Strings, what strings? President Xi Jinping has promised there will be “no political strings attached” when it comes to funding for Belt and Road projects in Africa.
Launched in a fanfare of state-media publicity by Xi in 2013, the B&R blueprint has become an extension of China’s global ambitions and the centerpiece of its economic foreign policy.
At the heart of his vision are a web of ‘New Silk Road’ superhighways, connecting China with 68 countries and 4.4 billion people across Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe in a maze of multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure projects.
So far, loans from Beijing have been used to build roads, rail networks, ports and power plants in countries dotted around Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
“China’s investment in Africa comes with no political strings attached,” Xi told a high-level meeting with African leaders and business representatives before the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, or FOCAC, on Monday.
During the past three months, the B&R program has come under fire with questions being asked about the sheer scale of the venture. There have even been claims that the “New Silk Roads” resemble old fashion “debt book diplomacy.”
Last week, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad pulled out of a major China-inspired railway project because of the costs, following Myanmar’s decision to scale back plans for a port due to debt risks.
Elsewhere, Nepal has been trying to halt construction on two Chinese-built hydroelectric dams, while a rail link through Laos could end up being worth half of its GDP.
Gareth Evans, the former foreign minister of Australia, has gone as far as to claim that Laos and Cambodia are now “wholly owned subsidiaries of China” after borrowing more than US$5 billion.
Naturally, Beijing has rejected these accusations, with Xi insisting the Belt and Road is not a “China club.” “[We] do not interfere in Africa’s internal affairs and China does not impose its will on Africa,” he said.
“Resources for our cooperation are not to be spent on any vanity projects, but in places where they count the most,” he added in Beijing.
Still, Xi pointed out last week in a speech to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the B&R that major developments should be commercially viable to reduce investment risks.
“[This] is not a scheme to form an exclusive club or bloc against others,” he said. “Rather it is about greater openness, sharing and mutual benefit,” he added.
For critics of the “New Silk Roads,” the jury is still out.
"Gareth Evans, the former foreign minister of Australia……"
The Australian rail network consists of a total of 33,168 kilometres of track – NONE of it high speed. In contrast China has 121,000 km of track, of which 19,000 km is high speed. In 2014, railways in China delivered 2.357 billion passenger trips, generating 1,160.48 billion passenger-kilometres and carried 3.813 billion tonnes of freight, generating 2,753 billion cargo tonne-kilometres; the comparible figure for Australia is 413.5 billion cargo tonne-kilometres, and most of the long-distance passenger services operate only one round-trip per week (Source: Wikipedia)
Australia is in reality no more than a massive quarry; it has no advanced manufacturing industry, no meaningful pre-eminence in regional or global financial or legal services, and no track record of academic excellence or technological innovation. As a consequence, it has resigned itself to being a second-tier concubine for American military-industrial interests, and, once its mineral resources are either depleted or become a less attractive proposition than e.g. Afghanistan, it will find itself remote and unloved, and wholly dependent upon a probably resentful China.
Let that sink in
"Debt book diplomacy"? Is that the best that your dead brain can come up with? What is australia doing with the island nations? Threatening them should they "dare" to become more independent from australia by courting China!
For sure, you and your nation including western countries and their ilk definitely don’t have any qualification to judge China based on your historical record.
Infrastructure development is good for the economy. Roads facilitate transportation of perishable goods from hitherto inaccessible areas to the market place. Rural places has new opportunity to earn income. Ports allow exports & imports. Trade flourish bringing wealth! Airports encourage tourism. Industrial park bring jobs! The populace benefits like never before. Problem is local corruption that siphons all the funds meant for development. So can you blame the lender for your weak governance? Malaysia is a case in point. Najib, the ex-Premier, ruined an otherwise strong economy. The hobbled country is forced to cut-back on projects due to “vanished” funds.
Anyway, the lender cannot force you to borrow! So do not blame lenders for the woes of the borrowers. Accept this cruel truth & you can manage your future better.