logo
Poor Countries Set To Pay $22billion For China Debt

Poor Countries Set To Pay $22billion For China Debt

Scoopa day ago

Article – RNZ
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.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?
The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?

Scoop

time8 hours ago

  • Scoop

The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?

Article – RNZ The ACT leader's comments raise questions about how forms are changing the way people engage with politics. , (Ngāpuhi, Te Māhurehure, Ngāti Manu) Longform Journalist, Te Ao Māori A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill, led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 'bots' generating 'fake' submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to 'online campaigns' that generate 'non-representative samples' that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools used across the political spectrum Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be 'pretty difficult'. 'You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard.' The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. 'You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions.' The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. 'The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value.' Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. 'It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission.' However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. 'The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that.' But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. 'For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times.' But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. 'Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic,' he said. 'It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar.' AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. 'Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised,' Williams said. 'Every single case on its merits' Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. 'When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing,' he said. 'But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits.' Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. 'The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. 'To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process.'

The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?
The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?

Scoop

time9 hours ago

  • Scoop

The David Seymour ‘Bots' Debate: Do Online Submission Tools Help Or Hurt Democracy?

Article – RNZ The ACT leader's comments raise questions about how forms are changing the way people engage with politics. , (Ngāpuhi, Te Māhurehure, Ngāti Manu) Longform Journalist, Te Ao Māori A discussion document on a Regulatory Standards Bill is not, on the face of it, the sort of thing that might have been expected to prompt 23,000 responses. But in an age of digital democracy, the Ministry for Regulation was probably expecting it. The bill, led by ACT Party leader David Seymour, is controversial. It sparked a response from activists, who used online tools to help people make their opposition known. Of the 23,000 submissions, 88 percent were opposed. Seymour this week told RNZ's 'bots' generating 'fake' submissions. He did not provide evidence for the claim and later explained he wasn't referring to literal bots but to 'online campaigns' that generate 'non-representative samples' that don't reflect public opinion. Seymour has previous experience with this sort of thing. The Treaty Principles Bill got a record 300,000 submissions when it was considered by the Justice Committee earlier this year. Is Seymour right to have raised concerns about how these tools are affecting public debate? Or are they a boon for democracy? Submission tools used across the political spectrum Submission tools are commonly used by advocacy groups to mobilise public input during the select committee process. The online tools often offer a template for users to fill out or suggested wording that can be edited or submitted as is. Each submission is usually still sent by the individual. Taxpayers' Union spokesperson Jordan Williams said submitting to Parliament used to be 'pretty difficult'. 'You'd have to write a letter and things like that. What the tools do allow is for people to very easily and quickly make their voice heard.' The tools being used now are part of sophisticated marketing campaigns, Williams said. 'You do get pressure groups that take particular interest, and it blows out the numbers, but that doesn't mean that officials should be ruling them out or refusing to engage or read submissions.' The Taxpayers' Union has created submission tools in the past, but Williams said he isn't in favour of tools that don't allow the submitter to alter the submission. He has encouraged supporters to change the contents of the submission to ensure it is original. 'The ones that we are pretty suspicious of is when it doesn't allow the end user to actually change the submission, and in effect, it just operates like a petition, which I don't think quite has the same democratic value.' Clerk of the House of Representatives David Wilson said campaigns that see thousands of similar submissions on proposed legislation are not new, they've just taken a different form. 'It's happened for many, many years. It used to be photocopied forms. Now, often it's things online that you can fill out. And there's nothing wrong with doing that. It's a legitimate submission.' However, Wilson pointed out that identical responses would likely be grouped by the select committee and treated as one submission. 'The purpose of the select committee calling for public submissions is so that the members of the committee can better inform themselves about the issues. They're looking at the bill, thinking about whether it needs to be amended or whether it should pass. So if they receive the same view from hundreds of people, they will know that.' But that isn't to say those submissions are discredited, Wilson said. 'For example, the committee staff would say, you've received 10,000 submissions that all look exactly like this. So members will know how many there were and what they said. But I don't know if there's any point in all of the members individually reading the same thing that many times.' But Williams said there were risks in treating similar submissions created using 'tools' as one submission. 'Treating those ones as if they are all identical is not just wrong, it's actually undemocratic,' he said. 'It's been really concerning that, under the current parliament, they are trying to carte blanche, reject people's submissions, because a lot of them are similar.' AI should be used to analyse submissions and identify the unique points. 'Because if people are going to take the time and make a submission to Parliament, at the very least, the officials should be reading them or having them summarised,' Williams said. 'Every single case on its merits' Labour MP Duncan Webb is a member of the Justice Committee and sat in on oral submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill. He said he attempted to read as many submissions as possible. 'When you get a stock submission, which is a body of text that is identical and it's just been clicked and dragged, then you don't have to read them all, because you just know that there are 500 people who think exactly the same thing,' he said. 'But when you get 500 postcards, which each have three handwritten sentences on them, they may all have the same theme, they may all be from a particular organisation, but the individual thoughts that have been individually expressed. So you can't kind of categorise it as just one size fits all. You've got to take every single case on its merits.' Webb said he takes the select committee process very seriously. 'The thing that struck me was, sure, you read a lot [of submissions] which are repetitive, but then all of a sudden you come across one which actually changes the way you think about the problem in front of you. 'To kind of dismiss that as just one of a pile from this organisation is actually denying someone who's got an important point to make, their voice in the democratic process.'

Explainer: The Saga Of Samoa's State Affairs And What Comes Next
Explainer: The Saga Of Samoa's State Affairs And What Comes Next

Scoop

time10 hours ago

  • Scoop

Explainer: The Saga Of Samoa's State Affairs And What Comes Next

Article – RNZ The year 2025 was only days old when Samoa's political system hit turbulence., RNZ Pacific Journalist The year 2025 was only days old when Samoa's political system hit turbulence. Samoan Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata'afa removed La'auli Leuatea Schmidt as Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in the second week of January. A government statement said this matter arose following the formal announcement of allegations implicating the minister. La'auli faced several criminal charges, and speculation raged in Samoa and on social media, prompting the police commissioner to clarify the charges against him. Fiame removed several more ministers before La'auli – still the chairman of FAST – turned around and sacked the prime minister from her own party. The Samoan diaspora in New Zealand expressed their concerns, holding a prayer gathering in Auckland earlier this year. Fiame faced two votes of no confidence, her first on 25 February and her second on 6 March. But last month she conceded defeat after her government's budget was voted down. MPs from both the opposition Human Rights Protection Party and Fiame's former FAST party joined forces to defeat the budget with the final vote coming in 34 against, 16 in support and 2 abstentions. Who is involved Prime Minister Fiame led a faction of 15 MPs, including notable figures like now-former deputy prime minister Tuala Iosefo Ponifasio. The other FAST party faction is led by La'auli, while long-serving opposition leader and former prime minister, Tuila'epa Sa'ilele Malielegaoi, heads the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP). In 2021, La'auli stepped aside to allow Fiame to lead the FAST party during the elections. Both FAST and HRPP ended with 25 candidates each, which prompted independent MP Ponifasio to become a pivotal figure by aligning with FAST, resulting in Fiame becoming Samoa's first female prime minister. What happens next Samoa's Parliament was formally dissolved on 3 June and the country is heading to an early election. Electoral Commissioner Toleafoa Tuiafelolo Stanley had sought an additional six weeks to aide in preparations but this was declined by the Supreme Court on 5 June. RNZ Pacific correspondent Galumalemana Tipi Autagavaia attended the hearing. Chief justice Satiu Simativa Perese said there was a big gap in the constitution that conflicts with the Electoral Act, and his advice was for the next government to look at this. The Electoral Commissioner informed local media after the court hearing, in the presence of Galumalemana, that the election date is set for 29 August. He indicated that the electoral roll will close at the end of June. The head of state will provide official confirmation next Tuesday with a formal writ detailing the election date and the deadline for closing the election roll.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store