More broadly, taking on debt to build the infrastructure needed to level up industrial capabilities isn't exploitation. Building better energy grids, transportation, and communication infrastructure is expensive. It's fundamentally no different than software startups taking on fundraising rounds to enable growth. As long as the leadership isn't irresponsible about it, there's nothing wrong with it and it should easily pay for itself.
The important thing for debt-for-infrastructure planning is to keep corruption manageable, so you don't wind up borrowing to build boondoggles that are for the personal enrichment of the the well-connected rather than the good of the country.
At any rate, China is no more predatory in this regard than the IMF, the World Bank, or other western financial institutions. They have a surplus of capital and need to invest it somewhere. The goal is not imperialist, but rather capitalist.
It would be better if you could attempt to support your argument with data, analysis and research.
Is Ethiopia in a lot of debt trouble? From [1], figure 1.17, doesn't seem too troubling, especially when considering its growth rate.
Your assertion that China plans to overload countries with debt also seem to be based on the heavily promoted Sri Lanka story while ignoring any other data points. The Center for Growth Development has a report, [2], Examining the Debt Implications of the Belt and Road Initiative from a Policy Perspective. They find that for the 68 countries analyzed, only 8 are at risk. Your story also contradicts the many times China has provided debt relief.
> In countries suffering from debt distress, the Chinese government has provided debt relief in an ad hoc, case-by-case manner [...] The IMF estimates that China has delivered over 80 percent of what it is expected to provide under HIPC. It was a creditor to 31 of the 36 HIPC countries, and the most recent publicly available information indicates that it provided relief in at least 28 of them, including 100 percent forgiveness for several (e.g., Burundi, Afghanistan, and Guinea). […] China has also demonstrated a willingness to provide additional credit so a borrower can avoid default. A prominent example is China's agreement in early 2017 to extend an RMB 15 billion swap line to Mongolia for three years in support of an IMF Extended Fund Facility.
I said it might not be a good thing and pointed to a an example where it wasn't. The take away was to not just take the information at hand but do you own research (like you did).
"China will cause the country to become indebted to it and when they can't make the repayments offer to helpfully take full control of it."
You honestly can't tell me you don't see that as a loaded statement...And based on your replies to other commentators, doesn't seem like you intended that either.
More broadly, taking on debt to build the infrastructure needed to level up industrial capabilities isn't exploitation. Building better energy grids, transportation, and communication infrastructure is expensive. It's fundamentally no different than software startups taking on fundraising rounds to enable growth. As long as the leadership isn't irresponsible about it, there's nothing wrong with it and it should easily pay for itself.
The important thing for debt-for-infrastructure planning is to keep corruption manageable, so you don't wind up borrowing to build boondoggles that are for the personal enrichment of the the well-connected rather than the good of the country.
At any rate, China is no more predatory in this regard than the IMF, the World Bank, or other western financial institutions. They have a surplus of capital and need to invest it somewhere. The goal is not imperialist, but rather capitalist.