Developing countries owe Chinese lenders at least $1.1 trillion, according to a new data analysis published Monday, which says more than half of the thousands of loans China has doled out over two decades are due as many borrowers struggle financially.

Overdue loan repayments to Chinese lenders are soaring, according to AidData, a university research lab at William & Mary in Virginia, which found that nearly 80% of China’s lending portfolio in the developing world is currently supporting countries in financial distress.

For years, Beijing marshalled its finances toward funding infrastructure across poorer countries – including under an effort that Chinese leader Xi Jinping branded as his flagship “Belt and Road Initiative,” which launched a decade ago this fall.

That funding flowed liberally into roads, airports, railways and power plants from Latin America to Southeast Asia and helped power economic growth among borrowing countries. Along the way, it drew many governments closer to Beijing and made China the world’s largest creditor, while also sparking accusations of irresponsible lending.

  • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you owe the bank $100, that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $1.1 trillion, that’s the bank’s problem.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except this bank has an army

        And likes to claim territory that isn’t theirs.

      • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which they are more then free to deploy… at a cost.

        Sadly any country is going to have to weigh the cost of war, the cost of losing that war, the cost of losing personnel/equipment in that war, and the cost of basically ruining the physical assets they are trying to collect due to sabotage, collateral damage, misfires, and “misappropriation.”

        Sadly by the time they are done, the market value of those assets would be purely theoretical at best, if any value at all.

        So it doesn’t make sense for a country like China to invade the greater portion of Africa. But they might try sting operations, or devaluing of African assets within their own market to put pressure.

        The risks being that the “belt and road” initiative might fall through too whatever the choice.

        • kungen@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          doesn’t make sense for a country like China to invade the greater portion of Africa

          No, so they just appropriate the places they cared about with their investments from the start, such as rare earth mines.

        • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          China don’t need to deploy their army. They can simply threaten to cease all trades. No countries can afford to stop trading with China since practically everything are manufactured there. Even Taiwan, China’s mortal enemy, still trades with China.

          • Blackout@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You make a good point. Everyone likes to think they can just switch production to India or Vietnam but they have no idea how large the manufacturing industry is there. No other country could replace it or match their speed. All those quality items you like have components or are entirely made in China.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      More like if you owe the mob $100 and you fail to pay, you might get a broken finger. If you owe the mob $1 million and fail to pay they will gift you cement boots.

      • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is this actually true. The more someone owes the less likely you are to outright kill them cause that’s a 100% loss on your investment. Brutal torture or kidnappings seem more likely to me. After that organ harvesting or forfitting assets.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Outside of the movies? Not really. Not actually sure of the change in death rates in owing a small amount vs a large amount but loan sharks breaking limbs borrowers’ or offing was actually pretty rare from what Steven Dubner or Leavitt found (can’t remember which). Although my great uncle Michael might disagree with that finding. But nobody has seen him since he did not pay back that large loan he took from the mob in the 70s.

          That said, there are other ways to put pressure on a borrower that do not permanently decrease productivity. A borrower has a bigger incentive to pay things back if a loved one’s life is on the line. That might explain great uncle Michael’s disappearance since he was pretty much disowned by the rest of the family.

      • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Those are expensive cement boots for both the mob and that poor dude.

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If china doesn’t get its money asap they’re gonna start doing abrasive, risky aerospace maneuvers over international waters and forcing uighur slave labor to produce fast fashion.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well the accusations of irresponsible lending are just American fud… that money was a diplomatic expenditure.

    But China seeking to aggressively recoup it does speak of economic desperation.

    • Liška@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know whether this should be hastily dismissed as “FUD”: Do you want to live in a world where all of your country’s critical infrastructure is owned by Chinese state-owned corporations as soon as your government can no longer service its loans to Beijing?

      … The situation is certainly not entirely comparable, but since the start of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, we have seen the problems Germany has had with the fact that its gas storage facilities belong to Gazprom…

    • fleabomber@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Aggressively recouping your over leveraged junk loans is indication of economic health?

  • torknorggren@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What happens if countries just default? Do non-Chinese lenders care? Does it trash bond ratings across the board?

    • andyburke@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think in many cases China takes control of the infrastructure they built since the countries miss payments.

      This was widely predicted to be the Chinese strategy: make loans to countries they knew could not pay with favorable terms for China when the country defaults.

      • stella@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That would involve these nations honoring their business dealings, which they don’t seem willing to do.

        Is China going to invade and occupy nations who don’t comply?

        I guess we’ll see. Might not be a bad result for the nations, honestly. Supporting Chinese military bases might stimulate their economies.

    • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It happened in Sri Lanka a while ago. China financed the construction of a new deep water port. The port is finished, but Sri Lanka can’t service the debt so the new port is now under China’s control (99 years lease agreement).

      • torknorggren@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oof. I wonder how that will work in the case of infrastructure like roads and bridges–long term tolls? At some point it has to eat away at whatever good will the Chinese were trying to buy.

        • Ringmasterincestuous@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you let them build military bases and run dubious assorted operations they are actually quite reasonable with repayment plans.

          Source: am Australian

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      When the US builds an oil export terminal in Nigeria, the location is fully privatized and administered by western nationals. There’s no path from the dockyard to the manager’s office. There’s no state interest in the facilities, save some meager tax revenue that’s shaved to the bone by accounting tricks. There’s no Nigerian retirees who get to profit off the dockyard’s operations through pensions or 401ks. The ports are export-oriented, with the intention of taking Nigerian natural resources out.

      When a Chinese state enterprise builds a dockyard in Kenya, there’s shared ownership out of the gate. Kenyans share managerial roles. Kenyans share equity. The Kenyan state government gets a huge boost in revenues. And the ports are bidirectional, with Kenyan locals getting to benefit from cheap Chinese imports - particularly high tech imports like electronics and motor vehicles - as Chinese firms export Kenyan minerals.

      Bi-directional trade is how the old English colonies worked, too. And that trade made English colonial enclaves incredibly prosperous both for the old world mercantilists and the new world plantation bosses. Its a lucrative model for everyone on the inside track.

      The worst thing you can say about China is that they’re simply doing imperialism better than the Americans.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The difference is leverage. Having $0.9T of US treasury bonds does not give China much leverage over the US because those would likely be absorbed by other countries fairly easily. Yeah, the dollar’s value would likely dip a tiny bit but nothing catastrophic. That is much different than China having a large chunk of a developing nation’s debt. Developing nations constantly have issues getting decent terms on their loans so if China up and says they will not roll the loans over into a new one, the country likely has to try to finance the debt at a much higher interest rate or have lots of strings attached. China has much more leverage in these cases.