International Chinese Debt-Trap Diplomacy: Xi Jinping's Belt and Road Initiative Turns 10 Years Old

One would put themselves at great hazard equating the machinations of B/eiji/ng as the equivalent of Washington to score a few good looking points for rhetoric's sake.

This is not good ground for a morally relative exercise in our supposed hypocrisy about judging Oriental grabs at Occidental imperialism of the now as "too harsh."

It is worse, even if the case is not being made here.

All the pinkest Power Rangers in the world could not mask that Bei/jin/g's current way of doing "business" in Africa and East Asia is more aggressive, conniving, and cruel.

If anyone wants to make a thread about it. (I would, but that's not a good idea...)

Make that thread. Pointing out the hypocrisy of fear mongering over China is quite coherent as far as I can tell, as I have not yet seen China doing anything approaching what the United States has done in South America and the Middle East in the name of economic hegemony.

And "Washington" is only but a part of US economic imperialism, and the tyranny of American private power (which is not comparable to state owned enterprise in China) has its own atrocious history of funding chaos and murder abroad in the form of funding coups and murdering political leaders and union organizers.
 
I agree this is a frightening path of neo-merchantilism, as well as neo colonialism. China does not have good intentions. This is only for the benefit of China, and at best it is neutral to others, and most likely detrimental. I was thinking of investing in Sri Lanka, as it is a good play on India. That was until I looked into it and basically CHina is the boss that will be calling all the shots there. Plus the debt burdens that CHina has placed on it.

I for one, have been buying as little as I can from China for the past 15 years or so. If you have a choice, exercise it, as someday there may be no options.

How do you as a regular citizen invest in Sri Lanka? Do you buy their currency? Do you buy a house there? Do you sponsor some poor Sri Lankan's medical school?
 
Its quite the opposite actually. Its the West that was more conniving, cruel, and aggressive given they used indebtedness as a pretense for colonization and/or control of countries like Tunisia and Egypt. When China does that then we can equate the two.

I see your point, but disagree on many grounds. A large part of which is that the disparate impact of the USA is over-calculated as the entrenched and for most of the world the visible power.

China does worse, on what seems like a "smaller scale" (geographically, not in lives), but influencing more people directly, involuntarily, and without the pretense of debating the second or third party economic effects of something like debt. (Although I agree it is an issue and often unfair.)

I need to get some work done, sadly.

If anyone wants to make a thread on the topic, "Who is the bigger global menace?" or "Who is "worse"?" now... or... oh excitement, even historically, I will check in and fire all my rhetorical cannons at the dragon.
 
Make that thread. Pointing out the hypocrisy of fear mongering over China is quite coherent as far as I can tell, as I have not yet seen China doing anything approaching what the United States has done in South America and the Middle East in the name of economic hegemony.

And "Washington" is only but a part of US economic imperialism, and the tyranny of American private power (which is not comparable to state owned enterprise in China) has its own atrocious history of funding chaos and murder abroad in the form of funding coups and murdering political leaders and union organizers.

I understand your thoughts and largely disagree.

However, I would rather not make that thread and get that attention, because where I am is sadly, objectively not as free as where you are.

Have a great day or presumably night.
 
I see your point, but disagree on many grounds. A large part of which is that the disparate impact of the USA is over-calculated as the entrenched and for most of the world the visible power.

China does worse, on what seems like a "smaller scale" (geographically, not in lives), but influencing more people directly, involuntarily, and without the pretense of debating the second or third party economic effects of something like debt. (Although I agree it is an issue and often unfair.)

I need to get some work done, sadly.

If anyone wants to make a thread on the topic, "Who is the bigger global menace?" or "Who is "worse"?" now... or... oh excitement, even historically, I will check in and fire all my rhetorical cannons at the dragon.
I didn't have the US in mind, I was actually thinking about France and Great Britain. They were quit conniving, aggressive, and cruel in their use of indebtedness for subjugation.

France outright invaded Tunisia and colonized it when that country couldn't pay its debts. Egypt could not be colonized because that would be too great an incursion into a formally Ottoman province but France and Great Britain forced it sign a concession that gave them control of its budget and established a mixed court system, exempting Europeans from Egyptian law and instead trying them in these so called mixed courts which were run by Europeans and heavily favored them.

I'm pretty sure either country would've preferred to cede a port to avoid either fate.
 
So its good when the noble West does it but not evil when the scheming orientals do it?

Who in this entire thread made that ridiculous claim exactly? Can you tag him, or are you wrestling with a strawman? o_O

Perhaps that good colonial/evil colonial claim was made by a poster on my block list, but I have yet to see a single post that's even remotely close to what you are arguing against, just a whole lot of people (except those who are walking into the debt traps themselves) immediately recognizes that the same book that Western colonial pioneers wrote two centuries ago is still very much effective today in China's long game.
 
Last edited:
I didn't have the US in mind, I was actually thinking about France and Great Britain. They were quit conniving, aggressive, and cruel in their use of indebtedness for subjugation.

France outright invaded Tunisia and colonized it when that country couldn't pay its debts. Egypt could not be colonized because that would be too great an incursion into a formally Ottoman province but France and Great Britain forced it sign a concession that gave them control of its budget and established a mixed court system, exempting Europeans from Egyptian law and instead trying them in these so called mixed courts which were run by Europeans and heavily favored them.

I'm pretty sure either country would've preferred to cede a port to avoid either fate.
France is/was fucking brutal. Their treatment of Haiti is the well known example. I agreed that they absolutely should have gotten reparations from murdering all the white people and becoming independent but then they extorted the shit out of them for recognition and favorable trade deals.
 
1. That is kind of arguing the past for the present.

Iraq war is not the past, its recent history, Bolton is back as national security advisor and if it wasnt for Russia Syria would be a crater at this point.

2. Is invasion the standard, or cultural oppression, destruction, near genocide (and calculated at that), regional terror, the oppression of 1.4 billion people, and the exportation of that police state politics to a billion odd more people?

If we are talking about foreign policy then the standard is how said nation conducts itself in the international scale.

When it comes to China, the Americas, and today, I do not see much daylight, and doubt we are going to find the daylight based on our differences of opinion.

The issue i see is that im not prejudging any nation when it comes to foreign policy based on how they conduct their domestic policy. Domestically of course China is a terrible country when it comes to freedom.

China's foreign policy today is much more nefarious for all of the world than the United State's foreign policy. In intention, in execution, and in those literally executed or oppressed.

Not even close, when it comes to foreign policy is Russia and the USA then a huge gap and then China.

Who in this entire thread made that ridiculous claim exactly? Can you tag him, or are you wrestling with a strawman? o_O

You said that the Panama Canal was given through American goodwill despite the fact that the US was not "legally" (whose law?) bound to give it away.

Yeah, thats a load of crap.
 
Last edited:
There were rumors that the Chinese are trying to get the Subic and Clark former US Bases facilities as collateral for their power loans to the Philippines since they will be the one to develop the new railway and airport connecting the former bases to the rest of the provinces and metro manila.

Like others have said the Chinese are playing a long game the more Chinese assets in the country the more it becomes acceptable for them to put military units on the country.

At least Third-World countries with lousy investment grades were lured into the Chinese debt trap because the opaque and corruption-prone loans they signed usually come with interest rates well below what they can get on the open market.

The loans that Duterte is signing with China makes absolutely no financial sense at all when it's ten times more expensive than what Japan is offering you. If you ask me, that so-called "friendly loan" has regional politics written all over it.

Here's to hoping it's not another North Rail pork-barrel fiasco where hundreds of millions of dollars in Chinese loan just disappear into thin air somewhere between the Filipino officials' office and the Chinese contractors' office, and there's no secret collateral attached that Filipino voters know nothing about until it's too late.

The funny part is China is offering a better deal then the IMF, and World bank.

They actually come in and build the infastructure, so that corruption doesn't end up diverting the funds.

See above.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps that good colonial/evil colonial claim was made by a poster on my block list, but I have yet to see a single post that's even remotely close to what you are arguing against, just a whole lot of people (except those who are walking into the debt traps themselves) immediately recognizes that the same book that Western colonial pioneers wrote two centuries ago is still very much effective today in China's long game.

Two centuries ago? i would say that the debt trap of the west is far worse today than it was back then.

Back then they were loaned hard commodity-based currency and if you wanted to collect you needed to actually invade the country.

Nowadays you are being loaned worthless paper that you of course need to redeem in the lender country economy and then you are forced to sell commodities in exchange for said paper in order to pay interests.

Meanwhile the billions embezzled by the politicians that signed those loans is securely stored in western banks.

Also in order to be in a "debt trap" you actually need to be in debt, i actually think the deal is quite sweet considering the debt is forgiven as opposed to being forever tied paying interest only.
 
At least Third-World countries with lousy investment grades were lured into the Chinese debt trap because the opaque and corruption-prone loans they signed usually come with interest rates well below what they can get on the open market.

The loans that Duterte is signing with China makes absolutely no financial sense at all when it's ten times more expensive than what Japan is offering you. If you ask me, that so-called "friendly loan" has regional politics written all over it.

Here's to hoping it's not another North Rail pork-barrel fiasco where hundreds of millions of dollars in Chinese loan just disappear into thin air somewhere between the Filipino officials' office and the Chinese contractors' office, and there's no secret collateral attached that Filipino voters know nothing about until it's too late.



See above.


I want to believe that the deals are really nefarious and both Duterte and the Chinese already planned it that this will result in a default so that the Chinese will gain access to resources and strategic facilities in other words the Duterte administration practically sold the R.P to the P.R.C.


Have you heard Dutertes recent visit to China where he exclaimed "I love China I need China".

But hey he still has like 98% approval rating and super majority support in the senate.
 
How do you as a regular citizen invest in Sri Lanka? Do you buy their currency? Do you buy a house there? Do you sponsor some poor Sri Lankan's medical school?
Haha no just buy a. ETF that's Sri Lanka based
 
Two centuries ago? i would say that the debt trap of the west is far worse today than it was back then.

...no names of these "good colonialism" supporters? So I guess you WERE wrestling with a strawman then?

When discussing bad things to see which is worse, it's a fallacy to call any of them "good". Kinda like political parties and the whataboutism so rampant around this neighborhood.

As I have said in the very first paragraph in this discussion, neo-colonialism is nothing new, yet China is doing an incredibly effective job, even more so than some of the pioneers of the past, with their primary objectives obtained with no threats of violence necessary. Chinese Debt-Trap Diplomacy is especially an impressive feat, when everyone should already know exactly what it is by now, but still falling for it left and right, from Central Asia to Oceania to Africa.

Also in order to be in a "debt trap" you actually need to be in debt, i actually think the deal is quite sweet considering the debt is forgiven as opposed to being forever tied paying interest only.

Of course the deals are sweet, I even listed a few myself, and that's why this long game is so effective. The debtor, debtee, and every greasy palm in between got exactly what they wanted in the first place. I'm quite surprised that you even bring up the court, as if there's any legal dispute at all, when in reality everybody caught in the debt trap are quietly signing their collateral over for a discount when the loan is due. No fuss, no muss.

I think the only real disagreement between you and everyone else here is that you seems to believe that China is offering the loans in earnest and begrudgingly taking the collateral as compensation when the countries drowning in debt can't pay, where as pretty much every financial/political analysts on Earth think that in every single one of these "sweet deals", the strategic collateral is the real prize that China was aiming for in the first place, but it's usually something that would be difficult to buy up front in the open, hence the need for a long game that's working out splendidly.

There's a good reason why in most of these intentionally-opaque debt traps, the details on future debt-to-equity swap and the assets listed as collateral are kept a secret by all the governments involved, and no ordinary citizens in those the countries actually know what their government is giving up until the inevitable default and the Chinese delegate arrives to sign the deeds and graciously accept the territorial transfer, as previously agreed upon years ago. There will be some lone dissenting voice after what's done is done, but as they say in Asia, "you can't uncook cooked rice", especially when all the people who signed the deals are set to rule their respective countries for decades to come.

Whether the Chinese Debt-Trap Diplomacy is "good", "bad", or "worse" is depends on which party involved, and whether the debtees can ever get back the things they've lost is entirely up for speculation, but absolutely no one can deny that the list of strategic assets that China has been able to gather up through their long game are damn impressive, every single one have real repercussion on the region's geopolitics, and none of them ever fall into Chinese hands by accidents, not after years of careful planning.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary. Poor countries and their resouces in Asia/Pacific, Africa, and South America are ripe for the taking.

Beijing couldn't care less about the warring Middle East shithole, since that's the traditional Washington/Russian playground.

I wonder how much of Venezuela gonna ends up as Chinese oversea territories/assets in the next few years when the debt is called in.


No, but I think they'll be more inclined to work with the East than the West after the civil war.
When the West loses in Syria, the Levant countries and Syria will be much closer to China and they'll secure those trade routes to Europe for them.
 
...no names of these "good colonialism" supporters? So I guess you WERE wrestling with a strawman then?

When discussing bad things to see which is worse, it's a fallacy to call any of them "good". Kinda like political parties and the whataboutism so rampant around this neighborhood.

As I have said in the very first paragraph in this discussion, neo-colonialism is nothing new, yet China is doing an incredibly effective job with the old book, even more so than some of the pioneers of the past since the primary objective is obtained with absolutely no violence necessary.



Of course the deals are sweet, I even listed a few myself, and that's why this long game is so effective. The debtor, debtee, and every greasy palm in between got exactly what they wanted in the first place. I'm quite surprised that you even bring up the court, as if there's any legal dispute at all, when in reality everybody caught in the debt trap are quietly signing their collateral over for a discount when the loan is due. No fuss, no muss.

I think the only real disagreement between you and everyone else here is that you seems to believe that China is offering the loans in earnest and begrudgingly taking the collateral as compensation when the countries drowning in debt can't pay, where as pretty much every financial/political analysts on Earth think that in every single one of these "sweet deals", the strategic collateral is the real prize that China was aiming for in the first place, but it's usually something that would be difficult to buy up front, hence the need for a long game that's working out splendidly.


This...

If you noticed most these countries who get these deals are one of the most ultra corrupt and questional leaders of these period.

I bet Hung Sen of Cambodia is one of the leaders who is coniving with the Chinese "the debt trap" its part of their under the table negotiations both parties knows beforehand that this is just a way scede sovereignity.

If you notice a lot these countries seems to be Chinese puppets and rule thru undemocratic means, supression of free speech etc.
 
I want to believe that the deals are really nefarious and both Duterte and the Chinese already planned it that this will result in a default so that the Chinese will gain access to resources and strategic facilities in other words the Duterte administration practically sold the R.P to the P.R.C.


Have you heard Dutertes recent visit to China where he exclaimed "I love China I need China".

But hey he still has like 98% approval rating and super majority support in the senate.

Wow, they actually went through with it, even after publicly admitting that Filipino tax-payers gonna be paying ten times more to repay the Chinese loan rather than the more reasonable Japanese loan:


Philippines gets China loan for Chico River Pump Irrigation Project
Ian Nicolas Cigaral - April 12, 2018

nm-xi-1004.jpg

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippines on Tuesday signed a loan agreement with China to help fund the construction of the Chico River Pump Irrigation Project in Northern Luzon, and a separate accord on economic and technical cooperation.

In a statement on Thursday, the Department of Finance said the loan deal, which was sealed on the sidelines of the four-day Boao Forum for Asia in Hainan, China, is worth $62 million (about P3.135 billion).

The interest rate on the US-dollar denominated loan is 2 percent per annum with a maturity period of 20 years, inclusive of a seven-year grace period, the DOF said.

The agreement, which covers 85 percent of the total contract amount of $73.04 million (approximately P3.689 billion), will be implemented by the National Irrigation Administration.

The project’s total cost is $86.57 million (P4.372 billion).

The irrigation project will provide a stable supply of water to around 8,700 hectares of agricultural land, benefit 4,350 farmers and their families, and serve 21 barangays in the provinces of Cagayan and Kalinga in Northern Luzon.

Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia earlier admitted that Chinese soft loans, which carry 2-3 percent interest rates "at best," are more expensive than Japanese loans that only have 0.25-0.75 percent rates.

https://www.philstar.com/business/2...hina-loan-chico-river-pump-irrigation-project
 
It could be a tactic being used. I've noticed also that many appear to admire Chinese business men and their ability to make money. The Chinese government on the other hand doesn't appear to be as thought of.
 
China’s debt-trap diplomacy snares our Asian neighbours
Amanda Hodge | The Australian

58d7f6e77a90d4745c7b55c665e635b8

Mahinda Rajapaksa International Cricket Stadium in Hambantota, Sri Lanka.

It wasn’t long ago that local entrepreneurs in Sri Lanka’s remote Hambantota district were running “white elephant” tours of the sleepy town’s Chinese-funded, multi-billion-dollar attractions.

They would start at the international airport dubbed the “emptiest airport in the world” and move on to the port with no ships, and finally the cricket stadium.

In symbolism not lost on the home team, wildlife officers were deployed at the last international match there in July to keep elephants from the ground.

What else was there to do but laugh at the obscene folly of former president Mahinda Rajapaksa who in 2009, flush with success from his brutal suppression of a 27-year Tamil insurgency, sought to cement his legacy in eponymous vanity projects in his home town of 11,000 people on the country’s southern tip?

When international lenders baulked at the project, Rajapaksa turned to the country least interested in his government’s poor human rights and corruption record, and most eager to lend money: China.

Nine years on, and few in Hambantota — or anywhere in Sri Lanka for that matter — are laughing.

89e05215d90f6f40f103b714ef2eddc9

Last month, Hambantota Port was handed over to a Chinese state-owned company under a 99-year lease deal widely cited as a cautionary tale on the debt legacy of Chinese investment in Asia and the Pacific.

The $US1.1 billion ($1.4bn) deal was the only option for an administration that inherited a mountain of Chinese debt on a series of infrastructure follies it had no capacity to service.

China lodged a diplomatic protest with Canberra this week over comments made by International Development Minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells that Beijing was financing white elephant projects across Pacific nations with onerous loans.

“I’ve gone to (the Pacific) islands and you’ll be driving along some back road and all of a sudden you see this Chinese road crew building a road to nowhere,” Ms Fierravanti-Wells said.

“We don’t know what the consequences are when (Pacific nations) have to pay back some of these Chinese loans.’’

Chinese state news service Xinhua accused Australia of “behaving like an arrogant overlord” in the Pacific in an online opinion piece.

“If Australia really cares about its Pacific neighbours, it should first learn from China to treat those much smaller neighbours as equals and refrain from behaving like an arrogant overlord,” Xinhua’s Xu Haijing wrote.

“Then it could learn, again from China, to contribute constructive ideas, if not funds, to address the real concerns of the peoples in those countries.”

These days a “real concern” among many Sri Lankans is that their debt to China has compromised the country’s sovereignty.

0553af73aa7550f95ea844e5ac5b392b

The Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport in Hambantota, dubbed ‘the emptiest airport in the world’.


Examining Sri Lanka’s disastrous experience last September, an article in The New York Times suggested it could be a “harbinger for debt crises to come” and that other recipients of Beijing loans under its massive Belt and Road Infrastructure initiative — such as Pakistan — could soon also find themselves struggling to repay and forced to swap key assets for debt.

The new Sri Lankan government came into office in 2015 promising to offload debt and unravel some of the more controversial Chinese contracts, including a reclamation project of Chinese-built, owned or operated high-rise apartments, hotels and office space in the middle of the capital, Colombo.

In the end the high-debt load made Sri Lanka “beholden to China, constraining its choices” and forcing even greater concessions that have ceded further control to Beijing, says David Brewster, a senior research fellow at ANU’s National Security College.

That is not to say all Chinese investment should be seen as a grand conspiracy to seize foreign assets and wield foreign policy clout, certainly no more so at least than any other great power, he adds.

Nonetheless, Hambantota’s $US1.5bn port is a glittering prize for China, sitting as it does on the edge of the vital Indian Ocean shipping lane through which 80 per cent of China’s imported oil passes.

A 99-year-lease on that port, which China is now extending with a neighbouring industrial zone, nails down a key plank in its grand plan to build a modern Silk Road land and maritime trade corridor with its Asian neighbours, the Middle East, Africa and Europe.

Brahma Chellaney, a China analyst with New Delhi’s Centre for Policy Research, says “Australia has woken up rather late” to what he calls China’s “debt-trap diplomacy”, given the foreign policy challenges it faces should Pacific states trapped in debt to China lose their decision-making autonomy.

Professor Chellaney says India has become increasingly alarmed over China’s “creditor imperialism” in the Indian Ocean.

“Just as European imperial powers employed gunboat diplomacy, China is using sovereign debt to bend other states to its will,” he wrote last month in an opinion piece for Project Syndicate.

“As Sri Lanka’s handover of the strategic Hambantota Port shows, states caught in debt bondage to the new imperial giant risk losing both natural assets and their very sovereignty.”

China’s past and possibly ongoing bailout of the Malaysian government’s corruption-plagued 1MDB state development fund — said to owe $US6.5bn to an Abu Dhabi state investment arm — has also raised questions over what Beijing will expect in return.

Chinese state-owned enterprises bought $US2.3bn worth of 1MDB-owned power plants, a deal that also involved assuming an unspecified amount of debt.

James Chin, a Malaysia analyst and director of the University of Tasmania’s Asia Institute, says there is an implicit quid pro quo in China’s buyout of 1MDB assets that has already affected Malaysia’s foreign policy.

“For instance, one thing they really needed (Prime Minister Najib Razak) to do was tone down the Spratly Island issues, which you can see has happened already,” he said, referring to China’s island-building in the disputed South China Sea.

China’s economic clout with Cambodia and Laos had earlier helped it foil a united ASEAN stand against its aggressive pursuit of South China Sea dominance. Similarly, Chinese infrastructure investment pledges in The Philippines have gagged a formerly vocal opponent to its expansionism.

Even closer to home, Canberra is monitoring Chinese investment in East Timor as our tiny neighbour seeks urgent ways to diversify its oil and gas-dominated economy before reserves run dry in the next few years.

In recent years, Beijing has financed the construction of East Timor’s presidential palace, its military headquarters and its foreign affairs ministry building that — so the joke goes — is held together with Chinese listening devices.

New Delhi meanwhile is watching Beijing’s expanded presence in Indian Ocean nations — Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bangladesh — for fear it could lead to “strategic encirclement” through Chinese-controlled ports. A week after Beijing took control of Hambantota port, India reportedly bid $US300 million to secure a 40-year lease on the nearby “ghost” airport to foil any plans Beijing might have to convert the port into a naval base.

China opened its first overseas military base last year in Djibouti, a tiny Horn of Africa nation now heavily indebted to China after taking on billions of dollars in unserviceable loans. There have been rumours this week of plans to develop a second naval base in Pakistan to supply and service Chinese ships.

That is a worst-case scenario for New Delhi, which fears Chinese warships could one day be stationed at Pakistan’s Gwadar Port, a Beijing-financed deep water port on the Arabian Sea near the strategic Strait of Hormuz shipping lane through which India ships much of its imported oil.

Last year, China secured a 40-year lease over that port, too, the centre piece of its $US62bn China-Pakistan Economic Corridor that Pakistan hopes will kickstart its fragile economy. The 3200km land corridor from Xinjiang to Gwadar connects China with the Middle East and Central Asia, and cuts 10,000km off the alternative sea route via the Malacca Strait.

Both the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have warned that the Chinese loans, offered at rates as high as 7 per cent, could place unsustainable financial strain on Pakistan and force them to step in with another massive bailout.

Fears over the Gwadar port may have helped motivate New Delhi to join revived quadrilateral talks with Japan, the US and Australia last November. India will need deeper engagement with all three nations to counter China’s growing maritime power.

Professor Chellaney says all Asia Pacific powers must now do more to co-ordinate their response.

“Right now, each country is seeking to deal with this issue individually, which allows China’s strategy to gain momentum through smaller nations,’’ he said.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...s/news-story/7c6b04ac4e473f96d9ff3b7ec5abe102
 
The West always made the crucial mistake of thinking that they can change the people "for the better", through imposing education, democracy, international law, in exchange of the resources they seize. Inevitably, that has always led to the people resisting and realizing that they're being scammed, once they come to understand more about "fair trade".

China just raids their shit, and leaves the people be. They'll never develop to be wise enough, to understand what they're missing out on. It's going to allow China to conduct inequal trade without posing the risk of someone rebelling against them, because they'll continue to be cluelessly ignorant in reaping short-term rewards for long-term losses.

No different from how the Chinese and the Middle Eastern people always cut off the genitals from their slaves, to not allow them to reproduce. To not have any future generations of conquered people, to worry about, to cause trouble within the ranks. That was always the difference, between the East and the West. They just always thought a bit further into the future, than us.
 
Last edited:
Wow, they actually went through with it, even after publicly admitting that Filipino tax-payers gonna be paying ten times more to repay the Chinese loan rather than the more reasonable Japanese loan:


Philippines gets China loan for Chico River Pump Irrigation Project
Ian Nicolas Cigaral - April 12, 2018

nm-xi-1004.jpg

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippines on Tuesday signed a loan agreement with China to help fund the construction of the Chico River Pump Irrigation Project in Northern Luzon, and a separate accord on economic and technical cooperation.

In a statement on Thursday, the Department of Finance said the loan deal, which was sealed on the sidelines of the four-day Boao Forum for Asia in Hainan, China, is worth $62 million (about P3.135 billion).

The interest rate on the US-dollar denominated loan is 2 percent per annum with a maturity period of 20 years, inclusive of a seven-year grace period, the DOF said.

The agreement, which covers 85 percent of the total contract amount of $73.04 million (approximately P3.689 billion), will be implemented by the National Irrigation Administration.

The project’s total cost is $86.57 million (P4.372 billion).

The irrigation project will provide a stable supply of water to around 8,700 hectares of agricultural land, benefit 4,350 farmers and their families, and serve 21 barangays in the provinces of Cagayan and Kalinga in Northern Luzon.

Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia earlier admitted that Chinese soft loans, which carry 2-3 percent interest rates "at best," are more expensive than Japanese loans that only have 0.25-0.75 percent rates.

https://www.philstar.com/business/2...hina-loan-chico-river-pump-irrigation-project
I regret entering this thread. Japan's term seems more like "let's be friend, friend". China just pumped untold millions to philippian politicians to get this loan approved.
 
Back
Top