This isn’t free. It’s a loan. The goal is that in decades from now when you’ve succeeded, you repay the loan. If you don’t and default, you owe something to China.
That’s certainly one way to frame it.
Another way would be selling oversized infrastructure projects t developing nations, financed by predatory loans backed by a country’s natural resources.
Also the work itself is performed by Chinese companies, so unlike regular domestic infrastructure projects, it doesn’t even benefit the local construction industry.
China is effectively subsidizing its own industry with other nations’ money.
And if the project fails to deliver the “optimistic” expectations. China has more or less free access to natural resources without having to stage an invasion.
Right so it’s doing the same thing the US does on the predatory lending, except the output is useful and not just war and death. The natural and raw resources are not just stolen by war, but used as collateral in a peacetime contract negotiation. One that no side is forced to accept under threat of freedom fireballs raining down from the skies.
If you believe your country is awesome and can realize the gains, it’s a no brainer to accept. You get world class infrastructure built by some of the best in the world and its done today. Then the bill isn’t due for decades at which point Mr. Optimistic Politician is sure the country will have done better. If you fail, you owe your resources to China to repay. In return you get to keep the infrastructure and the (unrealized) benefit it provides today, provided for the past decades, and will continue to provide.
They’re not building military bases in the country. They are using soft power and free markets to realize their national interests. One of which is creating more allies in the world that agree with China versus NATO.
When the roles are reversed and it’s NATO countries, mostly the US, doing it nobody sees an issue with in. That is called hypocrisy. And the argument is NOT “if one does it then it is ok for the other to do”. The argument is that you cannot be angry or against such policy if you are not angry or against the same policy that benefits your country and you.
And if we’re being honest, they aren’t even close to equivalent. China is providing real benefit and potential change. The US exports violence and war. Just ask Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, now Palestine, Ukraine, soon Guyana, etc. That’s just in the past few years. The US gets all the economic benefit of war, bills the host country, doesn’t get the downside of death and instability, and of course steals the natural resources for its own use under the guise of not letting the baddies have access. How many bombs has China dropped in this same time frame? Last decade? This millennium?
That’s certainly one way to frame it.
Another way would be selling oversized infrastructure projects t developing nations, financed by predatory loans backed by a country’s natural resources.
Also the work itself is performed by Chinese companies, so unlike regular domestic infrastructure projects, it doesn’t even benefit the local construction industry.
China is effectively subsidizing its own industry with other nations’ money.
And if the project fails to deliver the “optimistic” expectations. China has more or less free access to natural resources without having to stage an invasion.
Right so it’s doing the same thing the US does on the predatory lending, except the output is useful and not just war and death. The natural and raw resources are not just stolen by war, but used as collateral in a peacetime contract negotiation. One that no side is forced to accept under threat of freedom fireballs raining down from the skies.
If you believe your country is awesome and can realize the gains, it’s a no brainer to accept. You get world class infrastructure built by some of the best in the world and its done today. Then the bill isn’t due for decades at which point Mr. Optimistic Politician is sure the country will have done better. If you fail, you owe your resources to China to repay. In return you get to keep the infrastructure and the (unrealized) benefit it provides today, provided for the past decades, and will continue to provide.
They’re not building military bases in the country. They are using soft power and free markets to realize their national interests. One of which is creating more allies in the world that agree with China versus NATO.
When the roles are reversed and it’s NATO countries, mostly the US, doing it nobody sees an issue with in. That is called hypocrisy. And the argument is NOT “if one does it then it is ok for the other to do”. The argument is that you cannot be angry or against such policy if you are not angry or against the same policy that benefits your country and you.
And if we’re being honest, they aren’t even close to equivalent. China is providing real benefit and potential change. The US exports violence and war. Just ask Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, now Palestine, Ukraine, soon Guyana, etc. That’s just in the past few years. The US gets all the economic benefit of war, bills the host country, doesn’t get the downside of death and instability, and of course steals the natural resources for its own use under the guise of not letting the baddies have access. How many bombs has China dropped in this same time frame? Last decade? This millennium?
Although for many countries in Asia it would have a much easier time invading by driving tanks along the new road