[philliphaydon]

> Countries can say "no" to "using Chinese companies".

Except they aren't as the contracts prohibit open bidding.

> The Atlantic's article says that Chinese lenders are often willing to restructure the loan.

Except when they are not willing, which is most often the case. They restructure when things are seemly fine but if shit hits the fan like in the case of Sri Lanka, they wont discuss it.

But the CCP prob jots it down to 'a mistranslation' and 'rumor' as they have done in the past.

[FooBarWidget]

They restructured African debts when Africa got into trouble due to COVID, so the claim that "they only restructure when things are fine" is emperically false.

Regarding being able to negotiate: high-profile African commentators, such as Gyude Moore, have pointed out on multiple occasions that it's perfectly possible to say no to an offer, after which the Chinese offer new terms. You should check out his videos some time.

[philliphaydon]

So because they restructured some they must restructure all despite the fact they refused to restructure Sri Lanka. So Sri Lanka is stuck paying like 5% interest vs japans 0.7%.

I know you love the CCP but it’s hilarious how much credit you give them despite not wanting to live in China.

[FooBarWidget]

I can also turn this around: what about the non-Chinese lenders who own much more Sri Lanka debt? Do they restructure? Why single out China specifically? Why is it necessary for China to allow restructuring all debt? Would you impose this standard on all other lenders?

It is entirely possible to be fed up with anti-China propaganda while not being specifically a CCP supporter.

It is also entirely possible for an overseas American to say positive things about the US without living there.

If I do live in China you’ll just say that I'm being forced to say these things. Since you can't, you mock me for not living there, making up some arbitrary requirement that doesn't make sense. This is intelectually dishonest.

[philliphaydon]

It’s not anti-China propaganda when 1) it’s not propaganda. And 2) it’s about the CCP not China.

But calling it anti-China is a typical tactic to attempt to discredit people.

China credit is the only one knocking on doors and wanting ports to be built by paying off governments to push things through when the courts are saying it’s not a good deal and it has non favourable clauses with the end result of china getting to control the port they built at the cost of the government.

[FooBarWidget]

It's not propaganda except the narrative literally came from Trump, while the US govt has publicly admitted to sponsoring anti-BRI journalism: https://prospect.org/politics/congress-proposes-500-million-...

It's "only about the CCP" except Chinese scientists, Chinese engineers, Chinese students and other ordinary Chinese people are declared "linked to the CCP" without evidence, thereby destroying their lives. "Nearly 90% of the defendants charged with spying are of Chinese heritage. This includes citizens with connections to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and long-standing Chinese diaspora communities in Southeast Asia": https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/02/1040656/china-in...

And even if it's only about CCP, how does that justify not basing accusations on facts? I do not at all oppose you having legitimate grievances against CCP. I do oppose false grievances with no basis in reality, against any party.

You end your post with a claim. Please provide evidence that China forced countries to take loans, as opposed to countries having agency in this matter.

[philliphaydon]

Started with Trump lol people have been talking about China Debt Trap since early 2000.

People have been critical of the CCP massively since Xi took power and started causing conflicts with all neighbouring countries with his power push.

Please lol blaming trump lol that’s funny on a whole new level.