human Rights Watch’s Wang says put the “forced intimacy” element of the program on full display. "
“A local government statement online also indicated that officials must inspect the homes they are staying for any religious elements or logos – and instructed the officials to confiscate any such items found in the house.”
““The real intention of the Chinese government is to eliminate the Uyghurs as a distinct ethnic group,” Rebiya Kadeer, a longtime exiled Uyghur leader who recently stepped down as president of the advocacy group World Uyghur Congress, told CNN in an interview in Washington last year.”
source
I see. Thanks for that, I’ll have to re-evaluate.
You agree that both have ulterior motive right?
Well I certainly know for whom the Chinese aim to benefit.