Talk:Debt-trap diplomacy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zechengding (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Csandhu.

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)

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)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Debt-trap diplomacy into Belt and Road Initiative. I think that the content in this article is in fact centred on the nefarious impact of China's quest for resources and soft power, whereas the BRI article reads like a glossy brochure for China. Debt-trap diplomacy can more easily be explained in the context of the BRI, and that a merged article will provide better and more comprehensive coverage from a global perspective.  Ohc ^¡digame! 08:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• I move. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• Against- This article is about the diplomatic concept of using debt to (in China's case allegedly) achieve diplomatic ends. It is not about, nor is it necessarily connected to, the concept of the BRI. As such I strongly feel it should not be merged. I have not recently read the BRI article so I cant make a judgment on it but it sounds like the better option would be to remove non-NPOV content from it and add some nuance/diversity of sources rather than just merging this article with that one. They are two very different topics although they are both linked by contemporary Chinese foreign policy. Debt-trap diplomacy is not necessarily only committed by China (allegedly) even though they might be the only current example of supposedly doing it. In theory any county is capable of engaging in actions that could fit the definition of it.--Discott (talk) 22:40, 12 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)

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 lanks 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 an actual debt trap by china.

Sources - 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 sections 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)