Developing countries owe Chinese lenders at least $1.1 trillion, according to a new data analysis published Monday, which says more than half of the thousands of loans China has doled out over two decades are due as many borrowers struggle financially.

Overdue loan repayments to Chinese lenders are soaring, according to AidData, a university research lab at William & Mary in Virginia, which found that nearly 80% of China’s lending portfolio in the developing world is currently supporting countries in financial distress.

For years, Beijing marshalled its finances toward funding infrastructure across poorer countries – including under an effort that Chinese leader Xi Jinping branded as his flagship “Belt and Road Initiative,” which launched a decade ago this fall.

That funding flowed liberally into roads, airports, railways and power plants from Latin America to Southeast Asia and helped power economic growth among borrowing countries. Along the way, it drew many governments closer to Beijing and made China the world’s largest creditor, while also sparking accusations of irresponsible lending.

  • @torknorggren@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    48 months ago

    What happens if countries just default? Do non-Chinese lenders care? Does it trash bond ratings across the board?

    • andyburke
      link
      fedilink
      178 months ago

      I think in many cases China takes control of the infrastructure they built since the countries miss payments.

      This was widely predicted to be the Chinese strategy: make loans to countries they knew could not pay with favorable terms for China when the country defaults.

      • @stella@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        78 months ago

        That would involve these nations honoring their business dealings, which they don’t seem willing to do.

        Is China going to invade and occupy nations who don’t comply?

        I guess we’ll see. Might not be a bad result for the nations, honestly. Supporting Chinese military bases might stimulate their economies.

        • @Taian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -38 months ago

          Lmao the delusions. You can’t not commerce with China if you are a developing country. Not honoring the contracts would mean an absolute destroy of any of the developing countries economies. Don’t give opinions on shit you don’t know about.

          • @stella@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -38 months ago

            Calm down. Your argument looks weaker when you fill it with insults.

            Gonna block you now. Learn to conduct yourself in a respectful manner.

            • @Taian@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              28 months ago

              If you aren’t capable of understanding the context of different words thats on you buddy. Good luck creating your own little eco-chamber.

      • prole
        link
        fedilink
        English
        38 months ago

        It’s obviously been a debt trap from the start. Is anyone really naive enough to think China was building up Africa’s infrastructure out of the kindness of their hearts?

    • @redcalcium
      link
      English
      138 months ago

      It happened in Sri Lanka a while ago. China financed the construction of a new deep water port. The port is finished, but Sri Lanka can’t service the debt so the new port is now under China’s control (99 years lease agreement).

      • @torknorggren@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 months ago

        Oof. I wonder how that will work in the case of infrastructure like roads and bridges–long term tolls? At some point it has to eat away at whatever good will the Chinese were trying to buy.

        • @Ringmasterincestuous@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          28 months ago

          If you let them build military bases and run dubious assorted operations they are actually quite reasonable with repayment plans.

          Source: am Australian

      • @zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        18 months ago

        Honestly, sounds like a pretty good deal? You now get access to a port and all the economic advantages that provides, but you don’t have to actually fund operations for it.

        That’s a fucking bargain. If I could build a subway with someone else’s money in exchange for them taking all fare revenue, sign me the fuck up.

        • @redcalcium
          link
          English
          18 months ago

          The thing is, Sri Lanka already have a deep water port before building the new one. They expected the new port would bring extra revenue, but turns out it’s not the case. The amount of ship docking in Sri Lanka doesn’t increase and they mostly use the old port. If the amount of ship docking in Sri Lanka stay stagnant and China managed to convince them to use the new port instead of the old one, then Sri Lanka may actually got even more fucked than currently is.

          • @zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            18 months ago

            Then it literally doesn’t matter? China takes over the new port, nothing changes essentially.

            • @redcalcium
              link
              English
              18 months ago

              It does matter for two reasons: if ships traffics stay stagnant but they prefer to dock in the new ports, Sri Lanka will get less money from port fees even though the transfer of goods stay the same. Also, China is known to employ their own people, bringing them over from the mainland, even for menial low wage jobs. This means less job opportunities for the locals around the new port.

              • @zerfuffle@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                The Port of Colombo is already operating at it’s 7m TEU capacity: 6.84m in 2020, 7.25m in 2021 and 6.86m in 2022. All this during a global recession and as the appreciating USD basically exports inflation abroad.

                If your operating under the assumption that Sri Lankan growth is doomed, no wonder you’re so negative. It’s frankly a silly way to look at things: if a New York subway is operating at capacity and not seeing growth in ridership, do you just say “well, ridership is staying stagnant so adding a new subway line is just going to shift riders around and thus is not worth it.”

                It’s a bad perspective for a developed country, but it’s even worse for a developing country that’s relying on increased trade to pull people out of poverty and improve quality of life. Those are the factors that matter. If Sri Lanka can’t increase trade volume, they’re super fucked and having one less port leaves them still super fucked. If Sri Lanka CAN increase trade volume, having one more port is obviously massively beneficial regardless of where the money goes (nevermind that port fees for the first decades of operation are often used to offset the capital cost of construction). Essentially, you’re picking up pennies in front of a freight train.