China's creditor imperialism
Feature Highlight
Just as European imperial powers employed gunboat diplomacy, China is using sovereign debt to bend other states to its will.
Last month (November 2017), Sri Lanka, unable to pay the onerous debt to China it has accumulated, formally handed over its strategically located Hambantota port to the Asian giant. It was a major acquisition for China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – which President Xi Jinping calls the “project of the century” – and proof of just how effective China's debt-trap diplomacy can be.
Unlike International Monetary Fund and World Bank lending, Chinese loans are collateralized by strategically important natural assets with high long-term value (even if they lack short-term commercial viability). Hambantota, for example, straddles Indian Ocean trade routes linking Europe, Africa, and the Middle East to Asia. In exchange for financing and building the infrastructure that poorer countries need, China demands favourable access to their natural assets, from mineral resources to ports.
Moreover, as Sri Lanka's experience starkly illustrates, Chinese financing can shackle its “partner” countries. Rather than offering grants or concessionary loans, China provides huge project-related loans at market-based rates, without transparency, much less environmental- or social-impact assessments. As US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson put it recently, with the BRI, China is aiming to define “its own rules and norms.”
To strengthen its position further, China has encouraged its companies to bid for outright purchase of strategic ports, where possible. The Mediterranean port of Piraeus, which a Chinese firm acquired for $436 million from cash-strapped Greece in 2016, will serve as the BRI's “dragon head” in Europe.
By wielding its financial clout in this manner, China seeks to kill two birds with one stone. First, it wants to address over-capacity at home by boosting exports. And, second, it hopes to advance its strategic interests, including expanding its diplomatic influence, securing natural resources, promoting the international use of its currency, and gaining a relative advantage over other powers.
China's predatory approach – and its gloating over securing Hambantota – is ironic, to say the least. In its relationships with smaller countries like Sri Lanka, China is replicating the practices used against it in the European-colonial period, which began with the 1839-1860 Opium Wars and ended with the 1949 communist takeover – a period that China bitterly refers to as its “century of humiliation.”
China portrayed the 1997 restoration of its sovereignty over Hong Kong, following more than a century of British administration, as righting a historic injustice. Yet, as Hambantota shows, China is now establishing its own Hong Kong-style neocolonial arrangements. Apparently, Xi's promise of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” is inextricable from the erosion of smaller states' sovereignty.
Just as European imperial powers employed gunboat diplomacy to open new markets and colonial outposts, China uses sovereign debt to bend other states to its will, without having to fire a single shot. Like the opium the British exported to China, the easy loans China offers are addictive. And, because China chooses its projects according to their long-term strategic value, they may yield short-term returns that are insufficient for countries to repay their debts. This gives China added leverage, which it can use, say, to force borrowers to swap debt for equity, thereby expanding China's global footprint by trapping a growing number of countries in debt servitude.
Even the terms of the 99-year Hambantota port lease echo those used to force China to lease its own ports to Western colonial powers. Britain leased the New Territories from China for 99 years in 1898, causing Hong Kong's landmass to expand by 90%. Yet the 99-year term was fixed merely to help China's ethnic-Manchu Qing Dynasty save face; the reality was that all acquisitions were believed to be permanent.
Now, China is applying the imperial 99-year lease concept in distant lands. China's lease agreement over Hambantota, concluded this [past] summer, included a promise that China would shave $1.1 billion off Sri Lanka's debt. In 2015, a Chinese firm took out a 99-year lease on Australia's deep-water port of Darwin – home to more than 1,000 US Marines – for $388 million.
Similarly, after lending billions of dollars to heavily indebted Djibouti, China established its first overseas military base [last] year in that tiny but strategic state, just a few miles from a US naval base – the only permanent American military facility in Africa. Trapped in a debt crisis, Djibouti had no choice but to lease land to China for $20 million per year. China has also used its leverage over Turkmenistan to secure natural gas by pipeline largely on Chinese terms.
Several other countries, from Argentina to Namibia to Laos, have been ensnared in a Chinese debt trap, forcing them to confront agonizing choices in order to stave off default. Kenya's crushing debt to China now threatens to turn its busy port of Mombasa – the gateway to East Africa – into another Hambantota.
These experiences should serve as a warning that the BRI is essentially an imperial project that aims to bring to fruition the mythical Middle Kingdom. States caught in debt bondage to China risk losing both their most valuable natural assets and their very sovereignty. The new imperial giant's velvet glove cloaks an iron fist – one with the strength to squeeze the vitality out of smaller countries.
Brahma Chellaney, Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research and Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin, is the author of nine books, including Asian Juggernaut, Water: Asia's New Battleground, and Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Global Water Crisis. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Other Features
-
At 50, Olajide Olutuyi vows to intensify focus on social impact
Like Canadian Frank Stronach utilised his Canadian nationality to leverage opportunities in his home country of ...
-
Reflection on ECOWAS Parliament, expectations for the 6th Legislature
The 6th ECOWAS Legislature must sustain the initiated dialogue and sensitisation effort for the Direct Universal ...
-
The $3bn private credit opportunity in Africa
In 2021/2022, domestic credit to the private sector as a percentage of GDP stood at less than 36% in sub-Saharan ...
-
Tinubunomics: Is the tail wagging the dog?
Why long-term vision should drive policy actions in the short term to achieve a sustainable Nigerian economic ...
-
Living in fear and want
Nigerians are being battered by security and economic headwinds. What can be done about it?
-
Analysis of the key provisions of the NERC Multi-Year Tariff Order ...
With the MYTO 2024, we can infer that the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry is at a turning point with the ...
-
Volcanic explosion of an uncommon agenda for development
Olisa Agbakoba advises the 10th National Assembly on how it can deliver on a transformative legislative agenda for ...
-
Nigeria and the world in 2024
Will it get better or worse for the world that has settled for crises?
-
The Movers and Shakers of Nigeria 2023
This special publication profiles 25 people and institutions based on their societal or industry impact in 2023.
Most Popular News
- IFC, partners back Indorama in Nigeria with $1.25 billion for fertiliser export
- Ali Pate to deliver keynote speech at NDFF 2024 Conference
- Univercells signs MoU with FG on biopharmaceutical development in Nigeria
- CBN increases capital requirements of banks, gives 24 months for compliance
- CBN settles backlog of foreign exchange obligations
- Nasdaq Dubai welcomes $600m sukuk listing by Islamic Development Bank