China's Westward One Belt One Road Strategy

tidalwave

Senior Member
Registered Member
Myanmar, like all of China's neighbors, want some strategic maneuvering space, and for small powers like Myanmar, it means playing great powers against each other. The Burmese military junta turned towards US to lessen its reliance on China, and the fact junta leaders couldn't get what they want from Washington doesn't change their original motivation.

Myanmar biggest headache is the heavily armed minorities, who continue to battle the myanmar government.
Yes, their weapons funded through drug trade and supplied by China.

And what can US do about it from security standpoint. Give free weapons to Myanmar government??

The question is what can US offer? Moral support?
Countries like Japan and South Korea can afford to pay US for military support. Myanmar can't afford
US weapons. In fact, its buying all kinds of relatively cheap Chinese weapons.

Investment is the ONLY thing Myanmar wants from US, BarNone.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
Myanmar biggest headache is the heavily armed minorities, who continue to battle the myanmar government.
Yes, their weapons funded through drug trade and supplied by China.

And what can US do about it from security standpoint. Give free weapons to Myanmar government??

The question is what can US offer? Moral support?
Countries like Japan and South Korea can afford to pay US for military support. Myanmar can't afford
US weapons. In fact, its buying all kinds of relatively cheap Chinese weapons.

Investment is the ONLY thing Myanmar wants from US, BarNone.
None of which diminishes Myanmar's intention to secure as much options for itself as events and situations allow. It's why the military junta turned towards Washington, and why Suu Kyi turned back towards Beijing. Expect to see more of that going forward, and it might involve other Indo-Pacific powers.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
It was not too long ago the western triumphalist celebrate Myanmar tilt as victory of western democracy.
But Myanmar soon found out talk is cheap but when it come to loan or investment the west is stingy.Where is the beef?That is why Suu Kyi pivot back to China. She know only China can help her country out of poverty and close enough to make difference

The military regime want to stick it to China in order to curry favor with the west
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Myanmar-China-Aung-San-Suu-Kyi-Ji-Xinping-May-16-2017-960x576.jpg

An emerging democracy with significant infrastructure gaps and little in the way of technical expertise, Myanmar has extraordinary development needs. Those needs are leading de facto national leader Aung San Suu Kyi closer to China than many analysts anticipated at the beginning of her elected tenure.

While it once appeared that the United States would offer a diplomatic and economic counterweight to China, analysts say Myanmar’s new leader faces uncertainty about American President Donald Trump’s interest in maintaining the previous Barack Obama administration’s high level of engagement with the country.

THE DAILYBrief

Must-reads from across Asia - directly to your inbox
While Trump’s wider commitment to Southeast Asia and Obama’s “pivot” policy towards the region is broadly in doubt, the fading support has been particularly noticeable in Myanmar, a country grappling with the transition to democracy after nearly six decades of authoritarian military rule.

Obama invested large amounts of diplomatic capital in a “vision of Myanmar being a strong democratic counter-narrative to China’s expanding influence in Southeast Asia and a standard-bearer of American values in Southeast Asia,” said Hunter Marston, an independent Washington-based Asia researcher and analyst.

These priorities were met in kind by previous President Thein Sein’s zeal to reenter the global fold after decades of sanctions-imposed isolation.

The US and European Union gradually lifted punitive sanctions imposed against the military’s abysmal rights record in exchange for demonstrable democratic progress, including the release of hundreds of political prisoners.

State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi speaks with previous US President Barack Obama during a bilateral meeting at the White House on September 14, 2016. Photo: AFP/Jim Watson
“It was more necessary for President Thein Sein to [pursue diplomatic relations with] the West, than Aung San Suu Kyi,” said Soe Myint Aung of Yangon’s Tagaung Institute, a think tank. “Their mandates are different. The previous government’s mandate was dubious – they came out of a military regime.”

Thein Sein’s order to suspend the China-backed US$3.6 billion Myitsone Dam project in 2011, delivered to parliament less than six months after taking office, shocked Beijing and was widely perceived as a diplomatic shift westward, Yun Sun, an analyst at the Stimson Center, a Washington DC based think tank, wrote last year.

“While the [Myitsone] project has never been popular in Myanmar, the Chinese nevertheless saw themselves as the victim of a pseudo-democratic government’s attempt to gain legitimacy, popularity and support by both the Myanmar people and the West,” she said.

A reassessment of strategic priorities under new Myanmar and US administrations should not be wholly unexpected, Marston said. “The China relationship is always going to be important, as a neighbor and the biggest source of investment, but Suu Kyi is recalibrating Myanmar’s relationship; the United States is far away, and China is a geographic reality and diplomatic heavyweight,” he said.

Myanmar-China-Aung-San-Suu-Kyi-Obor-May-15-2017.jpg

Myanmar State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi arrives at the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, China, May 15 2017. Photo: Reuters/Roman Pilipey/Pool
Under Obama, Suu Kyi was twice invited to the White House, most recently in September 2016, when she achieved the lifting of most long-standing economic sanctions. An arms embargo and sanctions related to drug trafficking remain in place.

Previous US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarded her engagement of Myanmar, a long-time adversary once referred to by President George W. Bush as an “outpost of tyranny”, as among her biggest policy successes.

By contrast, the Trump administration’s policy toward Southeast Asia remains largely undefined. Suu Kyi, who concurrently serves as Foreign Minister and State Counsellor, skipped a May 4 summit of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) foreign ministers held in Washington, sending her National Security Advisor U Thaung Tun instead.

Some analysts suggest her absence may have been in response to a perceived snub, though others say she had conflicting commitments. Trump has extended personal invitations to the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte, Thailand’s Prayut Chan-o-cha and Singapore’s Lee Hsien Loong to make official visits this year to the White House. No similar invitation has been extended to Myanmar’s de facto or nominal leaders.

However, the invitations should be viewed as a “symbolic recognition of allies first” rather than an endorsement of regional strongmen over emerging democracies like Myanmar, Marston said.

US President Donald Trump speaks by phone in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, US January 29, 2017. Photo: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
Much of Trump’s early Asia attention has been focused on North Korea. His calls to Duterte, Prayuth and Lee asked primarily for their cooperation in isolating and cutting trade with Pyongyang. A stronger US commitment to Southeast Asia may have to wait until the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) and Asean summits in November, which Trump has pledged to attend, experts say.

China, meanwhile, has cemented strong ties with Myanmar’s new leadership. While Suu Kyi’s first official international visit was to Laos, then serving as Asean’s rotational chair, she visited China with President Htin Kyaw in August 2016. At the Belt and Road Forum this month, she signed five memoranda of understanding with President Xi Jinping, including one for a yet-to-be defined border trading zone.

Within six months of taking office, and on the eve of Suu Kyi’s first China trip, President Htin Kyaw announced a commission to evaluate hydropower development projects, including the Myitsone Dam.

The commission’s November 2016 report, which was not publicly released, is understood to have strongly advised against restarting the stalled US$3.6 billion project. But the deadline for a final report has yet to be announced, and Myanmar officials took a non-committal “wait and see” approach during Htin Kyaw’s April visit to Beijing.

Myanmar protestors display placards against the Myitsone dam project in a 2011 file photo. Photo: Reuters/Bazuki Muhammad
China is making diplomatic investments, as well. Beijing donated US$3 million to Myanmar’s peace process in 2016, though questions have emerged about Beijing’s influence over certain armed groups, namely the United Wa State Army, situated near the China border that remain strongly opposed to the terms of a government national ceasefire agreement.

In Dhaka last month, special Chinese envoy Sun Guoxiang suggested that China could mediate negotiations between Myanmar and Bangladesh, where some 75,000 ethnic Rohingya Muslims have been displaced along their shared border by military “clearance operations” in western Rakhine state that started in October 2016.

“As the neighbor of Myanmar and Bangladesh, as well as a country with greater global influence, China could serve as a mediator to keep the neighboring areas stable,” Institute of Southeast Asian Studies chair Gu Xiaosong told China’s state-owned Global Times last month.

China’s motives are likely more pragmatic than humanitarian, analysts say. “[China] wants a stable investment destination, they want peace for self-interested reasons, on their border,” Marston said. “I think it’s more about the stability of Rakhine state for ease of doing business.”

In that direction, China held its first ever naval drill with Myanmar on May 21 in what analysts saw as a strategically significant visit. The one-day joint drill, where both sides deployed guided missile vessels, covered communications, formation maneuvers and search and rescue missions.

Myanmar-China-Navy-May-23-2014.jpg

China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy soldiers stand arriving at Myanmar’s International Terminal Thilawar (MITT) in Yangon May 23, 2014. Photo: Reuters/Soe Zeya Tun
Other analysts suggest that the absence of a clear US policy towards Southeast Asia should not be mistaken for the absence of one.

Indeed, several influential US lawmakers remain strongly committed to cultivating ties to a democratic Myanmar. In his first meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly urged: “Don’t forget about [Myanmar].”

Soe Myint Aung also cautions against overemphasis on “elite-level politics” at the expense of lower-profile avenues of soft power engagement.

“If you look at the number of [US] Fulbright scholars, or the number of fellowship students and the number of exchange programs that are training parliamentarians and journalists, you can see that the people-to-people relations are going on as much as [during] the Obama administration.”
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
I think Myanmar is strategically more important than Pakistan. There is clear benefit for China inland province of Yunnan and Guizhou. And it much closer and no high mountain barrier to cross
Myanmar definitely need the port and industrial park attached to it to generate employment and leases. But western press with their obsession of democracy and human right think otherwise. The common good took precedent over individual right

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In a 13-minute project promotion video China International Trust and Investment Company (CITIC) celebrates the wonder of Asia’s rapid development with portraits of the pre-industrial ports of Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan’s Daxi fade into their modern incarnations of high-rise glass and steel marvels.

The final image, however, is particularly jarring: a container ship approaches an imagined modern port in Kyaukpyu, a now rural township in Myanmar’s impoverished Rakhine state that CITIC envisions as the world’s next great commercial hub.

The planned reinvention of Kyaukpyu from backwater to thriving port is a small but integral corner of China’s One Belt One Road (Obor) initiative, a series of economic corridors and infrastructure mega-projects intended to put Beijing at the center of future global trade.

The envisioned sprawling network of planned roads, pipelines, rails and ports, estimated by Beijing at over US$1 trillion, will if completed connect 60 countries and 65% of the world’s population, reorienting trade routes and international ties across Eurasia in a surge of soft power-driven development.

China’s grand plans have already left an imprint on Myanmar, where the rural coastal township of Kyaukpyu is slated for two Chinese-operated deep sea ports and a sprawling special economic zone (SEZ). It is already the site of two pipelines that have started to transport oil and natural gas across Myanmar to China’s landlocked southwestern Yunnan province.

Myanmar-Kyaukpyu-port-China-oil-and-gas-April-5-2016.jpg

A jetty for oil tankers is seen on Madae island, Kyaukpyu township, Rakhine state, Myanmar in this October 7, 2015 file photo. Photo: Reuters/Soe Zeya Tun
Mired by delays under Myanmar’s previous quasi-civilian government, Kyaukpyu’s development has resumed with vigor following the 2016 handover to the elected National League for Democracy (NLD) government, which appears keen to restart and expand strong commercial relations with China.

In April, Myanmar President Htin Kyaw signed a long-awaited agreement with China on a US$1.5 billion, 770-kilometer crude oil pipeline, which if developed to full capacity could in future supply as much as 6% of China’s crude oil imports.

The pipeline will crucially bypass pirate-infested waters in the narrow Malacca Straits and rising territorial tensions in the South China Sea, rerouting fuel shipments from the Middle East through Madei island in Rakhine state to China’s Yunnan province. It will also mitigate the risk of a US naval blockade of China’s fuel shipments at Malacca in a potential conflict.

On May 3, over a decade after the pipeline was first proposed, crude oil began flowing from Kyaukpyu to the new China National Petroleum Corporation-operated refinery in Yunnan. The pipeline also runs alongside a US$2 billion 2,800-kilometer natural gas pipeline, which began operations in 2014 and extends even further inland to China’s Guizhou and Guangxi provinces.

Myanmar-China-pipeline-January-25-2013.jpg

Workers weld a pipe at a construction site of the Myanmar-China natural gas pipeline. Photo: AFP Forum
Some analysts see China’s extensive scheme at Kyaukpyu as a type of consolation prize in quid pro quo exchange for the cancellation of more controversial Chinese development initiatives, namely the postponed US$3.6 billion Myitsone dam project in northern Kachin state.

Last month, Beijing signaled for the first time that it may withdrawal from the long-stalled hydro-electric scheme. The massive project, one of seven Chinese hydropower projects planned for Myanmar’s main Irrawaddy River, would have exported 90% of the energy generated from the dam’s 6000-megawatt power station to China.

The project was indefinitely suspended in 2011 in the face of widespread opposition and lingering questions about the parity of the deal, given Myanmar’s own severe energy deficits. Opponents claimed the dam project would severely thwart the flow of the Irrawaddy River, the country’s lifeline to rice-growing lowland areas.

Soe Myint Aung, an analyst at the Yangon-based Tagaung Institute, a think tank, said the quid pro quo trade-off is an open secret in Myanmar. “Strategically, it is no doubt that this Kyaukpyu pipeline and access to the Kyaukpyu seaport is more important [to China] than the Myitsone project,” he said. “The Chinese are in a position to use this as a bargaining chip.”


Graffiti on a stone at the confluence of the Mali and Nmai river at Myitsone, outside Myitkyina, capital city of Kachin state, Myanmar. Photo: Reuters/Soe Zeya Tun
China could hold Myanmar over a barrel for the estimated US$1.2 billion it has already invested in the dam project. Yun Sun, an analyst at the Stimson Center in Washington DC, told local media that penalty costs for the project’s postponement have already accrued to nearly US$800 million.

Pursuing those losses in full through confrontational legal means, however, would potentially jeopardize China’s existing commercial interests in the country, including at Kyaukpyu. A Chinese consortium led by CITIC was awarded rights to develop twin deep sea ports at Kyaukpyu in late 2015.

Recent news reports indicate that CITIC rejected an initial 50/50 ownership split proposed by Myanmar in late 2016, demanding instead as much as an 85% stake in the mega-project – an indication of its high strategic value to China’s interests.

In addition to the pipelines’ shipping advantages, a pair of deep sea ports, along with similar projects in Chittagong in Bangladesh, Colombo in Sri Lanka and Gwadar in Pakistan are referred to by strategic analysts as an emerging “string of pearls” aimed at fortifying China’s position in the Indian Ocean.

While China’s investments in Indian Ocean ports have so far been built for strictly commercial purposes, analysts suggest they could eventually be used to also host Chinese naval vessels to protect their strategic shipments from piracy and other threats.

Myanmar-Kyaukpyu-Port-Pipeline-SEZ-October-15-2015.jpg

Workers walk on a road as China’s oil pipeline project is seen in the background in Kyaukpyu township, Rakhine state, Myanmar. Photo: Reuters/Soe Zeya Tun
For Kyaukpyu’s residents, however, the pipelines have already come at a cost. Analysts and legal experts say that China’s Kyaukpyu agenda not only lacks transparency but has also shown indifference to displacing residents and imperiling the environment.

“The Chinese company has had the perception that they did not need to respect the basic rights of the affected people and have behaved as if they have the right to implement the [pipelines] at any cost,” Myanmar-China Pipeline Watch Committee (MCPWC), a local civil society organization, said in a report.

The report described widespread failure to inform and consult locals, while some farmers who signed documents did not understand that their landholdings were being “permanently confiscated” until they received compensation.

According to a February 2017 report from the International Commission of Jurists, a legal rights group, some Kyaukpyu residents were pressured into accepting compensation that left them unable to sustain their livelihoods, mostly farming and fishing.

“There’s been no public participation in decision-making processes,” claims Sean Bain, a legal consultant with ICJ and the lead writer on the February report. Local resistance is rising: in January, a group of local farmers refused a final lump payment, reportedly worth 1.75 million kyat (US$1,280), and have threatened to sue CNPC for the destruction of their farmland.


A girl and boy carry a basket of fish in Kyaukpyu township, Rakhine state, Myanmar. Photo: Reuters/Soe Zeya Tun
Some 67% of farmers interviewed by MCPWC were dissatisfied with the level of compensation paid, which allegedly was calculated only to replace crop yields, not generational land ownership. Nor has there been any indication that locals will receive preferential consideration for project construction jobs.

Those concerns have been exacerbated by the looming prospect of yet another China-backed mega-project. In December 2015, a CITIC-led consortium was awarded a 4,289-acre concession to develop a special economic zone (SEZ) at Kyaukpyu.

The project envisions a sprawling economic hub, which by its scheduled completion in 2038, could rival the economic trading hubs of Singapore and Hong Kong, according to CITIC’s ambitious promotional materials. Myanmar’s SEZ Law (2014), which includes investment enticements like tax and customs benefits, and 50-year land leases, establishes special governing bodies to oversee and manage projects.

But the managing committees are comprised of ministry officials as well as private sector representatives, creating the potential for conflicts of interest, critics say. This is compounded by a lack of clarity in terms of the committee’s responsibilities to protect locals from abuse and accountability if rights protections are not upheld, they say.

Between 70 and 80 families are expected to be relocated under the SEZ’s first phase. ICJ estimates that another 20,000 residents, about 12% of the township’s population, according to the country’s 2014 census, and area covering 35 existing villages, will be forcibly relocated if the full project goes ahead.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
(cont)
“All states have the right in certain instances to acquire land for public purposes,” Bain said, referring to so-called “eminent domain” provisions. “Our concern is that the displacement of these 20,000 people under the current conditions will result in 20,000 human rights violations.”

Myanmar-Kyaukphyu-Rakhine-State-November-1-2012.jpg

An aerial view near Kyaukphyu, in western Myanmar Rakhine state after communal violence led to arson attacks on homes in 2012. Photo: AFP/Soe Than Win
In 2016, Myanmar’s de-facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi publicly reiterated the government’s commitment to the Kyaukpyu SEZ. As an emerging democracy with significant infrastructure gaps and little in the way of technical expertise, Myanmar has extraordinary development needs.

Suu Kyi’s government has so far failed to live up to expectations of a job-creating, foreign investment-led economic boom. Rakhine state is in dire need of economic stimulus; by some metrics it is the poorest and least developed area in Myanmar. A Beijing-backed SEZ could provide thousands of low-wage jobs, primarily in garment manufacturing, but also in food processing, petrochemicals and machine assembly plants.

The oil pipeline, meanwhile, will help generate state revenues estimated provisionally at US$13.8 million in annual operating fees and a US$1 transit fee per ton of transmitted crude oil. The pipeline is designed to transmit 22 million tons per year. Myanmar will earn another US$30 billion from the natural gas pipeline over an initial 30-year period.

ICJ’s Bain acknowledges it is hard to find people “against development” in Rakhine state. But, he says, that “in order to ensure that human rights are protected and respected, and that Myanmar people can benefit from these projects, the government that says it’s committed to rule of law has to follow its own laws – and that means slowing things down.”

ICJ has recommended Myanmar amend its legal framework, especially the SEZ Law, to more comprehensively account for land use and environmental protection, and to establish formal monitoring and legal mechanisms for grievances.

RTX2M0AQ.jpg

Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi and Chinese President Xi Jinping (R) pose before a meeting in Beijing in 2016. Photo: Reuters/Rolex Dela Pena
Suu Kyi, who campaigned in 2015 on a “clean government” platform, will be wary of being branded as unduly sympathetic to Beijing’s economic and strategic interests at the expense of local residents – the same complaints that postponed Myitsone under the previous military-backed, quasi-civilian regime.

But her government doesn’t have many options, wrote Nay Myint Oo, an analyst at the CSIS Pacific Forum, a think tank. “If the NLD wants to cancel the Myitsone project, it needs to give something back to China.”

But as with Myitsone, local opposition is growing. On May 22, nearly 500 local fishermen staged a protest against the pipelines and planned ports by blocking shipping lanes used by oil tankers that they claimed have already blocked them from their fishing waters.

“If history is any guide, current and future [Myanmar] leaderships will be extremely reluctant to be seen concluding and advertising a development project that is almost fully controlled by, and beneficial to, neighboring China,” said Renaud Egreteau, an independent researcher.

“There is still in Myanmar today a widely shared suspicion of Chinese ambitions in the region.”
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
It was not too long ago the western triumphalist celebrate Myanmar tilt as victory of western democracy.
But Myanmar soon found out talk is cheap but when it come to loan or investment the west is stingy.Where is the beef?That is why Suu Kyi pivot back to China. She know only China can help her country out of poverty and close enough to make difference

The military regime want to stick it to China in order to curry favor with the west
Correct that Suu Kyi turned to Beijing because there were few other viable options for her country, especially when some of the options (Japan, India) might upset unduly China, and come with strings of their own.

Incorrect the junta wanted to stick it to China in order to curry favor with the West. The military government wanted less dependency on any single country, so they turned to the West for reasons of interests and not pique.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Correct that Suu Kyi turned to Beijing because there were few other viable options for her country, especially when some of the options (Japan, India) might upset unduly China, and come with strings of their own.

Incorrect the junta wanted to stick it to China in order to curry favor with the West. The military government wanted less dependency on any single country, so they turned to the West for reasons of interests and not pique.

Why should Japan or India consider Chinese feeling? They don't in most cases and they gleefully relish any chance to stick it to China afterall they are competitor
India is too poor and technically not up to the task to help Myanmar
Japan has the money. They are the motor behind ADB but they been sitting there folding their arm for years doing nothing.
Because they insist on high project standard and high cost for their assistance that no developing country can afford.
Sadly a lot of the elite in developing country still has this illusion that somehow the west will help them. Maybe they are spoon fed western propaganda and eat it up anti China rhetoric.
Meeting all the demand of individual compensation is costly and put the road block on any project Meanwhile nothing is done! Of course the western media sitting in their comfy chair couldn't care less but the people will pay!

Let face it instead of democrazy,regime change, war m,refugee, destroyed city, and human misery, China is actually do something to improve people live, train next gen of technician and built infrastructure to facilitate economic development like this video show.Need to rewind the video
 
Last edited:

Blackstone

Brigadier
Why should Japan or India consider Chinese feeling? They don't in most cases and they gleefully relish any chance to stick it to China afterall they are competitor
It's not about feelings, it's about national interests. Both India and Japan are worried about an assertive China and want US to contain it. Absent US, Japan and India would like to put together a balancing coalition. Whether they could pull it together is another matter.

India is too poor and technically not up to the task to help Myanmar
Japan has the money. They are the motor behind ADB but they been sitting there folding their arm for years doing nothing.
Because they insist on high project standard and high cost for their assistance that no developing country can afford.
There's what India and Japan could or could not afford, and then there's how they see where their interests lie. When people feel threatened, they will pay what they can to defend themselves. India and Japan are no exceptions.

Sadly a lot of the elite in developing country still has this illusion that somehow the west will help them. Maybe they are spoon fed western propaganda and eat it up anti China rhetoric.
Meeting all the demand of individual compensation is costly and put the road block on any project Meanwhile nothing is done! Of course the western media sitting in their comfy chair couldn't care less but the people will pay!
Simply put, America is around the Indo-Pacific because it's in its interests to do so, and most regional countries want US around to balance China.

Let face it instead of democrazy,regime change, war m,refugee, destroyed city, and human misery, China is actually do something to improve people live, train next gen of technician and built infrastructure to facilitate economic development like this video show.Need to rewind the video
So what? China is building infrastructure and handing out loans because it's in China's interests to do so. If it ever comes to using guns and bullets, it will do that too. That's what great powers do, and China's no different.
 

B.I.B.

Captain
Why should Japan or India consider Chinese feeling? They don't in most cases and they gleefully relish any chance to stick it to China afterall they are competitor
India is too poor and technically not up to the task to help Myanmar
Japan has the money. They are the motor behind ADB but they been sitting there folding their arm for years doing nothing.
Because they insist on high project standard and high cost for their assistance that no developing country can afford.
Sadly a lot of the elite in developing country still has this illusion that somehow the west will help them. Maybe they are spoon fed western propaganda and eat it up anti China rhetoric.
Meeting all the demand of individual compensation is costly and put the road block on any project Meanwhile nothing is done! Of course the western media sitting in their comfy chair couldn't care less but the people will pay!


Let face it instead of democrazy,regime change, war m,refugee, destroyed city, and human misery, China is actually do something to improve people live, train next gen of technician and built infrastructure to facilitate economic development like this video show.Need to rewind the video

While there is no doubt that China's ODI to the developing world is welcome, I dont think your viewpoint is totally correct .

for instance according to Brookings

. In recent years, Africa has received about US$30 billion annually from outside sources for infrastructure projects, and China has provided about one-sixth of that financing. In short, Chinese financing is substantial enough to contribute meaningfully to African investment and growth, but the notion that China has provided an overwhelming amount of finance and is buying up the whole continent is inaccurate. The second main finding from the study concerns

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


. and
China’s loans to Africa tend to be non-concessional, meaning they are tied to more market-based interest rates than loans from Europe and North America. The Western loans tend to come with a very low, or no, interest rate. “That’s a major difference that we see.” Chen noted. “For us, it’s really about country to country relationships, and a two-way benefit.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top