News Forum - Nong Khai bridge the final step in China-Laos-Thailand Railway

[Vince]

2 minutes ago, nobusinessofurs said:

The proof is in the pudding.

The article supports my snide comment about debt forgiveness :-D 

[Stardust]

9 hours ago, Vince said:

China is a large market for Thai goods. If Thailand let's itself be a huge market for Chinese goods, wiping out local production and manufacturing (I.e. the United States), it could be something else. 

I recall reading that the new Laos-China rail was built using Chinese labor.  But one of the benefits of rail projects is to act as a stimulus for local jobs - so the money flows back into the community. 

If Thailand builds a high speed rail using Thai labor where possible, to promote the Thai economy, it's a definite win :-) 

And not forget not paid by China by a loan trap and then were in trouble to refinance the debts and lost their state electricity company as a result. To understand this you have to know Lao is the battery of south east asia (hydrogen power). The IMF warned about the high debts because it is impossible to get enough benefit to make it profitable ( high construction costs because Laos has many mountains).

[Vince]

2 minutes ago, Stardust said:

And not forget not paid by China by a loan trap and then were in trouble to refinance the debts and lost their state electricity company as a result. To understand this you have to know Lao is the battery of south east asia (hydrogen power). The IMF warned about the high debts because it is impossible to get enough benefit to make it profitable ( high construction costs because Laos has many mountains).

Hydrogen or hydropower? I didn't know they were big electric producers. 

Does Thailand use Lao electricity? 

[Poolie]

5 minutes ago, Vince said:

Having read only the first few paragraphs it's a great piece of Chinese 'apologetics' - the Chinese did nothing wrong in lending to a bad borrower (???) And it was all his idea (!) and he messed it up, and China didn't get a swap (!) He still has to pay back the debt!

Even worse! 

Was this written by China, comrade? :-) 

No, by an Indian in Australia. Didnt read it eh? Typical. Never learn. Tut tut.

[Poolie]

7 minutes ago, Vince said:

The article supports my snide comment about debt forgiveness :-D 

No. You have to READ the article before you can claim any credit.

[Vince]

Just now, Poolie said:

No, by an Indian in Australia. Didnt read it eh? Typical. Never learn. Tut tut.

I told you what I read. I'll quote it and mock it again for you if you like. 

It might have been published by an Indian in Australia, doesn't mean it wasn't paid for - and directed by - Chinese PR apparatchiks. Tut Tut. 

[Poolie]

1 minute ago, Vince said:

I told you what I read. I'll quote it and mock it again for you if you like. 

It might have been published by an Indian in Australia, doesn't mean it wasn't paid for - and directed by - Chinese PR apparatchiks. Tut Tut. 

Desperation. I can smell it from here.

[Vince]

1 minute ago, Poolie said:

No. You have to READ the article before you can claim any credit.

In your Chinese PR puff piece it says:

"There was also no debt-for-asset swap. Rather, after bargaining hard to protect its bottom line, a Chinese state-owned enterprise (SOE) leased the port for $1.1 billion, which Sri Lanka used to pay down debts to other creditors and boost its foreign reserves. The debt to China will still need to be fully repaid. Finally, China’s navy vessels cannot use the port, which will instead house Sri Lanka’s own southern naval command." 

I said "the Chinese don't forgive loans". 

Your article says they don't forgive loans. 

I guess I misread your article? 

[Vince]

1 minute ago, Poolie said:

Desperation. I can smell it from here.

A great reply! I'll quote your puff piece. I don't mind. It's fun to mock! :-D 

[Bluesofa]

40 minutes ago, Poolie said:

Somebody has been feeding too heavily on the western media.

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/debunking-myth-china-s-debt-trap-diplomacy

Another interesting article.

(from the link above:)
[quote]
'Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.'
'In short, the Hambantota Port case shows little evidence of Chinese strategy, but lots of evidence for poor governance on the recipient side.'
[endquote]

This goes back to my post earlier: "Never underestimate the stupidity of your customers."
 

[quote]
Most importantly, as Hambantota Port shows, recipient countries play a critical role in shaping the BRI. China’s development financing is recipient-driven, and China simply cannot force other nations to accept projects on their territory. Unless recipients allow Chinese SOEs to undertake projects, secure their operations, and approve the loans financing their work, BRI projects won’t go ahead. The BRI is, therefore, built piecemeal through bilateral interactions between China and recipients, not from a Chinese blueprint.
[endquote]

'China simply cannot force other nations to accept projects on their territory.'    That seems to me a rather simplistic statement, almost a China apologist.
It doesn't take into account other nations wanting to develop infrastructure, as well as behind the scenes pressuring by China trying to get other nations to sign-up to some of these projects, which I am sure does go on.

Recently Australia took as stand against China over a dispute, which resulted in China retaliating by banning Australian exports to China.
(Someone will I'm sure be along soon to furnish the details)

 

edit: @Vince   I see we both came up with the same phrase independently: China apologist.

[Vince]

1 hour ago, Bluesofa said:

Another interesting article.

(from the link above:)
[quote]
'Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.'
'In short, the Hambantota Port case shows little evidence of Chinese strategy, but lots of evidence for poor governance on the recipient side.'
[endquote]

This goes back to my post earlier: "Never underestimate the stupidity of your customers."
 

[quote]
Most importantly, as Hambantota Port shows, recipient countries play a critical role in shaping the BRI. China’s development financing is recipient-driven, and China simply cannot force other nations to accept projects on their territory. Unless recipients allow Chinese SOEs to undertake projects, secure their operations, and approve the loans financing their work, BRI projects won’t go ahead. The BRI is, therefore, built piecemeal through bilateral interactions between China and recipients, not from a Chinese blueprint.
[endquote]

'China simply cannot force other nations to accept projects on their territory.'    That seems to me a rather simplistic statement, almost a China apologist.
It doesn't take into account other nations wanting to develop infrastructure, as well as behind the scenes pressuring by China trying to get other nations to sign-up to some of these projects, which I am sure does go on.

Recently Australia took as stand against China over a dispute, which resulted in China retaliating by banning Australian exports to China.
(Someone will I'm sure be along soon to furnish the details)

edit: @Vince   I see we both came up with the same phrase independently: China apologist.

Indeed. Looks like @Poolie gave up. I was having fun! 

But that fake-article is an easy target :-D 

[Bluesofa]

12 minutes ago, Vince said:

Indeed. Looks like @Poolie gave up. I was having fun! 

But that fake-article is an easy target :-D 

(from the article:)
"Lee Jones and I [Shahar Hameiri] argue, however, that the assumptions underlying Australia’s response to the BRI are mistaken."

Interesting using the word 'argue'.

 

[Vince]

6 minutes ago, Bluesofa said:

(from the article:)
"Lee Jones and I [Shahar Hameiri] argue, however, that the assumptions underlying Australia’s response to the BRI are mistaken."

Interesting using the word 'argue'.

The website appears to be an "open contribution" model with an odd collection of some pro-China pro-BRI articles spontaneously written and not directed by China in any way ;-)