From the ashes of World War II, three institutions were created as linchpins of a new global order. Now, in an unusual move, the top official in one — the U.N. secretary-general — is pressing for major changes in the other two. Antonio Guterres says the International Monetary Fund has benefited rich countries instead of poor ones. And he describes the IMF and World Bank’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic as a “glaring failure” that left dozens of countries deeply indebted. Guterres’ criticisms were issued ahead of meetings called by French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris next week to address reforms of the multilateral development banks and other issues.
Developing countries needing infrastructure have the choice between two evils, US funding through the imf and World Bank or Money from China where you have to supply them with the resources they need. This world has never been free going back to prehistory and the ape man with the largest most effective club.
First, part of the reason many countries end up needing to rely on money from the likes of the IMF is because they have been de-developed, and development has been halted or prevented, by the USA and its ilk. They are actively creating a problem that they then offer a “solution” to.
Second, compare the strategy between the IMF and China’s initiative. With the IMF, countries are indebted to the point that their development is, for all intents and purposes, just as stunted as if they hadn’t taken the IMF’s money. Compare this with China, who has forgiven a large amount of the loans, and doesn’t force countries into a debt-trap like the IMF does.
Third, compare the motivations between the IMF and China’s initiative. The IMF’s goal is to further the West’s hegemonic control and it’s “free-market” exploitative economy; it doesn’t have the fundamental needs of citizens and humanity at heart; its agreements are unilateral exploitation. Compare this with China’s initiative, where agreements are mutual, and benefit both China and the participating country. China is helping the average man, whereas the IMF is helping the moneyed interests (the few). Participating in China’s initiative lets the participating countries all maintain their independence and sovereignty over their own needs and desires; participating with the IMF is putting yourself under their control entirely.
Finally, I don’t know where you’re getting the notion that countries that participate in China’s initiative are responsible for “supply[ing] them with the resources they need”. Obviously China is going to attempt to get countries into its initiative that has things that it needs, but there’s no “obligation”, and it’s not one-way: China is also supplying the participating countries with things they need. Again, compare this with the IMF’s work, where, indeed, the movement of resources seems to be one-way: the victim of the IMF’s exploitation’s resources are used to supply the exploiting country, with nothing being given in return. Participation in China’s initiative does not forbid the countries from trading with whoever they please; on the other hand, working with the IMF prevents the country from trading how it pleases with whom it pleases.
Don’t confuse form with function.
I think your characterisation of China as some kind of benevolent entity is very naive. Any superpower is ultimately acting in its own interests. Yes many places especially in Africa I believe have reneged on their loans from China, what sanctions do you think China can put on these countries? I am not defending the IMF or the world bank, I believe these entities have caused enormous harm in the world but to believe China are above reproach is nonsense.
The handling of debt in African countries recently is a perfect example of how the IMF and China are different in their handling of “aid”. China has forgiven a large amount of loans, and restructured an even larger amount to prevent undue burden. There are no “sanctions” put on them here. The original motivation was mutual benefit, and when things happened that caused the default on the debt, pricesely because mutual benefit was the original motivation, they were not punished as the West does. The West uses sanctions, and uses them for punishment, not China. China routinely condemns sanctions, and not just those against it. I think the fact that you asked what sanctions China can put on them, not what sanctions it has put on them, is telling: it’s been some time now and they haven’t done anything of the sort.
I’m also not painting China as “benevolent” or “self-less”. Yes, of course what they’re doing is in their interest. But that doesn’t deny that it can be mutually beneficial. Doing something good for yourself and someone else, that helps you both, is not “self-less” but is also not nefarious. Also “above reproach” came out of nowhere: valid criticism is welcome but baseless accusations, including paranoic projection (“the West uses sanctions to destroy economies, what if China decides to as well”) is not.
Again what kind of sanctions do you think China could place on Africa or any other country? Its easy to say they don’t sanction when they aren’t in a position to sanction. The simple fact is China gives money to countries to get votes in the UN and to secure resources it needs, this is how the world works. Why do you feel the need to defend a superpower like China? I don’t feel the need to defend the US or any other country.
You’re not doing anything here by dealing in hypotheticals without basis. Why should I assume China would sanction countries, if only they were in such a position? Just because the West behaves so maliciously? Moreover, why do you think they aren’t in a position to sanction? What would need to change for them to be in such a position?
Let’s say they aren’t in a position to sanction per se; they still have other power due to the fact that they own the debt. The fact that instead of causing collapse and destruction via debt-trapping, China has forgiven and restructured a large number of loans, is even more evidence that your paranoic hypotheticals are just that: paranoid. Someone having the capacity or means to do bad doesn’t mean they will.
I’m defending someone who’s stated goal is mutual aid, and whose actions help validate their stated goal. I’m also defending them in the comparative context where they’re put against alternatives such as the IMF, not in a vacuum.
You aren’t defending someone you’re defending a hugely powerful and influential country. I guess debate with a true believer is pointless as your views are entrenched. Yes they own the debt but what are they going to to? Invade to get their money back? Increase the debt that the country isn’t paying already? Why would it be paranoid to question the motives of any country that is vying for power? Personally I couldn’t care less, I’m not from the US, I have no interest in nationalism of any form. The few people who run these countries be it China or the US don’t have the average working mans interests at heart, power and keeping their populace under control are their primary motivators.
You’re being pedantic and this adds nothing.
You’re not giving me the benefit of the doubt, and are making assumptions about me. My views are not set in stone, and are subject to change; just because they don’t change easily or without any sort of logical or evidence-backed reasoning, doesn’t mean they can’t change. No need to assume poorly of other people.
Sure, or fund and create coups to install people in positions of power that will help extract value from natural resources and funnel the money out of the country like the IMF does. Or tell their other trading partners they must cease trading with them, even when doing so may cause famine and deaths due to starvation or lack of medical attention or any other issues; punishment there is the goal.
It’s not paranoid to question the motives. It’s paranoid to assume that the evidence that their motives are not misaligned is somehow faulty. Again, you’ve only given hypotheticals and asked “What happens if China does this?”; you haven’t given any reason to assume that any of those hypotheticals are in any way likely. Further, I’ve pointed to reasons to think they aren’t likely.
This is a needlessly cynical take. The USA’s hegemonic power funnels money into the hands of a few disgustingly wealthy and powerful individuals, and its policy is sculpted to benefit those same people at the expense of the rest of the populace (and world). China doesn’t worship billionaires; quite the opposite in fact, it despises them and works to prevent capitalist exploitation that’s required to become so insanely wealthy. It seems you don’t believe that any country might actually want to better the lives of its citizens, and that every good action is somehow just a thinly veiled act to stay in power. I’m sorry you’re so pessimistic. No country is perfect, but some are markedly less evil and are aligned with human interests, not the interests of capital.