Another issue with the BRI infrastructure projects is that they often stipulated bringing in laborers from China as well as all the engineers and architects. This often meant the local population lacked the expertise to maintain the project post completion.
It also means that most of the money stays inside the Chinese economy instead of the host nation as the laborers stay in camps set up by the companies. This means that while a local labor force would spend that money within the local economy and help it grow with supporting businesses, the Chinese labor force is spending that money within the company or sending it home.
@@utkarshverma7 You haven't seen Rwanda lately, have you? Anyone wanting Cobalt, copper, diamond, gold, graphite, ilmenite, iron ore, kyanite, lignite, manganese, monazite, rutile, tin, and uranium, that is in huge supply in the Central African Republic, (formerly Congo), goes through Rwanda. The place is the Singapore of Central Africa. Seriously, the main City of Kigali is amazing now. Google it, you'll be surprised. I did not know it was all funded by the Chinese though.
@Utkarsh Verma there are plenty of engineers in Rwanda, how do you think the rest of the countries infrastructure was built! Not to mention there are neighboring countries with their own engineers.
3:25 For anyone wondering, Renminbi (¥) is the actual name of the People's Rep of China's currency. And means "people's currency" in Mandarin. A *Yuan* is just 1 unit of this currency. An analogy was made to how the name of UK's currency is actually Sterling. With "Pound" representing just 1 unit of that.
When I learned about this initiative, I heard that China kind of had to expect losing that money or a big part of it. If that's true, bailouts and write-offs actually happening doesn't say anything about the success of the initiative. It's not about making even more money then, it's about putting all that cash to use in a way that benefits China. So the questions asked should be: 1) Did China improve its access to foreign markets? 2) Did China expand its political influence? But not "are its loans paid back?"
For real, I feel like he didn't even touch upon whether the program was successful or not in terms of transportation, infrastructure, trade and overall economic growth.
I'm surprised the video did not mention the collateral (or restructuring concessions) that borrowing countries are forced into: China may be quite happy to see a country default on a loan, when this means gaining a non-revocable 99-year lease on a foreign port, for instance.
Yea, it is almost negligent that this isn't mentioned. The Chinese are not stupid, they are aware that many of these governments are risky borrowers; they give out these loans because they can recoup their losses by taking a Cobalt mine or whatever at default. It is the same thing the IMF let Western investors do, and the IMF rightfully got in a lot of hot water for it. The BRI should really be viewed with more scrutinty than "it is just the Chinese making bad investments".
@LTNetjak Funny enough, for this reason international "courts" (forget the correct term) were created where basically companies can sue a country if they expect unfair treatment - the company and the country each name a "judge" and those 2 decide on a third one to then review the case, make a judgement and the company can then western countries accept those judgements - meaning the company can ask a western country to collect the debt. So if a country would nationalize the investment of a company, that company could then sue in these courts and get their money back. Problem being, these court proceedings are extremly expensive and judges often agree everyone has to pay a share -> resulting in companies making a loss despite winning the case.
@@Shuizid Sunnychild, and what if country don't abide this judgement? Do you imprison it? "International Law" for countries is more like laws of sandbox decided by playing children then to actual law set by countries or able organizations. There is no higher entity that can enforce any laws. Law is only law if it can be enforced. So international laws are actual laws if there is enforcement of it, in that case, are you or you friends ready to invade for debt collection.
Who says it hasn't done what it is suppose to do? First of all BRI projects required all or most construction companies to come from China so they mainly did not lose that much of the money. The money was mostly cycled back into China. Secondly they are getting allot of basing rights or outright ownership of many of these projects which gives them allot of leverage over these countries who owe them.
The China "debt trap" narrative has been debunked by the British Debt Justice and World Bank data. They found that African countries owe 3x more to Western banks, asset managers and oil traders than to China, and are charged double the interest. 12% of Africa's external debt was owed to China lenders, compared to 35% to Western private creditors. China has since cancelled the debt for 17 African nations.
All of this is wrong 😂😂😂 Most labor is local, some technician and engineers might be Chinese, but it wouldn't make sense to bring thousands of low skill workers from China. Also, no, this projects aren't owned by China. Not sure what "basing rights" are, but as the video shows, the idea of the Chinese debt trap and China arm twisting these countries into submission was always US fearmongering. China has gone out of it's way to bail out countries
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa High speed trains are a huge boondoggle, and even the ones in China are money losers. Regardless of the loan terms, this thing is of no real use, unless it can actually pay for itself, which is highly doubtful.
@@nukiolbartes6279 I don't think anyone believes that China will fail miserably, or conquer the world to begin with. At maximum, people see it as a aggressive dictator that recently did well for itself but is coming off its high. You wanna see some real schizo stuff though? Check Weibo and what Chinese talk about; they REALLY do believe the US is about to collapse and yet is somehow gonna destroy them lol
@@froggin-zp4nr Western democracies aren't doing that, not even their media, but China and Russia do that constantly. ESPECIALLY Russian media that boasts about LGBT weakness or something.
As an American who has seen decades of foreign aid, IMF loans, and general Third World corruption, I just want to completely fill YT's servers with laugh emojis over the thought that China thought these loans would be repaid.
@@recoil53 As a South African, living in said corrupt third world country, I want to laugh along. These loans only serve to prop up failing governments that doesnt serve the people.
Yes chinas percentage of sri lankan debt was only like 10%, and they didnt refinance because sri lanka would have went bankrupt anyways....everyone here is brainwashed by the CIA, same CIA that told you there were nukes in Iraq, same CIA referred to in the wikipedia page for american involvement in regime changes....i cant believe that western propaganda has you idiots so fucking brainwashed, china is literally the good guys, you guys are literally the fucking baddies
I've asked Africa students in my hometown university about this issue, and all of them said China Investment has made their countries far better than western did..western investment takes their natural resources wealth to Western countries, they only got paid just enough for government operations and it's not enough for infrastructure.. and China is not like we heard from US, and throughout human history, Chinese people went to other countries for business trade. They never thought about war invasion like Rome because it's not in their blood..
I think the major difference is that what china builds is there. It's usable they see it on the news they drive on the highway they use the port or at least see these things on the internet. In reality both are damaging to a countries future. True economic investments look like japans built train in India. They provide loans at 0.1% interest they establish 4 colleges to train engineers capable of operating and mentaining them. They build the project by hiring majority of the local population. In return they get india to become dependent on their system for it to import trains from them and expand the system. Also they start paying years after when the project has already become profitable.
Who would've thought that giving out money to countries unable to pay back would be bad thing? There's a reason why the IMF didn't lend these countries money.
I wrote an essay back in uni and I think the point is that they cannot pay it back so that they will force to sell out their port/key infrastructure or natural resource (which the Chinese economy needed) to the Chinese state or their state owned companies. You gain control over their infrastructure, you basically gain control of the blood vane of their economy. IMF used to do something similar and lend money to corrupted government to grant western companies control of their oil well but eventually stopped when people called them out for it. This is why IMF later created much stricter lending condition and China managed to sweep in. At the end, this is all Scramble for Africa v3.0.
Missing one key point here, China doesn't care about the loans coming back. This is about debt trapping developing countries, those loan renegotiations? Yeah they'll come with UN votes, port access, military bases. A very good deal for China. This is why some countries are now denying Chinese loans.
They actively target countries with corrupt government or straight up dictatorship cause they know they won't be able to pay back and essentially will be subjected to heavy Chinese influence.
@@imwivstuipid It's funny how when the West uses their debts to enforce free market reforms it's somehow good business, but when China lets other nations walk their own path while lending, it's "Debt Trap". This is such a fake myth.
Sure, only by loaning these countries money that they knew they could not pay back. That in anyone's book is a scummy thing to do but hey, it's what the CCP do.
The US kept fearmongering about Japan's economic dominance way after the post-war economic boom. Truth is, nobody really knows because the economy is pretty unpredictable a lot of the time.
Because US are not invited to join the BRI..US is failing as a world power , Their arrogance and greed has been noticed by the whole world. Especially the continent of Africa.
@@LB-yg2br speeding up the industrialisation of developing nations by providing infrastructure is a forward thinking money play... Africa is the youngest population speeding up its development ignites the positive loop of fast paced economic growth which creates demand for Chinese equipment, machinery and infrastructure congruent with economic development... then you'll also have a burgeoning middle class that now wants goods and services which is a market China can sate. China thinks in centuries not presidential cycles.
@@LB-yg2br shoring up Central Asia is a hedge against Turkish, Iranian or Russian dominance in the region. Hence China has supported Turkish banks, been a trade lifeline for Iran and increased trade with Russia instead of taking advantage of its weak state due to sanctions... they've bribed them to forget their ambitions. In South America its largely the same story it has underwritten Argentine economy to the tune of billions, provided essential investment in mining operations across Latin America and provided Brazilian security services with surveillance tech... this is all to make this region a viable consumer market in the next 50 years not to get UN votes next week
Sometimes they do this on purpose. I am not entirely certain which country it was, but I think it was somewhere in Asia or West Africa were they knew the country couldn't repay them, yet they kept feeding them money until the country said "sorry we cannot affort the built of this port anymore" and China anticipated this from the start and that is how they gained a port (for economic or military purpose) miles from the homeland. The dam built on an active volcano made me laugh a bit and this is a dumb example. But I think the main goal for China is the increase of softpower. Do not forget that China's economy is worth trillions and that those billions are a small amount of it. Countries that can pay you back with money have to use other ways to pay back China for example in allowing Chinese troops stationed in that country. Maybe it is not an economic success, but I still think China's influence grows through this project.
This is both stupid and ignorant. China has 1 overseas military base in Djibouti with 200 soldiers. It leased a port in Sri Lanka and uses it for commercial purposes only. Just as the EU forced Greece to sell and lease out it's airports, stadiums and ports when Greece defaulted.
This video completely misses the point. The whole point of the BRI is power. It gives them a lot of international support, increases the power of the Yuan since more countries are using it, and when countries can't pay back their debt they instead hand over valuable infrastructure to the Chinese, such as ports. The BRI is going fantastically well since the Chinese never expected to get their money back in the first place..
That is one perspective and I wholeheartedly agree with you, but there is the even greater QE perspective that no one in the West, but little old me, is bothering to explain which perspective is contained in my comment at about the 415 count that I humbly request that you take a moment of your time to read.
I mean, in the short term yeah. But how much influence do they really have after the loan goes bad and the country starts to hate them for the crippling repayment?
@@ThatGuy-bz2in It doesn't matter if the people hate them if they control the country. Do you think the people of the colonies liked their imperial masters?
There is a lot more to it and I humbly ask that you read my comment at about the 415 count, and you will have most, if not all of your questions answered.
Thing is, whenever China _does_ get its loans repaid, that's just a nice bonus, because they've *already* got the money back. These loans tend to be conditional on whatever projects they're being used to fund using Chinese labour and Chinese suppliers. They ship thousands of construction workers to wherever something's being built. All the money comes straight back to China.
Not really. If a government subsidizes its industry, it is spending money that it does not get back. The money they get back was supposed to be from the loans. Think about how farm subsidies work in the USA, is that a costless endeavor? In this case China is subsidizing its construction industry which has become oversized but is too vital to pare back. The Chinese construction industry is worth $3.7 trillion, China's total GDP is $18 million. Construction is 20% of their whole GDP but they are at a point where building projects for their primary market of growth, real estate, aren't viable in the same way they were in the recent past, so they need something to build because you can't just downsize 20% of your economy without massive repercussions.
@@AlephOmega-zy5qs No, the government itself doesn't get the money back (immediately), but China does. If you're paying Chinese workers to build something using Chinese materials with Chinese equipment, all the value, the wealth, stays in China and is not transferred to the other country. It remains in the Chinese economy. The added value of the completed infrastructure does transfer to the other country of course, so it's not quite as good as building infrastructure in your own country, but a large amount of the apparent cost is spent within the Chinese economy. Initially it goes to the workers, and the materials and equipment suppliers, but it gradually trickles its way back to the government through taxation. On this scale, money works less like an asset with value that can be exchanged and instead like the working fluid in a heat engine, enabling the transfer of work from one part of the system to another. When the US pays its farmers subsidies, as with spending on any other public service - healthcare, schools, military, that money mostly continues to circulate in the US economy and overall the government spends the same amount as it brings in. Back to the heat pump analogy, the government (along with central banks) works like the expansion valve, regulating the flow of the output generated by the compressor (workers) so it can transfer that work to the broader economy. As long as there are no leaks, all the money stays in the system. Leaks in this case would be money leaving the country (eg to import goods, energy, etc) but even then, the _global_ economy is a self-contained system.
@@jhonbus That engine analogy is the heart of my issue here. No engine is an ideal Carnot engine, perpetual motion machines cannot exist. If such a thing worked, infinite economic growth would be possible via perpetually increasing government spending. There are always inefficiencies and when it comes to both of these cases there's a massive amount of waste and inefficiency, which is why I'm generally not a fan of Keynesian economics. China's construction industry is a disproportionately large part of China's economy as I mentioned previously. The BRI was meant to provide an outlet for that construction industry so they don't run out of things to build and collapse China's economy while conveniently paying for itself and expanding Beijing's soft power. Those last two things have not panned out and the issue of their construction industry becomes larger every day. That's why Beijing is having high speed rail built to the middle of nowhere despite most of the routes being obvious money sinks that will cost a fortune to maintain, they need something for the construction industry to do. They are fully aware of this and are kicking the can of the financial infeasibility of their construction industry down the road. Their real estate market can no longer support it so the government must fill that role. How long can Beijing support a $3.7T industry that cannot subsist on its own? That is going to put a massive strain on their economy.
@@jhonbus Farming and coal power subsidies are actually a big problem for America and Europe alike. They are politically hard to get rid off or limit to reasonable levels, but its also a destructive policy thats limiting the governments capabilities to do things. Like just doing "something" might make your GDP look good, but youre not just spending money. Youre spending energy and ressources, and your government doesnt even get the money back, since those projects dont have long term benefits. Pointless infrastructure in your own country even costs a lot more energy and money to maintain. Even chinese foreign investments, supposed to create soft power, are more and more of a financial drain. Youre burning ressource to keep people busy today, but youre gonna pay for a long time as a consequence. And at some point theres just nothing to build anymore, or you dont got enough money. And then you are screwed. Thats the current course of China, its economy is not sustainable in any way. If anything, the RBI was supposed to be the solution, to support trade to europe and open up new markets, so you dont have to rely on those dangerous subsidies as much anymore. Because China is having real big trouble currently, with growth slowing down and the many huge projects becoming liabilities. Internationally, those suspected "debt traps" are also becoming a diplomatic problem, together with Chinas aggressive and insulting political messaging. The west is getting tired if Chinas acting, and is taking its hostility and one-sided economics more seriously. Most surrounding countries around china are similar; they are increasingly concerned. Everyone becomes less ready to work together with China, which is not great for a country relying on trade, doubly so if that trade is very one sided with Chinas protectionism. Thats also why the west generally isnt doing super huge projects without benefit. You can afford them in big growth phases, but after that you gotta be careful. Nor is America, despite their warmongering in the middle east, actually interested in conflict with major powers. All of that hurts you in the long run.
I imagine China views the losses as being covered by using their own contractors, the increase in trade, the positive relations with developing countries, and financial and political leverage. Some returns will continue and grow decades after the project is finished.
I live in Thailand. The stuff I order from china just need to pay 1.5 USD per kilograms thanks to the infrastructure project of BRI. While the thing I order from Uk is alomst 20-40 USD per kilo for shipping
Is there not a problem in paying on 1.5$^? Do you think it reflects the real price of transport, customs, etc? Money doesn't appear out of think air. If it's cheap, there's always a catch.
😂😂😂 Look up the condition and perks for declaring yourself a developing nation. Basically, you don't have to worry about Co2 emissions standards or high postage on exported goods.
There's a big factor I think you're failing to consider: Most of those infrastructure projects ended up being built with Chinese-supplied materials and manufactured goods and in many cases were also performed by Chinese contractors. In other words, a large portion of the money China lent out has already gone back to China. Plus all of their contracts had those 99 year lease clauses, so China will have control over major infrastructure in countries around the world. That's not helpful economically per se, but there's no shortage of concern that those projects (especially the ports in countries around India) might be repurposes for military use. A trillion dollars in "loans" might seem unreasonable, especially if they're unlikely to be paid back but a trillion dollars in military infrastructure? That's less than 2 years relative to the US' military budget, and only about 5 years worth of China's "official" military budget. Seems a little less unreasonable in that light. Not to say that China can't or won't make massive mistakes - everybody does. But there's been a very long history of western analysts predicting China's imminent economic collapse that turns out to be a long-game play that we don't expect as we tend to view everything with a very short-term lens, especially in economics where our entire culture has been effectively build around quarterly and annual reports. We often simply fail to consider plans that don't have an obvious pay-out (or at least a measurable milestone) in a 12 month period. And that's before we stop to consider that "obvious" itself is hard to measure when the CCP is so tight-lipped about their economic status. At best, we're building our predictions upon mere assumptions and indirect evidence.
A trillion dollars you NEVER spend is a trillion dollars that really does not exists. China must spend that money or it will disappear... so they really don't really care if anybody pays them back or not, they got work for their companies and some goodwill.. possibly developing future markets. it's good enough.
back as inflation on core economic factors, which has to be managed by the central bank, when these big projects end, malinvesments will come back as inflationary pressure and an economic recession. not very smart.
@@neonlight1214 Someone trying to cope with China making terrible investments lol. The CCP has no power projection. If even one of these countries decided: "You know what? We don't really feel like this 'soft imperialism' is for us", everyone knows China wouldn't be sending their army over to protect their initiative, nor could they. They haven't even been able to reclaim a tiny island off of their coast, I doubt they have the organization to do it all the way across the other end of the world.
Don't forget that much of this money was spent within China itself. The loans come with conditions that the projects use Chinese contractors, material, equipment and even labour. The companies getting these contracts are owned by the Chinese government and so are the banks giving these loans so the Chinese government won't lose that much money in the first place. They are essentially giving subsidies to their own companies and infrastructure sector that was facing a problem of overcapacity as they have already built everything there is to build in China.
Your perspective on the BRI is certainly a component, but the greater perspective when it comes to BRI is the QE perspective and I humbly request that you read my comment a few comments prior to this one and I believe that you will be able to add to what the overall BRI program is all about.
Although Brazil is a member of BRICS and wants to trade with China without the dollar, the government has chosen not to join the BRI and our finance ministry does not look favorably on it.
@@Bartpoo china proposed to put us on the BRI by connecting the pacific direcly to the atlantic by a railway which china was gonna lay in exchange for us paying in debt, however most of the gogerment in 2023 was extremly opposed to wasting more money and accomulating more debt, something PT loves to do, in the end the proposal was pretty much ignored, thanks god it was, however little we knew our debt would increase by 25% anyway XD
Isn't what these loser BRI loan recipient nations said about the west back in the day when they were praising China "liberal" loan policies and claiming debt trap diplomacy was fake news?
By “you” you are probably referring to China. I would like to point out that loans for misguided infrastructure seems a better approach than trying to “win hearts and minds” by bombing weddings.
I have followed and watch for years and over the last year your biases are showing more and more. Hope you haven’t forgotten the ideals that you stated this Chanel with. I look forward to seeing your honest in depth reopening in the future. Give the facts and let the world take it for what it is.
@@spritemon98 yep in china they have a saying "chabuduo" which translated means "meh that will do". Everything the ccp is involved in is chabuduo- cutting corners with time and money
The BRI isn't really about being a trap, but more about creating the same type of infrastructure in the East as we have in the West when it comes to transport and commerce and economics in general and when complete China and that entire region of the world will be unstoppable. As for the "infinite" funding, that is being supplied by the QE process and I humbly request that you read my comment prior to this one for this greater overall perspective.
What's funny is the wording in this news. 147 countries are apart of the BRI, that's not just 100+, that's almost 150 countries. That's significantly more than half the countries in the world. Just because there is turmoil this year, doesn't mean it will be the same next year. Many places across the BRI project, trade has almost doubled. China's investments are mostly paying off, and if you look at investments, look at investors like Shark Tank or Dragon's Den where the investors have admitted a lot of their investments go haywire. China's investments are mostly safe that even if they have issues for 1 or 2 years, in the longer term of 100 years, those payments will take time to pay off and are in debt to China. Their longer term thinking is what is going to get them to where they need to go instead of just the short term news push of "It's all collapsing this year". That's why China is #2, even though the media has called on their collapse for 30 years.
Well, i know for a fact that they have been successful at least on my home area in pontianak city, indonesia. The Belt and road initiative is successful but which side is actually became the winner of this deal? The answer depends on who you ask. Most people from the west would point to Sri Lanka or the locals who often not allowed to take part in their projects. To me, i think their infrastructures works perfectly. It does exactly what our govenment wanted it to do despite all its problems like foreign workers and all that maintenance stuff. Put those problems aside and you get one perfectly working infrastructure boosting the economy, bringing the goverments money, and giving some kind of pride to the local for each successful projects. How we see the BRI and how it really works for us is best summirized with Gyude Moore's quote "China might win more but at least Africa didn't lose". For us its "China might win more but at least Indonesia didn't lose."
What would China do if they all defaulted, like China once did on all it's own debt? You really think China would send an invasion force to back up those contracts? Not a good look for a so-called "anti-imperialist communist party", kimosabe.
China couldn't care any less about whether or not these countries pay them back or not, since the greater object is to create infrastructure for commerce, and once complete that region of the world will be unstoppable in every regard and China knows it. As for the "infinite" funding source China has, that is called quantitative easing (QE) which I explain in my comment prior to this one and I humbly request that you take a moment of your time to go over it and you will probably be glad you did.
In the long-term, these projects may still have paid for themselves. It depends on how much additional trade income for China they enable, integrated over all of time, compared to their original cost as adjusted by inflation and interest rates, although they may have had opportunity costs.
China is an newbie to international development. The reason the western countries are hesitant to give away money and make loans for big projects, is that corruption is high, and because "big" usually kills off the people in the country who were used as the excuse in the first place. "Sustainable" is possible, but not by a handful of experts and people who likely benefit from bigger loans. Paying experts to run around the world "fixing" things is almost always a bad idea. "micro investment" worked for a while, but some of those groups started making easy money, so again "fast money, why bother with oversight or listening to the people?" Most of the problem is all the countries and corporations now run from human memories and paper systems that were invented in the 1800's. Automation has not worked to make AIs (automation of human knowledge) more caring, more careful, more conscientious, more complete. When I read the title I thought it was about the failure of China's transportation system, following the American car and fuel path. Follow the money. Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
Just to forward a daring question: IS the "belt and road initiative" really "failing" when various states can't repay the credits that come with the project? The project comes with a number of caveats as far as i learned: - Every single investment ist built by chinese companies, with chinese workers; it basically is a way to make foreign countries invest in Chinas domestic economy. - And every single investment is secured by clauses that, if kicking into effect, transfer the ownership over the project to China, giving it infrastructural estates ontop around the world (for the prize of basically subventioning it's own domestic economy - which it otherwise wouldn't be allowed to due to WTO-rules) - which, as an extra benefit, allow China to extend the reach of it's military, given that a whole lot of those investments go into harbours and airports. So, ultimately, it really is a win-win-situation for China; either, granted credits are repaid. China earns money, with a perspective to earn even more in the future. Or, the credits default; China bails the creditor out, and thus (semi-legally) subventions it's domestic economy, and receives strategic estates in return. Really the only losers in this construct are the states that actually agree on those deals on China's terms - either, they pay a lot for objectively not overly useful infrastructure, or they lose souvereignty over parts of their land.
Not so, OBOR or One Belt One Road that is now simply BRI or Belt & Road Initiative, has never nor will it ever be dependent upon Western funds of any kind though China's "infinite" funding source is the same as the West's "infinite" funding source which is QE which funding source China is credited with having invented. Please read my comment at about the 415 count and I believe my perspective on QE will fill-in a lot if not all of the blanks for you when it comes to the funding source for BRI.
@@oscarwindham6016 considering China is still getting money from international funds as developing country tells us that BRI is very much dependent on foreign cash.
@@Veritaserum90 China may very well be receiving some international funds though I doubt it, but one thing is for certain, China doesn't need those international funds due to the advent of quantitative easing (QE) which, as you probably know, China is credited with having "invented". China, just like the U. S., has federal funding available right now to - "Infinitum" - to quote Fed Chairman Powell.
Renminbi means "the people's currency", a formal name that you aren't likely to hear outside of currency exchanges. Yuan refers to paper money, and is a very generic term. Just saying yuan implies Chinese yuan, but it can become any currency by putting a different country's name in front of it, such as meiyuan for USD. Kuaiqian means "pieces of coins" and is how most everyday Chinese refer to prices under 100 yuan. It's similar to "bucks" or "loons".
@@Jade-sc7ne You are the idiot ranting without knowing the context. I was talking about the port in Sri Lanka developed by China. The port has been leased to China for 99 years as Sri Lanka is unable to repay the loan they took.
Actually, it's all about QE and I humbly request that you peruse my comment prior to this one and you will more than likely appreciate this different perspective.
70% stake on a 99 year lease with a $1.1B price tag, money which Sri Lanka used to pay off debt from other countries which amount to 90% of their total debt. th-cam.com/video/7gwgcIfzttA/w-d-xo.html
The world's ten largest debtor countries are all developed countries. The United States has the most debt in the world, followed by the United Kingdom and Germany. The top 30 countries are basically developed countries or countries experiencing explosive growth, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. They are learning from developed countries and borrowing money to build infrastructure. Infrastructure services such as roads, railways, and bridges are the basis for a country's development. The purpose of building these facilities is not for profit, but for the development of business and the circulation of goods. If borrowing is a trap, China and the United States must be the stupidest countries in the world. About twenty years ago, China joined the WTO and borrowed a lot of money from the United States and Europe. Many Chinese companies have been acquired by the United States, and companies such as Wal-Mart and Starbucks are located in every city in China. China's development today is visible to everyone. Inclusion, development and innovation are the themes of the world. Ignorance never makes progress.
In the case of Sri Lanka, it was Sri Lanka who offered China to lease their port so they can pay Western debt. There was no take over it was a win situation for Sri Lanka as China was even paying hundreds of millions in dollars to Sri Lanka. Name me another facility that China REALLY TOOK OVER. Sri Lanka is in a hurry to pay Western loan not Chinese loan, China have been gracious in extending the payments to all borrowers. The real debt trap is when you borrow from IMF who charges 19% interest from 3rd world countries who needed the break badly but charges USA 1.9% only, and after that IMF and western lenders will impose on these borrowers to raise interest and taxes and meddle in their national affairs. If your sources are from western media it's probably sorcery.
1:55 What the bloody shills aren't telling you about China's "successful" BRI projects, they're: - a (not yet built) hydropower dam in Uganda (that may lead to a war with Egypt) - gas and oil pipelines in Asia (mostly to feed their own imports) - and a railway from Addis Ababa to Djibouti (that is not actually useful because it didn't include access roads or connections to ports, industrial zones or storage locations, and left the state in too much debt to actually build the missing infrastructure)
Not all the countries which were offered BRI are developing. There are lots of developed countries which were offered participation or participate in the project, for example in Europe.
And in Australia, a very left wing *state* government tried to join, circumventing the constitutional exclusive foreign relations power vested in our Federal government. Thankfully, the latter vetoed the deal.
it sound like evil european way of doing things. People of africa stand for china... people of european descend are jalous. The whole world is behind China, while you are gossing about China, Russia and Africa partnership
well the Belt & Road Initiative was always about something more than financial gain through interest. Trapping a country in debt is a pretty effective way of exerting influence over it.
Hmm you owe 85 dollars to a guy who has many conditions and 15 dollars to a guy who has no conditions. Which one is debt trapping you? China is between 10-20% of debt of those countries. The West is 80-90% of the debt.
Great video. Another BRI project to watch is in Guinea in West Africa, where China is throwing billions at a an extremely complicated iron ore mine + rail + port project that's crucial to its infrastructure goals.
China builds the BRI, and America now "attempts" the Build Back Better". But it is so far ...understood that no bricks had been laid, and no concrete poured. America has more problems than it could deal with. Some are self inflicted, eg Trump, some are ambitions went haywire, eg. Ukraine. Some are systemic, eg. spending more than it could earn
failing. Ask Croatian what they felt about the bridge Chinese built for them. And ppl from Costs rica about the football stadium ? Jesus western propaganda is crazy.
Lot of great points are being made in the comments about how you're missing the bigger picture. Its important to note these projects are more than just foreign aid. These also provide means for China to extract crucial strategic resources especially in Africa for rare minerals. China also gains political influence over these countries to influence UN votes as well which is just as valuable in as any repayments they might receive.
The situation in Ukraine was started by America and NATO, way back around 1990 when Bush 1 was president. And you're being lied to about what's going on. Ukraine sank the Moskva? The American military has had 24/7 coverage of that entire area for years, including satellite coverage with something called "synthetic aperture radar". Synthetic aperture radar has the ability to clearly see through rain and clouds..... So, if Ukraine sank Moskva, where's the American military video showing it???? And that "stuck in the mud" crap they kept telling us, was also a lie. They needed them to look incompetent, so they became stuck in the mud. Fact is, Russia is a LOT more broke than you're told, and they always have been. You're told, and believe, that Russia isn't that far behind America in military power. That's a lie. They own a lot of equipment, but have no money for training, or maintenance. They had dry rotted tires, from lack of maintenance, and the tires quite literally exploded out the sidewalls...... They weren't stuck in the mud, they had flat tires, while in mud. NOT the same thing. You're being lied to and told the story they want you to have, and you're believing them. That's a Kool aid drinker right there.
I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, I don't like China. Any time the CCP takes an L, it brings a smile to my face. On the other hand though, it's developing countries that are going to suffer. Other countries are going to look at the failure of the BRI and be very hesitant to offer any loans or investment into developing countries.
Actually, there is no losing part to this BRI program from China's perspective since they have funding to "Infinitum", to quote Fed Chairman Powell here in the U. S. which is the same "infinite" funding source we have called quantitative easing (QE). Please take a moment to read my comment prior to this one and I believe that you will appreciate the different take this Chinese BRI matter.
Why not a video on the failings of the IMF and their austerity measures. Here is a starter. The IMF forces countries to cut down their budgets for education, health care and social welfare programs. One example of this is Greece, which was forced to cut its education budget by 23% between 2009 and 2014 as part of its bailout agreement with the IMF. Another example is Jamaica, which was required to cut its education budget by 10% in order to receive an IMF loan. These cuts can have serious consequences for students and teachers alike. In Greece, for example, schools have been forced to close due to a lack of funding, while teachers have seen their salaries cut by up to 40%. In Jamaica, the education system has struggled to provide basic resources such as textbooks and school supplies Is Greece economy back on track? Sadly no. Is Jamaicas economy back on track? Also no. Is the IMF broken? You’re videos are really biased and it’s showing.
I read on this channel and many similar channels that China and CCP collapsed 40 years ago, and 10 years ago and then five months ago and then three days so naturally the Road and Belt Initiative must have already collapsed too.
Doesn't change the fact so many LEDCs are relying on the investment that the BRI is providing. Just because it is failing does not mean it is not essential to other countries.
Without infrastructure, Roads, Rail, Ports, Schools, Hospitals Reservoirs and Waste Water Treat plants poor countries will remain in a “POVERTY TRAP OF STAGNATION”. Infrastructure is the essential platform for countries to grow and modernize.
You forgot to mention that a lot of the clauses in these Chinese loans stipulate that the borrowing country has to use Chinese construction companies and Chinese labourers. Chinese construction companies are notorious for building cheap and poorly so lots of infrastructure projects in these countries end up with lots of structural issues during and after construction resulting in a lot of wasted money. In some worst cases, the projects themselves are unusable causing the borrowing country not to be able to start making money from these projects and thus unable to start paying back the loan.
This is assuming that the point of the BRI is to make a profit on loans. I think it's more likely about gaining influence with other countries and improving the world economy that China participates in.
When somebody is giving you easy loans, there is always a catch which you will not like. Its just common sense. But of course corrupt politicians of these countries don’t care.
I thought I read some source sometime (lol) that basically said sometimes these Chinese loans are basically debt-trap diplomacy b/c China will knowingly make a risky loan, and when the borrower country fails to repay, China will take control of whatever was built with the loan money? I'm passively curious what the story is behind this if any.
Totally manufactured US fearmongering. It has been debunked before, but there can be no doubt whatsoever that it's crap after this data was revealed. China has gone out of it's way to bail out these debtors countries without taking control of infrastructure or territories
"The story behind this", is quantitative easing (QE) and I humbly request that you take a moment of your time to read my comment at about the 415 count and you won't be disappointed because most, if not all of your questions will be answered.
I see many comments here observing that China BRI loans typically involve mandatory use of Chinese labor, expertise, construction companies and so on. That, however, does not mean China "has the money back already". That is true to some extent regarding the payments, but overlooks the fact that if a Chinese worker performs work in another country, that is work not performed in China. Likewise materials, logistics, plant, expertise and so on, applied on offshore projects. The payments may come back to Chinese entities, but the actual value was applied overseas and to that extent detracts from the Chinese economy. Money is a medium of exchange, but the economy is about real things: goods and services.
its a long term investments, practical messianic conditions, "i scratch your back and you scratch mine." better than western siphoning poor countries resources.
You forgot a key point in many of these loans : if the country cant repay the load, China can cease the assets. They built a few ports around the world with terms like this and their gold is exactly to have countries NOT repay so they can control international ports everywhere.
you were very nice about what the loans under BRI were really meant to do china always knew these countries had no way to pay back the loans and that most of the projects were pushed by them not the countries and were doomed to fail plus with chinese companies doing all the work with mostly chinese labor they added very little to the economies of those countries I believe the phrase is dept trap diplomacy
The BRI loans are not regular loans. Their are disadvantigeous packages. China offer to you to built an infrastructure project (which you not always need) at a very expensive price (which you usually can't affort) by Chinese companies and workers and offers you a loan to pay for that. That means you are paying to Chinese companies and workes and the money goes to Chinese economy, so the it does not have the usual benefits of infrastucture projects like pumping money into your economy and providing empolyment to your people. The money you spend does not multiplicate in your economybut Chinese and if the project is of shitty quality or you actually don't need it you just payed a lots of money to improve Chinese GDP.
First of all, A country identifies a need: a port, road, railway, powerplant, dam.... Then the country tries to find funds, first they go World bank, IMF, Paris club.. they all say NO!! Then they go to a Chinese bank and MAYBE they get a loan. If the West cares so much, why did not they give a better offer? Simply because the West does not want the developing world to have any infrastructure so they will remain poor and subordinate. That;s the reason you are most likely paid to post the above comment, to keep the developing world poor.
And Chinese companies charge way less on infrastructure projects then the west. And China also offers some scholarships to developing countries so there are some knowledge transfer. It is always a country’s own decision to participate in the BRI or not, China did not engage in any war to make all this happen, unlike the war the west has started in 18/19/20 century
You mentioned Sri Lanka and Zambia, did you take some time to look at the debt composition of these two countries? Regarding Zambia, 45% of their debt is owed to Western private lenders with higher interest rates. If we talk about Africa in general, Africa owed the world nearly 700 billion and 88% of that debt is owed to non-Chinese lenders. If the situation is bad for Chinese loans and you think the non-Chinese lenders will be better off when their share of the loans is bigger than what China's in these poor countries, what makes you so certain that these countries won't default on the larger non-Chinese loans?
The plan was not to develop infrastructure but to put China as the top investor in these countries. As plan is unfolding these countries have accepted Chinese currency and Chinese government will consider these bailouts as investment for its rise. Like Sri Lanka, which has already leased one of its major ports for China to a period of approximately 100 years.
Another thing they aren't telling you is that China mostly builds the projects they fund themselves. They're a way to export work for Chinese construction companies.
A theory in international relations is that China does NOT expect these developing countries to repay the loans. If the borrowers can't pay them back (due to rampant kleptocracy) then China can force the former to "lease" their seaports and airfields to the PLA as a form of repayment. Either way, China will have soft-power or hard-power influence over their backyard all the way up to the doorsteps of the Middle East and Europe.
i think you can scrap the word "doorstep"... China already posesses agricultural areas in italy and on the balkans and the majority of a port in germany. So it isn't up to the doorstep, it's already in the house. (And everybody inpower seems to underestimate their ruthlesness, dedication and intelligence)
It a propaganda message by the west that local labour is not used. Chinese companies employs locals just like any western companies would. And just like any western companies, engineers and management are usually not locals.
The China "debt trap" narrative in 2022 has been debunked by the British Debt Justice and World Bank data. They found that African countries owe 3x more to Western banks, asset managers and oil traders than to China, and are charged double the interest. 12% of Africa's external debt was owed to China lenders, compared to 35% to Western private creditors. China has since cancelled the debt for 17 African nations.
im happy with Saudi Arabia right now.... and Africa and South America. Pakistan went pro western and look at their country right now..... India and china went neutral and look at them right now.... unity.
It’s important to note that China will also seize infrastructure. If a country defaults, China will take control of their airport or harbor or whatever they used the money to build. The politicians all pay themselves from the loan so they don’t care about negotiating a better deal.
In my opinion, China isn't the least bit interested in seizing anything from these poor nations, but instead what I see China doing is that they are spending their "infinite" QE funding to create the same type of infrastructure we have here in the U. S. which provides for a robust interstate trade and once this is done, with the massive population there is in that region of the world, all of those nations will basically leave my country, the U. S., in the dust when it comes to trade and commerce. Please take a moment of your time to read my comment prior to this comment and I think you will appreciate the QE perspective.
@JackSmith-mk1ru Yes, of course, you are correct, but the most salient aspect of your comment is to acknowledge that the way China is able to fund these "schools, colleges, roads, hospitals" and the like is by China employing the quantitative easing (QE) process which is to electronically generate monies, when these sovereign nations should have the right to employ the QE process themselves which makes China, and the U. S., for that matter, an unnecessary middleman. Please, you must grasp the QE reality.
Another issue with the BRI infrastructure projects is that they often stipulated bringing in laborers from China as well as all the engineers and architects. This often meant the local population lacked the expertise to maintain the project post completion.
Yeah mate good luck finding engineers in Rwanda
It also means that most of the money stays inside the Chinese economy instead of the host nation as the laborers stay in camps set up by the companies. This means that while a local labor force would spend that money within the local economy and help it grow with supporting businesses, the Chinese labor force is spending that money within the company or sending it home.
@@utkarshverma7 You haven't seen Rwanda lately, have you? Anyone wanting Cobalt, copper, diamond, gold, graphite, ilmenite, iron ore, kyanite, lignite, manganese, monazite, rutile, tin, and uranium, that is in huge supply in the Central African Republic, (formerly Congo), goes through Rwanda. The place is the Singapore of Central Africa. Seriously, the main City of Kigali is amazing now. Google it, you'll be surprised. I did not know it was all funded by the Chinese though.
It also limits the number of local jobs created, even on a temporary basis.
@Utkarsh Verma there are plenty of engineers in Rwanda, how do you think the rest of the countries infrastructure was built! Not to mention there are neighboring countries with their own engineers.
"When Argentina is in trouble, which is basically all of the time" As an Argentinian.. yeap xD
Truer words have never been spoken
I love how it’s a Brit saying it 😂
that one got me good 😆
I noticed that roast. 😂😂 And they said it so naturally, also!
I really hope Argentina doesn't become Venezuela 2.0
3:25 For anyone wondering, Renminbi (¥) is the actual name of the People's Rep of China's currency. And means "people's currency" in Mandarin. A *Yuan* is just 1 unit of this currency.
An analogy was made to how the name of UK's currency is actually Sterling. With "Pound" representing just 1 unit of that.
Thanks! I was looking for this.
@@curtiswfranks Don't mention it, me too! 😄 I eventually had to search it, and thought I might spare the others..
Well people also do say X renminbi like it's a synonym of yuan
@@alexeecs It's the first time I heard this term, was it popularised in foreign media more recently? 🤔
@@dyawr Idk, but last time I was in China, I saw price tags written like "200 RMB" so it's used
When I learned about this initiative, I heard that China kind of had to expect losing that money or a big part of it. If that's true, bailouts and write-offs actually happening doesn't say anything about the success of the initiative. It's not about making even more money then, it's about putting all that cash to use in a way that benefits China. So the questions asked should be:
1) Did China improve its access to foreign markets?
2) Did China expand its political influence?
But not "are its loans paid back?"
For real, I feel like he didn't even touch upon whether the program was successful or not in terms of transportation, infrastructure, trade and overall economic growth.
Yeah I agree the belt and road initiative is a long term investment, that could start benefiting China 20-30 years to come.
@@collinskipkoskei8761 I think influence starts to grow immediately.
Yep, this video completed missed the plot.
Money can be creared from thin air. Minerals and physical resources cannot.
I'm surprised the video did not mention the collateral (or restructuring concessions) that borrowing countries are forced into: China may be quite happy to see a country default on a loan, when this means gaining a non-revocable 99-year lease on a foreign port, for instance.
Yea, it is almost negligent that this isn't mentioned. The Chinese are not stupid, they are aware that many of these governments are risky borrowers; they give out these loans because they can recoup their losses by taking a Cobalt mine or whatever at default.
It is the same thing the IMF let Western investors do, and the IMF rightfully got in a lot of hot water for it.
The BRI should really be viewed with more scrutinty than "it is just the Chinese making bad investments".
the thing is, China has never annexed a country due to them defaulting on a loan and even went As far As forgiving loans if they can't pay back
@LTNetjak Funny enough, for this reason international "courts" (forget the correct term) were created where basically companies can sue a country if they expect unfair treatment - the company and the country each name a "judge" and those 2 decide on a third one to then review the case, make a judgement and the company can then western countries accept those judgements - meaning the company can ask a western country to collect the debt.
So if a country would nationalize the investment of a company, that company could then sue in these courts and get their money back.
Problem being, these court proceedings are extremly expensive and judges often agree everyone has to pay a share -> resulting in companies making a loss despite winning the case.
@@Shuizid Sunnychild, and what if country don't abide this judgement? Do you imprison it? "International Law" for countries is more like laws of sandbox decided by playing children then to actual law set by countries or able organizations. There is no higher entity that can enforce any laws.
Law is only law if it can be enforced. So international laws are actual laws if there is enforcement of it, in that case, are you or you friends ready to invade for debt collection.
chinese loan contracts on average is still better/less devious than the loans made by the west
Who says it hasn't done what it is suppose to do? First of all BRI projects required all or most construction companies to come from China so they mainly did not lose that much of the money. The money was mostly cycled back into China. Secondly they are getting allot of basing rights or outright ownership of many of these projects which gives them allot of leverage over these countries who owe them.
The out right ownership narrative is a lie
The China "debt trap" narrative has been debunked by the British Debt Justice and World Bank data. They found that African countries owe 3x more to Western banks, asset managers and oil traders than to China, and are charged double the interest. 12% of Africa's external debt was owed to China lenders, compared to 35% to Western private creditors.
China has since cancelled the debt for 17 African nations.
All of this is wrong 😂😂😂
Most labor is local, some technician and engineers might be Chinese, but it wouldn't make sense to bring thousands of low skill workers from China. Also, no, this projects aren't owned by China.
Not sure what "basing rights" are, but as the video shows, the idea of the Chinese debt trap and China arm twisting these countries into submission was always US fearmongering. China has gone out of it's way to bail out countries
Hei Indonesian have new high speed train.🚄(We use a joint venture between Indonesia and China. Is Indonesia very smart and the West is very stupid)
@@carkawalakhatulistiwa High speed trains are a huge boondoggle, and even the ones in China are money losers. Regardless of the loan terms, this thing is of no real use, unless it can actually pay for itself, which is highly doubtful.
Chinaphrenia: the belief that China will both conquer the world and fail miserably, all at the same time.
this is good one. - they will fail so badly thats why we need to contain them - kind of logic
Well, back in the day, the Brits pretty much did exactly that.... if you know what I mean ;)
@@nukiolbartes6279 I don't think anyone believes that China will fail miserably, or conquer the world to begin with. At maximum, people see it as a aggressive dictator that recently did well for itself but is coming off its high.
You wanna see some real schizo stuff though? Check Weibo and what Chinese talk about; they REALLY do believe the US is about to collapse and yet is somehow gonna destroy them lol
@@froggin-zp4nr Western democracies aren't doing that, not even their media, but China and Russia do that constantly. ESPECIALLY Russian media that boasts about LGBT weakness or something.
Sinoprenia.
Turns out, adding strings of requirements to large loans is a good idea after all. Who would've thought.
The IMF does it all the time and they still exist
for the lender ?
These are debt traps laid out by China with a view to failing and then turning over assets such as shipping ports, airports etc..
@@nvizible 😂Exactly
As an American who has seen decades of foreign aid, IMF loans, and general Third World corruption, I just want to completely fill YT's servers with laugh emojis over the thought that China thought these loans would be repaid.
@@recoil53 As a South African, living in said corrupt third world country, I want to laugh along. These loans only serve to prop up failing governments that doesnt serve the people.
Sri Lanka's problem was not really because of its debt from China, but with other Finance institution.
Yes chinas percentage of sri lankan debt was only like 10%, and they didnt refinance because sri lanka would have went bankrupt anyways....everyone here is brainwashed by the CIA, same CIA that told you there were nukes in Iraq, same CIA referred to in the wikipedia page for american involvement in regime changes....i cant believe that western propaganda has you idiots so fucking brainwashed, china is literally the good guys, you guys are literally the fucking baddies
Can you explain?
@@billcipher2893 Almost all countries in the world owe a lot more money to western debtors, China debt is just a small % of thier debt.
@@davdav1370 but terms and condition of small chinese debt are problems
Problems are mainstream narrative since west just simply doesn't offer anything except NGO's & being bombed.@@avinashverma9789
I've asked Africa students in my hometown university about this issue, and all of them said China Investment has made their countries far better than western did..western investment takes their natural resources wealth to Western countries, they only got paid just enough for government operations and it's not enough for infrastructure.. and China is not like we heard from US, and throughout human history, Chinese people went to other countries for business trade. They never thought about war invasion like Rome because it's not in their blood..
I think the major difference is that what china builds is there. It's usable they see it on the news they drive on the highway they use the port or at least see these things on the internet.
In reality both are damaging to a countries future.
True economic investments look like japans built train in India.
They provide loans at 0.1% interest they establish 4 colleges to train engineers capable of operating and mentaining them. They build the project by hiring majority of the local population. In return they get india to become dependent on their system for it to import trains from them and expand the system. Also they start paying years after when the project has already become profitable.
Who would've thought that giving out money to countries unable to pay back would be bad thing? There's a reason why the IMF didn't lend these countries money.
I wrote an essay back in uni and I think the point is that they cannot pay it back so that they will force to sell out their port/key infrastructure or natural resource (which the Chinese economy needed) to the Chinese state or their state owned companies. You gain control over their infrastructure, you basically gain control of the blood vane of their economy. IMF used to do something similar and lend money to corrupted government to grant western companies control of their oil well but eventually stopped when people called them out for it. This is why IMF later created much stricter lending condition and China managed to sweep in. At the end, this is all Scramble for Africa v3.0.
@@skyeye61 shhhhh! that makes too much sense!
Missing one key point here, China doesn't care about the loans coming back. This is about debt trapping developing countries, those loan renegotiations? Yeah they'll come with UN votes, port access, military bases. A very good deal for China. This is why some countries are now denying Chinese loans.
They actively target countries with corrupt government or straight up dictatorship cause they know they won't be able to pay back and essentially will be subjected to heavy Chinese influence.
@@imwivstuipid It's funny how when the West uses their debts to enforce free market reforms it's somehow good business, but when China lets other nations walk their own path while lending, it's "Debt Trap".
This is such a fake myth.
The fact that China got a port for 99 years in Indian ocesn region, Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, shows that BRI is working quite well.
Exactly. Part of the String of Pearls plan which is intimately intertwined with the BRI.
@@Varizen87 🍻👍🏻
Sure, only by loaning these countries money that they knew they could not pay back. That in anyone's book is a scummy thing to do but hey, it's what the CCP do.
The port will not be profitable in the short term.....Sri Lanka not a good place to invest
@@dennyli9339it is not for business my friend.
This significantly downplays how coercive and damaging IMF and World Bank lending has tended to be.
Cause this was focused on China, not America....
@@nenasiek You can't understand Belt and Road without understanding what it's competing with
@@andrewgreen5892 truuue
@@andrewgreen5892remember the west is good and any competition is bad!
its pure propaganda that's why
If China's Belt & Road projects are truly failing, why does the US continue to criticise China on it. The US should be celebrating and encouraging it.
The US kept fearmongering about Japan's economic dominance way after the post-war economic boom. Truth is, nobody really knows because the economy is pretty unpredictable a lot of the time.
Because its stupid and could collapse the global economy.
Well because the belt and road initiative might aswell be an epic success what if the there was a turning point at 2022
Because US are not invited to join the BRI..US is failing as a world power , Their arrogance and greed has been noticed by the whole world. Especially the continent of Africa.
Because the current administration won't bite the hand that feeds them. There's a reason we call him China Joe.
The BRI is not profit driven - its about soft power and infrastructure.
China learn this from Rome.
Both belts and roads are manufactured in Ukraine, there’s a real shortage right now
Blackrock will "save" the day😳
@@jtmmmm27 American Keystone Cops are coming....
BRI isnt about money, its about soft conquest.
Wrong
Same thing, China needs to create countries to take their place in the manufacturing game so that they can placate the U.S as World Police Force.
@@skp8748 how?
Go on. Finish your thought.
@@LB-yg2br speeding up the industrialisation of developing nations by providing infrastructure is a forward thinking money play... Africa is the youngest population speeding up its development ignites the positive loop of fast paced economic growth which creates demand for Chinese equipment, machinery and infrastructure congruent with economic development... then you'll also have a burgeoning middle class that now wants goods and services which is a market China can sate.
China thinks in centuries not presidential cycles.
@@LB-yg2br shoring up Central Asia is a hedge against Turkish, Iranian or Russian dominance in the region. Hence China has supported Turkish banks, been a trade lifeline for Iran and increased trade with Russia instead of taking advantage of its weak state due to sanctions... they've bribed them to forget their ambitions.
In South America its largely the same story it has underwritten Argentine economy to the tune of billions, provided essential investment in mining operations across Latin America and provided Brazilian security services with surveillance tech... this is all to make this region a viable consumer market in the next 50 years not to get UN votes next week
Sometimes they do this on purpose. I am not entirely certain which country it was, but I think it was somewhere in Asia or West Africa were they knew the country couldn't repay them, yet they kept feeding them money until the country said "sorry we cannot affort the built of this port anymore" and China anticipated this from the start and that is how they gained a port (for economic or military purpose) miles from the homeland.
The dam built on an active volcano made me laugh a bit and this is a dumb example. But I think the main goal for China is the increase of softpower. Do not forget that China's economy is worth trillions and that those billions are a small amount of it. Countries that can pay you back with money have to use other ways to pay back China for example in allowing Chinese troops stationed in that country. Maybe it is not an economic success, but I still think China's influence grows through this project.
If I remember correctly it was a deep water port somewhere around the middle east or eastern Africa
the hambantota port in sri lanka
@@spritemon98 also the gawdar port in balochistan pakistan
@@error144-k9l I think that's the one I'm remembering
This is both stupid and ignorant. China has 1 overseas military base in Djibouti with 200 soldiers. It leased a port in Sri Lanka and uses it for commercial purposes only. Just as the EU forced Greece to sell and lease out it's airports, stadiums and ports when Greece defaulted.
"Not a quote or anything. It's just a thing I was saying." That was perfect. I'll have to try and use that.
This video completely misses the point. The whole point of the BRI is power. It gives them a lot of international support, increases the power of the Yuan since more countries are using it, and when countries can't pay back their debt they instead hand over valuable infrastructure to the Chinese, such as ports. The BRI is going fantastically well since the Chinese never expected to get their money back in the first place..
It's not failing. The whole point of the BRI was the fact that countries couldn't pay the debt.
Doubtful. Countries are still sovereign, they can tell China to pound sand if need be
Fake news from the west
That is one perspective and I wholeheartedly agree with you, but there is the even greater QE perspective that no one in the West, but little old me, is bothering to explain which perspective is contained in my comment at about the 415 count that I humbly request that you take a moment of your time to read.
no dumbass, the vast majority of the countries they lend to can sustainably take debt from the IMF.
@@oscarwindham6016 what even is 415 count ffs thats not a place to look
I do not think it's falling, I think it is working they wanted to influence and they got it big time.
I mean, in the short term yeah. But how much influence do they really have after the loan goes bad and the country starts to hate them for the crippling repayment?
@@ThatGuy-bz2in It doesn't matter if the people hate them if they control the country. Do you think the people of the colonies liked their imperial masters?
@@deus_ex_machina_ but imperialism was backed by war threats. What is China backing these loans with? What threat?
@@tyrismaxey The threat of bankruptcy. The threat of subversion of democratic/social institutions. The threat of generations of indentured servitude.
There is a lot more to it and I humbly ask that you read my comment at about the 415 count, and you will have most, if not all of your questions answered.
Thing is, whenever China _does_ get its loans repaid, that's just a nice bonus, because they've *already* got the money back.
These loans tend to be conditional on whatever projects they're being used to fund using Chinese labour and Chinese suppliers. They ship thousands of construction workers to wherever something's being built. All the money comes straight back to China.
Not really. If a government subsidizes its industry, it is spending money that it does not get back. The money they get back was supposed to be from the loans. Think about how farm subsidies work in the USA, is that a costless endeavor? In this case China is subsidizing its construction industry which has become oversized but is too vital to pare back. The Chinese construction industry is worth $3.7 trillion, China's total GDP is $18 million. Construction is 20% of their whole GDP but they are at a point where building projects for their primary market of growth, real estate, aren't viable in the same way they were in the recent past, so they need something to build because you can't just downsize 20% of your economy without massive repercussions.
@@AlephOmega-zy5qs No, the government itself doesn't get the money back (immediately), but China does. If you're paying Chinese workers to build something using Chinese materials with Chinese equipment, all the value, the wealth, stays in China and is not transferred to the other country. It remains in the Chinese economy. The added value of the completed infrastructure does transfer to the other country of course, so it's not quite as good as building infrastructure in your own country, but a large amount of the apparent cost is spent within the Chinese economy. Initially it goes to the workers, and the materials and equipment suppliers, but it gradually trickles its way back to the government through taxation.
On this scale, money works less like an asset with value that can be exchanged and instead like the working fluid in a heat engine, enabling the transfer of work from one part of the system to another.
When the US pays its farmers subsidies, as with spending on any other public service - healthcare, schools, military, that money mostly continues to circulate in the US economy and overall the government spends the same amount as it brings in. Back to the heat pump analogy, the government (along with central banks) works like the expansion valve, regulating the flow of the output generated by the compressor (workers) so it can transfer that work to the broader economy. As long as there are no leaks, all the money stays in the system.
Leaks in this case would be money leaving the country (eg to import goods, energy, etc) but even then, the _global_ economy is a self-contained system.
@@jhonbus That engine analogy is the heart of my issue here. No engine is an ideal Carnot engine, perpetual motion machines cannot exist. If such a thing worked, infinite economic growth would be possible via perpetually increasing government spending. There are always inefficiencies and when it comes to both of these cases there's a massive amount of waste and inefficiency, which is why I'm generally not a fan of Keynesian economics. China's construction industry is a disproportionately large part of China's economy as I mentioned previously. The BRI was meant to provide an outlet for that construction industry so they don't run out of things to build and collapse China's economy while conveniently paying for itself and expanding Beijing's soft power. Those last two things have not panned out and the issue of their construction industry becomes larger every day.
That's why Beijing is having high speed rail built to the middle of nowhere despite most of the routes being obvious money sinks that will cost a fortune to maintain, they need something for the construction industry to do. They are fully aware of this and are kicking the can of the financial infeasibility of their construction industry down the road. Their real estate market can no longer support it so the government must fill that role. How long can Beijing support a $3.7T industry that cannot subsist on its own? That is going to put a massive strain on their economy.
@@jhonbus Farming and coal power subsidies are actually a big problem for America and Europe alike. They are politically hard to get rid off or limit to reasonable levels, but its also a destructive policy thats limiting the governments capabilities to do things.
Like just doing "something" might make your GDP look good, but youre not just spending money. Youre spending energy and ressources, and your government doesnt even get the money back, since those projects dont have long term benefits. Pointless infrastructure in your own country even costs a lot more energy and money to maintain. Even chinese foreign investments, supposed to create soft power, are more and more of a financial drain.
Youre burning ressource to keep people busy today, but youre gonna pay for a long time as a consequence. And at some point theres just nothing to build anymore, or you dont got enough money. And then you are screwed. Thats the current course of China, its economy is not sustainable in any way.
If anything, the RBI was supposed to be the solution, to support trade to europe and open up new markets, so you dont have to rely on those dangerous subsidies as much anymore. Because China is having real big trouble currently, with growth slowing down and the many huge projects becoming liabilities.
Internationally, those suspected "debt traps" are also becoming a diplomatic problem, together with Chinas aggressive and insulting political messaging. The west is getting tired if Chinas acting, and is taking its hostility and one-sided economics more seriously. Most surrounding countries around china are similar; they are increasingly concerned. Everyone becomes less ready to work together with China, which is not great for a country relying on trade, doubly so if that trade is very one sided with Chinas protectionism.
Thats also why the west generally isnt doing super huge projects without benefit. You can afford them in big growth phases, but after that you gotta be careful. Nor is America, despite their warmongering in the middle east, actually interested in conflict with major powers. All of that hurts you in the long run.
是的，中国的人工和资源不算钱，白送的。
South east Asia countries is signing for this BRI now. So don't be jealous when it is completed.
I imagine China views the losses as being covered by using their own contractors, the increase in trade, the positive relations with developing countries, and financial and political leverage. Some returns will continue and grow decades after the project is finished.
I live in Thailand. The stuff I order from china just need to pay 1.5 USD per kilograms thanks to the infrastructure project of BRI. While the thing I order from Uk is alomst 20-40 USD per kilo for shipping
Is there not a problem in paying on 1.5$^?
Do you think it reflects the real price of transport, customs, etc?
Money doesn't appear out of think air. If it's cheap, there's always a catch.
😂😂😂 Look up the condition and perks for declaring yourself a developing nation. Basically, you don't have to worry about Co2 emissions standards or high postage on exported goods.
That's great but almost nobody lives in Thailand, it's a small country. Your situation is different from the rest the world.
@kieragard you have no idea how many brits crammed in the pattaya thailand
@Keln products price,logistics fee,custom tariff. It is a way that china spend billions to make chinese products more competitive.
There's a big factor I think you're failing to consider: Most of those infrastructure projects ended up being built with Chinese-supplied materials and manufactured goods and in many cases were also performed by Chinese contractors.
In other words, a large portion of the money China lent out has already gone back to China. Plus all of their contracts had those 99 year lease clauses, so China will have control over major infrastructure in countries around the world. That's not helpful economically per se, but there's no shortage of concern that those projects (especially the ports in countries around India) might be repurposes for military use.
A trillion dollars in "loans" might seem unreasonable, especially if they're unlikely to be paid back but a trillion dollars in military infrastructure? That's less than 2 years relative to the US' military budget, and only about 5 years worth of China's "official" military budget. Seems a little less unreasonable in that light.
Not to say that China can't or won't make massive mistakes - everybody does. But there's been a very long history of western analysts predicting China's imminent economic collapse that turns out to be a long-game play that we don't expect as we tend to view everything with a very short-term lens, especially in economics where our entire culture has been effectively build around quarterly and annual reports. We often simply fail to consider plans that don't have an obvious pay-out (or at least a measurable milestone) in a 12 month period. And that's before we stop to consider that "obvious" itself is hard to measure when the CCP is so tight-lipped about their economic status. At best, we're building our predictions upon mere assumptions and indirect evidence.
A trillion dollars you NEVER spend is a trillion dollars that really does not exists. China must spend that money or it will disappear... so they really don't really care if anybody pays them back or not, they got work for their companies and some goodwill.. possibly developing future markets. it's good enough.
What is this blabbering
@@neonlight1214 Maybe you should read it instead of making an idiotic comment for no reason?
back as inflation on core economic factors, which has to be managed by the central bank, when these big projects end, malinvesments will come back as inflationary pressure and an economic recession. not very smart.
@@neonlight1214 Someone trying to cope with China making terrible investments lol.
The CCP has no power projection. If even one of these countries decided: "You know what? We don't really feel like this 'soft imperialism' is for us", everyone knows China wouldn't be sending their army over to protect their initiative, nor could they. They haven't even been able to reclaim a tiny island off of their coast, I doubt they have the organization to do it all the way across the other end of the world.
Don't forget that much of this money was spent within China itself. The loans come with conditions that the projects use Chinese contractors, material, equipment and even labour. The companies getting these contracts are owned by the Chinese government and so are the banks giving these loans so the Chinese government won't lose that much money in the first place. They are essentially giving subsidies to their own companies and infrastructure sector that was facing a problem of overcapacity as they have already built everything there is to build in China.
Your perspective on the BRI is certainly a component, but the greater perspective when it comes to BRI is the QE perspective and I humbly request that you read my comment a few comments prior to this one and I believe that you will be able to add to what the overall BRI program is all about.
@MSD Group IIRC they also asked Indonesia to cut funding for its domestic plane manufacturing project and buy American or European planes instead.
You shouldn't lend money without the ability to take back what you lent.
It’s not just about money, but political leverage over sovereign countries.
Money for Infustracture (Construction) is better than money for Wars (Destruction).
Barry McGuire - Eve Of Destruction - th-cam.com/video/qfZVu0alU0I/w-d-xo.html
Although Brazil is a member of BRICS and wants to trade with China without the dollar, the government has chosen not to join the BRI and our finance ministry does not look favorably on it.
Do you even know what BRI is? How about get yourself a world map, and find where Brazil is first, then ask why it isn’t part of BRI.
@@Bartpoo china proposed to put us on the BRI by connecting the pacific direcly to the atlantic by a railway which china was gonna lay in exchange for us paying in debt, however most of the gogerment in 2023 was extremly opposed to wasting more money and accomulating more debt, something PT loves to do, in the end the proposal was pretty much ignored, thanks god it was, however little we knew our debt would increase by 25% anyway XD
You can't keep treating people like trash and expect others to like you, especially when they find out warning by others are right.
Isn't what these loser BRI loan recipient nations said about the west back in the day when they were praising China "liberal" loan policies and claiming debt trap diplomacy was fake news?
By “you” you are probably referring to China. I would like to point out that loans for misguided infrastructure seems a better approach than trying to “win hearts and minds” by bombing weddings.
Your talking about the west right? Because your comment encapsulates them
@@Jykobe491 no, he's talking about China and Russia. Cope.
I worked in a Chinese company in Tanzania. They're so racist and don't respect culture at all
Turns out lying to youself for years has consequences.
Cope.
I have followed and watch for years and over the last year your biases are showing more and more. Hope you haven’t forgotten the ideals that you stated this Chanel with. I look forward to seeing your honest in depth reopening in the future. Give the facts and let the world take it for what it is.
Exactly
should be renamed to "the debt and trap initiative) (high interest/ no job creation of local workers)
And Chinese builder's aren't that good at building durable structures
@Zaydan Alfariz I think China is much worse. Giant buildings, train structures and others collapse in under a year or 2
@@spritemon98 yep in china they have a saying "chabuduo" which translated means "meh that will do". Everything the ccp is involved in is chabuduo- cutting corners with time and money
Literally fake news, most countries asked China for the loans not the other way around.
The BRI isn't really about being a trap, but more about creating the same type of infrastructure in the East as we have in the West when it comes to transport and commerce and economics in general and when complete China and that entire region of the world will be unstoppable. As for the "infinite" funding, that is being supplied by the QE process and I humbly request that you read my comment prior to this one for this greater overall perspective.
What's funny is the wording in this news. 147 countries are apart of the BRI, that's not just 100+, that's almost 150 countries. That's significantly more than half the countries in the world. Just because there is turmoil this year, doesn't mean it will be the same next year. Many places across the BRI project, trade has almost doubled. China's investments are mostly paying off, and if you look at investments, look at investors like Shark Tank or Dragon's Den where the investors have admitted a lot of their investments go haywire. China's investments are mostly safe that even if they have issues for 1 or 2 years, in the longer term of 100 years, those payments will take time to pay off and are in debt to China. Their longer term thinking is what is going to get them to where they need to go instead of just the short term news push of "It's all collapsing this year". That's why China is #2, even though the media has called on their collapse for 30 years.
3:34 this killed me lmao
Well, i know for a fact that they have been successful at least on my home area in pontianak city, indonesia. The Belt and road initiative is successful but which side is actually became the winner of this deal? The answer depends on who you ask. Most people from the west would point to Sri Lanka or the locals who often not allowed to take part in their projects. To me, i think their infrastructures works perfectly. It does exactly what our govenment wanted it to do despite all its problems like foreign workers and all that maintenance stuff. Put those problems aside and you get one perfectly working infrastructure boosting the economy, bringing the goverments money, and giving some kind of pride to the local for each successful projects.
How we see the BRI and how it really works for us is best summirized with Gyude Moore's quote "China might win more but at least Africa didn't lose". For us its "China might win more but at least Indonesia didn't lose."
远离美国人和他的政府、媒体，否则愚民政策会让你变的不幸
>get a loan from a bank
>couldn't pay back bank
>"it's the bank's fault"
Forgot one step
*divert 50% of the money to personal enrichment*
I'd say it was a roaring success. Debt trapping a continent is the idea.
What would China do if they all defaulted, like China once did on all it's own debt? You really think China would send an invasion force to back up those contracts? Not a good look for a so-called "anti-imperialist communist party", kimosabe.
It's a myth
China couldn't care any less about whether or not these countries pay them back or not, since the greater object is to create infrastructure for commerce, and once complete that region of the world will be unstoppable in every regard and China knows it. As for the "infinite" funding source China has, that is called quantitative easing (QE) which I explain in my comment prior to this one and I humbly request that you take a moment of your time to go over it and you will probably be glad you did.
@@oscarwindham6016 exactly China is thinking in centuries
Europe has more fdi from China than africa
You need to show more solid numbers rather than saying worse, biggest, massive, failure. Would be more convincible.
In the long-term, these projects may still have paid for themselves. It depends on how much additional trade income for China they enable, integrated over all of time, compared to their original cost as adjusted by inflation and interest rates, although they may have had opportunity costs.
China is an newbie to international development. The reason the western countries are hesitant to give away money and make loans for big projects, is that corruption is high, and because "big" usually kills off the people in the country who were used as the excuse in the first place. "Sustainable" is possible, but not by a handful of experts and people who likely benefit from bigger loans. Paying experts to run around the world "fixing" things is almost always a bad idea. "micro investment" worked for a while, but some of those groups started making easy money, so again "fast money, why bother with oversight or listening to the people?" Most of the problem is all the countries and corporations now run from human memories and paper systems that were invented in the 1800's. Automation has not worked to make AIs (automation of human knowledge) more caring, more careful, more conscientious, more complete. When I read the title I thought it was about the failure of China's transportation system, following the American car and fuel path. Follow the money. Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
Just to forward a daring question: IS the "belt and road initiative" really "failing" when various states can't repay the credits that come with the project?
The project comes with a number of caveats as far as i learned:
- Every single investment ist built by chinese companies, with chinese workers; it basically is a way to make foreign countries invest in Chinas domestic economy.
- And every single investment is secured by clauses that, if kicking into effect, transfer the ownership over the project to China, giving it infrastructural estates ontop around the world (for the prize of basically subventioning it's own domestic economy - which it otherwise wouldn't be allowed to due to WTO-rules) - which, as an extra benefit, allow China to extend the reach of it's military, given that a whole lot of those investments go into harbours and airports.
So, ultimately, it really is a win-win-situation for China; either, granted credits are repaid. China earns money, with a perspective to earn even more in the future. Or, the credits default; China bails the creditor out, and thus (semi-legally) subventions it's domestic economy, and receives strategic estates in return. Really the only losers in this construct are the states that actually agree on those deals on China's terms - either, they pay a lot for objectively not overly useful infrastructure, or they lose souvereignty over parts of their land.
It’s a westoid propaganda channel don’t bother
This just western Copium.
Not as much as China and Russia trying desperately to replace the US dollar with their pathetic currencies 😂
This one's a known troll, let's give him a potato and be about our day.
The belt and road initiative was already dependent on foreign loans
Not so, OBOR or One Belt One Road that is now simply BRI or Belt & Road Initiative, has never nor will it ever be dependent upon Western funds of any kind though China's "infinite" funding source is the same as the West's "infinite" funding source which is QE which funding source China is credited with having invented. Please read my comment at about the 415 count and I believe my perspective on QE will fill-in a lot if not all of the blanks for you when it comes to the funding source for BRI.
@@oscarwindham6016 considering China is still getting money from international funds as developing country tells us that BRI is very much dependent on foreign cash.
@@Veritaserum90 China may very well be receiving some international funds though I doubt it, but one thing is for certain, China doesn't need those international funds due to the advent of quantitative easing (QE) which, as you probably know, China is credited with having "invented". China, just like the U. S., has federal funding available right now to - "Infinitum" - to quote Fed Chairman Powell.
TIL Renminbi is the name for China's currency while the yuan is merely a unit like a nickel or a quid would be elsewhere.
Renminbi means "the people's currency", a formal name that you aren't likely to hear outside of currency exchanges. Yuan refers to paper money, and is a very generic term. Just saying yuan implies Chinese yuan, but it can become any currency by putting a different country's name in front of it, such as meiyuan for USD. Kuaiqian means "pieces of coins" and is how most everyday Chinese refer to prices under 100 yuan. It's similar to "bucks" or "loons".
The official name of China's currency is Chinese Yuan, abbreviated CNY. This is the name used in exchanges for foreign currencies.
But, those infrastructure projects are poor quality and break down. If you are familiar with Chinese products, you shouldn't be surprised
Chinese Electric Cars Squeeze VW Manufacturing Plant in Germany Out of Business
One donating invest Billions and one creating chaos to sell arms and then send returnable Aid to fund the local economy?
No you just hope it isn't working. Last year you people said China's eonomy was gonna collapse in 57 days, look what happened? lol
These people never learn lol
You didn't say anything about the 99 year lease thing that China is doing when a country isn't able to pay.
@@Jade-sc7ne You are the idiot ranting without knowing the context.
I was talking about the port in Sri Lanka developed by China. The port has been leased to China for 99 years as Sri Lanka is unable to repay the loan they took.
Actually, it's all about QE and I humbly request that you peruse my comment prior to this one and you will more than likely appreciate this different perspective.
70% stake on a 99 year lease with a $1.1B price tag, money which Sri Lanka used to pay off debt from other countries which amount to 90% of their total debt. th-cam.com/video/7gwgcIfzttA/w-d-xo.html
China PRC learn the 99 lease deal from the British in 1800's, work for them, then. Local labor, fuel, tax paid by China
If it is failing, why does U S worrying about ?
Because they wanted to launch their own BRI strategy, the Bomb and Ruin Initiative. Now they can't 😂
The world's ten largest debtor countries are all developed countries.
The United States has the most debt in the world, followed by the United Kingdom and Germany.
The top 30 countries are basically developed countries or countries experiencing explosive growth, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand.
They are learning from developed countries and borrowing money to build infrastructure.
Infrastructure services such as roads, railways, and bridges are the basis for a country's development.
The purpose of building these facilities is not for profit, but for the development of business and the circulation of goods.
If borrowing is a trap, China and the United States must be the stupidest countries in the world.
About twenty years ago, China joined the WTO and borrowed a lot of money from the United States and Europe.
Many Chinese companies have been acquired by the United States, and companies such as Wal-Mart and Starbucks are located in every city in China.
China's development today is visible to everyone.
Inclusion, development and innovation are the themes of the world.
Ignorance never makes progress.
In the case of Sri Lanka, it was Sri Lanka who offered China to lease their port so they can pay Western debt. There was no take over it was a win situation for Sri Lanka as China was even paying hundreds of millions in dollars to Sri Lanka. Name me another facility that China REALLY TOOK OVER. Sri Lanka is in a hurry to pay Western loan not Chinese loan, China have been gracious in extending the payments to all borrowers. The real debt trap is when you borrow from IMF who charges 19% interest from 3rd world countries who needed the break badly but charges USA 1.9% only, and after that IMF and western lenders will impose on these borrowers to raise interest and taxes and meddle in their national affairs.
If your sources are from western media it's probably sorcery.
its NOT FAILING... its just that US is so insecure and jealous, that's why there is a videos like this
1:55 What the bloody shills aren't telling you about China's "successful" BRI projects, they're:
- a (not yet built) hydropower dam in Uganda (that may lead to a war with Egypt)
- gas and oil pipelines in Asia (mostly to feed their own imports)
- and a railway from Addis Ababa to Djibouti (that is not actually useful because it didn't include access roads or connections to ports, industrial zones or storage locations, and left the state in too much debt to actually build the missing infrastructure)
Not all the countries which were offered BRI are developing. There are lots of developed countries which were offered participation or participate in the project, for example in Europe.
And in Australia, a very left wing *state* government tried to join, circumventing the constitutional exclusive foreign relations power vested in our Federal government. Thankfully, the latter vetoed the deal.
@@alexanderSydneyOz
and thus that regional(a state is a country) government failed at benefiting from a deal.
@@sabin97 Ohio is not a country
@@tristanlau1213
i agree. it's an administrative region of usakistan.
not sure what that has to do with my previous post.
Long story short, they lended a bunch of money to countries that couldn't pay it back, and now they haven't paid it back 😮😮
it sound like evil european way of doing things. People of africa stand for china...
people of european descend are jalous. The whole world is behind China, while you are gossing about China, Russia and Africa partnership
Greetings from Italy 🙋♂️🇮🇹
The rise of anti-China rhetoric in the media is worrying.
Why. The Chinese media hates on the West so Let Western Media hate on China
@@onlyagermanguy Western Media did it first
This is because they're actually succeeding, not failing like Western copers say every month.
well the Belt & Road Initiative was always about something more than financial gain through interest. Trapping a country in debt is a pretty effective way of exerting influence over it.
Hmm you owe 85 dollars to a guy who has many conditions and 15 dollars to a guy who has no conditions. Which one is debt trapping you?
China is between 10-20% of debt of those countries. The West is 80-90% of the debt.
Great video. Another BRI project to watch is in Guinea in West Africa, where China is throwing billions at a an extremely complicated iron ore mine + rail + port project that's crucial to its infrastructure goals.
If BRI is failing, why is G7 worried about it, and bringing G7 version of alternatives?
China builds the BRI, and America now "attempts" the Build Back Better". But it is so far ...understood that no bricks had been laid, and no concrete poured. America has more problems than it could deal with. Some are self inflicted, eg Trump, some are ambitions went haywire, eg. Ukraine. Some are systemic, eg. spending more than it could earn
failing. Ask Croatian what they felt about the bridge Chinese built for them. And ppl from Costs rica about the football stadium ? Jesus western propaganda is crazy.
Lot of great points are being made in the comments about how you're missing the bigger picture. Its important to note these projects are more than just foreign aid. These also provide means for China to extract crucial strategic resources especially in Africa for rare minerals. China also gains political influence over these countries to influence UN votes as well which is just as valuable in as any repayments they might receive.
Exactely, the situation in ukraine and how those countries react to it clearly shows the chinese influence.
The situation in Ukraine was started by America and NATO, way back around 1990 when Bush 1 was president.
And you're being lied to about what's going on.
Ukraine sank the Moskva?
The American military has had 24/7 coverage of that entire area for years, including satellite coverage with something called "synthetic aperture radar".
Synthetic aperture radar has the ability to clearly see through rain and clouds.....
So, if Ukraine sank Moskva, where's the American military video showing it????
And that "stuck in the mud" crap they kept telling us, was also a lie.
They needed them to look incompetent, so they became stuck in the mud.
Fact is, Russia is a LOT more broke than you're told, and they always have been.
You're told, and believe, that Russia isn't that far behind America in military power.
That's a lie. They own a lot of equipment, but have no money for training, or maintenance.
They had dry rotted tires, from lack of maintenance, and the tires quite literally exploded out the sidewalls......
They weren't stuck in the mud, they had flat tires, while in mud.
NOT the same thing.
You're being lied to and told the story they want you to have, and you're believing them.
That's a Kool aid drinker right there.
I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, I don't like China. Any time the CCP takes an L, it brings a smile to my face. On the other hand though, it's developing countries that are going to suffer. Other countries are going to look at the failure of the BRI and be very hesitant to offer any loans or investment into developing countries.
Actually, there is no losing part to this BRI program from China's perspective since they have funding to "Infinitum", to quote Fed Chairman Powell here in the U. S. which is the same "infinite" funding source we have called quantitative easing (QE). Please take a moment to read my comment prior to this one and I believe that you will appreciate the different take this Chinese BRI matter.
Why not a video on the failings of the IMF and their austerity measures. Here is a starter. The IMF forces countries to cut down their budgets for education, health care and social welfare programs.
One example of this is Greece, which was forced to cut its education budget by 23% between 2009 and 2014 as part of its bailout agreement with the IMF. Another example is Jamaica, which was required to cut its education budget by 10% in order to receive an IMF loan.
These cuts can have serious consequences for students and teachers alike. In Greece, for example, schools have been forced to close due to a lack of funding, while teachers have seen their salaries cut by up to 40%. In Jamaica, the education system has struggled to provide basic resources such as textbooks and school supplies
Is Greece economy back on track? Sadly no. Is Jamaicas economy back on track? Also no. Is the IMF broken?
You’re videos are really biased and it’s showing.
Hmmm that make taking over infrastructure sounds like a lesser evil. I would rather pay a toll on the road then having my education affected.
He is another western thug paid by western agencies to create hate about China
I read on this channel and many similar channels that China and CCP collapsed 40 years ago, and 10 years ago and then five months ago and then three days so naturally the Road and Belt Initiative must have already collapsed too.
Doesn't change the fact so many LEDCs are relying on the investment that the BRI is providing.
Just because it is failing does not mean it is not essential to other countries.
Here's a truth bomb for you: It's not.
"when Argentina is in trouble, which is basically all the time" lmao accurate
Literally a 20% year-on-year growth and this guy is calling it a failure!? 🙄
Without infrastructure, Roads, Rail, Ports, Schools, Hospitals Reservoirs and Waste Water Treat plants poor countries will remain in a “POVERTY TRAP OF STAGNATION”. Infrastructure is the essential platform for countries to grow and modernize.
Many Chinese I have talked to say they have been told that the countries were GIVEN the money...
You forgot to mention that a lot of the clauses in these Chinese loans stipulate that the borrowing country has to use Chinese construction companies and Chinese labourers. Chinese construction companies are notorious for building cheap and poorly so lots of infrastructure projects in these countries end up with lots of structural issues during and after construction resulting in a lot of wasted money. In some worst cases, the projects themselves are unusable causing the borrowing country not to be able to start making money from these projects and thus unable to start paying back the loan.
This is just sinophobic crap, as is the video. Do your research racist yank
This is assuming that the point of the BRI is to make a profit on loans. I think it's more likely about gaining influence with other countries and improving the world economy that China participates in.
Improving China
When have to sell only to China and buy from China
a damn on an active volcano yikes
Haha this made laugh so hard. Whats next? Nucliare powerplants on top of an earthquake prone area?
When somebody is giving you easy loans, there is always a catch which you will not like. Its just common sense. But of course corrupt politicians of these countries don’t care.
Note to your editors. Please make sure the music to your intros is at the same volume level as the rest of the audio
I thought I read some source sometime (lol) that basically said sometimes these Chinese loans are basically debt-trap diplomacy b/c China will knowingly make a risky loan, and when the borrower country fails to repay, China will take control of whatever was built with the loan money? I'm passively curious what the story is behind this if any.
Totally manufactured US fearmongering. It has been debunked before, but there can be no doubt whatsoever that it's crap after this data was revealed. China has gone out of it's way to bail out these debtors countries without taking control of infrastructure or territories
Well they did seize a few ports when countries couldn’t repay. I know Pakistan was one, unsure if the other, maybe Soleman Islands.
"The story behind this", is quantitative easing (QE) and I humbly request that you take a moment of your time to read my comment at about the 415 count and you won't be disappointed because most, if not all of your questions will be answered.
It's a myth debunked so many times it's called a meme now, that's why you don't ever hear western media use it anymore.
I watched a video on Bloomberg TH-cam about China Debt trap: th-cam.com/video/_-QDEWwSkP0/w-d-xo.html. quite interesting..
BRI is basically done to create and support for Chinese trade economy with infrasture bill on trading nations
It really looks like expecting Countries to have decent human rights and democracy is in fact the most economically sustainable choice for lenders...
I see many comments here observing that China BRI loans typically involve mandatory use of Chinese labor, expertise, construction companies and so on.
That, however, does not mean China "has the money back already". That is true to some extent regarding the payments, but overlooks the fact that if a Chinese worker performs work in another country, that is work not performed in China. Likewise materials, logistics, plant, expertise and so on, applied on offshore projects. The payments may come back to Chinese entities, but the actual value was applied overseas and to that extent detracts from the Chinese economy.
Money is a medium of exchange, but the economy is about real things: goods and services.
its a long term investments, practical messianic conditions, "i scratch your back and you scratch mine."
better than western siphoning poor countries resources.
You forgot a key point in many of these loans : if the country cant repay the load, China can cease the assets.
They built a few ports around the world with terms like this and their gold is exactly to have countries NOT repay so they can control international ports everywhere.
you were very nice about what the loans under BRI were really meant to do china always knew these countries had no way to pay back the loans and that most of the projects were pushed by them not the countries and were doomed to fail plus with chinese companies doing all the work with mostly chinese labor they added very little to the economies of those countries I believe the phrase is dept trap diplomacy
The BRI loans are not regular loans. Their are disadvantigeous packages. China offer to you to built an infrastructure project (which you not always need) at a very expensive price (which you usually can't affort) by Chinese companies and workers and offers you a loan to pay for that. That means you are paying to Chinese companies and workes and the money goes to Chinese economy, so the it does not have the usual benefits of infrastucture projects like pumping money into your economy and providing empolyment to your people. The money you spend does not multiplicate in your economybut Chinese and if the project is of shitty quality or you actually don't need it you just payed a lots of money to improve Chinese GDP.
First of all, A country identifies a need: a port, road, railway, powerplant, dam.... Then the country tries to find funds, first they go World bank, IMF, Paris club.. they all say NO!! Then they go to a Chinese bank and MAYBE they get a loan.
If the West cares so much, why did not they give a better offer?
Simply because the West does not want the developing world to have any infrastructure so they will remain poor and subordinate. That;s the reason you are most likely paid to post the above comment, to keep the developing world poor.
And Chinese companies charge way less on infrastructure projects then the west. And China also offers some scholarships to developing countries so there are some knowledge transfer. It is always a country’s own decision to participate in the BRI or not, China did not engage in any war to make all this happen, unlike the war the west has started in 18/19/20 century
China only spending 800 billion on BRI. Hell, congress spends that on a long weekend.
You mentioned Sri Lanka and Zambia, did you take some time to look at the debt composition of these two countries? Regarding Zambia, 45% of their debt is owed to Western private lenders with higher interest rates. If we talk about Africa in general, Africa owed the world nearly 700 billion and 88% of that debt is owed to non-Chinese lenders. If the situation is bad for Chinese loans and you think the non-Chinese lenders will be better off when their share of the loans is bigger than what China's in these poor countries, what makes you so certain that these countries won't default on the larger non-Chinese loans?
The plan was not to develop infrastructure but to put China as the top investor in these countries. As plan is unfolding these countries have accepted Chinese currency and Chinese government will consider these bailouts as investment for its rise. Like Sri Lanka, which has already leased one of its major ports for China to a period of approximately 100 years.
They are doing it so they can have infrastructure in those country.
Another thing they aren't telling you is that China mostly builds the projects they fund themselves.
They're a way to export work for Chinese construction companies.
A theory in international relations is that China does NOT expect these developing countries to repay the loans. If the borrowers can't pay them back (due to rampant kleptocracy) then China can force the former to "lease" their seaports and airfields to the PLA as a form of repayment. Either way, China will have soft-power or hard-power influence over their backyard all the way up to the doorsteps of the Middle East and Europe.
i think you can scrap the word "doorstep"... China already posesses agricultural areas in italy and on the balkans and the majority of a port in germany. So it isn't up to the doorstep, it's already in the house. (And everybody inpower seems to underestimate their ruthlesness, dedication and intelligence)
If these projects aren't using local labour and local materials (where possible) then it is pointless as where is the wider benefit?
It a propaganda message by the west that local labour is not used. Chinese companies employs locals just like any western companies would. And just like any western companies, engineers and management are usually not locals.
You don't understand the aim of BRI.
This is a headline that makes me happy
even USA themselves are highly in debt towards China, but without any infrastructure renewal projects,
So desperate for news that makes you feel happy, even if it isn't true. 😢😢
The China "debt trap" narrative in 2022 has been debunked by the British Debt Justice and World Bank data. They found that African countries owe 3x more to Western banks, asset managers and oil traders than to China, and are charged double the interest. 12% of Africa's external debt was owed to China lenders, compared to 35% to Western private creditors.
China has since cancelled the debt for 17 African nations.
Ooo, the Wumao are NOT pleased! lol.
im happy with Saudi Arabia right now.... and Africa and South America. Pakistan went pro western and look at their country right now..... India and china went neutral and look at them right now.... unity.
thanks, i was starting to get very curious on how the B&R initiative was going.
and yet, the BRI has an additional 3 Trillions US$ reserve for more protect worldwide, thanks to USA leadership
Seems like a good idea. Build a land based trading network. I think a lot of countries will benefit. Hope they succeed.
"Montenegro borrowed money to build a road to nowhere that remains unfinished"
At what point is a road to nowhere considered "finished"? 🤔
It’s important to note that China will also seize infrastructure. If a country defaults, China will take control of their airport or harbor or whatever they used the money to build. The politicians all pay themselves from the loan so they don’t care about negotiating a better deal.
In my opinion, China isn't the least bit interested in seizing anything from these poor nations, but instead what I see China doing is that they are spending their "infinite" QE funding to create the same type of infrastructure we have here in the U. S. which provides for a robust interstate trade and once this is done, with the massive population there is in that region of the world, all of those nations will basically leave my country, the U. S., in the dust when it comes to trade and commerce. Please take a moment of your time to read my comment prior to this comment and I think you will appreciate the QE perspective.
@JackSmith-mk1ru Yeah, exactly.
@JackSmith-mk1ru Yes, of course, you are correct, but the most salient aspect of your comment is to acknowledge that the way China is able to fund these "schools, colleges, roads, hospitals" and the like is by China employing the quantitative easing (QE) process which is to electronically generate monies, when these sovereign nations should have the right to employ the QE process themselves which makes China, and the U. S., for that matter, an unnecessary middleman. Please, you must grasp the QE reality.