China's Westward One Belt One Road Strategy

Equation said:

No because you didn't have any proof to support your theory that's why you get mad at me for it.

Click to expand...

You should ask about my claim, instead of setting up straw mans then. Go and read your post #171 vis-a-vis my OP and tell me if you didn't mistake my words.

Again, I say most of China's neighbors want the US around to balance China. That's actually very mainstream and not controversial at all, so I'm not sure why you have a problem with me saying so.

B.I.B. said:

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!

Click to expand...

Without knowing the exact break down of what constitute outside sources of infrastructure project, It is meaningless to talk about the effectiveness of Chinese investment
As far as I know most of western investment are related to exploitation of natural resources, If that the case it does not contribute to future economic growth of the country other than stream of revenue.
Don't forget that China is newcomer in the Africa investment and the west has lead since they are the former colonial master

What I know is that since China involvement it spur the growth of Africa economy like it is never before. so number alone does not tell the whole story

Using your source they are actually bullish about China investment in Africa. You should have read the whole article Instead of pick and choose to suit your argument
Here is sample

Meanwhile, Western governments and the media have been largely negative about China’s engagement with Africa. A first recommendation for Western audiences is to take a more balanced and objective view toward a phenomenon that is naturally complex and multifaceted. The fact that public opinion surveys in Africa mostly reflect positive attitudes about China is important. If Chinese involvement were largely detrimental, that would suggest that African populations do not know where their interests lie. It is much more likely that China’s trade and investment provide benefits to African economies and that people on the ground correctly perceive this. Given the tremendous need for infrastructure and job creation in Africa, Western audiences should be pleased that China’s efforts are helping to alleviate these pressures.

As to the rate that China charge I don't think that is problem It is commercial loan after all and the money loaned come from the sweat of brow of chinese people so of course they want compensation nothing is free in this world
But having said that so long the loan is use wisely to actually build something and not wasting on study after study of expensive consultant with no result. I think it can be justified
Most Chinese worker live simply and frugally compare to luxurious expat status demanded by western contractor
Not only that most Chinese material are source locally if it available and only imported if there is no substitute. And even that is way cheaper than their western counterpart.
So if you got bigger bang for your buck why not ?

Blackstone said:

The term balance in international relations isn't vague at all, and it means states doing what they can to avoid being dominated by potential hegemons. In China's case, it means its weaker neighbors latching onto the US and hoping it doesn't leave Asia.

Click to expand...

"Doing what they can" is kind of vague also.
Btw, Why's Philippines, and Myanmar turning away from US now?

How commited is US on that? Philippines questioned US sincerity and commitment. Duerte said US only playing game and pushing Philippines to the frontline to mess around with China and took the brunt of it. Duerte said Philippine ain't doing no more of got played like a fool.

tidalwave said:

"Doing what they can" is kind of vague also.
Btw, Why's Philippines, and Myanmar turning away from US now?

How commited is US on that? Philippines questioned US sincerity and commitment. Duerte said US only playing game and pushing Philippines to the frontline to mess around with China and took the brunt of it. Duerte said Philippine ain't doing no more of got played like a fool.

Click to expand...

Myanmar and Philippines turned toward China because the former woke up to the reality Beijing is the only country writing large checks, and the latter work up to the reality US doesn't have the political will to fight China for it over rocks 8,000 miles away from home. Both countries rather get the goods from the US than from the PRC, but they can't so their national interests took them to Zhongnanhai. It doesn't negate they rather owe Uncle Sam than the Dragon.

China try to source their material domestically if the quality is good enough Like in this video

The SGR is officially handed over to Kenyan government, China can be proud finishing the project on time and within budget . Meeting the environment standard .Let see if they can maintain for years to come

Freight train officially launched

Blackstone said:

Myanmar and Philippines turned toward China because the former woke up to the reality Beijing is the only country writing large checks, and the latter work up to the reality US doesn't have the political will to fight China for it over rocks 8,000 miles away from home. Both countries rather get the goods from the US than from the PRC, but they can't so their national interests took them to Zhongnanhai. It doesn't negate they rather owe Uncle Sam than the Dragon.

Click to expand...

Myanmar and Philippines aren't US core interest, so no wonder US doesn't take them seriously. Any countries tangle with US should know what rank its holding otherwise, it would be totally disappointed.

North Korea issue is US core interest.

tidalwave said:

Myanmar and Philippines aren't US core interest, so no wonder US doesn't take them seriously. Any countries tangle with US should know what rank its holding otherwise, it would be totally disappointed.

North Korea issue is US core interest.

Click to expand...

Myanmar and Philippines help in US containment of China, so having them on board is better than losing them to China. Conversely, Myanmar and Philippines in China's orbit makes it easier for China to grab and hold the SCS, and so secures China's soft underbelly.

Hendrik_2000 said:

Without knowing the exact break down of what constitute outside sources of infrastructure project, It is meaningless to talk about the effectiveness of Chinese investment
As far as I know most of western investment are related to exploitation of natural resources, If that the case it does not contribute to future economic growth of the country other than stream of revenue.
Don't forget that China is newcomer in the Africa investment and the west has lead since they are the former colonial master

What I know is that since China involvement it spur the growth of Africa economy like it is never before. so number alone does not tell the whole story.
All your other comments are irrelevant to the point I was making.

Using your source they are actually bullish about China investment in Africa. You should have read the whole article Instead of pick and choose to suit your argument
Here is sample

Meanwhile, Western governments and the media have been largely negative about China’s engagement with Africa. A first recommendation for Western audiences is to take a more balanced and objective view toward a phenomenon that is naturally complex and multifaceted. The fact that public opinion surveys in Africa mostly reflect positive attitudes about China is important. If Chinese involvement were largely detrimental, that would suggest that African populations do not know where their interests lie. It is much more likely that China’s trade and investment provide benefits to African economies and that people on the ground correctly perceive this. Given the tremendous need for infrastructure and job creation in Africa, Western audiences should be pleased that China’s efforts are helping to alleviate these pressures.

As to the rate that China charge I don't think that is problem It is commercial loan after all and the money loaned come from the sweat of brow of chinese people so of course they want compensation nothing is free in this world
But having said that so long the loan is use wisely to actually build something and not wasting on study after study of expensive consultant with no result. I think it can be justified
Most Chinese worker live simply and frugally compare to luxurious expat status demanded by western contractor
Not only that most Chinese material are source locally if it available and only importmy ined if there is no substitute. And even that is way cheaper than their western counterpart.
So if you got bigger bang for your buck why not ?

Click to expand...

No I was not cherry picking, but selected the piece that contradicted your claim highlighted below.that loans from other countries were few or non existent and at exorbitant rates/conditions.
FYI if it was intention to pour cold water on Chinas ODI's in Africa, there are plenty of passages I could have high lighted.
and whats wrong to building to a high standard. Better that than a inferior one, if that's what you are suggesting

you said
"because they insist on high project standard and high cost for their assistance that no developing country can afford."

When in fact the biggest investment still comes from the west and unlike China they are interest free or a very low interest they just demand a greater degree of transparency,. while China charges ruling or non concessional rates West don't do President to President deals which the recipient may not really need. such as sports stadiums in the South Pacific which China is pretty good at supplying.

As I said before we don't know what he consider as foreign investment in africa Does he mean total investment until now or is yearly investment to africa and what kind of investment did he consider as infrastructure investment
So to say that chinese contribution is negligible base on what. He doesn't have number or graph
I never heard the west built railway or power plant , port in Africa I might be wrong

Higher standard mean the project will be investigated to death by wasting million on study after study while nothing is done See China built Kenya railroad in 2 and half year. Don't forget that China forgive billion of loan to Africa because they can't afford to pay back. Talking about generosity

China-built railway biggest Kenya project since independence

TOM ODULA
May 30, 2017

View photos
Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, 3rd left, watches during the opening of the SGR cargo train from the port containers depot in Mombasa Kenya, to Nairobi, Tuesday, May 30, 2017. The president opened the country's largest infrastructure project since independence, a Chinese-backed railway costing nearly $3.3 billion that eventually will link a large part of East Africa to a major port on the Indian Ocean as China seeks to increase trade and influence. (AP Photo/Khalil Senosi)
MOMBASA, Kenya (AP) — Kenya's president on Tuesday opened the country's largest infrastructure project since independence, a Chinese-backed railway costing nearly $3.3 billion that eventually will link a large part of East Africa to a major port on the Indian Ocean as China seeks to increase trade and influence.

The railway replaces part of the 660-mile (1,062-kilometer) line known as the "lunatic express," which was built by the British more than a century ago and linked Lake Victoria with the port city of Mombasa. Kenya Railways says the newly opened stretch will reduce passengers' travel time from the capital, Nairobi, to Mombasa from more than 10 hours to four.

The Chinese-funded, Chinese-constructed project has drawn criticism from some observers who call it overpriced; its cost represents about 5 percent of Kenya's GDP. Activists have blocked the railway's second phase with a court order because of concerns about the impact on wildlife as it cuts across Nairobi National Park. Passengers on Monday's journey saw dozens of elephants, zebras and other wildlife en route to the coast.

The newly opened railway is the first phase of a project to connect Kenya's landlocked neighbors Uganda, Rwanda and South Sudan to Mombasa. Construction of this 301-mile section was scheduled to be completed in December, but observers said President Uhuru Kenyatta's government hastened its launch to boost his re-election bid in August.

Uganda, Kenya's main trading partner, is expected to start construction of the link between its capital, Kampala, and Kenya's Malaba border post later this year. Construction is expected to take four years, during which time Kenya is expected to extend its line to Malaba.

China is Africa's top trade partner and the world's second largest economy. Last year, a largely Chinese-financed and Chinese-built railway opened between landlocked Ethiopia, one of the continent's fastest-growing economies, and a major port on the Gulf of Aden in Djibouti.

And China has more planned for Africa as part of its "Belt and Road" project, its largest foreign initiative to date with multibillion-dollar investments in ports, railways and other facilities. Kenyatta was one of many heads of state attending China's forum on the project earlier this month.

Kenya looks forward to the effects on trade. "I expect significant and positive economic spillover effects," said Aly Khan Satchu, a Nairobi-based investment consultant. "There has been a lot of chatter about the need to move 100 million low-cost manufacturing jobs out of China, and this positions Kenya as a possible beneficiary and recipient of that transfer."

Poor infrastructure has hurt economic activity through much of Africa. As Kenya's old railway fell behind on repairs due to corruption, the main road from Nairobi to Mombasa became the main link to the port. The two-lane road has become clogged with vehicles and accidents.

The new railway should benefit tourism, said Mohammed Hersi, chairman of Kenya Coast Tourism Association. But a concern is Kenya's ability to maintain it once the Chinese hand it over, he said.

Kenya Railways has said the Chinese will run the railway for five years before handing it over. The Chinese government-owned Export-Import Bank of China funded 90 percent of the railway project, while Kenya's government chipped in 10 percent.

______

This version corrects to say the Chinese will run the railway for five years.

Blackstone said:

Myanmar and Philippines help in US containment of China, so having them on board is better than losing them to China. Conversely, Myanmar and Philippines in China's orbit makes it easier for China to grab and hold the SCS, and so secures China's soft underbelly.

Click to expand...

Lol, no free lunch! Those 2 countries expect to be rewarded big time by US. But they are no core interests, US not willing to shell out anything significant.