
Poor Countries Set To Pay $22billion For China Debt
New research from the Lowy Institute shows the world's poorest countries will make record high debt repayments to China this year.
, RNZ Pacific Senior Journalist
New research from the Lowy Institute shows the world's poorest countries will make record high debt repayments to China this year.
The research, released last month, showed China is set to call in US$22 billion for debts from 75 countries assessed by the World Bank as the world's poorest and most vulnerable in 2025.
Ten Pacific nations were on the list.
China's foreign ministry, meanwhile, denies Beijing is responsible for developing debt.
Lowy research author Riley Duke said China had shifted from lead bilateral banker to chief debt collector for the developing world.
'Because of the large amount of lending that China did in the mid-2010s, and the way it structured its loans through its Belt-and-Road initiative, this year, it is seeing a huge spike in repayments,' he said.
For Pacific countries that had borrowed from China, Duke said repayment strain was already an issue. He identified Tonga, Samoa and Vanuatu as being at higher risk due to respective loans.
In Tonga, the impact of Chinese loans had been a 'big political issue' this year. Duke anticipated that about 15 percent of the government's revenue over the next few years would be devoted to debt repayments.
'Last year, Tonga spent more on its debt repayments than it did on health for its citizens,' he said.
'And so when we look at the….forward outlook, there are more challenges on the horizon. There are key development issues across the Pacific that countries and their governments and their people want to be dealing with.
'But instead, these debt burdens are there and they're persistent.
'Again, just to focus on Tonga…. [it] ran five successful budget surpluses in the lead-up to having a big wave of Chinese debt repayments coming in.
'But then it faced huge economic costs from the pandemic, from the earthquake, from cyclones, and so that wiped out all the money that [the government] had put aside.'
Duke believed the amount of China's lending into the region was less than a quarter of the level it was in the mid-2010s.
'I'd be surprised to see any new large loans from China in the region, and I think related to that is the broader topic of whether Pacific countries should take on lots of debt.
'Pacific countries have large financing gaps. There's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built, and sometimes loans are the best way to do that, and ultimately that just comes back to the quality of the project.
'People are a bit afraid of debt, and I think it's a bit…of a dirty word, but if a loan is taken out to finance a project that is good for economic growth, good for a Pacific country [because] it drives connectivity [and] it drives the economy, then it's a good loan, and it's good debt to take on, and it will pay itself back.'
He said there had also been a shift in how China engaged with the region.
'China's main form of engagement with the Pacific 15 years ago was lending. I think 80 percent of all of China's development financing to the region was in the form of loans, and that's fallen off dramatically since around 2018.'
That shift was due to a range of factors, including increased financing options for Pacific governments, Duke said.
'In 2010, China might have been the only partner offering large-scale infrastructure financing.
'Australia is now offering more financing in that space. The World Bank is offering more financing in that space; there's climate funds that are also offering adaptation projects and adaptation infrastructure.
'So there are more options on the table for Pacific countries than there was previously. And I think that is part of the reason that China's lending has declined.'
China's foreign ministry denied Beijing was responsible for developing debt.
'China's cooperation on investment and financing with developing countries follows international practice, market principles, and the principle of debt sustainability,' spokesperson Mao Ning said.
'A handful of countries are spreading the narrative that China is responsible for these countries' debt.
'However, they ignore the fact that multilateral financial institutions and commercial creditors from developed countries are the main creditors of developing countries, and the primary source of debt repayment pressure.
'Lies cannot cover truth and people can tell right from wrong.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
Cook Islands 'Open To Anything' For Seabed Mining Partnerships
Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist A director at the Cook Islands Seabed Minerals Authority (SMBA) says that, as a small island nation, the Cook Islands is always looking to partner with other jurisdictions. Last week, on the sidelines of its 60th anniversary of self-governance, the Cook Islands and United States agreed to work together"to advance scientific research and the responsible development of seabed mineral resources". SMBA's partnerships and cooperation director Edward Herman said it is useful for the Cook Islands to collaborate. "We're always available to collaborate and partner with any jurisdictions [or] any institutions," he said. "We have quite a few of these arrangements anyway. This is more of a formal arrangement and the US felt this was appropriate to do a joint statement." He told ABC Pacific that the US is sending its research vessel Nautilus to the Cook Islands. In February, the Cook Islands and China signed a five-year agreement to cooperate in exploring and researching the Pacific nation's seabed minerals. Herman told RNZ Pacific that it is a similarly high-level agreement. "Primarily, from the Cook Islands' perspective, [the agreement with China] is building on our research capacity," he said. "We want technology, resourcing, ships if we can. We'd be open to anything that's available in terms of collaboration." Te Ipukarea Society president June Hosking thinks that having several eyes on research is good, but hopes countries are not using the Cook Islands as a testing ground. "Would they think that they could come to our waters and try that out for real, rather than in their own waters? That's what would worry me - anyone coming in, do they actually care about our place?" US interest in deep sea mining has grown. In April, the US opened a pathway to deep sea mining in the high seas through its own regulations, outside the International Seabed Authority. This has created a stir, with some accusing the US of breaching international law. The joint statement between the two countries on 5 August said the Cook Islands was a leader in seabed mineral exploration of its own waters and recognised the economic potential of the resources. "The United States of America and the Cook Islands are proud US-linked firms sit at the forefront of deep seabed mineral research and exploration in the Cook Islands, which reflects strong and shared US-Cook Islands seabed minerals interests," it said. "The Cook Islands, with its vast maritime natural resources, and the United States of America, with its expertise in oceanic research and technology, are uniquely positioned to work together to ensure that the exploration and development of seabed mineral resources are guided by rigorous gold standard science and best practices."

RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Trump says Ukraine needs to make a deal after summit with Putin ends without ceasefire
By Steve Holland and Andrew Osborn US President Donald Trump (R) and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands at the end of a joint press conference after participating in a US-Russia summit on Ukraine at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska. Photo: AFP / DREW ANGERER US President Donald Trump said Ukraine should agree a deal to end the war with Russia because "Russia is a very big power, and they're not", after holding a summit with President Vladimir Putin that failed to yield a ceasefire. In a major shift, Trump also said he had agreed with Putin that the best way to end the war was to go straight to a peace settlement - not via a ceasefire, as Ukraine and its European allies, until now with US support, have been demanding. Trump's comments came after he met Putin for nearly three hours in Alaska on Friday (local time) at the first US-Russia summit since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. "It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump posted on Truth social. The war - the deadliest in Europe for 80 years - has killed or wounded well over a million people from both sides, including thousands of mostly Ukrainian civilians, according to analysts. Trump said he would hold talks at the White House with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Monday, adding: "If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved." Zelenskiy said after a lengthy conversation with Trump following the Alaska summit that Ukraine was ready for constructive cooperation, and he supported the idea of a trilateral meeting. "Ukraine reaffirms its readiness to work with maximum effort to achieve peace," he wrote on social media. But Putin made no mention of meeting Zelenskiy when speaking to reporters earlier. Russian state news agency TASS quoted Putin's foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov as saying the possibility of a three-way summit including Zelenskiy had not been discussed. In a post-summit interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Trump signaled that he and Putin had discussed potential land swaps and security guarantees for Ukraine. "I think those are points that we negotiated, and those are points that we largely have agreed on," Trump said. "I think we're pretty close to a deal," he said, adding: "Ukraine has to agree to it. Maybe they'll say no." When asked by Hannity what he would advise Zelenskiy, Trump said: "Gotta make a deal." "Look, Russia is a very big power, and they're not. They're great soldiers," he added. Zelenskiy has repeatedly underlined the importance of security guarantees for Kyiv as part of any deal, to deter Russia from launching a new invasion at some point in the future. "We also discussed positive signals from the American side regarding participation in guaranteeing Ukraine's security," he said after his call with Trump. Before the summit, Trump had set the goal of agreeing on a ceasefire in the war and said he would not be happy without it. Putin signaled no movement in Russia's long-held positions on the war, but said he agreed with Trump that Ukraine's security must be "ensured". "We are ready to work on this. I would like to hope that the understanding we have reached will allow us to get closer to that goal and open the way to peace in Ukraine," Putin said at a brief media appearance after the summit where neither leader took questions. He added: "We expect that Kyiv and the European capitals will perceive all of this in a constructive manner and will not create any obstacles. That they will not attempt to disrupt the emerging progress through provocation or behind-the-scenes intrigue." For Putin, the very fact of sitting down face-to-face with the US president represented a diplomatic victory. The Kremlin leader had been ostracized by Western leaders since the start of the war, and just a week earlier had been facing a threat of new sanctions from Trump. Some commentators, especially in Europe, were scathing in their reaction. "Putin got his red carpet treatment with Trump, while Trump got nothing. As feared: no ceasefire, no peace," Wolfgang Ischinger, an ex-German ambassador to the United States, posted on X. "No real progress - a clear 1-0 for Putin - no new sanctions. For the Ukrainians: nothing. For Europe: deeply disappointing." Tatiana Stanovaya, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, said: "Now Trump seems to be shifting most of the responsibility to Kyiv and Europe, but reserving some role for himself." She said, however, that Putin had apparently not succeeded as far as he had hoped in getting Trump to publicly side with him and put pressure on Kyiv. Cold War historian Sergey Radchenko wrote: "Putin is a determined opponent, and, yes, he basically won this round because he got something for nothing. Still, Trump did not sell out Ukraine." After Trump returned to Washington, the White House said he spoke to NATO leaders following the lengthy conversation with Zelenskiy. Espen Barth Eide, foreign minister of NATO member Norway, told reporters in Oslo: "We must continue to put pressure on Russia, and even increase it." Czech Defence Minister Jana Cernochova said the summit had not yielded significant progress toward ending the war but "confirmed that Putin is not seeking peace, but rather an opportunity to weaken Western unity and spread his propaganda." Both Russia and Ukraine carried out overnight air attacks, a daily occurrence in the 3-1/2-year war. Russia launched 85 attack drones and a ballistic missile targeting Ukraine's territory, Ukraine's Air Force said on Saturday. It said its air defense units destroyed 61 of them. The General Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces said 139 clashes had taken place on the front line over the past day. Russia said its air defences intercepted and destroyed 29 Ukrainian drones overnight. Trump told Fox that he would hold off on imposing tariffs on China for buying Russian oil after making progress with Putin. He did not mention India, another major buyer of Russian crude, which has been slapped with a total 50 percent tariff on US imports that includes a 25 percent penalty for the imports from Russia. "Because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that now," Trump said of Chinese tariffs. "I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now." Trump ended his remarks on Friday by telling Putin, "I'd like to thank you very much, and we'll speak to you very soon and probably see you again very soon." "Next time in Moscow," a smiling Putin responded in English. Trump said he might "get a little heat on that one" but that he could "possibly see it happening." - Reuters


NZ Herald
15 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Cabinet minister Goldsmith involved in Seymour's UN letter controversy
On July 1, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisers sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. 'Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your minister before we sent it off,' the email read. Act leader David Seymour sent a blunt letter to the UN after consulting Paul Goldsmith. Photo / Mark Mitchell 'It is a little more direct than what MFAT [Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade] might draft. Please let me know if your minister is happy.' Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of July 3, Seymour's adviser emailed him: 'Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka.' Seymour replied: 'Okay, great.' His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: 'When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine.' A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Emails between Seymour's staff in June canvassed the options for responding to the UN and noted MFAT's preferred approach was a joint reply from 'relevant ministers' Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a Government-wide letter on August 11, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the 'breakdown in protocol'. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K. Barume, had raised concerns on June 12 about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique 'presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced' and 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: 'I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN'. – RNZ