You must log in or register to comment.

Khoza604 t1_jdvj03d wrote

If there is anything I know about China these are purely for the good of the African people and this deal isn't filled with predatory legal language. Also America bad, china bot army smart handsome extremely endowed.

I love how all the new comments are very coincidentally at 8-9am in China. Social credit for all of you good boys.


nobody_smith723 t1_jdy3e7q wrote

Because generations of white imperialism Had done wonders for Africa?


EvergreenEnfields t1_jdyifu0 wrote

Zimbabwe went from the breadbasket of Africa to a failed state under local rule within a few years, because they threw the baby out with the bathwater.


nobody_smith723 t1_jdyqa7w wrote

not really sure what you're trying to say. almost as if being at the mercy of brutal imperialism from the west has left many african nations ripe for corruption of western propped up institutions and predatory monetary policy. zimbabwe's total national debt is 10 billion dollars. which denies them access to investment incentives at favorable rates. Do you know how laughably tiny 10 billion dollars is next to the wealth raped from that country by western nations. but... because they were subject to routine oppressive rule. they're maid to toil and figure their way forward underneath shitty western monetary policy.

where as... china doesn't give a shit about idiotic western policy and is happy to enter partnership with them ...mainly to secure mineral/energy resources


EvergreenEnfields t1_jdyy0sf wrote

It's almost like running the only people who knew how to farm out of the country immediately was a bad choice, instead of forcing them to teach others. Zimbabwe had no need to go into billions of dollars of debt. It happened because they allowed a purely self interested dictator to take the reigns.


Socksandsh0es t1_jdxy74s wrote

How much Social points were you paid to make this comment?


[deleted] t1_jdvy9jr wrote



ProShortKingAction t1_jdxqskd wrote

Belt and Road initiative loans are relatively low compared to other sources you would go to for a project like this like the IMF who would be saddling you with a higher interest rate and a bunch of stipulations involving how you can run your economy. The debt trap isn't anything on the surface it's that China is giving these loans to historically unstable countries that no other source would be willing to lend to because there is no guarantee they will be economically stable. So you take the loan because of course you will be the one to turn your country around and keep the boat from tipping over and then a nearby harvest fails, bread prices go up, and everything goes to shit. Now here you are stuck with this loan and no capacity to repay it


LogRepulsive5113 t1_jdwrslw wrote



[deleted] t1_jdxezau wrote



lori_lightbrain t1_jdy8agx wrote

lmao that's not even a valid wiki URL


ShaunDark t1_jdz22e8 wrote

New reddit thing, has been going on for years. They changed something in the interpreter and afaik if someone posts a link with an underscore there will be a backslash before it in old reddit and on certain mobile apps. Opening the comment in new reddit and probably the native app should work. Or removing the backslash.


No_Mixture8354 t1_jdzu5k7 wrote

bro you making it sound like everything in the world isn’t for benefit after all💀if it is a win win then it is good enough


BourboneAFCV t1_jdv0fa5 wrote

Finally, someone is doing construction in Africa and not kill them


Spirited-Mango-493 t1_jdwddpd wrote

Construction part is somewhat right, but it has been going on for a bit. The killing part is totally wrong, they are just going to kill by working them to death or working them without safety gear.


51674 t1_jdwq98k wrote

Its an interesting concept to install solar on lakes and rivers, i was thinking why cant they install on dry land it must be way cheaper. But this way it helps prevent water loss from evaporation, which according to the article is the original cause for massive power outages in the area due to not having enough water for hydro electric. If this concept is successful we can also do it for overly hot and dry areas that have chronic low water levels.


CrappyTan69 t1_jdwaphh wrote

China - colonising Africa one lovely gesture at a time. Africa - Stupid enough to take it.

Said as an African native....


LogRepulsive5113 t1_jdws9qk wrote

You do know western countries own the majority of African countries debt, right? You also know that most French speaking African countries are still paying “colonial tax” right?

“African native” ….


jacelaboon t1_jduuh4r wrote

America b like: nooooooo - China is the enemy waaaaaaa


AthiestMessiah t1_jduw2b6 wrote

You do réalisé Chinese build these crappy mega projects at huge interest loans that get put through with bribes to their politicians and then the country is in debt to china forever


skolioban t1_jdvizzw wrote

You do realize these countries accept them because IMF and others offered even worse rates and stipulations that interfered with how they run their country? China doesn't have special mind bending powers that hypnotized these countries into taking their deal.


Comfortable_Excuse41 t1_jdvuofm wrote

IMF, has lower interest, the problem is their stricter requirements to lend. China has higher interest loans with predatory language in their contract, but more lenient requirements. Sri Lanka is a great example of it.


The_Red_Grin_Grumble t1_jdvjsfl wrote

Many do not realize that. They fall for the whataboutism rhetoric. It's all fun and games until the projects start failing and the debt is inescapable.


BrownMan65 t1_jdvrlwp wrote

>You do réalisé Chinese build these crappy mega projects at huge interest loans that get put through with bribes to their politicians and then the country is in debt to china forever

This Chinese debt trap bullshit has been debunked time and time again. Even the original article about it was written by some random graduate students several years ago with absolutely no knowledge about the deals. When even The Atlantic is publishing articles about how it's a myth, you should probably do some introspection on the amount of propaganda you've bought into.


Comfortable_Excuse41 t1_jdvur2i wrote

Tell that to Sri Lanka .


BrownMan65 t1_jdvvfln wrote

The article literally addresses Sri Lanka specifically, idiot.


Comfortable_Excuse41 t1_jdvxfc9 wrote

Does the address the current state of Sri Lanka


BrownMan65 t1_jdvyeg1 wrote

>Our research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota.

>In Hambantota, instead of waiting for phase 1 of the port to generate revenue as the Ramboll team had recommended, Mahinda Rajapaksa pushed ahead with phase 2, transforming Hambantota into a container port. In 2012, Sri Lanka borrowed another $757 million from China Eximbank, this time at a reduced, post-financial-crisis interest rate of 2 percent. Rajapaksa took the liberty of naming the port after himself.

>When Sirisena took office, Sri Lanka owed more to Japan, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank than to China. Of the $4.5 billion in debt service Sri Lanka would pay in 2017, only 5 percent was because of Hambantota.

Yes. The current state of Sri Lanka is due to shitty leadership and even shittier loans from basically everyone but China.


Comfortable_Excuse41 t1_jdw296g wrote

China knowingly lent money to a country who the had the in abilities to payback. I wonder how they got the hambo port


BrownMan65 t1_jdw2y0h wrote

>When Sirisena took office, Sri Lanka owed more to Japan, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank than to China. Of the $4.5 billion in debt service Sri Lanka would pay in 2017, only 5 percent was because of Hambantota.

Are you just knowingly not reading the article or the parts that I quoted? You're seriously mad at China for loaning money at a lower interest rate than every other country that loaned them money? Also their total debt to China is less than every other country. It's so obvious that you're just looking for any reason to hate on China instead of actual dealing with reality.


Comfortable_Excuse41 t1_jdwjtay wrote

It does not have lower interest rates then the IMF. The reason they couldn’t secure a loan from the IMF. The IMF required Sri Lanka to have a series of reforms to manage their deficit. The IMF knew they wouldn’t able to pay back without a series of reform. Only a predatory entity would lend to a government who can’t back, maybe it’s coincidence China got the 99 lease on the port.


BrownMan65 t1_jdwqi6h wrote

You can search up Sri Lanka and find the interest rates that the IMF is charging them as well as other countries. You're literally just making up lies at this point.

Here's all the times the IMF lent money to Sri Lanka. The latest was in 2016 but I'm sure that's totally not predatory at all.

Also here you go again, not reading the link I sent from The Atlantic. The article even states that other countries were asked first to help build the port. A Canadian and later Danish company were even contracted to do feasibility studies. They took this information and approached the US and India to help fund the construction of the port and both said no. Eventually a Chinese construction company won the bid and a Chinese bank agreed to fund the project.

>The Canadian project failed to move forward, mostly because of the vicissitudes of Sri Lankan politics

>We reviewed a second feasibility report, produced in 2006 by the Danish engineering firm Ramboll, that made similar recommendations to the plans put forward by SNC-Lavalin

>Armed with the Ramboll report, Sri Lanka’s government approached the United States and India; both countries said no. But a Chinese construction firm, China Harbor Group, had learned about Colombo’s hopes, and lobbied hard for the project. China Eximbank agreed to fund it, and China Harbor won the contract.

All you have to do is read. I gave you all your answers and you still continue to just be completely wrong. At this point it has to be on purpose.

Here's the most important part that you should probably come to understand though.

>The Central Bank governors under both Rajapaksa and Sirisena do not agree on much, but they both told us that Hambantota, and Chinese finance in general, was not the source of the country’s financial distress.

>Before the port episode, “Sri Lanka could sink into the Indian Ocean and most of the Western world wouldn’t notice,” Subhashini Abeysinghe, research director at Verité Research, an independent Colombo-based think tank, told us. Suddenly, the island nation featured prominently in foreign-policy speeches in Washington. Pence voiced worry that Hambantota could become a “forward military base” for China.

You and every other western person only gives a shit about Sri Lanka because China helped build a port that the rest of the world refused to help them with. If the US had built that port and the exact same circumstances had happened, you wouldn't have batted an eye. You would be here blaming their government for their mismanagement of the country. Instead you're blaming China because you've bought into the bullshit propaganda about Chinese debt trap diplomacy and believe that China is out to get you.


Comfortable_Excuse41 t1_jdwspr4 wrote

You realize the port wasn’t feasible right. Feasibility studies were done. China knew it, but still funded it. Once the Sri Lanka government realized they couldn’t repay the debt they were forced to privatize it. China funded, china owns the debt, and a Chinese State enterprise owns the port.


BrownMan65 t1_jdwtdef wrote

> It was the Canadian International Development Agency—not China—that financed Canada’s leading engineering and construction firm, SNC-Lavalin, to carry out a feasibility study for the port. We obtained more than 1,000 pages of documents detailing this effort through a Freedom of Information Act request. The study, concluded in 2003, confirmed that building the port at Hambantota was feasible

>We reviewed a second feasibility report, produced in 2006 by the Danish engineering firm Ramboll, that made similar recommendations to the plans put forward by SNC-Lavalin

Please shut up. You're too stupid for your own good.


Comfortable_Excuse41 t1_jdwu66e wrote

CIDA proposed it could be done in 3 phases in 2002 for 1.7 billion. It never came to fruition. The port proceeded in two phases by Chinese backed loans. The first phase and second being funded by Exim Bank of China.


BrownMan65 t1_jdwv9hs wrote

>In Hambantota, instead of waiting for phase 1 of the port to generate revenue as the Ramboll team had recommended, Mahinda Rajapaksa pushed ahead with phase 2, transforming Hambantota into a container port.

The President of Sri Lanka pushed for the second phase to begin immediately before phase 1 could begin to generate revenue which ballooned the country's debt. Again, I'm not sure how you can blame China for this.


Comfortable_Excuse41 t1_jdwwhji wrote

Construction phase 1 didn’t begin until 2007 and finished around 2010. Second phase didn’t begin until 2012 and funded Exim with the agreement that China merchant port would get 65 percent stake for 35 years . Jesus I wonder why they couldnt pay back the loan.


BrownMan65 t1_jdx1r2y wrote

They couldn't pay back the loan because they literally did not take the time to allow phase 1 to bring in revenue. Just because it was completed in 2010 does not mean that shipping lines are immediately established with the new port in mind. It takes time for things like that to change and before that could happen, phase 2 was started. What do you think happens when you have a loan that you haven't made progress on and then take out a second loan that is over 2x more than the first one? It's not really a crazy concept here and is a failing of the Sri Lankan government.

On top of that, the loan did not come with an agreement for China Merchant Port to take 65% stake. Sri Lanka sold part of their stake to the company in 2017 as a means of paying down their debt. The loan that Sri Lanka took from Exim even came with a post crisis interest rate of 2%, nearly 5x lower than anything the IMF has offered Sri Lanka.


Comfortable_Excuse41 t1_jdxbaqd wrote

That’s beside the the point, China knew very well the couldn’t pay back the loan. The loan about the 2 percent was made with contingent that the China merchant point would get 65 percent in 2012. In 2016 when they relinquish 80 percent ownership for 99 year contract. They couldn’t pay it off.


BrownMan65 t1_jdxctil wrote

>That’s beside the the point

No that's literally not besides the point. That is the point. Sri Lanka mismanaged the whole project and couldn't pay their debts because they didn't follow the plans that were established for them. It is not China's, or any country's, duty to baby a nation if they decide they want to go their own path. If Sri Lanka decides they want to move on with phase 2 immediately after phase 1, then that is solely on Sri Lanka and no one else.


Comfortable_Excuse41 t1_jdxg8qu wrote

That’s why the IMF had guideline. Sri Lanka couldn’t meet those guidelines so they went to china. It wasn’t the interest rate. China knew what was going on. They had the ability to make china merchant port 65 percent ownership. They could of forced them to wait. It’s a debt trap plain and simple. Plus your whole argument was that china was using debt trap diplomacy.


[deleted] t1_jduxgwz wrote

Is that really worse than how we treat them?


AthiestMessiah t1_jduy0ph wrote

The west treated africa badly for a while now, not sharing technology, using them for raw resources only. Going as far as china to avoid African labour. I grew up in Africa and it’s not easy knowing you can’t have things due to politics


Intrepid-Dig-1855 t1_jdvm0ob wrote

No. But we should not be advocating either approach of the west or the east.


Silly-One7351 t1_jduwmho wrote

America is warmonger. Nothing else. I've never heard them doing some great projects Other than setting up military base.


Floupyyy t1_jdv1iz7 wrote

HAHAHAHA LOL u gotta watch out mann, dont talk abat America