By BRAHMA CHELLANEY
Just as European imperial powers employed gunboat diplomacy, China is
using sovereign debt to bend other states to its will. 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.
Chinese Garment Factory in Senegal | Image: Fibre2Fashion |
BERLIN – This month, Sri Lanka, unable to pay the onerous debt to China
it has accumulated, formally handed over its strategically located Hambantota
port to the UAsian 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 favorable 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 last year, 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 overcapacity 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 Expansion Plan | Picture: Mirror Business |
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.
China Harbour Engineering Co Ltd | The last contractor for the Hambatota Proect |
Similarly, after lending billions of dollars to heavily indebted
Djibouti, China established its first overseas military base this 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 Center for Policy Research and Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy
in Berlin,
0 comments:
Post a Comment