China, a legitimate contender to the U.S.-led world order, fundamentally challenges the doctrine of American exceptionalism – the basic tenet of U.S. national identity.
There is a long-term impact that short-sighted western thinking probably ignores or can't see. On its face, the Belt and Road initiative is one that aims to create ties with developing countries but also lift them up and develop their own economic independence. We know that the IMF and the World Bank use their loans as a way to punch a hole into the political apparatus of the borrower country. They often add stipulations to the loans that require lots of austerity measures, privatizing existing public services, and opening the country up to foreign investors.
These positive initiatives obviously will engender a more collaborative relationship with the borrowers and China, and also expand China's own economic footprint. These are relationships that the IMF and World Bank have left on the table for one reason or another. With China presenting as an alternative to the IMF/World Bank, it also acts in taking these borrowers off the table, and could insulate them against western capital interference.
This leads me to speculate what the future looks like as these nations develop in this way. Obviously, their relationship with China will have an impact on their own development. I hesitate to say state that "China will be influencing their development" as most reactionary thought would decode that statement as "bad". However, if we observe the relations that result from the mutual impacts on borrowers and the IMF/World Bank, relations that can only be hostile and regressive, we can extrapolate that the relations resulting from Belt and Road will be the inverse. As China develops these nations, there is no way that they do not leave some lasting impression on those nations, these forces impact each other mutually and by the act of providing this aid in the way they provide it, they are inevitably leaving impressions as they do so.
Now, I don't believe that every Belt and Road member is suddenly going to become some Chinese style socialist project from some infrastructure loans, but I am saying that it'll be harder to facilitate reactionary tendencies against China in these member nations as a result of their mutual relationship. This network of mutual rations with China will come back to haunt western powers as they inevitably have to deal with growing unrest in their own capital network. They may see themselves having to make deals with resource rich and well-developed countries that are not in their favor, and could see themselves on the other side of the economic fence.
There are plenty of assumptions baked into all this nonsense I just wrote out, so take it all with a grain of salt if you will. I'm just some armchair geopolitics observer, at the end of the day!
These are relationships that the IMF and World Bank have left on the table for one reason or another.
Michael Hudson has written on how Western financial institutions treat loans to the third/developing world as tools for keeping the states in line rather than as profit devices. Recoupments get kicked down the road, unless a government comes into power that threatens international capital. Then the loans become due, domestic spending dries up as wealth flows out, continue until the Western-friendly opposition is elected or couped into power.
In doing some googling while writing this comment, I also came across this: The Hypocrisy and Facts of the United States Foreign Aid posted by the CPC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which I am only now just reading, but I feel like aligns with what I wrote funny enough.
There is a long-term impact that short-sighted western thinking probably ignores or can't see. On its face, the Belt and Road initiative is one that aims to create ties with developing countries but also lift them up and develop their own economic independence. We know that the IMF and the World Bank use their loans as a way to punch a hole into the political apparatus of the borrower country. They often add stipulations to the loans that require lots of austerity measures, privatizing existing public services, and opening the country up to foreign investors.
There does not appear to be any kind of motivation like that on China's part. In fact, they regularly restructure loans with their borrowers, and have in the past forgiven debt to their belt and road partners.
These positive initiatives obviously will engender a more collaborative relationship with the borrowers and China, and also expand China's own economic footprint. These are relationships that the IMF and World Bank have left on the table for one reason or another. With China presenting as an alternative to the IMF/World Bank, it also acts in taking these borrowers off the table, and could insulate them against western capital interference.
This leads me to speculate what the future looks like as these nations develop in this way. Obviously, their relationship with China will have an impact on their own development. I hesitate to say state that "China will be influencing their development" as most reactionary thought would decode that statement as "bad". However, if we observe the relations that result from the mutual impacts on borrowers and the IMF/World Bank, relations that can only be hostile and regressive, we can extrapolate that the relations resulting from Belt and Road will be the inverse. As China develops these nations, there is no way that they do not leave some lasting impression on those nations, these forces impact each other mutually and by the act of providing this aid in the way they provide it, they are inevitably leaving impressions as they do so.
Now, I don't believe that every Belt and Road member is suddenly going to become some Chinese style socialist project from some infrastructure loans, but I am saying that it'll be harder to facilitate reactionary tendencies against China in these member nations as a result of their mutual relationship. This network of mutual rations with China will come back to haunt western powers as they inevitably have to deal with growing unrest in their own capital network. They may see themselves having to make deals with resource rich and well-developed countries that are not in their favor, and could see themselves on the other side of the economic fence.
There are plenty of assumptions baked into all this nonsense I just wrote out, so take it all with a grain of salt if you will. I'm just some armchair geopolitics observer, at the end of the day!
Michael Hudson has written on how Western financial institutions treat loans to the third/developing world as tools for keeping the states in line rather than as profit devices. Recoupments get kicked down the road, unless a government comes into power that threatens international capital. Then the loans become due, domestic spending dries up as wealth flows out, continue until the Western-friendly opposition is elected or couped into power.
In doing some googling while writing this comment, I also came across this: The Hypocrisy and Facts of the United States Foreign Aid posted by the CPC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which I am only now just reading, but I feel like aligns with what I wrote funny enough.