5 ms·

What a weird headline. China isn't "calling in" the loans. Nothing sudden is happening here. They are following their preset repayment schedule. The author is

What a weird headline. China isn't "calling in" the loans. Nothing sudden is happening here. They are following their preset repayment schedule. The author is upset that China isn't willingly choosing to forgive billions in loans.

George83728 3y ago
The important context is that these loans were given with the expectation that the recipient would eventually default. These loans are backed by resource rights, and would also giving China considerable leverage to demand the right to create ports / military bases, etc. Anybody paying attention has seen this coming miles away (example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.04.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.04.014), but such loans are too tempting for borderline dysfunctional governments with short-sighted politicians to pass up.
- bequanna 3y ago
  Sure, but wouldn’t China be relying on those countries willingly giving those things (ports, resources, etc) to them? Why would any country do that?
  - George83728 3y ago
    If the debtor country doesn't cooperate the lender has all manner of soft and hard power to fall back on. They can fund political opponents or instigate coups to install a puppet government. Organize sanctions, train guerilla fighters, or even overtly start a war. Needless to say, China is not exactly a pioneer in this space...
    - bequanna 3y ago
      But doesn’t this make a huge opening for someone like the US to step in and say: “hey, we will bail you out and stop China from interfering. Just sign this treaty and let us occupy with some troops”?
  - boeingUH60 3y ago
    Sri Lanka handed over a port to China to pay off debt.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - tintedfireglass 3y ago
      pay off debt... to India
  - opportune 3y ago
    On one hand I don’t think China is doing that much wrong here, at least nothing worse than other countries. But basically because it’s not “those countries” giving those things away, it’s the corrupt kleptocrats who represent those countries which are giving them away in exchange for some personal gain. They don’t care about what it does the country because they can take their personal wealth and family to London or Miami and forget about it
    - peteradio 3y ago
      So it's like pick-pocketing a frail person.
  - neurostimulant 3y ago
    If they don't, they can't get new loans anymore, which will doom the country. It's really hard to grow your economy without foreign reverses. Even North Korea, a hermit kingdom, works really hard to grow their foreign reserve.
  - sshine 3y ago
    You can’t buy infrastructure in other countries because it’s not for sale. But when countries default on their loans, they can repay with infrastructure, e.g. with the thing they lent money to build. It is a kind of economic warfare, you could say, except it’s completely legal to bet on some country lending and defaulting.
- jasmer 3y ago
  No, this is not true. The loans were not made by special investment banks but regular banks of China, if they are not repayed it will be havoc. They expect the loans to be repaid, and are definitely in trouble now that there are defaults. Also the terms were less generous than IMF etc..
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    Regular banks or not, the Congo's Sicomines agreement (linked above) and Sri Lankan port seizure make it pretty clear - China stands to achieve strategic goals when countries default on loans.
    - jasmer 3y ago
      So yes, but, it's not very clear at all, and this idea that 'China is making the loans so they default and then get access to ports' is 'rationally cynical' but not quite right. Also, everyone is aware that this could be the reality and of the outcomes. In reality - China's loans were regular commercial loans made by regular commercial banks (don't get me wrong, at the behest of the CCP). The amount of $ lent out is staggering and it's not going to come back and it's yet another gigantic problem for China. And yes, in the end, 'ports will be seized' etc.. Also I think we should be cynical in that China has zero goodwill whatsoever, unlike I think the duplicitous goodwill of the West they don't care one bit and will absolutely dig their tentacles into poor countries in an attempt to control them. Unlike Soviet policy which was based on defence and handouts, China is based on deeper economic integration and they uses their 'very cheap labour and zero regard for anything' to build a lot of stuff. Africa is getting roads and airports which will go a long way to providing cover for the local regimes. It remains to be seen if they can keep this up, but I don't see it subsiding - China is in a very good position to provide 'very cheap stuff' to 'very poor countries' and lever that economic clout. India also uses it's 'serf population' as a form of geopolitical leverage, if you were wondering 'who build the Qatar stadiums' ... it was that. It's right for us to be cynical but we can't be arbitrarily cynical, it's generally a bit more complicated, and unfortunately there is zero public discussion or anything in the media in North America, and not enough in Europe either.
coldtea 3y ago
Meanwhile the IMF, used as tool by western capitalism, has drove countries to the ground, using its loans to pressure for all kind of unpopular ultra-neoliberal reforms that destabilized countries, driving people to extreme poverty, and shredding their social safety nets. Then there are the direct loans from those "forgiving" debtors (as per the article) which always come with all kinds of strings attached, political pressure to act as satellites, and policy change instructions. China learned from the best.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  What kind of reforms? Like labor laws, worker protections?
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Yes, to be precise, the destruction of labor laws...
- SanjayMehta 3y ago
  The IMF has a history of releasing loans to clear interest payments on older loans. They also force target countries to grow cash crops instead of wheat, for example. This forces the client country to become dependent on food imports, usually from the US.
  - rhaway84773 3y ago
    Here’s a simple question. If the IMF loans are so terrible, why do countries apply for them? And if giving out loans to countries is such an awesome tool for the IMF, why is it refusing to allow Pakistan to draw down already approved loans?
    - boeingUH60 3y ago
      The comment you're responding to is typical cope from corrupt, inept, and poorly-run countries looking for excuses on why they remain poor. I see this in my country (Nigeria) too...that somehow it's the IMF keeping us poor, not our stupid leaders and an equally stupid populace voting them in.
nonethewiser 3y ago
You hear the same language with fear mongering about foreign countries “calling in” US debt. These people must be terrified of their bank all of a sudden demanding the entirety of their remaining mortgage now.

George83728 3y ago

The important context is that these loans were given with the expectation that the recipient would eventually default. These loans are backed by resource rights, and would also giving China considerable leverage to demand the right to create ports / military bases, etc. Anybody paying attention has seen this coming miles away (example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.04.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.04.014), but such loans are too tempting for borderline dysfunctional governments with short-sighted politicians to pass up.

bequanna 3y ago
Sure, but wouldn’t China be relying on those countries willingly giving those things (ports, resources, etc) to them? Why would any country do that?
- George83728 3y ago
  If the debtor country doesn't cooperate the lender has all manner of soft and hard power to fall back on. They can fund political opponents or instigate coups to install a puppet government. Organize sanctions, train guerilla fighters, or even overtly start a war. Needless to say, China is not exactly a pioneer in this space...
  - bequanna 3y ago
    But doesn’t this make a huge opening for someone like the US to step in and say: “hey, we will bail you out and stop China from interfering. Just sign this treaty and let us occupy with some troops”?
- boeingUH60 3y ago
  Sri Lanka handed over a port to China to pay off debt.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tintedfireglass 3y ago
    pay off debt... to India
- opportune 3y ago
  On one hand I don’t think China is doing that much wrong here, at least nothing worse than other countries. But basically because it’s not “those countries” giving those things away, it’s the corrupt kleptocrats who represent those countries which are giving them away in exchange for some personal gain. They don’t care about what it does the country because they can take their personal wealth and family to London or Miami and forget about it
  - peteradio 3y ago
    So it's like pick-pocketing a frail person.
- neurostimulant 3y ago
  If they don't, they can't get new loans anymore, which will doom the country. It's really hard to grow your economy without foreign reverses. Even North Korea, a hermit kingdom, works really hard to grow their foreign reserve.
- sshine 3y ago
  You can’t buy infrastructure in other countries because it’s not for sale. But when countries default on their loans, they can repay with infrastructure, e.g. with the thing they lent money to build. It is a kind of economic warfare, you could say, except it’s completely legal to bet on some country lending and defaulting.
jasmer 3y ago
No, this is not true. The loans were not made by special investment banks but regular banks of China, if they are not repayed it will be havoc. They expect the loans to be repaid, and are definitely in trouble now that there are defaults. Also the terms were less generous than IMF etc..
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Regular banks or not, the Congo's Sicomines agreement (linked above) and Sri Lankan port seizure make it pretty clear - China stands to achieve strategic goals when countries default on loans.
  - jasmer 3y ago
    So yes, but, it's not very clear at all, and this idea that 'China is making the loans so they default and then get access to ports' is 'rationally cynical' but not quite right. Also, everyone is aware that this could be the reality and of the outcomes. In reality - China's loans were regular commercial loans made by regular commercial banks (don't get me wrong, at the behest of the CCP). The amount of $ lent out is staggering and it's not going to come back and it's yet another gigantic problem for China. And yes, in the end, 'ports will be seized' etc.. Also I think we should be cynical in that China has zero goodwill whatsoever, unlike I think the duplicitous goodwill of the West they don't care one bit and will absolutely dig their tentacles into poor countries in an attempt to control them. Unlike Soviet policy which was based on defence and handouts, China is based on deeper economic integration and they uses their 'very cheap labour and zero regard for anything' to build a lot of stuff. Africa is getting roads and airports which will go a long way to providing cover for the local regimes. It remains to be seen if they can keep this up, but I don't see it subsiding - China is in a very good position to provide 'very cheap stuff' to 'very poor countries' and lever that economic clout. India also uses it's 'serf population' as a form of geopolitical leverage, if you were wondering 'who build the Qatar stadiums' ... it was that. It's right for us to be cynical but we can't be arbitrarily cynical, it's generally a bit more complicated, and unfortunately there is zero public discussion or anything in the media in North America, and not enough in Europe either.

coldtea 3y ago

Meanwhile the IMF, used as tool by western capitalism, has drove countries to the ground, using its loans to pressure for all kind of unpopular ultra-neoliberal reforms that destabilized countries, driving people to extreme poverty, and shredding their social safety nets. Then there are the direct loans from those "forgiving" debtors (as per the article) which always come with all kinds of strings attached, political pressure to act as satellites, and policy change instructions. China learned from the best.

nonethewiser 3y ago
What kind of reforms? Like labor laws, worker protections?
- coldtea 3y ago
  Yes, to be precise, the destruction of labor laws...
SanjayMehta 3y ago
The IMF has a history of releasing loans to clear interest payments on older loans. They also force target countries to grow cash crops instead of wheat, for example. This forces the client country to become dependent on food imports, usually from the US.
- rhaway84773 3y ago
  Here’s a simple question. If the IMF loans are so terrible, why do countries apply for them? And if giving out loans to countries is such an awesome tool for the IMF, why is it refusing to allow Pakistan to draw down already approved loans?
  - boeingUH60 3y ago
    The comment you're responding to is typical cope from corrupt, inept, and poorly-run countries looking for excuses on why they remain poor. I see this in my country (Nigeria) too...that somehow it's the IMF keeping us poor, not our stupid leaders and an equally stupid populace voting them in.

nonethewiser 3y ago

You hear the same language with fear mongering about foreign countries “calling in” US debt. These people must be terrified of their bank all of a sudden demanding the entirety of their remaining mortgage now.