A NEW IMPERIAL POWER 新帝國力量 ？

Is China a new imperial power threatening some of the developing economies in Asia and Africa? This is a perception that is being promoted through the media by certain China watchers in universities and think-tanks mainly in the West, various politicians and by a segment of the global NGO community. 

The peddlers of this perception argue that by giving out loans for development to poor countries China is snaring them in a debt trap. It is a trap that ensures that they are perpetually under China’s control. Is there such a debt trap? To find out, we shall look at three Asian countries before we turn to Africa. 

Pakistan has taken loans from China for projects under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The US 50 billion CPEC is a network of infrastructure projects that are currently under construction throughout Pakistan that will connect China’s Xinjiang province with Gwadar port in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. A number of these projects will strengthen Pakistan’s energy sector which is vital for its economic growth. They will help to reduce its severe trade deficit. Debt servicing of CPEC loans which will only start this year amounts to less than 80 million.

Pakistan’s largest creditors are not China but Western countries and multilateral lenders led by the IMF and international commercial banks. Its foreign debt “is expected to surpass 95 billion this year and debt servicing is projected to reach 31 billion by 2022-2023.” There is evidence to show that its creditors “have been actively meddling in Pakistan’s fiscal policies and its sovereignty through debt rescheduling programs and the conditionalities attached to IMF loans.”

The media does not highlight this which is in fact Pakistan’s real debt trap. Neither does it inform the public that CPEC loans are for projects that are of immense and direct value to the Pakistani people. Their value will be further enhanced when the new Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan visits China on 3rd November and broadens the CPEC to emphasise cooperation in agriculture and social sector development. 

Distortions and half-truths have also coloured media accounts of China’s relationship to the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota. The construction of the port was a Sri Lankan idea, not a Chinese initiative.  The Sri Lankan government reached out to the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and Japan among others to finance its construction. For different reasons, its request was turned down. It was only then that the government approached China which agreed to help. 

As Hussein Askary and Jason Ross point out in an EIR study of 30th August 2018, contrary to media reports, Hambantota on the southern coast of Sri Lanka has tremendous potential. It is “located just 6-9 nautical miles from one of the busiest and most important commercial shipping lines on the planet.”  The Chinese built port was opened for commercial use in 2010. Unfortunately, usage was below par. Because of poor revenue, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority was forced to sign an agreement whereby a Chinese state-run enterprise “took a 99 year lease of 70% of the port and 85% ownership of the port and industrial area with the obligation to continue investing in upgrading the facilities there ---- The purpose of this deal was to relieve Sri Lanka off the burden of this debt.”
    
In the case of our third example, Malaysia, which witnessed a change of government in May 2018, major infrastructure projects funded by Chinese state companies could not be implemented because the nation is in a financial crunch. Besides, the projects were obviously lopsided favouring the Chinese companies more than their Malaysian partners. In announcing his decision, Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, made it very clear that the lop-sidedness was due more to the previous Malaysian government than its Chinese counterpart. 

From the three cases in Asia, it would be patently wrong to label China a new imperial power. A quick look at Africa will reinforce this view. The “majority of African debt is not held by China but by Western countries and such Western-backed institutions as the IMF and World Bank.” 

Nonetheless, many African states have Chinese debt. This in itself is not a problem --- provided loans are utilised for the public good. In this regard, infrastructure financing under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) --- building ports, railways and fibre-optic cables --- appears to be a major component of China’s involvement in Africa. The four billion dollar Addis-Ababa-Djibouti Railway which began commercial operations earlier this year would be one such example. The 3.2 billion Madaraka Express railway between Nairobi and Mombasa in Kenya would be another case in point.  

The exception in Africa is perhaps the tiny East African state of Djibouti.  In the last two years, it has borrowed 1.4 billion from China. This is more than three-quarters of Djibouti’s GDP. It is alleged that China has leveraged upon this to open its first overseas military installation in Djibouti.  It should be noted at the same time that Djibouti also hosts the largest US military base in Africa.     

Djibouti aside, Chinese ventures in Africa have been almost totally economic. The quid pro quo for the Chinese it is true has been access to the continent’s rich natural resources. But it is always access, never control. Control over the natural resources of the nations they colonised was the driving force behind 19th century Western colonialism. Control through pliant governments and, in extreme cases, via regime change continues to be a key factor in the West’s --- especially the US’s --- quest for hegemony over Africa and the rest of the contemporary world. 

It is because China’s peaceful rise as a global player challenges that hegemony that the centres of power in the West are going all out to denigrate and demonise China. Labelling China as a new imperial or colonial power is part of that vicious propaganda against a nation, indeed a civilisation that has already begun to change the global power balance. It is a change --- towards a more equitable distribution of power --- that is in the larger interest of humanity. For that reason, the people of the world should commit themselves wholeheartedly to the change that is embracing all of us.    

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World 

中國是一個威脅亞洲和非洲一些發展中經濟體的新帝國嗎？這是一種觀念，一些中國觀察家在大學和智庫，主要是在西方，各種政治家和一部分全球非政府組織社區通過媒體宣傳。

這種看法的兜售者認為，通過向窮國提供發展貸款，中國正在陷入債務陷阱。這是一個陷阱，可以確保它們永遠受到中國的控制。有這樣的債務陷阱嗎？為了找到答案，我們將在轉向非洲之前先看看三個亞洲國家。

巴基斯坦已從中國獲得中國巴基斯坦經濟走廊（CPEC）項目的貸款。美國500億美元的CPEC是一個基礎設施項目網絡，目前正在整個巴基斯坦建設中，將中國的新疆省與巴基斯坦俾路支省的瓜達爾港連接起來。其中一些項目將加強巴基斯坦的能源部門，這對其經濟增長至關重要。它們將有助於減少其嚴重的貿易逆差。僅在今年開始的CPEC貸款的債務償還金額不到8000萬美元。

巴基斯坦最大的債權國不是中國，而是由國際貨幣基金組織和國際商業銀行領導的西方國家和多邊貸方。它的外債“預計今年將超過950億美元，到2022年至2023年預計債務償還將達到310億美元。”有證據表明其債權人“通過重新安排債務來積極干預巴基斯坦的財政政策及其主權。計劃和IMF貸款的附加條件。“

媒體並沒有強調這實際上是巴基斯坦真正的債務陷阱。它也沒有告知公眾，CPEC貸款用於對巴基斯坦人民具有巨大和直接價值的項目。當新巴基斯坦總理伊姆蘭汗於11月3日訪問中國並擴大CPEC以強調農業和社會部門發展方面的合作時，他們的價值將得到進一步提升。

扭曲和半真半假也有媒體報導了中國與斯里蘭卡漢班托塔港的關係。港口的建設是斯里蘭卡的一個想法，而不是中國的倡議。斯里蘭卡政府與世界銀行，亞洲開發銀行和日本等國家聯繫，為其建設提供資金。由於不同的原因，其請求被拒絕。直到那時，政府才接觸了同意提供幫助的中國。

正如Hussein Askary和Jason Ross在2018年8月30日的EIR研究中指出的那樣，與媒體報導相反，斯里蘭卡南部海岸的漢班托塔具有巨大的潛力。它“距離地球上最繁忙，最重要的商業航線之一僅6-9海裡。”中國建造的港口於2010年開放供商業使用。不幸的是，使用率低於標準。由於收入不佳，斯里蘭卡港口管理局被迫簽署協議，中國國有企業“承擔了港口70％的港口和工業區85％的99年租約，並有義務繼續投資改善那裡的設施----這筆交易的目的是減輕斯里蘭卡的債務負擔。“
    
就我們的第三個例子而言，馬來西亞在2018年5月見證了政府的變化，中國國有企業資助的主要基礎設施項目由於國家處於金融危機中而無法實施。此外，與馬來西亞合作夥伴相比，這些項目明顯偏向中國公司。在宣布他的決定時，馬來西亞總理馬哈蒂爾·穆罕默德博士清楚地表明，對於前任馬來西亞政府而言，這與中國政府的關係更為明顯。

從亞洲的三個案例來看，將中國列為新皇權顯然是錯誤的。快速瀏覽非洲將強化這一觀點。 “大部分非洲債務不是由中國持有，而是由西方國家和西方支持的國際貨幣基金組織和世界銀行等機構持有。”

儘管如此，許多非洲國家都有中國債務。這本身並不是問題---只要貸款用於公共利益。在這方面，“一帶一路”（BRI）下的基礎設施融資---建設港口，鐵路和光纜---似乎是中國參與非洲的重要組成部分。今年早些時候開始商業運營的40億美元的亞的斯亞貝巴 - 吉布提鐵路就是這樣一個例子。肯尼亞內羅畢和蒙巴薩之間的32億馬達拉卡高速鐵路將是另一個例子。

非洲的例外可能是東非小國吉布提。在過去的兩年裡，它從中國借了14億美元。這是吉布提國內生產總值的四分之三以上。據稱，中國利用了這一點