As far as I'm aware, China has been giving loans to various countries in Africa and building infrastructure in exchange for money and maybe some stuff like recognizing Taiwan as part of China. But why do people say China is imperialist for doing this? Is there truth to it or is it another strain of radlibs eating state department propaganda?
Who says that is the case here?
I think the latest headlines I've seen use the phrase "debt trap". Might start skimming some articles with those search terms.
I'm not a big enough geo political economics nerd to speak with any confidence. Most of what I've read is a bit of a mystery to me, so ya know, take a pound of salt with this comment.
But one headline framing that I've seen was that China was setting up these African nations with some kind of debt trap.
I've also seen headlines that frame it as, China is giving credit but doesn't seem to be using it to control those nations in a way that we'd expect the USA to do, the debit trap isn't a thing that China is doing.
The only, probably useless analogy, that I can think of is going to the bank and trying to get a loan.
There are loans where the bank will just give you some money with only the normal conditions you'd expect, there will be interest payments on top of the principal, you will forfeit your collateral if you default on the loan, etc.
But there are other loans, like Mortgages, where the bank will get to make way more conditions regulating specific actions you can take. For Mortgages, if you ever lose your home owners insurance for any reason, including because the insurance company fucked up, the bank can immediately send you a letter telling you that you've defaulted on your loan (this happened to me, the insurance company unfucked everything before the sheriff's kicked us out but it was still pretty fucking scary) and you've got "x" amount of days to pay up or lose your house to the bank. I think Agri loans probably fit this example too. Go in with a busniess plan asking for a few thousand dollars in start up money and you might be told no outright. Talk about buying a CAFO and contracting with Tyson and the bank will give you a several million dollar loan they know you aren't going to be able to pay back before filing for bankruptcy.
I would hardly call myself an expert on BRI. As I understand, the terms that get offered to governments are better than what they would get from the IMF.
In either case, I find it hard to believe that China is doing that and expecting nothing in return.
Quid pro quo is fine so long as the terms of what is being expected in return aren't outside what the less "powerful" nation is able and wanting to accept.
Like, lending a neighbor some cash and expecting the cash back at some point in the future as well as maybe being able to ask for help later with a better chance of being told "yes" versus lending cash to my neighbor on the condition that I get to roll around naked on top of their car.
Both scenarios, I ask/expect something in return. Only one of those scenarios do I do something "allegedly" weird and "allegedly" uncomfortable for the other party.
I would still say that if you are doing something increase your influence, it is doing just that.
Depends on what you mean by "influence".
Being a person that can be relied on by others to help them, increases your influence with those people you help. Proving yourself a valuable friend can increase your influence among the people you hang out with.
You can gain influence both through subterfuge/coercion or just by being a decent creature.
The USA could increase its influence by trying to have a good reputations with other nations, but usually can't keep the need for dick swinging in check long enough to do so. Sure, the PRC could have some nefarious scheme going on... or it could just being trying to work with other countries that could use the help.
My personal view is that they see an opportunity and went for it.
deleted by creator
I don't disagree that BRI policies benefit or have benefitted various countries.
All I'm saying is that China isn't likely doing this just out of the goodness of their heart and they have the goal of gaining influence.
deleted by creator
Okay I have a gut feeling that they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart... if that's your only standard here
Do you really think that they expect nothing in return?
deleted by creator
If the argument is that receiver also benefitting makes something not imperialism, then by that standard, IMF loans would not be considered that, seeing that governments receive much-needed money, but at a great cost (while BRI loans would be more beneficial to them).
deleted by creator
I agree that they are the better of the two options. However, they both provide the same thing, just one has far less strings attached.
No and they don't even make that assertion. That's kind of my point.