Talk:Debt-trap diplomacy

scope of the article

There have been discussions, not just recently, about whether it should cover debt-trap, debt-trap diplomacy, or both. What are the pros and cons? CurryCity (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Overall, the article suffers from a conceptual problem. The "debt-trap diplomacy" usage was coined, or at least popularized, with regard to China's lending. However, the underlying hypothesis has not been supported as to China. To borrow language from some of the academic sources, the idea of Chinese debt-trap diplomacy is a "myth." Our result here is an article based on an unsupported hypothesis which consequently means a great deal of information is spent rebutting or showing how the hypothesis has not been borne out.

One way to address this problem is through the examples of IMF debt traps and the like, and to interpret the scope of the article more broadly to address sovereign "debt traps." This is preferable to requiring the word "diplomacy" also, which would likely result in a too-narrow focus on the Chinese case (ironically, where concerns of "debt-trap diplomacy" have been shown to be wrong or unsubstantiated). We do not wish to place undue emphasis on a marginal theory, after all. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It's called "Debt-trap diplomacy". That means something really specific in the published material we have that uses it, much more specific than "debt trap". It's not our place to consider the pros and cons of one or the other framing—we have to stick to how the sources frame it. There are other articles about just "debt trap", such as debt crisis and predatory lending. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 16:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking about the pros and cons of the scope. There have been arguments over including or excluding non-diplomacy debt-trap, which should all go into other articles if I understand you. CurryCity (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware. In order for ANY entity to take over another entity there must be some form of tribunal or court that instructs both parties that the asset is being seized/ taken from one and given to the other. What's been printed as so called mostly opinionated "journalism" has NEVER referenced any court of law anywhere in the world that I've seen to indicate an asset in Africa or Sri Lanka or anywhere else has been surrendered. Sri Lanka ofcourse was a 99 year-land lease no different than the USA's land-lease in Panama for the canal. Or UK's of Kowloon/Hong Kong or again USA's Guantanamo Bay in Cuba which is also a leased bit of land. Given it hasn't happend Debt Trap is still just a theory.

Trinidad and Tobago's new finance minister just today (11 November 2023) said the same as the predecessor. The loans from China are *still* the lowest he's seen out there. And then he explained how much of T&T's debt was owned by China to stop the fake new press from jumping all over it. (link) -- CaribDigita (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Global Extractivism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: DonJohnson101, Laveah, Salinass22.

— Assignment last updated by Sancar27 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Materialization of projects and article rewrite

As the outcomes of projects become evident, it seems necessary to either remove or significantly condense sections of the article that critique certain projects as debt traps, given that the results demonstrate otherwise.

For instance, numerous paragraphs characterize China's port projects and lending practices in Sri Lanka as debt-trap diplomacy. However, with the port in Sri Lanka yielding positive economic results and the financial agreements proving beneficial to the country's economy, these allegations are disproven. Chellaney's argument about China's debt-trap diplomacy, particularly citing deals with Sri Lanka, has been debunked by the outcomes. Speculating about future consequences when the actual results are evident is unwarranted and undue.

https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3261398/chinese-debt-trap-sri-lankas-hambantota-port-set-debunk-narrative-its-success?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=3261398&utm_medium=share_widget

The debt-trap hypothesis has not been borne out. It becomes a bit strange to have an article styled after a minority position and need to spend so much time on the evidence and analysis showing it to have been wrong. The page is fairly quiet these days, and I doubt you will get much feedback in advance on the Talk page. You're right that significant revision would be helpful. I think you should WP:BEBOLD and start making some edits. At a minimum, I am willing to review them and offer another view where necessary or helpful. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Amigao removed information about the economic materialization of the hambantota port, and wanted to be tagged to this section of the talk page. Information should be returned, not removed. reasons are cited above. Stages are early, but I prepared this talk page to prepare for the eventual materialization of some projects. LilAhok (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the SCMP article establishes the relevance of an update on the port's success. All the existing commentary we cite is 6-7 years out of date, and as SCMP explains, the actual realities of the port in 2024 undermine a lot of the 2017 narratives. Endwise (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The first part of the edit, which talks about how busy the port currently is, is good and should stay. Am I remembering that the adjective was “bustling”? Maybe a more simple adjective to address the scope, like “busy”

I don’t suggest the “is poised…” sentence. At least as written, that veers too close to WP:CRYSTALBALL.

I likely have some recent Hambantota material I can add as well to address the issue of the Hambantatoa (non-)example. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Not just China?

This article should not just focus on China. There are many historical examples of this approach being used by other countries throughout modern history.

• Roos, Jerome (2018-02-01). "The New Debt Colonies". Viewpoint Magazine.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Conceptual framing and avoiding false balance

The challenge in this article is it arose with the 'Chinese debt-trap' hypothesis, which to date has been shown to be wrong. We need to find a way to address the fact that as the body of the article shows (see the extensive rebuttal section), the hypothesis has not been borne out and has been rejected by most sources. I am suggesting the sentence in the lead, "As of at least 2024, the idea of a Chinese debt-trap is a minority view." This seems to me to be a fair summary of what is already in the body (lead summarizes the body). But, it has been templated. One alternative is a list of the many sources rejecting the hypothesis of a Chinese debt trap, but that seems to be too tedious. I am open to other phrasings that address this to avoid the need to template and am curious what other views exist. JArthur1984 (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

It is observable now to most who care to research into it that the concept of Chinese debt trap diplomacy is facing significant push back by a large body of scholarship. I don't think there is any source so far that directly states that it is a minority view and the lead already states the existence of the pushback. Perhaps a statement on the current state of the theory not having born out anything in concrete terms would be easier to find citations for. Qiushufang (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)