5 ms·

I guess the Chinese also read Confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins.

gruez 3y ago
Except if you read the article it's arguing that the opposite happened. >Note that although this is a debt trap, it isn’t really a case of “debt-trap diplomacy”, as some people accuse. Debt-trap diplomacy is where you get a country to owe you money, and you force it to make geopolitical concessions in exchange for loan forbearance. China doesn’t appear to be doing that; instead it appears to simply be walking away with as much of the money as it can, and thumbing its nose as it walks away, and leaving developing countries bitter and resentful.
- 3seashells 3y ago
  Eh, China is using its influence in global "democratic" institutions to align votes towards outcomes it favors.
  - gruez 3y ago
    Again, from the article: >But in the long run, this is almost certain to hurt China’s image in the world. Back when the money was flowing, the countries of the Global South saw China in a highly positive light — after all, the West’s money always comes with strings attached. >But because the Belt and Road was so ill-conceived, this warm fuzzy feeling always had an expiration date. Now that the Belt and Road has basically failed, and the cash faucet has been shut off, delight at China’s seeming largesse is clearly going to be replaced with resentment and distrust. Acting like a mafia loanshark is not generally a way to win friends and influence people.
- teekert 3y ago
  Hmm perhaps they should ready it more carefully then, like they did with 1984.
- ypeterholmes 3y ago
  They ended up with ownership of a port and a lot more though. The point of the article is that they are being short-sighted by angering everyone, but you saying that they did the opposite of predatory lending is wrong. It was absolutely predatory lending, just not well executed.
  - neaden 3y ago
    Is the port worth it though? The article points out it's not very busy and doesn't seem to have been made well. It seems like China is acting on very short term thinking here.

Except if you read the article it's arguing that the opposite happened. >Note that although this is a debt trap, it isn’t really a case of “debt-trap diplomacy”, as some people accuse. Debt-trap diplomacy is where you get a country to owe you money, and you force it to make geopolitical concessions in exchange for loan forbearance. China doesn’t appear to be doing that; instead it appears to simply be walking away with as much of the money as it can, and thumbing its nose as it walks away, and leaving developing countries bitter and resentful.

3seashells 3y ago
Eh, China is using its influence in global "democratic" institutions to align votes towards outcomes it favors.
- gruez 3y ago
  Again, from the article: >But in the long run, this is almost certain to hurt China’s image in the world. Back when the money was flowing, the countries of the Global South saw China in a highly positive light — after all, the West’s money always comes with strings attached. >But because the Belt and Road was so ill-conceived, this warm fuzzy feeling always had an expiration date. Now that the Belt and Road has basically failed, and the cash faucet has been shut off, delight at China’s seeming largesse is clearly going to be replaced with resentment and distrust. Acting like a mafia loanshark is not generally a way to win friends and influence people.
teekert 3y ago
Hmm perhaps they should ready it more carefully then, like they did with 1984.
ypeterholmes 3y ago
They ended up with ownership of a port and a lot more though. The point of the article is that they are being short-sighted by angering everyone, but you saying that they did the opposite of predatory lending is wrong. It was absolutely predatory lending, just not well executed.
- neaden 3y ago
  Is the port worth it though? The article points out it's not very busy and doesn't seem to have been made well. It seems like China is acting on very short term thinking here.