Talk:Debt-trap diplomacy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Global perspective

Global perspective is under represented. For example, see Debt-trap diplomacy is a fallacy. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Global perspective is still under represented. Please see this old book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. 59.148.176.172 (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, from @Zanhe:'s comment on the deletion discussion:

"The topic is widely discussed in media and notable for inclusion, but the article as currently written is heavily dependent on the US-dominated narrative that paints everything that China does in a negative light. Before the recent rise of China, the developing world had long been heavily dependent on the West for loans and not infrequently "trapped" into financial crises, yet the article covers none of the history. As Financial Times has shown, China only holds 20% of Africa's foreign debt (the majority still held by the West), and African public opinion has largely rejected the negative US narrative, see "Why thinking of China debt trap diplomacy is a fallacy", "The language of “debt-trap diplomacy” reflects Western anxieties, not African realities". These views need to be added for balance."

Jonpatterns (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how accurate that source is as that site may have its biases and it being more of an opinion-news site. There are some statements which need cleaning up for to satisfy NPOV and more citations, however China's debt-trap tendencies are widely reported on and can be dangerous to these developing nations. PrinceKael (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added some information regarding the World Bank and IMF using loans to buy influence. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Debt sustainability and Chinese financing

• This article is entirely focused on China and the usage of the term from online sources appears to also be entirely focused on China so title should also center on Chinese financing.
• Debt trap is a common term used by critics. However, there is debate by academics if there exists any debt trap. A neutral term like debt sustainability is needed to reflect debate rather than term used by one side of a debate.

Greatvictor999 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I sympathise with your first point. When I started this article I had that issue in mind which is why the article, in its first version, started off with a non-country specific description. It then focused on China as a specific example because that was the country everyone was talking about relating to the concept. However China does not have a monopoly over the policy as a possible tool of diplomacy, although they 'might' have a monopoly over its implementation, and there might well be other countries in history that have practiced Debt-Trap Diplomacy. It seems as though it became specifically about China after a pro-China editor tried to vandalize the page and other editors reacted to that vandalism. With regards to your other concern about the term, I disagree and think the name of the article should stay as is. The article is about the concept of "Dept Trap Diplomacy" as a, real or alleged, policy tool of diplomacy and not about the effects of lending practices. Either generally or by a specific country.--Discott (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel a more appropriate term to describe the concept is something along the lines of "Debt sustainability and Chinese financing". From searching "debt trap diplomacy" I see that usage of it as a standalone term is pejorative. More even handed publications will use for example "debt-trap diplomacy debate". So while the term can describe the concept, pejorative terms should be avoided as the concept name to maintain neutrality. Greatvictor999 (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Greatvictor999, covering this concept as a pejorative term was/is precisely the point of this article which, again, is why I fee the name should not be changed. I want to reiterate my initial point that although all contemporary acts of excessive lending to secure a specific, possibly coercive, diplomatic outcome is allegedly done by the PRC that they do not necessarily have a monopoly over this as diplomatic tool. It seems as though this article has evolved to become one about a policy practice of the PRC instead of one about a diplomatic tool open to use by any country.--Discott (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I also want to highlight that this article is NOT about Chinese debt practices per-say but about the term and concept of Debt-trap diplomacy. Renaming the article would defeat the purpose of this article: namely to explain the concept referred to as "Debt-trap diplomacy". We can start another article about Chinese foreign lending practices but that is a separate subject, even if it is a closely linked one.--Discott (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Greatvictor999 you do raise a very good point when you say "So while the term can describe the concept, pejorative terms should be avoided as the concept name to maintain neutrality." I agree, that is something we should always try to keep in mind when writing an article like this. When trying to achieve this the devil, so to speak, is in the detail. A start, I suppose, would be to add more focus onto the debate around the term, its accuracy/truthfulness/falsehood and the political context it comes out of. --Discott (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Relevance?

There are certain sections relating to Africa which I am not convinced are entirely relevant to the article or should be copy edited and future summarized. The section on Unemployment is the best example of this. I am not sure how statics or content about programs that reduce unemployment is relevant to this article. This section should be summarised in a way focusing on the article topic in a more focused way. I have highlighted some of these sections. Perhaps I am missing something here and if so please let me know below so we can talk about it. Otherwise I am inclined to edit it down dramatically. Thanks --Discott (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I have decided to remove the text tagged with relevancy issues as no-one has taken up my request to discuss it future (after almost 6 months) and it seems to just be adding clutter to the page.--Discott (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Numerous fixes needed

Discusses Africa as a country, not a continent, six times in one paragraph - "Africa's loans to China . . . resources of the country . . . the African government, and the Chinese government . . . to utilize the country's resources." "the country's economy," "Africa and other host countries."

Is not a neutral discussion of this widely used but controversial phrase - at some points it takes a very anti-China POV and at others a very pro-China POV. Both are wrong for this venue.

Does not address the Indian origin and frequent Indian use of this phrase.

Does not address, except for Chas Freeman, the many US critics of the phrase. Sullidav (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You are right on many of these issues Sullidav. The original version of this article was very explicit about the Indian origins of the term which I think I will try to correct now. You are also right about the non-NPOV and 'schizophrenic' tone of this article reflecting the differing editors of it. It needs more editors taking an NPOV hammer to it to beat out the non-NPOV sections, both pro and anti-Chinese. The language around Africa also needs to be fixed for sure. --Discott (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Discott. In other circumstances I'd be willing to step up and do a heavy revision of the page to try to fix these issues, but 1) my employer has a stake in this issue, so my ability to write with NPOV could be questioned plus whatever I write might get misused in the context of my employer, and 2) both sides of this debate are regularly revising the page to tilt it in their direction, so doing a major fix now would be like washing a house's windows while others are having a mudfight inside - totally futile.

That said, I am happy to do easy little tweaks that clearly nudge this page in the direction of neutrality and objectivity, such as one I did yesterday undoing the addition of 18 recently added "see also" links to other Wiki pages, all of them irrelevant and/or gratuitously tilting the article in an anti-China way, such as "Usury". --Sullidav (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

this article was listed as needing spelling and grammar fixes. I haven't looked at the article yet but based on this talk page it is probably more complicated than that, but then most things usually are. I am willing to do a full-scale copyedit, which would include any needed wikilinks and likely some tagging. My only caveat is that I am only offering to be fresh eyes; I am already embroiled in a big contentious article and another project that is big and distressing. I could use a break from them both. I am not necessarily against editors with a professional interest in the article, who can be knowledgeable. My own background is simply that French language skills have led me to become involved in articles about West Africa, which is mostly neglected, and went on from there into development and money laundering. I did take economics in college and liked it. I have no personal knowledge of any country in Africa outside of my readings and Wikipedia and academic work. I will probably post a lot of questions here, as issues to be resolved one way or another, without particularly caring how that happens. This should produce some discussion if everyone is acting in good faith. @Sullidav: my advice given the possible perception of a COI is that you use your knowledge to provide reliable sources, and limit participation in any discussions for the good and sufficient reasons you outline above. But I have done this type of edit on several articles and while it can cause contention it generally does move the article to a better place Elinruby (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby, please do run a spelling and grammar check on this. I think part of the reason for that is more complicated than simple spelling and grammar issues but I can say, for two reasons, that part of it certainly is as direct and simple as spelling and grammar. Partly because of a number of edits done by people, who I am guessing, are not first language English writers and partly because of my own very bad spelling and lazy pros. I enjoy adding content to Wikipedia but I am very bad at spelling and concise pros so I tend to rely on other editors for that. I try to keep things in South African English (the type I write in and started this article with) but I also sometimes slip into American spelling (usually due to my spellcheck) which I think also complicates things a bit.--Discott (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I would have gotten any spelling errors I saw on the way though, but I don't mind re-reading specifically for that. Tell me about South African English though. It is true that the policy is to keep to one type of English, generally the one the article was begun in. I often use American spellings out of habit, but am aware of British spellings, and that should get us a long way. Tell me what else I should know. Meanwhile, *my* takeaway from this article is that it needs editing for the issue of "Africa is not a single country." I will do a re-read later specifically for language, since you ask. Elinruby (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Basically it is the same as British spelling but with a few additional loan words from Afrikaans, Zulu, Xhosa and other African languages. There are also some conventions around punctuation such as time and date (generally it is DD/MM/YYYY) and writing large numbers (typically use space between triple digits but one is also free to use commas "," instead). It definitely needs more editing concerning the "Africa is not a country" issue. An issue that keeps on creeping but in over time.--Discott (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Copy-edit notes

• lede: "often alleged negative intent" __ is negative intend often alleged ->and, it is often alleged; OR is the intended meaning "alleged to often have negative intent?" Either way, use of "alleged" is generally discouraged; this phrase should be reworded. Elinruby (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• still in lede: "commodity-backed loans" -- would this be something like using future oil or cobalt production as collateral, for example? Explain this better; target audience is intelligent with some college but may not be familiar with the industry. Elinruby (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Description section: the word alleged appears here also. We try not to use alleged because strictly speaking b Elinruby (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• • Pardon me, strictly speaking, anyone can allege. There are a couple of policies about that, but bottom line, not unless we have to. Then "negative" -- this looks like a bad translation of harmful maybe? Somewhere along the line? the thing is, "allegedly harmful" would definitely require attribution or get a "". On another language note "negative" could also mean refusal. Reword this with specifics Elinruby (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Description section, still in paragraph 1, "countries in Asia" -- which? Elinruby (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Description sect. P 2: subject of verb is missing. If this is "John's Hopkins" fix grammar, and if so anybody quoted this extensively should be named.Elinruby (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Criticizing China section: which practice is unethical? Elinruby (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Criticizing China section: "become a part of the economic growth history." -- what does this mean exactly? Too many euphemisms from here to the end of paragraph. Elinruby (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Criticizing China section: "China's loans to Africa are in exchange for long-term high value resources of the country that includes ports and minerals that most likely end at exploitation of the natural resources by the African government, and the Chinese government through giving them advantage of access to utilize the country's resources." -- just no. Africa not a country. Find a different way to say this Elinruby (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Rm the following paragraph, which seems to be repetitive. If not, it belongs in another section: 'Researchers at Johns Hopkins University, warned that African countries might be unable to repay Chinese loans, however, Chinese loans are noted as not a major contributor to debt distress in Africa.(Madowo, Larry (3 September 2018). "Should Africa be wary of Chinese debt?". BBC. Archived from the original on 17 October 2019. Retrieved 19 May 2020.)"

• from Africa: Economic risks: "Africa fears the slow growth of China, as this may result to impending government infrastructure projects." Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Under Africa: Economic risks: losing local companies to those Chinese with strong buying powers -- unclear if losing them is through competition or how buying power plays into this Elinruby (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

• Under Africa: Evaluation from all walls of life - why is this section here? Elinruby (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell the "all walks of life" section was added by student engaging in a University backed Wikipedia writing program who I guess (from the name and writing style) is Chinese. The style of writing deployed by this editor is, from my experience, typical of many first language Chinese writers. I removed or modified in the past some of that content but other sections I have left as-is. Largely because I am not too sure how to best deal with it and partly because I would like other editors to tackle it as well. I dont really want to dominate the editing of content on this article more than I already have.--Discott (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

It seemed repetitive of other statements made elsewhere. I am not at the moment in the right frame of mind for anything that takes concentration. I will have a go at this when I re-read for language. Elinruby (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Finished first-pass edit.

I don't have time to review, but if something I said here is in error, please feel free to strike and explain why, or start your own talk page section. Hope that helps, peace out Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

China hawks hiding info

A peer-reviewed study, hard data and evidence, has already been published by many sites that already solidly shows the theory to be not real. I have added an edit to this article probably some time ago. And when I came back, I was shocked to see the criticism sections maliciously MINIMIZED and key info deleted out of bias. For this wiki article to be neutral, it need to acknowledge that there is no evidence to back the debt trap diplomacy theory. However the key proof and arguments are being deleted and only the names of the people are shallowly left behind. Making readers unable to be aware that a peer-reviewed study and hard data disproves the theory. I find this to be dishonest. I noticed a trend of manipulative china hawks wanting to hide info on Wikipedia like on Li Hongzhi, etc. Wikipedia isn'y for propaganda where you manipulate others by hiding info. I have edited the critcism section to include the bare mininum context and anyone who disagrees with my edits. Go ahead and make your argument here or on my talk page. I'm all ears but I believe I am one of hte few making the article neutral by NOT HIDING the significant required information. Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gurnardmexico66, you are absolutely right that Wikipedia is no place for propaganda or, by extension, POV editing. I would discourage accusations of bias and would encourage good faith in the recent editing of the criticism sections. I agree with you on the necessity of mentioning the recent findings of Deborah Brautigam at John Hopkins seriously questioning the actual existence China practicing DTD as a policy. Brautigam is a highly respected scholar in this field and the source is very good, thank you for adding it. I have also been following it. However, in this case, it is not Wikipedia's place to "acknowledge that there is no evidence" but rather acknowledge Brautigam and other critics assertions that "there is no evidence." The factuality/reality of the term is clearly disputed. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of what is fact, it is a reflection of what is commonly understood to be fact. Something that is often, as it is here, disputed. A NPOV thing to do is to present the reader with these different arguments to allow them to make up their own minds on the matter.--Discott (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright. All this is good to know. I am doing my best to do an impartial edit on the article. Is there, btw, a reference for the 2017 first mention of the term? It doesn’t seem to correspond to any of his books, and his bio doesn’t mention it. Elinruby (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Elinruby Obviously the Chinese will never use or endorse that term. It was created and used mostly by its critics and the only decent source I can find on telling who actually coined it first in 2017 - documents it to a north Indian think tank. (a "meme born by a north Indian think tank in 2017") It got really popular to spread around due to human nature to negativity bias and obviously politics, despite it wasn't ever fairly verified by fact checks. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23792949.2019.1689828?journalCode=rard20 P.S. I'm Gurnardmexico66 btw. I simply wasn't aware that I wasn't even logged in but yep, I'm Australian. Will make sure to not make that mistake again. 49.195.204.79 (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The first mention of the term, that I am aware of, is in a Project Syndicate article penned by Brahma Chellaney which is already referenced in the article and has been since it was created. I see there is already a source citing the term as a 'thing' authored by Deborah Brautigam. I recall adding a reference directly stating Chellaney as the author of the term in an earlier version of this article which does not seem to be in the current version of this article. Chellaney clearly uses the term to critique the foreign policy of China from an Indian perspective so it makes sense that the PRC government would not be enthusiastic about its use.--Discott (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Having said that the level of enthusiasm the PRC government has for the term is largely irrelevant to this article other than as a mention that they are critical of it as a term. This seems to be already covered in the article.--Discott (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

OTOH, "no evidence" doesn't mean everything is clean and above board. There is good reason to be sceptical. The Chinese regime is known to be extremely opaque (and this is widely accepted as fact). And because of the strategic implications for Chinese soft power for Xi, they use every means at their disposal to secure deals. Details of financial conditions of the deals are notoriously hard to come by, except where there is legal enforcement or other "involuntary disclosure", such as the trial of Patrick Ho. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Update to Sri Lanka

It's misinformation to say that Sri Lanka fell into a debt trap as a result of public investment projects financed by China. The reality is that ironically if Sri Lanka is debt distressed, it owes more to American and other Western entities than to its Chinese counterparts.

Instead as The Diplomat writes :

"Sri Lanka leased out Hambantota port to China largely due to a persistent balance of payment (BOP) crisis resulting from the reduction of trade over the years even while external debt servicing costs have been soaring. Sri Lank faced a severe shortage of foreign reserves in light of the upcoming debt servicing payments, due to the maturity of international sovereign bonds. Therefore, the country had to look for various avenues to obtain foreign currency inflows. Leasing out Hambantota port was one of the ways to increase the country’s foreign reserves.

Sri Lanka needed money and if they were debt stressed. Most of their debts wasn't to china but to other countries. They needed to increase their foreign reserves so they sought china to lease their port. It's true that china financed the port but the reality is not stemmed from an actual debt trap by china.

Sources to support that - https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/3008799/truth-about-sri-lankas-hambantota-port-chinese-debt-traps and https://thediplomat.com/2019/05/is-sri-lanka-really-a-victim-of-chinas-debt-trap/

The Sri Lanka section needs to be corrected. But I don't want to make edits without giving minimal time to other editors for reviewing and reading the sources given, and properly discuss it. Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Article needs a major revamp

In order for the wiki article to be neutral and no longer flawed.. Hard evidence and scholarly articles needs to have prioritization here over cheap political hawk pundits. Current article even has a section now that is titled "other Chinese examples" and has a lead sentence that writes - "Other examples of debt-trap diplomacy by China are as follows:" and then lists a whole bunch of countries. Is there any actual proof that china has engaged in predatory debt trap diplomacy with those countries? It's just been taken for granted here that china has engaged in debt trap diplomacy and no evidence is needed. I would fix the article however it would be nice if I didn't have to do it alone as I have my own life too.

The current article makes it seem like debt trap diplomacy is a real thing and it's china's actions that is completely responsible for the perception of debt traps. Except hard evidence and neutral studies shows it's not china's actions that caused these perceptions as there have been no valid proof of it, but mostly political pundits and Pompeo or trump admin that have been reinforcing these claims.

The below article pretty much sums what I feel must be added to wiki.

Alice Wells, the senior official responsible for South Asia at the US State Department, chimed in during a recent event at the Wilson Center on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Wells claimed, in response to an audience question, that the US was concerned about Chinese projects “that don’t have an economic basis and that lead to countries ceding sovereignty”.

But there are almost no such projects. ‘Debt-trap diplomacy’ is little more than a fantasy. Since the term was first coined in 2017, various studies have shown that China is not trying to seize strategic infrastructure by crippling poor countries with unsustainable loans. While Chinese lending has certainly contributed to debt overload in some economies, it is not the driving force behind their problems. 

The example most commonly cited, including by Wells, is that of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port, which was leased to a Chinese state-owned company. But Chinese lending only accounted for around 10 percent of the country’s external debt in 2017, and a host of domestic economic problems, including protectionism and weak exports, did more than China to bring about Sri Lanka’s malaise.

Even if Hambantota did count as an example of debt-trap diplomacy, it appears to be a one-off. Of more than 3,000 Chinese-backed projects tracked by various researchers, Hambantota is the lone case of asset seizure. Donghyun Park, an economist at the Asian Development Bank, told me in a recent interview that it was “the only example” of China seizing strategic assets in this way.

https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/china-s-debt-trap-diplomacy-is-little-more-than-a-fantasy-32418

....and more

https://qz.com/1391770/the-anxious-chorus-around-chinese-debt-trap-diplomacy-doesnt-reflect-african-realities/

Basically studies and scholars have contradicted politicians and their claims of debt traps. To hide the hard data and peer-reviewed scholars but promote politicians like Pompeo, would essentially be making the Wikipedia article into a propaganda piece. And why this article must be improved by adding the info in the two links above. Also this will be my last topic on this talk page. Hope to see you guys read and edit to improve the article which is currently very flawed. Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Question

"...illicit trade among China and African countries.[52] Such imports are cheap..."

Is this equating illicit trade and imports? And is it right? Elinruby (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like it is talking about illicit trade between countries in the context of imports and exports.--Discott (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but are imports from China illegal? the point being made here is that the borrowed money is put into infrastructure not consumption Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that imports from or exports to China are generally illegal anywhere in Africa (certainly that I am aware of). What I think the author of that text is trying to talk about is trade generally including the trade of illicit goods. A good example of this that comes to mind is the illegal ivory trade, wildlife trade and illegal trade in exotic wood. These are mostly exported from African countries to China. From China to African countries might be the smuggling of otherwise legal goods so as to doge import duties.--Discott (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

From China to African countries could also include the trade in certain illicit drugs like Methamphetamines as is the case in South Africa.--Discott (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like it is saying Chinese imports into Africa. But if nobody knows what it is trying to say, we should not guess Elinruby (talk)

Requires specifics

The following really needs to contain some sort of information. Also either the concept is an exaggeration or it is without basis. Pick one. There should be a sentence to this effect, but it needs to contain more actual fact Elinruby (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

”However various studies and scholars have argued that the concept of China engaging in "debt trap diplomacy" have been exaggerated without basis in facts.” Elinruby (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm the editor who wrote that sentence. In fairness, I had cited in a source and an extra supporting sentence after that to back that sentence but that was relocated off to "criticism of the term" section by another editor. And that's fine but now that sentence looks out of place. But in regards to who is the actual various studies and scholars. I read a Princeton Uni article that help listed and detailed the various studies and scholars who argued that the theory was not backed by facts or hard data. BOTH saying it was exaggerated and not being justified by the hard data. Just because China seized two assets, it doesn't mean they pursue debt-trap diplomacy. Critics "conveniently ignores 84 instances (pdf, p. 29-32) over the last 15 years, of China restructuring/waiving loans without taking possession of assets, including Ethiopia’s third such restructuring" https://qz.com/1391770/the-anxious-chorus-around-chinese-debt-trap-diplomacy-doesnt-reflect-african-realities/

https://afp.princeton.edu/2019/01/bumpsalongthenewsilkroad/ Also if you look upwards in the talk page. You will find I already have given the very original source that also explicitly writes that "various studies" contradict the theory and then the article explained each one in sufficient detail. https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/china-s-debt-trap-diplomacy-is-little-more-than-a-fantasy-32418 Lastly Deborah Brautigam, an expert on China-Africa relations at Johns Hopkins University, was the specific scholar who cited the sentence - "But the idea that China deliberately forces debt onto poor countries, then grabs physical assets when they can’t repay the loans, isn’t supported by the facts". https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2019-05-04/five-myths-of-china-s-belt-and-road-initiative Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

ok. So if that is indeed the source of that statement then either you or I should make that clear. I believe that I said something along the lines of that is a lot of words to be cited to a single source. I don't have the attention span right now to look into this, but that might be ok if it's a big important study that got a lot of coverage. Elinruby (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

also please fix the thing about exaggeration and without facts. It can't be both, just as a matter of definition. I also seem to recall more than two seizures. I guess you are talking about Djibouti and Sri Lanka? Elinruby (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed text

From Criticism of China: Analyst warns that Chinese investment in African countries may help them close the gap for their infrastructure needs, but the practice is unethical.<ref name="Partington"/>

Reference looks ok as far as it goes (have not vetted publication) however does not appear to support the statement or tell us who says it is unethical, or why. Elinruby (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• From same section a little further down:

Critics of Chinese lending practices allege that many loans associated with China's Belt and Road Initiative for infrastructure projects used Chinese contractors in strategically-located developing countries, a type of debt-trap diplomacy.<ref name="ps" /><ref name="td"/>

pretty sure this has already been said a few times already. I have not investigated the references. Assuming those are good, and new, suggest expanding on this point from them. Elinruby (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Too important to not cite

"An interview conducted with Indonesian locals revealed they had no knowledge these projects were funded by China."

Section on Indonesia Elinruby (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Rm repetition

This is too vague for the fourth or fifth time it appears. Besides, without a citation it's either dramatic or it's not Elinruby (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"The far-reaching approach of China in promoting its lending is said to be dramatic.<ref name=":16" />" Elinruby (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• was under "criticism of China" Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Introduction calling debt trap diplomacy as "conventional wisdom" in the west. Really?? That should be removed as it's not a correct opinion

|}

We already know that debt trap diplomacy as of 2021, is debunked misinformation. There's no single respecting university nowadays or even a china hawkish think tank that would acknowledge that there's any evidence to support deliberate debt trap diplomacy. Yet the introduction is overwhelmingly biased and shows only politicians making claims. And hiding all the information from major universities and scholars who have constantly been covered by the media for years now that contradict the theory. But the intro has TOO MUCH info parroting Pompeo's baseless propaganda to give the impression that debt trap diplomacy has no critics and no studies have debunked it. Instead it gives the impression that the theory is "conventional wisdom" in the west despite western papers and think tanks have already denounced it as a reality. Sources https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/data-doesn-t-support-belt-and-road-debt-trap-claims-20190502-p51jhx.html https://afp.princeton.edu/2019/01/bumpsalongthenewsilkroad/

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/data-doesn-t-support-belt-and-road-debt-trap-claims-20190502-p51jhx.html

Yet calling it as "close to conventional wisdom". That is obviously just another way to give an impression of legitimacy despite knowing that it's not. It should be removed and replaced with impartial scholars consensus and its objective findings inthe intro like -

(authors of the Rhodium study write, China’s leverage in debt renegotiations is often exaggerated, and many of the examples in their study involved an outcome in favour of the borrower, not the supposedly predatory Chinese lender. Indeed, the Center for Global Development tracked Chinese lending from 2000 to 2017 and found more than 80 instances of debt relief.) etc https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/china-s-debt-trap-diplomacy-is-little-more-than-a-fantasy-32418

Less politicians and More scholars should be heard in the intro at minimum to avoid promoting smear propaganda. 49.180.161.139 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

|}

Trinidad and Tobago's economic minister

• Trinidad seeks loan from China Breaks down why IMF/ World Bank loans worse for country.
• ‘Fewer conditions with loan from China’ -- Imbert: Govt avoided ‘punishing population’ with IMF...
• Imbert: Choosing between IMF, Chinese loan a ‘no-brainer’

CaribDigita (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Nvtuil, this edit is quintessential WP:SOAPBOXing. An encyclopedia aims to present the facts foremost. Talking about myths and their supposed counters are meant for newspaper opinion columns. That is not encyclopaedic. If you persist with this kind of editing, I am afraid it will go to the admins. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You realize that this edit is almost directly quoting the source? "A common and popular myth is that Sri Lanka was unable to pay off the loan obtained to construct the port, thus it was handed over to China. (...) In that context, it is incorrect to claim that China acquired Hambantota port" There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that edit, only I would argue that the original part should be retained as well for balance, e.g.: "Critics of Chinese foreign policy point to (...)" "However this has been described as a common and incorrect myth..." Ok, I thought your issue is regarding the first part, regarding the second part you are correct "the money obtained from the lease was used to strengthen the foreign reserves of the country" Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which source it appeared in, but it cannot be the lead sentence of a section. It cannot even be in the first paragraph of the section. The first paragraph needs to state the facts, which the original version was doing fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't bothered to read the disputed source and trust K3 in his reading of policy. But, most of the scholars (does not include "think-tanks" and their "public intellectuals") who engages in a substantial discussion on the topic either reject that such a thing exists or introduces enough nuance. See the following sources:

• Brautigam, Deborah (2020-01-02). "A critical look at Chinese 'debt-trap diplomacy': the rise of a meme". Area Development and Policy. 5 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1080/23792949.2019.1689828. ISSN 2379-2949.
• Singh, Ajit (2021-02-01). "The myth of 'debt-trap diplomacy' and realities of Chinese development finance". Third World Quarterly. 42 (2): 239–253. doi:10.1080/01436597.2020.1807318. ISSN 0143-6597.
• Carmody, Pádraig (2020-01-02). "Dependence not debt-trap diplomacy". Area Development and Policy. 5 (1): 23–31. doi:10.1080/23792949.2019.1702471. ISSN 2379-2949.
• Breslin, Shaun (2021). "Conclusion". China Risen?: Studying Chinese Global Power. Bristol University Press. pp. 228–233, 249. ISBN 9781529215830.
• Lai, Karen P. Y.; Lin, Shaun; Sidaway, James D. (2020-03-03). "Financing the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): research agendas beyond the "debt-trap" discourse". Eurasian Geography and Economics. 61 (2): 109–124. doi:10.1080/15387216.2020.1726787. ISSN 1538-7216.
• Schneider, Florian, ed. (2021). Global Perspectives on China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Amsterdam University Press.
• Chan, Gerald (2020-09-04). "Conclusion". China’s Maritime Silk Road: Advancing Global Development?. New Horizons in East Asian Politics. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 137-145. ISBN 978-1-78990-749-0.

There are serious issues of neo-imperialism in China's conduct but that can be discussed without conceding that this is not (largely) a myth. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

RSN thread

An RSN thread has been started on the issue of some of the sources used in the article here. This is for readers' general information; do not move the content dispute there. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Same for sections on Africa / Latin America / Asia?

On the flipside of my previous comment, all or nearly all of the long sections about Africa, Latin America, and Asia are not directly about the topic of this article, the phrase "debt trap diplomacy."

Instead, they are about debt, mainly to China and the BRI. I think they are interesting facts, and they properly belong in a new article about debt to China or the Belt and Road Initiative article, but they should be removed from this article which is about a phrase, perhaps unless they are greatly condensed into one short paragraph. Sullidav (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The article is not about the phrase but the phenomenon (of debt-trap diplomacy). But, yes, I agree with the point that only those instances need to be mentioned which have been cited as instances of debt-trap diplomacy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

IMF and World Bank section should be either supported or deleted?

This article is about a phrase that has been used frequently, though the accuracy of its factual underpinning is widely disputed and some would say discredited, to characterize Chinese behavior. The IMF/WB section of the article should either be related to the topic - find and add a notable use of the phrase "debt trap diplomacy" to describe their behavior - or deleted as irrelevant. And if the point of the IMF/WB section is about use of lending to get influence generally, that should go into the article on predatory lending or the like. I propose that if nobody edits that section in the medium term future to relate it to the term "debt trap diplomacy," that section will be deleted. Sullidav (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the sources do use the term debt-trap diplomacy or at least "debt trap" in connection with IMF. But I agree that the section does not adequately explain where and how "debt-trap diplomacy" arises in the context of IMF.

There are indeed criticisms regarding IMF lending. But the idea that it counts as "debt-trap diplomacy" seems like a conspiracy theory. I am afraid I don't know enough about the issues to make a call on this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

/* Origin and background */ Comment

"other parts" (plural) is followed by a reference specifically about Venezuela (only) Elinruby (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

/* By the People's Republic of China */ Comment

One reference, The National Interest, currently #29, may not be NPOV. To be clear, I am no apologist for China. But the does seem to be a presumtion of evil intentions in this section. This should be attributed. Elinruby (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

/* Sri Lanka */ Comment

Huge amount of material here attributed to Brautigam, much of it repeating her assertions from further up the article Elinruby (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

President of Guyana, South America stands by Chinese loans sign as best deal globally

• Article: Guyana favours Chinese loan conditionalities; assures bidding process is “open” - by Denis Chabrol

Date: Last Updated on Tuesday, 2 November 2021, 14:20 Source: - Demerara Waves Media Inc. (Guyana, South America) Link: https://demerarawaves.com/2021/11/02/guyana-favours-chinese-loan-conditionalities-assures-bidding-process-is-open/

Amid lingering concerns by the United States (US) about the transparency and quality of Chinese-funded infrastructural projects, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo has said Chinese loans are softer and that Guyana’s procurement process is “open”.

“We made it clear to everyone. No financing from anybody comes with political strings but Chinese financing has been readily available to the world and we believe, like the rest of the region, we have to explore friends and partners from every part of the world,” he told a news conference on Monday. Mr. Jagdeo cited efforts to obtain 103 million Euros from Austria for the construction of a children and maternal hospital but Guyana would have had to deduct 13 million Euros immediately as an “upfront fee” and repay that along with the requirement to use one of *their* pre-approved contractors. He said *India and the United States* stipulate that contractors from those countries be used.

His comments were made on Monday, the same day that government announced that China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCEC) has been approved to build the new Demerara Harbour Bridge at a cost of US$256,638,289 and that China Railway Group Limited has been selected to open negotiations for the design-build-finance of the 165 megawatt hydropower plant at Amaila Falls.

Vice President Jagdeo said Guyana would explore “every source of financing” and make decisions based on the best offers based on an “open” process by America, British, Chinese and other companies. “We have to build the bridge, we have to build the hydro and we went through an open process. That is what we committed to. We committed to open processes,” he said.

The seven-member National Procurement and Tender Administration Board includes two candidates of the governing People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC), Gloria Beharry and Steve Ninvalle. Mr. Desmond Mohammed had previously served in the top management of the then Guyana Broadcasting Corporation.

Chief Executive Officer of the United States International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), Adam Boehler had said, during a visit to Guyana in October, 2020, that the American government was keen on winning competitive bids, and delivering quality infrastructure built by local labour. “Our focus on high quality projects and local labour to drive those.”

A number of Chinese projects such as the Skeldon Sugar Factory, Arthur Chung Conference Centre and the Marriott-branded state-owned hotel has had some defects. “I know there have been some disappointments here. I will tell you that may not always be the quickest but I will commit to be the best with a focus on high quality infrastructure but, no! that we are supportive of whoever comes out as long as the bid is competitive, open, transparent and there is a focus on high quality, long term investment in Guyana,” he had said.

The DFC has US$60 billion to invest in globally.[-END]

This Western Media conspiracy theory isn't holding water. This article cannot even conclude what was taken over. Either by court of law or other means. Nothing outside of a 99-year lease which is what the United States did for Panama Canal; the British did over Hong Kong; or other instances where a large project became a 99-year lease didn't mean the nation which owned it lost possession of it. Nation after nation which review all options show the Chinese loans have the easiest repayment and best terms of those loans out there. Which is why they choose the Chinese loans even thought the west continues to cry and whine about it. CaribDigita (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Barbados slams debt trap reporting - Says China debt only stands at $300m

• Story on China-Barbados link ‘based on falsehoods and innuendo’ – Persaud, November 26, 2021, Barbados Today news CaribDigita (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Uganda Entebbe international airport

In the news now:

• How Uganda coughed up Entebbe airport to China, The East African, 25 November 2021.
• Uganda to surrender Entebbe International Airport over Chinese cash, The Citizen, 26 November 2021.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate it @Kautilya3:, I'll find a way to integrate this information to the article. I am doing follow up research as I am seeing conflicting statements as to whether the government will default or not. If you find any new information/news articles regarding this, do not hesitate to ping me. Obama gaming (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I've modified that section quite a bit, please let me know your thoughts. As I can speak Chinese quite well, I was able to look up some sources in Chinese too. I only thought it was fair to have both points of view while abiding by WP:NPOV. Look forward to your reply. Obama gaming (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• China denies taking over or confiscating any project in Africa over debt problems, November 30, 2021 CGTN

" Wang made the statement in response to a question from Bloomberg on a local media report in Uganda that the country is seeking to amend a 2015 loan agreement with China to ensure its control of the nation's only international airport." Plus List of airports in Uganda JUST like List of ports in Sri Lanka show they have more than one airport/port. CaribDigita (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@CaribDigita: You can also read the embassy's statement here. Obama gaming (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Africa now aware the lies are coming from America as part of a disinformation campaign. U.S. resorts to dirty tricks as Africa chooses China as main partner]

Entebbe Airport contract with China okay, says Kiryowa Uganda Attorney General calls this fake news. -- From the Parliament of Uganda website. CaribDigita (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletions

Oiona, you claim "The deleted sentence is supported nowhere in the given citation, and, misleadingly, has been presented as a direct quotation from it.. Can you not see this sentence in the source?

The language of “debt-trap diplomacy” resonates more in Western countries, especially the United States, and is rooted in anxiety about China’s rise as a global power rather than in the reality of Africa.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC) OK let me have a look at it again - if i've got it wrong I will revert. I do remember thinking I couldn't see it, but maybe I did a verbatim search rather than a heuristic one.Oiona (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Now reverted - apologies, don't know what happened there.Oiona (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Sri Lanka section

The section on Sri Lanka has one quick paragraph outlining the events, and then four-paragraph justification for it. None of the arguments made by the critics are covered. The section does not even bother to mention that the project was a dud and was bleeding money. It doesn't mention that other countries had declined to invest in it. It doesn't explain Sri Lanka's prior debt position and discussion whether Sri Lanka was debt-worthy at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Chellaney's critique: Instead of first evaluating a borrower country’s creditworthiness, including whether new loans could saddle it with an onerous debt crisis, China is happy to lend, because the heavier the debt burden on the borrower, the greater China’s own leverage becomes.

I don't see where the defenders have answered this criticism. Brautigam and her colleagues have cited a feasibility study by Ramboll to say the project was viable. But Ramboll recommended building the stage 1 first, for non-container traffic, and only after it starts generating enough revenues, they recommended going to stage 2. But Sri Lanka has gone to stage 2 without waiting, and China lent money for it. The New York Times quoted information from India that the Indian companies thought the project was an "economic dud".

As to the country itself, Sri Lanka's debt burden is said to be $51 billion, and 95% of the government revenue is said to go to debt servicing. The country has been borrowing from private equity markets at high interest rates by issuing sovereign bonds. A humongous 39% of the current debt is in this form. You do this kind of thing when you are unable to service debts and you are borrowing money just to pay interest on the old debt. None of this implies creditworthiness. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

It's misleading to say "The new government had no choice but "to turn around and embrace China again". He characterised the Hambantota port as a strategically important natural asset with high long-term value to China, even if it lacked short-term comercial viability.[109] He also alleged that China does not evaluate the borrrower's creditworthiness and is happy to lend in all cases even if it places the borrower into a debt distress.[110] Indeed, it later came out that Sri Lanka's debt burden was $51 billion and that 95% of its government revenue was going into debt servicing.[111]"

Because for one. It makes it seem like Chinese loans are the larger reason for Sri Lanka debt crisis. The fact is Chinese loans only made up a very small percentage of Sri Lanka overall debt and not responsible for the debt crisis. Also it's worded in a way to imply that China is the reason they got into debt crisis when that isn't even true. Oppo48 (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the first point you make, the paragraph is summarising Brahma Chellaney's arguments, with WP:In-text attribution. Whether you or anybody else thinks it is "misleading" is irrelevant.

On the second point, this particular port was losing money. So Sri Lanka had to make payments out of its tax revenue. Neither China nor its supporters have explained what kind of due diligence China had carried out in deciding to lend. So criticism levelled against the Chinese loan may not apply to others. If somebody has done an analysis of all of Sri Lanka's loans and described how well they were faring, please feel free to point it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It was losing money because it was badly managed. That cannot be blamed on Chinese loans. The feasibility study stated that it needs an experienced international partner and so they leased it to the Chinese company. After which, from 2017 onward, the port has been performing well. The feasibility study seems spot on considering that even Indian media states that the port has really done well lately and it is because of better management. https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/revival-hambantota-port-sri-lanka-strengthen-china-position-indian-ocean-1781171-2021-03-19. Also it is not like China can control everything. If you want to be neutral, then explain why in 2017, the port performed badly. If you want to add in Chellaney's opinion that China set up the Sri Lankan government up for failure after knowing the port was economically a dud. Then go ahead. But you should also mention that after 2017, the port has been making lots of growth and Money. Which proves chellaney as wrong yet again. That the port due to its geography, is a good economic bet and nowadays is performing well..which contradicts chellaney opinion piece. Oppo48 (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

How much responsibility for Sri Lankan debts?

Thread of blocked sockpuppet

In the article, it says "Local newspapers have depicted cartoons of Sri Lanka pleading for cash from neighboring SAARC countries." Which implies that Chinese loans have caused all that. Except most of Sri Lanka debt crisis cannot be blamed all on China. There are other nations like Japan who lent out more. Bangladesh who also gave money as well as IMF. It is undue weight to point at Sri Lankan debt issues and then imply it is all China's fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oppo48 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC) The article is loosely insinuating. And how is a cartoon even a quality noteworthy source? Oppo48 (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)  Comment: I believe that the article is fine the way it is right now. Both POVs are displayed accordingly (Arguments and counterarguments) sections. I don't see how the article, in its current form, implies China's fault on the issue. Karl Krafft (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC) @Karl Krafft That's maybe only because I fixed it prior. I agree the current state is acceptable. Though the previous edits was completely unsourced and just deceptive. It made it appear as if that port is responsible for the whole debt crisis when that is undue, considering the port makes only a trivial percentage of the debt stock. I removed it and added in who actually owns the bulk of the external debt. Between 2010 to 2017, it wasn't even China that aggressively lent the most to Sri Lanka yet that's constantly omitted. Lowy institute makes it very clear on who was truly to blame - Local incompetence and western lending markets. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1060903892 + https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1060904677 https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/debunking-myth-china-s-debt-trap-diplomacy Oppo48 (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Misleading Sentence

Blocked sockpuppet post

In the article it writes: "After the project started losing money by 2014,[30] and Sri Lanka's debt servicing burden was mounting,[9] its government decided to lease the project to state-owned China Merchants Port Ltd. on a 99-year lease as a cash transaction. The amount of $1.12 billion paid by the Chinese company was used by Sri Lanka to cover balance of payment issues.[108][106] " It's misleading as it leaves out key context as if the reason why the government decides to make a 99 year lease. Is because the port lost money. That's not why they leased it out. They leased it out because they went into Debt crisis that was largely unrelated to Chinese lending. Such information shouldn't be omitted.. I tried to add in the context but it was undone. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1060859882 Oppo48 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

What did Sri Lanka use the billion cash infusion for.

Blocked sockpuppet post

As of 2021, there was zero mention of what Sri Lanka had used the billion dollar cash infusion for. Misleading Media makes it seem like it's to pay off Chinese loans. Except that's not true. It was used to pay down debts to other creditors and bolster its foreign reserves, and not to pay off China Eximbank. That's important information that is constantly omitted from the article for no good reason. I added it in but it got removed. I added it in again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debt-trap_diplomacy&diff=1060979366 If you disagree, do discuss here why we should hide that essential relevant information. Oppo48 (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: lede disputes

See discussion over at User talk:Nvtuil Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 20:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

Hi, I'd just like to thank you for your input on the article; just, when making edit summaries, please take care to keep them short. They are, after all, merely summaries. Iseult Δx parlez moi 06:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Also, I just saw your userpage, and is it safe to assume that you are also User:49.180.157.223 and User:49.180.169.4? It's difficult to keep track of more than one account, especially when IPs get inconsistent, but the general style of edits tracks. Iseult Δx parlez moi 06:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC) I have seen your previous recent edit on how you went to label the criticism as being "some criticism". Emphasis on "some". Despite there's major criticism from top western institutions who shows evidence and explains in detail, why the concept was never valid and baseless. The criticism is not "some" but Major from many reputable studies. It's biased to downplay the criticisms from so many top institutions and try to label it as "some". And I was never interested in any edit war but have no hesitation to report other's vandalism as I understand that this topic is prone to lies of omission by politically motivated editors. And even more reason why editors like me with detailed summaries, are essential. Nvtuil (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC) First, please tag me into your replies, and indent, so I get notified when you reply. Now, my explanation for some is twofold: first, it simplifies the lede; second, these papers do not originate from institutions themselves, but rather academics or employees who happen to be affiliated with these institutions. To imply that these papers are products of institutions themselves necessarily implies that said institutions have issued official statements to that effect; this is false. Now, I urge you to, after my explanation, take me in good faith. I hope we can resolve this amicably, and without resorting to third-party mediation (the arbitration committee does not have jurisdiction over these matters). Iseult Δx parlez moi 20:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Actually, I'm going to move all of this onto the article talk page; see you there; tag me in. Iseult Δx parlez moi 20:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Iseult a bit off topic but Wikipedia should essentially show the "correct" narrative. Before the Libya war, there was no shortage of media parroting US politicians and presenting their statements as facts. Nowadays we know that the world was misled on the Libyan war - https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181025-how-the-world-was-misled-into-the-libyan-war/amp/

The reason why the world was misled was because they heavily relied on speculations, baseless suspicions and claims that were just ridiculous when properly scrutinized.

I think debt trap diplomacy is following the same fate. Wikipedia should be impartial and not mislead the public into believing the wrong things. Actual reputed studies have been conducted and the data not only strongly debunks the theory but it also shows there wasn't any evidence in the first place to claim debt trap diplomacy. https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/data-doesn-t-support-belt-and-road-debt-trap-claims-20190502-p51jhx.htmlCaribDigita (talk)

There's currently no peer reviewed study or any evidence to suggest debt trap diplomacy is real. Whereas Instead scholars who have published real research and fact checked the claims, have constantly stated that the theory was a false narrative. And hence writing in "some" criticism, only serves to promote the myth of debt trap diplomacy and still mislead the public into thinking it's mostly a true concept. And that is wrong. It's not merely "some" criticism. It's peer reviewed studies and objective data that firmly debunks it. https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/china-s-debt-trap-diplomacy-is-little-more-than-a-fantasy-32418

Just because there's many china hawks like Pompeo and scholars who like to make superficial claims. It doesn't mean that they're right.

I think true scholarly consensus is unlikely in a politically charged topic.

Instead I think wikipedia needs to rely more on impartial evidence based studies and show that in the lede as it's unlikely for rhodium group, Scholars like Deborah, etc to be incorrect and more likely to be accurate compared to political pundits who show no evidence but clearly have a political agenda to make people still believe that debt trap diplomacy is a reality. And that's deception and should not have a place in wikipedia.

"One amazing aspect of the narrative of China’s “debt-trap diplomacy” is the utter lack of any evidence supporting the claims of the authors in these media and academic reports, none of which stand up to serious scrutiny." Nvtuil (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Off topic and original research is not cool

I deleted the following below info. There is so many things wrong with it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1032251939

However, much of this reporting ignores (intentionally or otherwise) the differing approaches Sri Lanka has taken towards its various creditors; to date, only the Chinese portion of Sri Lanka's debt obligations addressed via a 99-year colonization of a port on sovereign Sri Lankan territory. Sri Lanka's other obligations, even those to specific countries, were not so addressed; indeed, Japanese-funded infrastructure projects were scrapped in late 2020 and the underlying agreements scrapped, doing some damage to Sri Lanka's international reputation.

You don't expect a scholar like Deborah to talk about everything and claiming that she deliberately omitted information, is unfair and original research.

Secondly, the fact that Sri Lanka rejected other countries. Doesn't even prove that China engaged in debt trap with Sri Lanka. As the previous source stated, Sri Lanka owed more to the west and Japan than to China. They couldn't afford more debt. It's disingenuous to go imply that sri Lanka rejecting Japanese loans, is somehow relevant to Chinese loans.

Thirdly the removed paragraph ridiculously says "99-year colonization of a port on sovereign Sri Lankan territory". It's a lease and not outright ownership and to label it as 'colonisation of a sovereign land' is biased language.

I removed that info for original research, biased language and for being full of irrelevant logical fallacies. If you got issues, discuss here. Nvtuil (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

There are a number of issues with your editing, and your attitude. Let me begin by saying that yes, you were initially correct to draw attention to the non-neutral language and unsourced information in my first edit to this section. However, after you drew attention to it (quite rudely, I should add), I corrected the language as follows - "To date, only the Chinese portion of Sri Lanka's debt obligations have been addressed via a territorial lease on sovereign Sri Lankan territory. The lease itself was delayed for several months because of concerns that the port could be used for military purposes and opposition from trade unions and political parties, which called it a sellout of Sri Lankan national assets to China. Sri Lanka's other debt obligations so far have not been similarly addressed; for example, Japanese-funded infrastructure projects were scrapped in late 2020 and the underlying agreements scrapped, doing some damage to Sri Lanka's international reputation. Sri Lanka has also indicated that it is reconsidering the lease of the Hambantota port to China and is revisiting the agreement." This is factually accurate and I sourced this information, yet you once again deleted this entire section. That is vandalism, or the start of a revert war. Do it again and I will have you flagged. You do not dictate how others modify their edits, and if they make corrections in good faith as I did, it is your obligation to leave information as is unless there are other issues (such as going beyond the scope of the article). Secondly, you continue to refer to researchers and individuals in this article by their first name. That is improper; even if you know these individuals personally and are on a first-name basis with them, it is acceptable practice to refer to authors, politicians, etc. by their title and last name, or simply by their last name. Third, you are re-writing entire sections of articles in a completely biased manner that is supported by relatively sparse documentation (2 sources in total, from what I can see) and loading these articles with your own original research and allegations. I find it difficult to believe that you are a neutral or good-faith editor. Ultimately, depending on what you do next, I may be forced to ask for administrator action against you.Ecthelion83 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me make this clear - You have made your POV obvious (i.e. that you believe, based on 2 sources, that debt-trap diplomacy as it applies to the People's Republic of China and Sri Lanka, is a fabrication). That's fine. However, you do not get to dictate that your POV is correct, partially because you do not have a consensus of sources verifying your position. Based on the other sources I have cited (you do not get to dismiss the legitimate sources I have used; note that I did not dismiss your sources but considered them as two data points in favor of your position) your POV is under debate. Therefore you do not get to completely re-write a section of an article whose debate/dispute is not yet resolved.Ecthelion83 (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Japanese-funded infrastructure projects in Sri Lanka were treated differently is relevant, because it draws attention to the fact that Sri Lanka, for unknown reasons, has treated its debt obligations to different creditors differently, which actually lends credence to suspicions that the terms of Chinese loans may actually be different than loans from other sources.Ecthelion83 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Having read through some of the sources, here are my thoughts. The sources are of two categories: (1) economist or business analysts (2) Strategic experts. The former are looking at only the business deals and saying everything looks prim and proper. The latter are looking at the long-term strategies with which China operates and seeing danger signals. So this is the proverbial elephant that the analysts are groping. Here are some facts worth noting:

• SNC-Lavalin recommended a build-own-operate-and-transfer (BOOT) model. But this was not followed by the Chinese contract. Was it ever discussed? We have no idea. (With the BOOT model, the operator is also responsible for developing the business and making the project profitable before transferring. With a build-only model, it is only the client takes the full risk.)
• US and India rejected participation even after the second feasibility study. We don't know why. Either they thought the project was not profitable or they thought Sri Lanka was already distressed as a debtor. To China, these were not concerns. Bad debts are no problem to China.
• Certainly a 99-year lease is unheard of in recent years. China is certainly following the "imperialist" playbook that she so vehemently attacks.
• The Nikkei source documents the highly favourable terms that Japan was offering, compared to China's, which Sri Lanka still rejected. This seems to be an instance of sovereignty slicing.

The Chinese apologists don't comment on any of these facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• [Did I forget to mention this?] The project was losing money. So the fact that China only held 10% of the external debt is not exactly relevant. Sri Lanka had to get port off its chest because it was a bleeding wound on the economy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The DIPLOMAT article called the debt trap as a MYTH and criticised misleading media for promoting it. That's the Diplomat article's words. So don't say I never had a source to write that the DIPLOMAT said that. https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/the-hambantota-port-deal-myths-and-realities/

And why Sri Lanka had rejected Japanese projects? Maybe because they cannot afford it. It's just your speculation that it is somehow connected to a debt trap. No, it is not. And the source never said the reason why Sri Lanka rejects Japanese infrastructure is because of debt traps.

Also Sri Lanka owed more to Japan, IMF and western countries. If they had a debt crisis, it wasn't because of Chinese loans. China did not overwhelm Sri Lanka with debt. That was made clear in Chatham house report.

Also whenever China's debts can't be paid off. They are much more likely to forgive or restructure the loans favorably. Unlike the IMF that doesn't forgive and forces countries to take on more loans with unfair conditions. https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/data-doesn-t-support-belt-and-road-debt-trap-claims-20190502-p51jhx.html

Ironically like the Princeton paper made it very clear.

One of the most contentious subjects of debate surrounding BRI is “debt-trap diplomacy.” With many of BRI’s loan recipients succumbing to soaring debt in recent years, Western powers are keen to warn that this stems from a grand Chinese scheme to capitalize on debt-based relations with developing countries. While these countries are certainly mired in debt, it’s a stretch to lay the blame for such issues on China under the “debt-trap” label, particularly when Western institutions are themselves culpable for the very behavior they condemn.

Many sources backs my words. Am not the only one pointing it out. https://afp.princeton.edu/2019/01/bumpsalongthenewsilkroad/ Nvtuil (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"The Chinese apologists don't comment on any of these facts. [Did I forget to mention this?] The project was losing money."

Also don't angrily call others as apologists simply because they give inconvenient facts that you don't like.

China didn't approach Sri Lanka. It was the Sri Lankan government AFTER having a debt crisis caused MORE from loans to the west and IMF. They had only later approached China for a lease, to use that money to help bolster their foreign reserves. Not to pay off Chinese loans. And it made sense to go to China simply because China can bring alot of future business as they were a shipping superpower. Same reason why Greece had leased a port to China as it made economic sense to partner with China. That info is all being mentioned in the Princeton paper.

When critics denounced China’s repossession of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port as part of a debt-trap conspiracy, Karunasena Kodituwakku, the Sri Lankan ambassador to China shot down such accusations and emphasized that the proposal for handing over the port came not from Chinese government, but the Sri Lankan government; as other Sri Lankan representatives have noted, it made sense for Sri Lanka to welcome Chinese investment in the port, given that the vast majority of commercial shipping arriving into it was from China. Kodituwakku even conveyed his optimism about the port’s long-term prospects as a launchpad for Sri Lanka’s role in an emerging Asia.[1]

Nvtuil (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Nvtuil, your WP:Walls of text are not helping for anything. Please control yourself and focus on the issues being discussed.

Who is the author of this "Princeton paper"? Where was it published? What are the credentials of the author for the subject? And where does it say anything about the issues I have highlighted above?

Nobody denies that Sri Lanka may have made mistakes. But the allegation is that China took advantage of those mistakes and extracted a 99-year lease for a piece of Sri Lanka, the same number of years that Britain leased Hong Kong for. All these years, China had been bad-mouthing Britain for its "imperialism" and "colonialism". Why shouldn't China be accused of the same? There is no "myth" about the lease. It is a well-established fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Princeton's AFP web site [2] is meant for undergraduate student essays. It is not a reliable source. All the sources you are bringing up, by calling them "The Diplomat" or "Chatham House" etc., are similarly misrepresentations of the nature of the sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it helps your case by using angry personal attacks whenever someone shows info that proves that Debt trap Diplomacy is a MYTH. Nvtuil (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

All these years, China had been bad-mouthing Britain for its "imperialism" and "colonialism". Why shouldn't China be accused of the same? There is no "myth" about the lease. It is a well-established fact

That is soapboxing and also fyi, it's not an established fact. All these Western Think tanks would not ruin their good reputations by claiming the opposite. I trust their word more than you. And if you cannot accept that, I got nothing more to say and not going to put up with your angry gaslighting and ridiculous insinuation that my sources and quotes are bad. Simply because it triggers you. And Please go to the admin and report me. Because I am reporting you right now for being a bully and abusing others when they show good sources and relevant sourced quotes. If you want to believe debt trap Diplomacy is not a myth. That is your own choice.

But show your sources and reasoning, instead of angrily attacking and gaslighting that my sources are bad. Or show some proof that my sources are bad. Simply angrily saying it without providing any evidence, doesn't go prove what you say is true. Just empty gaslighting and angry soapboxing. And not putting up with your abuse further as I warned you on your previous abusive comment. Nvtuil (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Tajikistan??

Blocked sockpuppet post

In the current article, it claims that "In 2011, Tajikistan had to lease about 1,000 km2 (390 sq mi) of land to China in exchange for waiver of outstanding debt of hundreds of millions of dollars for a power plant China built." But a BBC article says it was a century-old border dispute being settled. In 2011, Tajikistan ratified a 1999 deal to cede 1,122 km2 (433 sq mi) of land in the Pamir Mountains to the People's Republic of China, ending a 130-year border dispute. In the same treaty, China also relinquished claims to over 28,000 km2 (11,000 sq mi) of Tajikistani territory. The Tajik even called it a "victory for their side" after that treaty was signed. To call it a reluctant debt trap, seems to distort what the treaty was actually for. A border treaty and not a typical debt for equity swap. https://web.archive.org/web/20110116030345/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Chinas-area-increases-by-1000-sq-km/articleshow/7269616.cms https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-12180567 Nvtuil (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

IMF

I propose to remove the ludicrous references to IMF "debt trap" with weak sources from a propaganda-prone country that considers itself a victim. IMF doesn't get you into a debt trap. Rather, it tries to get you out of it, and recommends austerity measures for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you can start by using factual language if you want an honest discussion. All I see are a load of strong opinion from you and zero arguments. The sources for the section you appear to take offense at range from a British newspaper to an American economist and a Dutch NGO. Are we reading the same article? Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppet posts

The IMF does attach condition to their debts. It forces countries to give up sovereignty and Trinidad gov had rejected such loans because they know it entraps poor countries in need of loans, to do terrible things to its population. The irony is that poor countries now have an alternative to avoid IMF loans with such unfair conditions, by going to China. https://www.nationnews.com/2021/06/15/trinidad-seeks-loan-china/ - Nvtuil (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC) The issue that is being contested is whether IMF gets countries into a debt trap. If there are any reliable sources that show that, please provide them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Well if IMF should be taken off the article. Then you should take off China off this page as well. Considering that IMF is many times worse than China when it comes to exploiting debts in poor countries. The IMF attaches conditionalities which reinforces a maladaptive short-term cycle of debt crises. According to statistics presented in The Economist in the same month, China likely holds a quarter to a third of Zambia’s external debt; while these figures aren’t small, they’re comparable to other creditors such as the US, World Bank, and the IMF, which for decades have been providing unsustainable loans to countries, plunging them into debt, and opening up their economies to international investors (primarily from Western countries). The Africa Confidential report further claims that Zesco—Zambia’s state-owned national power company—has been in talks regarding repossession by a Chinese company. The Zambian government refuted such allegations and denied the existence of any plans for Zesco’s privatization. It’s a tragic irony that the IMF and World Bank pushed for the privatization of the very same company in the 1990s and early 2000s. https://afp.princeton.edu/2019/01/bumpsalongthenewsilkroad/ https://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v13/2/imf.html The IMF loans are unfair as they force a poor desperate country to adopt short term goals instead of long term investments by the conditions. That means a country is not able to borrow to truly develop themselves and the debt is unsustainable long term. Both IMF and World Bank loans have a long history of using debts to overwhelm poor countries and then giving more debts to open up their economy for neoliberalisation. That only benefits Western investors. The case of Nigeria is only the most recent example of how the two leading International Financial Institutions (IFIs) – the World Bank and the IMF have for decades been part of a well-orchestrated scheme to keep previously-colonized countries in a never-ending cycle of debt, misuse of funds, and large-scale plunder of Global South wealth, keeping those countries perpetually yoked to conditional loans. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/formally-colonized-people-cant-breathe-and-the-imf-and-world-bank-are-to-blame/ In exchange for loans, the IMF requires governments to adopt policies that prioritise short-term economic objectives over, for example, long-term investment in health systems. Our research contributes to decades-old debates about the harmful effects of the IMF’s lending programmes on the development of public health systems. It shows that these concerns still hold today. The research also suggests that the IMF’s self-proclaimed prioritisation of health in recent years has been largely cosmetic. https://theconversation.com/how-years-of-imf-prescriptions-have-hurt-west-african-health-systems-72806 There is no shortage of articles on how Africa was exploited by IMF and world bank loans. https://www.africaw.com/how-the-world-bank-and-the-imf-destroy-africa Ironically China doesn't have conditionalities on its loans. At least not the absurd ones like telling Ghana to end subsidies for their farming. Which ultimately destroyed Ghana farming and only benefited Western corporations.. https://tesfanews.net/how-the-world-bank-and-the-imf-destroy-africa/ Like the Princeton paper had explained. There is clear hypocrisy that they go accuse China of debt traps. Despite IMF and World Banks have doing the same things but alot worse in that they attach extra harmful conditions for every loan. THE World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were set up during the end of the World War II to rebuild the economies of Europe. However, in order for the world bank and the IMF to implement their policies, they began offering loans to poor countries but only if the poor countries privatized their economies and allowed western corporations an almost free access to their raw materials and markets. That was a poverty trap and many poor countries realized it when it was too late. We were already in chains. https://tesfanews.net/how-the-world-bank-and-the-imf-destroy-africa/ With China, those poor countries finally have an alternative to exploitive IMF loans. Finally, comparing Chinese and Western financial relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, it will demonstrate that, in contrast to the debt-trap narrative, China’s non-interventionist approach has opened space for developing countries, particularly those with governments facing hostility from the US and its allies. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436597.2020.1807318?journalCode=ctwq20 That is why Trinidad government rejected IMF loans because IMF were just debt traps forcing a country to do horrible things in exchange for thar IMF money whereas Chinese loans didn't have the same conditions. https://tt.loopnews.com/content/imbert-choosing-between-imf-chinese-loan-no-brainer There is a long list of examples of how IMF loans exploited poor countries through debts. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/27/imf-economics-inequality-trump-ecuador https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/09/the-world-bank-and-the-imf-wont-admit-their-policies-are-the-problem Nvtuil (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

False information still added by editors and edit warring

Blocked sockpuppet post

In regards to Sri Lanka. It's extremely crystal clear. 1. China did NOT exchange debt for Equity 2. There were NO defaults of loans from Sri Lanka 3. The Diplomat (a top reliable source) stated that the so called (debt trap diplomacy) of Sri Lanka port is a MYTH. And attributed that myth to MISLEADING INCORRECT mainstream media (typically the years 2017 to 2019) 4. In more recent years, Chatham house and US scholars have thoroughly explained in concrete crystal clear details on why Sri Lanka is not a debt trap by China. Yet the Wikipedia has editors still in denial and retaining a misleading narrative. 5. Ironically Sri Lanka owed more to Japan, IMF and western countries. Their loans to China was a small portion and they NEVER defaulted. 6. Mostly Indian Media and outdated mainstream media has wrongfully claimed there was a debt trap. The newer updated western mainstream media has a very overwhelming clear consensus that there was no Debt trap Diplomacy but warned that past media have MISLED on this. Wikipedia should not fall in that same trap especially when all the top western scholars couldn't be any clearer on this. So stop putting in bad outdated sources and its misleading information that falsely reinforces the MYTH of debt trap Diplomacy. ....... One author who doesn't do his research and stick to only outdated knowledge. Keeps insisting that Sri Lanka had defaulted. He also adds in irrelevant details like how sri Lanka renegotiated with China on the port, etc despite it has NOTHING to do with whether or not Sri Lanka port was a debt trap. It's just filler info that is not relevant to the topic and mislead readers in thinking that Sri lanka port is a debt trap. I have asked the editor to come to talk page and to discuss which facts are right. Instead all he does is harrass me on my talk page, add in false information to the article, refuse to discuss on talk page as required, revert my edits to correct the false info. And repeats that cycle. Yet I Ask him here again to not edit war. Show proof that his info is correct (which btw is not). And stop falsely accusing me of vandalising when he is the one adding false information over and over again. Sources https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/data-doesn-t-support-belt-and-road-debt-trap-claims-20190502-p51jhx.html https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/the-hambantota-port-deal-myths-and-realities/ https://amp.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3127314/myth-chinas-debt-trap-diplomacy-must-be-put-bed-once-and-all https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/ https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=59720 Nvtuil (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC) And I Removed more false misleading info https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1033124107 READ the article from Chatham house. Sri Lanka debt from the port only makes up a small portion of their overall debt. Ironically if they are using the profits of the port to help pay off debts then it would be to the larger excessive debts to IMF, western states as they owe much more to them. You're making false unsourced info and trying to make it seem Like China had actually cancelled debt to Sri lanka in exchange for a lease despite many studies have clearly stated so many times that is NOT THE CASE at all. And it's misinfo to claim that. Just because the Trump admin made those allegations. It doesn't make them as real facts. https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/3008799/truth-about-sri-lankas-hambantota-port-chinese-debt-traps So show me a credible updated source to back you up, that actually states that sri lanka port was leased to pay off Chinese debts. All the updated good sources have debunked that as a MYTH. Not facts. Nvtuil (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus needed

Blocked sockpuppet post

The theory of China doing Debt trap diplomacy, never really had any evidence from the very beginning. It was nothing more than accusations rather than actual proven claims.. Countless studies have been conducted to look deeper into the issue, and the conclusions are all the same. That the narrative of China doing Debt trap diplomacy, is a MYTH. They even used that exact same word. The DIPLOMAT, Harvard, Chatham house, etc have all called the narrative as a MYTH, being pushed by misleading media narratives and politicians. I would like consensus from other editors to call it as exactly as what the scholars are calling it. A MYTH or a wrongful belief. Because that is what research and objective scholars have found it out to be and no reason to think they would lie about this. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/ https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/the-hambantota-port-deal-myths-and-realities/ https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3122496/debt-trap-diplomacy-myth-no-evidence-china-pushes-poor-nations Nvtuil (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Double standards of info being moved or removed

Blocked sockpuppet post

All information that debunks the theory is newly removed from the intro and background chapter. Only the information that is mostly baseless allegations, dominate the intro and background chapter entirely. And is repeated again in the article at least twice. Given how so many top scholar's and think tanks oppose the theory and have shown real evidence to prove it. The intro and background has to be a fair summary of the topic. It needs to be able to mention that many research and evidence oppose the theory..and the theory is being disputed. And that is facts that clearly some editors are not fond of and hence they try to entirely delete or prevent it from being easily read by moving it far down the page. And that is wrong. In particular, there are two or same editor who have been deleting alot of information from the article unreasonably and selectively as of yesterday of time of writing. The intro and first chapter is even more so unbalanced as it selectively includes only the allegations but none of the minimal context that disputes the theory. That setup only serves to mislead. Especially when in reality, there is no or very limited evidence to even support Debt Trap Diplomacy. And the intro and top chapter needs to minimally reflect that. https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/data-doesn-t-support-belt-and-road-debt-trap-claims-20190502-p51jhx.html The last okayish revision was https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debt-trap_diplomacy&oldid=1033761082 After that, they changed wording from "allegations" to "describe". And removed only entire paragraphs of info that contradicts the theory in the [Origin and background] chapter. Yet they selectively keep only the info that supports the theory in that same chapter. And one editor added in: It is most commonly used in relation to the China, in the context of Chinese infrastructure loans to developing nations and the Chinese government's (subsequent leveraging of accumulated debt). That sentence pushes a wrongful pov that China actually indeed uses debt to get leverage over countries as if it is already an (non disputed) fact. Despite there is no evidence for that fact and is just incorrect and biased POV pushing to imply it. Given how so many research argues against that. https://amp.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3122496/debt-trap-diplomacy-myth-no-evidence-china-pushes-poor-nations Instead the evidence so far contradicts the theory. Far from expanding China's global power, case studies have instead shown that heavily indebted recipients of Chinese loans were a large liability for China. An example would be Pakistan. China has had to slow down its flagship CPEC initiative and provide emergency financing to fend off an economic catastrophe. Pakistan was later forced to approach the IMF for another bailout, which exposed China's loans and investments to global scrutiny and increasing Washington's leverage over Pakistan (given that the US is a majority shareholder in the IMF). This was no political gain for Beijing when Pakistan had struggled to pay back loans. https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/china-s-debt-trap-diplomacy-is-little-more-than-a-fantasy-32418 Of course all the above info from TRT, that shows that Debt Trap Diplomacy is not a proven concept. All that was selectively cut off from the article's top chapter. More accurately All paragraphs (100 percent) that argues against debt Trap Diplomacy. And shows research and evidence that contradicts it. All of them have been removed from the intro, concept and origin plus background chapter or pushed down the page. Ie. They removed this paragraph entirely from the article as it addresses the loud claims from the critics with real research. Research from Deborah Brautigam, an international political economy professor at Johns Hopkins University, and Meg Rithmire, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, have disputed the allegations of Debt Trap Diplomacy by China. And reasoned that "Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota". They argued that it was 'long overdue' for people to know the truth and not to have it be "willfully misunderstood".[19] Anyways, when more and more recent media and academic literature have started to debunk the theory. One cannot stay in denial forever. The removed info will inevitably be moved back in and you will just be committing and be reported for blatant vandalism, if you continue to selectively remove and bury info you dislike, that is well sourced and well researched. https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/06/05/questioning-the-debt-trap-diplomacy-rhetoric-surrounding-hambantota-port/ Nvtuil (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Biased Waterering down of sources

Thread of blocked sockpuppet

:There is a constant pattern where editors disliking what the info and sources says. They they attack it by ridiculously and repeatedly adding the same weasel attack words like "some commenters say" and removing words of credentials. Special:Diff/1033997613 The original sentence was -- (Since the term was first coined in 2017, various studies have shown that China was not trying to take strategic infrastructure by overwhelming poor countries with unsustainable loans. Now it's turned into - (Some commentators say) that since the term was first (promoted) in 2017, (some) studies have shown that China was not trying to take strategic infrastructure by overwhelming poor countries with unsustainable loan. And also another example is the original sentence Sri Lanka's debt distress materialized not from Chinese lending, but more from excessive borrowing on Western-dominated capital markets. He then changes it to - (Some commentators) suggested that Sri Lanka's debt distress materialized not from Chinese lending, but more from excessive borrowing on Western-dominated capital markets. The sources doesn't even say "some studies or some commentators". And the word (some) is associated with little which is wrong. They are very few studies supporting that china does debt trap dipoamcy which is basically none to few. But there are so many studies (virtiual majority) debunking debt trap diplomamacy nowadays and so calling them "some" is just absurd and biased. And the facts that Sri Lanka's debt distress are from western dominated capital markets. They are not even disputed by anyone and the sources given are solid. You don't need to attack it because you clearly hate the information so you downplay it unethically. Watering it down by constantly and repeatedly saying "some commetators" is just biased and a double standards. Because why not do the same to the studies supporting debt trap diplomacy? They are literally very few. In fact they only have a few experts supporting it and one Chellaney. But there are so many researchers and scholars strongly against them. It's much more fitting to say "some studies support debt trap diplomacy" since clearly not everyone agrees on it. Nvtuil (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC) That is how WP:NPOV is implemented when there is no WP:CONSENSUS among the reliable sources. You need to stop pushing this POV. I also find that the pro-China camp is desperately straining to make a point. They publish articles with sensational titles like "myth" and "big lie" but, when we look at the details, we find that they haven't proved anything. They just have some vague claims like "no evidence", "don't attribute malice" etc. They are making an argument and making it sound like they have proof. This makes them all the less reliable. I agree with the edits being made by Normchou. If anything, the pro-China camp is being given too much spaces given how little they have actually produced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Hello, Nvtuil. The sources you referred to are opinion pieces that require proper attribution. Under such circumstances, we should stick to NPOV. See WP:WIKIVOICE. Normchou 💬 16:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC) "the pro-China camp is desperately straining to make a point" Lay off the unnecessary insults. It only reveals that you're nervous that I am not someone who is easily intimidated to put in the real facts and don't care about china hawks attacking me. None of my edits are unsourced or infactual so I have every right to argue for their inclusion. And fyi, it's the multiple reputed scholars who used that word "myth". They said it, not me. They use that word because they understand what it is. Those researchers don't support china but they support the facts and are against misinformation and why they insist on the word "myth". https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/debunking-myth-china-s-debt-trap-diplomacy https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/ And it's the "anti-china" crowd that currently and clearly dominates the article unethically. Literally both the INTRO and the TOP chapter, is 100 percent NARROWLY and only full of arguments accusing china of doing deb trap diplomacy. But all the research and scholars that argue against the theory with evidence, are censored from those sections entirely. Why do that? And if one were to google "debt-trap diplomacy" right now. The first 10 Google search engine results today will reveal the large Majority of them being updated articles and research that debunks the theory. Not support it. Hence the intro needs to mention that academics do oppose the theory but currently there is zero mentions due to biased editing. So if anyone is distorting the page. It's only you two by attacking sources and censoring them from the page into and first chapter, simply becuase they reveal facts that you try to bury from public awareness. If I am not able to reason with you two to understand that the intro and the top chapter needs to minimally include that there are indeed reputable western research and academcis arguing against Debt trap diplomacy today and showing their reasoning. Then I will have no choice but to take this futher up the channel to the relevant wikipedia noticeboard. Nvtuil (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC) If any of your sources backed up their claims with evidence, I won't have any objection to inlcuding those. They are just voicing their opinions in very strong language. But they are just opinions. And all such opinions will be attributed. That is Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Again you are now just lying and you're projecting. We both know the articles supporting debt Trap Diplomacy are the sensational articles that got so many facts wrong. They are not based on any hard evidence. https://www.chinafile.com/library/china-africa-project/where-evidence-of-debt-traps-africa Don't think for a minute you can actually gaslight me. It doesn't work on me. I know my sources are good and nothing you say, would ever manipulate me into thinking my sources are bad. Anyone impartial would see that my sources show actual hard evidence and reliable research. https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/data-doesn-t-support-belt-and-road-debt-trap-claims-20190502-p51jhx.html They are not opinions but proper studies with clear reasoning, that confirm that Debt Trap Diplomacy is a false theory. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy Nvtuil (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Add in the full proper counterargument by Moore

Thread of blocked sockpuppet

Moore is not just a respectable scholar and former Liberia public works minister but he provides links to all his arguments. He explained and gave evidence that the critics claiming debt trap diplomacy - conveniently ignores 84 instances (pdf, p. 29-32) over the last 15 years, of China restructuring/waiving loans without taking possession of assets, including Ethiopia’s third such restructuring. https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/examining-debt-implications-belt-and-road-initiative-policy-perspective.pdf and The argument for bad-faith Chinese lending also ignores Venezuela—the single largest Chinese debtor country where there still isn’t Chinese takeover of flagship state assets. He gave solid reasoning that even in Venezuela. The Chinese clearly has not exploited the country's debt defaults and have not taken over any state assets. And that the sheer vast majority of China's debt renegoitation ended up with China either restructuring/waiving loans without taking possession of assets. His facts are also well backed. He also made a fair point that Africa's population is increasing and cited his source. And that africa faces an infrastructure gap and needs funding but is not able to get it from the west and why he considers china to be a good net partner. https://qz.com/1391770/the-anxious-chorus-around-chinese-debt-trap-diplomacy-doesnt-reflect-african-realities/ .... Yet his argument is unfairly butchered and alot of details on why he believes that the debt trap diplomacy theory is wrong. So much of his reasoning is being cut out of the article. People reading that sentence, won't even understand at all why he believes that china is good partner for africa because all that reasoning has now been censored from the wiki page. I believe that his reasoning needs to be put back into the article. He explained that the evidence doesn't support the theory and explained why in detail. And he also stressed that africa needs infrastructure and china is able to address the infrastructure gap. You cannot just remove all that info and then tell people to go to talk page and explain why real info needs to be put in. I only go to talk here as I am curious on @Amigao reasoning to remove so much factual and well sourced and heavily cited info. I am asking why? Because I believe you are wrong and you do need to add in the full proper counterargument by Moore back in. Nvtuil (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Please note that WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are policies and fully apply here. - Amigao (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC) @ Amigao You didn't even discuss the topic at all but just repeating the same arbitrary rules. Tell me, How is Moore pointing out that there have been 84 instances (pdf, p. 29-32) over the last 15 years, of China restructuring/waiving loans without taking possession of assets, including Ethiopia’s third such restructuring. How is that CONSIDERED a violation of WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? He even provided a link to the high quality research that found those facts so it's not just him saying it.. Not to mention he is a highly reputed scholar himself from a recognised think tank. So why does his words suddenly violate policies? You don't think he's an expert? What makes Chellaney more reliable than him, when Chellaney's words are just his opioons that have all been debunked heavily by research that Moore has cited. Actually explain your reasoniong in detail as your reasoning is so superficial and lacking any substance. If you are hoping that your "so called" rules will be followed by me. I will fight this to the end as well sourced facts should not be edited out of Wikipedia due to biased editors who cannot accept that research contradicts them and so now they label them as violating rules when they DON'T. Also the whole point of Talk is to discuss why sources are unreliable. Scholars like Deborah and Moore are unllkely to go on media and deliberately lie. And they cannot "fake" research. You have to give an actual reason why their words are suddenly unreliable to use. If anything, you should remove the indian academic Chellaeny's quotes as they are all opinions that should not even be promoted on Wikipedia as they are not backed by researchj but just his own speculations and claims. Moore and deborah is different in that they use professional research to back everything they say. Nvtuil (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Nvtuil, if you truly believe that core Wikipedia policies like WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV are "arbitrary rules" then this might be a case that you are WP:NOTHERE. - Amigao (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC) My career is in the Law sector so it would be wierd if I didn't value set policies. And tho I am not very familiar with Wikipedia. I follow and value those rules. But I do believe those edits were well attributed and didn't violate policies like WP:WIKIVOICE. I was saying the rules were arbitrary (which is nicer way of saying, that you are abusing the usage of those rules) falsely. Prove me wrong then. Explain to me in detail on why Moore saying that africa has a serious infrastructure gap. And needs more funding but is unable to get it from western countries and only china seems to help them in that regard. Or how he points out that the exisiting evidence is that china mostly forgives or restructures loans. (Which contradicts the theory that china deliberately overwhelms Countries to seize their assets.) Do explain to me how those edits violate those wiki rules and need to be censored out? Is Moore not an expert? Is his words deemed a violation of wiki rules because he doesn't agree with the theory and gave solid reasoning? I don't believe wiki polices are "arbitrary rules". I am saying that you are using them in a questinable manner and that you are not using rules (fairly) and had no right to say those edits had violated WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV when they are the words from a respectable scholar giving solid research backed reasoning and stating facts. Nvtuil (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Theory is not endorsed by research

Blocked sockpuppet post

People should hear from top sources on the topic, that the theory is heavily disputed but wouldn't know that from the current lead. Which should mention independent research on multiple occasions from western institutions, reached the same extreme findings. That the factuality of the allegations against China are not backed by evidence and just wrong. It is not a coincidence so many research groups constantly reach those same conclusions. Lead currently doesn't have it and should have that real facts included as people need to be aware of that all important context. 49.195.79.232 (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC) That is just a newspaper op-ed. What makes it a "top source"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC) References

Greek Professor on China and debt

• Greek professor, Prof. Yanis Varoufakis shuts down a white lady on china doing business with africa -- Clearly the global educational community knows this article is rubbish. She stood up talking U.S. propaganda and talking nothing she knows about. Which is hilarious. CaribDigita (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppet post

@CaribDigita The vast majority of claims of Debt trap all goes to an opinion writer - BRAHMA CHELLANEY. who without evidence keeps claiming it and western media just quotes and promotes him. Except none of his claims has ever been proven by proper scrutiny of evidence. Many academics double checked the facts and found there is no real evidence behind the claims. And additionally proved many of his claims as outright false. For the article to be fair, it cannot imply that debt Trap Diplomacy is a reality. It has to make it clear that the CURRENT EVIDENCE doesn't support deliberate debt trap diplomacy and instead China's frequent restructuring and or forgiveness of loans, shows that it's more pragmatically motivated″ to use loans to build soft power, which is working in Latin America, Africa, middle east, Malaysia etc. The intro should mention there is hypothetical and reality. There is hypothetical and then there is reality. The "theory" is that China will use defaulted Debt to force seize assets or use it to influence politics. Except there is little if any evidence that China has ever seized an asset after a country fails to pay its loan to China. That especially applies double to Sri Lanka considering Sri Lanka was overburdened by IMF + Japanese loans and approached the Chinese first to lease its port. Yet the article has so many irrelevant "loans" to other countries, implying they are all debt traps despite none of them have been proven to be legit debt traps. Hypocritically and ironically, only IMF has actual long line of examples of real Debt traps. Arguably all of them are debt traps from the start, considering all countries accepting IMF loans need to accept conditionalities to forfeit their sovereignty by allowing IMF to essentially choose and control its policies. Mostly to neoliberalise and open up its economy for western corporations. https://www.africaw.com/how-the-world-bank-and-the-imf-destroy-africa China is a threat primarily as it essentially gives the developing countries an alternative where they don't need to neoliberalise to get loans. In other words, they end western Influence to use debts to control developing country's policies. And it's double standards to call Chinese loans as debt traps when for many decades, IMF has saddled developing countries with unsustainable loans yet for obvious reason, the US never criticises it as heavily. It's clearly politicised narrowly by the media but in the academic world, the theory is often deemed a myth by so many experts. many BRI nations have long received loans from European nations, the United States, Japan and even India. It is therefore intriguing why such investments from Western nations, Japan and India, with nearly identical “debts” are regarded as “sweet pies,” while those from China are “debt traps”? https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/11/22/debt-trap-diplomacy-is-a-fallacy/ Nvtuil (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)