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.

    • Alloi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      62·
      7 days ago

      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?

    • taladar@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      62·
      7 days ago

      the economic viability of the port is suspect.

      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?

      • Skiluros@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        22·
        6 days ago

        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).

    • Dogyote@slrpnk.netEnglish
      21·
      7 days ago

      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:

      Writing in 2023, academic and former UK diplomat Kerry Brown states that China’s relationship to the Hambantota port has become the opposite of the theorized debt-trap modus operandi. Brown observes that China has had to commit more money to the project, expose itself to further risk, and has had to become entangled in complex local politics. As of at least 2024, the port is not a significant commercial success, although shipping through the port is increasing.

        • Dogyote@slrpnk.netEnglish
          1·
          5 days ago

          Said the pot to the kettle… your claim was refuted by several people. Maybe reconsider your stance?

          • Skiluros@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            12·
            5 days ago

            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.

            • Dogyote@slrpnk.netEnglish
              1·
              5 days ago

              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.

              • Skiluros@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                11·
                4 days ago

                What info have you provided?

                There is no moving goalposts. From the Wikipedia article:

                Construction of the port commenced in January 2008. In 2016, it reported an operating profit of $1.81 million but was considered economically unviable.[4] As debt repayment got difficult, the newly-elected government decided to privatise an 80% stake of the port to raise foreign exchange in order to repay maturing sovereign bonds unrelated to the port.[5][6] Of the two bidding companies, China Merchants Port was chosen,[5] which was to pay $1.12 billion to Sri Lanka and spend additional amounts to develop the port into full operation.[7][8][9]

                In July 2017, the agreement was signed, but CMPort was allowed a 70% stake. Simultaneously a 99-year lease on the port was granted to CMPort.

                Can you explain Kerry Brown’s arguement in context of this information?

                • Dogyote@slrpnk.netEnglish
                  1·
                  4 days ago

                  Brown observes that China has had to commit more money to the project, expose itself to further risk, and has had to become entangled in complex local politics.

                  That’s not how a debt trap is supposed to work.

                  • Skiluros@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                    12·
                    4 days ago

                    Says who?

                    It’s pretty clear you have no clue what you are talking about or you’re playing dumb (in an effort to work as a free PR shill for China).

                    I am done here!