What are the primary fears that would drive a debtor country to sell its ports or land to China?
Why do countries like Zambia, Sri Lanka and Tajikistan go to such extreme lengths to settle their debts?
Free world and the nature of capitalism including it’s coercive elements.
A debt has been incurred that cannot be funded. Causes: Low income/tax bases, civil strife, natural disasters, single product economies, corruption et al.
An agreement is struck with creditors on a debt:equity swap.
It’s not as if the US (like the rest of the free world) doesn’t allow and have substantial foreign investment and ownership of property and infastructure.
There were US property sales to foreign buyers worth 78 billion USD in 2019
Wasn’t that long ago that DP World (Dubai Ports World) bought P&O operations in a deal that President GXWB XXXIII argued strongly to approve.
The deal included leases to manage U.S. facilities in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and operations in 16 other ports.
Some Pacific nations are also using the ever-present and eager-to-please China sitting outside their window playing smooth guitar to effect better counter-offers from their traditional paternal overlords like Australia.
The prospect of a Chinese-owned shipping facility on Australia’s doorstep in Papua New Guinea would quickly focus its mind on boosting foreign aid [in a way that Chinese take-over of the existing strategic port in Darwin didn’t].
Do not neglect the possibility that the decision makers in those countries stand to profit privately from selling / leasing parts of their country to the Chinese or other imperialist power. They may be making a decision in favor of their family’s wealth, not their countries best interest.
Doubtless there are also Chinese officials on the other side of these deals who are in it for themselves, not strictly for the glory of the CCP & China.
Lest I be accused of jingoism, the US certainly has a long and tawdry history in this regard. And a few bright spots of enlightenment too.
I think the OP is just asking why countries don’t simply default on their debt.
And the answer is that these things are not purely bilateral. If a country tells China to go fish, then current investors from other countries, and heck, within the country, are going to panic. Partners will pull out of ongoing projects (which will include Chinese projects). And the cost of borrowing goes steeply up.
Also, and this is just a WAG, but I would think that international organisations like the WTO have mechanisms to strongly push countries to settle debts when they can.
Of course, when the cupboard is really bare, then those same international organisations may offer support such that desperate measures like selling land aren’t necessary. But that’s not the reality in most cases here. It’s more often that a government would rather give up some useless (to them) old naval base than risk displeasing the populace with austerity measures, let alone give up on any of their own luxuries.
This is not to make China sound like the good guy in all this.
Thank Mijin. You hit the nail on the head. Doesn’t a default also wreak havoc on a country’s currency? Zimbabwe last I checked ( a while ago) had some 5 different currencies? If China were to sell off the debt of these sovereign debtor countries wouldn’t that virtually ruin the currencies of some of these nations ?
In the Pacific at least, exclusive access to small countries’ exclusive fishing zones is one of the key things China is after. These are often the main national economic asset, usually valued well over tourism and cash sent back by emigrant populations. With the real prospect of global warming submerging or making a lot of their low-lying land uninhabitable, these countries need to be able to invest in long term assets like land elsewhere and start thinking of themselves as significantly diasporic nations. Australia is being a dick both in regard to restricting its aid and refusing to acknowledge its culpability in relation to climate change policies. That’s why they turn to China and its cheque book.
In case anybody is wondering what this issue is all about:
I’d like to recommend David Graeber’s book Debt: The First 5,000 Years. I am not an economist (and neither is he – he’s more of an anthropologist/historian) and yet, he strips away everyone’s favorite economic theories. Graeber explains how countries and very large borrowers (governments) can create money through tricks of debt. He talks about the manipulations that force poorer countries to become debtor nations. And widespread price collapses are nothing new, even Mesopotamia had them.
It’s loooooong. I like to call it Debt: The First 5,000 pages although it’s actually around 450.
Thanks ArtBeforeScience. I find Graeber’s Debt: The First 5,000 Years quite interesting on peonage. I’m a little wary, though, when it comes to his more controversial economic theories. Interesting book, nonetheless. Thank you all.