World Map Shows Countries That Owe China Money
This year, a record $22 billion in debt to China is due from 75 of the world's poorest countries, according to a recent report from the Australian think tank the Lowy Institute.
A Newsweek map based on World Bank data charts the external debts owed to China by more than 100 countries. Newsweek has contacted the Chinese Foreign Ministry for comment by email.
China's lending spree peaked in the 2010s, generating more than $1 trillion in obligations tied to infrastructure projects under President Xi Jinping's flagship Belt and Road Initiative.
U.S. officials have blasted the initiative as "debt trap diplomacy"—leveraging loans to gain control of critical infrastructure. China rejects this, saying its overseas lending operates on mutually beneficial terms.
But as repayments mount, the burden will strain developing economies and divert resources from priorities such as health care, education and poverty reduction, the Lowy Institute wrote.
China accounted for about 5 percent, or $441.8 billion, of the $8.8 trillion in public external debt owed by all low- and middle-income countries, according to data from the World Bank's 2024 report on International Debt Statistics.
The figures cover the external debt stocks of public and publicly guaranteed debt to China, alongside countries' total external debt stocks as of the end of 2023.
In absolute terms, Pakistan tops the list of Chinese debtors, owing $22.6 billion—almost a sixth of its $130.8 billion external debt. Argentina follows with $21.2 billion of its $266.2 billion external debt, and Angola owes Beijing $17.9 billion of its $57 billion external debt.
When measured by the share of total debt owed to China, Djibouti is the most exposed, with more than 40 percent of its $3.4 billion external debt tied to Chinese lenders. In Laos, Chinese loans make up 30 percent of its $20.3 billion debt burden. Zambia follows with about 27 percent of its $29 billion debt owed to China.
Riley Duke, a research fellow for the Lowy Institute, wrote in his May report: "China is grappling with a dilemma of its own making: it faces growing diplomatic pressure to restructure unsustainable debt, and mounting domestic pressure to recover outstanding debts, particularly from its quasi-commercial institutions."
Mao Ning, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, told reporters on May 27: "I can tell you that China's cooperation on investment and financing with developing countries follows international practice, market principles, and the principle of debt sustainability."
China is under growing international pressure to work with debt-strapped nations on restructuring their obligations. This could give the West a chance to regain some influence lost to China in the developing world, Duke wrote.
Yet Washington may struggle to seize the moment, as the Trump administration scales back international engagement and U.S. soft power—pulling out of the World Health Organization, slashing the United States Agency for International Development's budget and planning deep cuts to the State Department.
Related Articles
US Ally Intercepts Chinese Naval Fleet Crossing Near TerritoryChina Breaks Silence on Minerals Chokehold Threatening Trump and US AlliesTrump, Xi Break Trade Deadlock, Invite Each Other for Visits'Game-Changing' Anti-Ship Weapon Tested by US Stealth Bomber
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
26 minutes ago
- CNBC
His boss said his talents were 'wasted' at work—so he co-founded a company that sold for $29 billion
Growing up around his family's jewelry business in Sydney, Australia gave Nick Molnar an early interest in entrepreneurship. "My parents being retail entrepreneurs always taught me the intricacies of how to trade, how to run in retail," 35-year-old tells CNBC Make It. "So I do really feel retail is in my blood." As a teenager, he started selling jewelry from his family's company on eBay and eventually on a standalone website for the business. But after college, Molnar wasn't sold on entrepreneurship as his career path. "The universe told me that I should get a finance job given my commerce degree, my business degree, and so I really tried to make that a reality," he says. His jewelry business became something of an obstacle in that pursuit, however. Molnar says he would apply for investment banking jobs and companies would see his jewelry business listed on his CV and ask why he would bother doing anything else. "They'd say, 'Well, but why are you coming to get a job? You have a great business,'" he says. "It's like this weird paradigm that the world told me to get a job. But actually the truth was, I should have been an entrepreneur, but I got the job." After he started working at Australian venture capital firm, M.H. Carnegie & Co. in 2011, his boss became an outspoken champion for Molnar's entrepreneurial pursuits. Mark Carnegie, the firm's founder, would come in "every morning" and ask Molnar how much jewelry he had sold that day, he says. The website was bringing in around 2 million Australian dollars, or just over 2 million USD in annual revenue at the time, Molnar says. As a thought exercise, Carnegie asked Molnar what he would do if he gave him a million dollars to grow his jewelry business, Molnar says. "He really pushed me to be an entrepreneur," he says. "He basically said to me, 'Look, I think you're wasted right now being at my company. I will save your job for a year to give you the confidence to go and be an entrepreneur, but you will never come back.'" So he left the firm in 2012 and Carnegie was right — Molnar didn't return to working in venture capital. Instead, he continued running his online jewelry business and started working on a new venture with his neighbor, Anthony Eisen. Together they launched Afterpay, a buy now, pay later company, in 2014. Just seven years later in August 2021, their company was acquired by Jack Dorsey's fintech services company, Square, which would soon rebrand to Block. The firm purchased Afterpay for $29 billion. Though he had early entrepreneurial inclinations, Molnar chose the regular job route at first because he wanted the stability, regular income and "security of knowing that you're going to be able to take care of your family" a full-time job can provide. Early in his entrepreneurial journey, founders he tapped for advice told him the success rate for new businesses is "really low," he says. Buy now, pay later lenders are fairly ubiquitous in retail now, but back in 2014 they were rare, and virtually nonexistent in Australia. Afterpay would have to sell consumers on a new way to shop and spend. "I knew millennials needed another option," Molnar says. "Credit cards were not going to be the way they wanted to manage their spending and each time I shared the vision and opportunity with people, I was more and more convinced that we had to bring the idea to life." Still, it took Carnegie's challenge — and assurance — for Molnar to take the leap. "Even though I feel like an entrepreneur through and took the right people to give me the confidence," he says. He wouldn't go back and change his trajectory if he could, he says. He learned a lot working at the venture capital firm and says the trial-and-error period of many early entrepreneurs may have discouraged him or held him back. On top of the confidence Carnegie helped instill in him, this lack of hindsight was a "superpower," he says. "I had nothing telling me no, I had no past that was giving me muscle memory to say that like this shouldn't work," Molnar says. "I think you make the wrong decision sometimes when you stop trusting your intuition — when you're swayed by moments in your life and your journey, that probably wouldn't have swayed you before."
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
South Africa counters U.S. trade pressure with new trade deal with China
South Africa, long regarded as the continent's most advanced economy, is moving decisively to counter the fallout from Washington's latest tariff measures by turning to Beijing for new trade opportunities. South Africa is seeking new trade opportunities in China following recent US tariffs. A preliminary trade agreement with China focuses on the export of five types of stone fruit. This development signifies a strategic shift by South Africa to diversify its trade partnerships. The shift follows the United States' imposition of a 30% tariff on South African goods—a blow that has heightened the urgency for Pretoria to diversify its export destinations. Agriculture Minister, John Steenhuisen revealed this week that a new trade deal with China is close to completion, offering South Africa a valuable lifeline at a time of mounting trade tensions with its biggest Western partner. The agreement, which will initially cover the export of five varieties of stone fruit, is expected to open a lucrative channel into the Chinese market, one of the fastest-growing consumer bases in the world. The talks were facilitated during Steenhuisen's recent visit to Beijing alongside Deputy President Paul Mashatile. Speaking on his X page, Steenhuisen said, 'I can today share that after the last visit that I attended with the Deputy President in China, and our visit as the Agriculture Minister to the GACC, we were given the protocol for stone fruit.' He added that, 'The deal includes five types of stone fruit, which include plums, peaches, nectarines, apricots, and prunes—paving the way for stone fruit from South Africa to China.' By securing access to China's vast agricultural import market, the government aims not only to cushion the impact of US tariffs but also to strengthen South Africa's foothold in Asia's broader economic sphere. South Africa's pivot from the US amid Trump's tariff war This development marks a significant moment in South Africa's ongoing efforts to recalibrate its trade alliances, balancing long-standing relationships with the West against the rising economic pull of the East. For decades, Pretoria maintained strong commercial ties with the United States, leveraging preferential access through agreements such as AGOA to bolster its exports. However, President Donald Trump's decision to impose sweeping 30% tariffs on South African goods has accelerated the country's search for alternative markets, pushing it to engage more deeply with emerging economic powerhouses. South Africa's temperate climate and fertile valleys make it a major supplier of counter-seasonal fruit to the Northern Hemisphere. As the world's second-largest citrus exporter after Spain, South Africa also ships large volumes of apples, pears, grapes, and growing amounts of stonefruit, avocados, and blueberries. In 2024, fresh fruit exports rose 2.1% to 4.2mn tonnes, continuing a decade-long growth trend of 3.7% annually. By edging closer to a comprehensive trade agreement with China, South Africa is positioning itself to tap into one of the world's largest and fastest-growing consumer markets. The draft protocol, which initially covers the export of five varieties of stone fruit, could serve as a springboard for broader agricultural and industrial trade, potentially expanding into minerals, manufactured goods, and value-added products.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Note to critics of the Trump tariffs: This is not the 1930s
You could practically hear the cheering on Thursday as critics of President Trump finally got what they've waited months for — some indication that tariffs might (finally!) drive prices higher. Yesterday's Producer Price Index report showed wholesale prices jumped 0.9 percent over the last month, the biggest gain since June 2022. It followed another benign Consumer Price Index report published earlier in the week, making it all the more surprising. But, more than three-quarters of the gain was driven by services price escalation; there was some rise in the cost of machinery and other end goods, but the impact from tariffs was inconclusive. Here's a fact: No one — not Fed Chairman Jay Powell, not Goldman Sachs' CEO David Solomon, not Paul Krugman, who predicted markets would collapse if Trump were elected in 2016, nor all the talking heads on Bloomberg and elsewhere who have blasted Trump's tariff regimen — has any idea how his upending of global trade terms will turn out. There has never been a country that dominated the global economy as the U.S. now does, nor has there ever been a president like Trump determined to take advantage of that clout. Many have compared his tariffs with the stiff duties imposed by the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930, but there are huge differences between then and now, which may account for some of the unrelenting negativity about the president's program. Today, unlike then, the U.S. is the essential nation for producers of consumer goods. Americans spent $20 trillion last year, compared to $10 trillion by residents of the European Union and $8 trillion by Chinese citizens. Though the U.S. accounted for a larger share of global GDP in 1930 than it does today (35 percent vs. 26 percent), we were not the primary buyer of other countries' goods. In fact, in 1930, the U.S. enjoyed a trade surplus; last year, the U.S. had a net goods trade deficit of $1.2 trillion and an overall (including services) trade deficit of $918 billion — a record. Consequently, we have not seen countries retaliate against the tariffs imposed by the president as they did in the 1930s. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs averaged 59.1 percent on some 20,000 different categories of goods. In response, as the Foundation for Economic Education recalls, 'An outraged Canada slammed tariffs on goods that accounted for 30 per cent of American exports. France, Germany and the British Empire followed suit, either turning to alternative markets or developing substitute manufacturing that would replace goods previously acquired from America — or elsewhere, since many other countries were erecting wall-of-death tariffs.' This time, at least so far, there has been remarkably little of that retaliatory tit-for-tat. Some countries best positioned to punch back, like Canada, whose economy is inextricably integrated with that of its southern neighbor, have backed off threats to do so. Three-quarters of Canada's exports are to the U.S., and exports account for a hefty 34 percent of the country's GDP. A recent threat to slap U.S. tech companies with a heavy new tax vanished as Canadian officials tread carefully, hoping to eliminate the 35 percent tariff on Canadian imports not covered by the USMCA trade agreement, as well as a 50 percent tax on aluminum and steel imported from Canada. Otherwise, China is the most obvious hold-out to Trump's tariff regimen. Because of its grip on rare earths that are essential to U.S. manufacturers, and because it supplies a huge amount of cheap goods to American consumers, Beijing has serious leverage over the United States. Like Trump, they are willing to use it. Still, China's economy is struggling and President Xi Jinping must know that playing hardball with Trump will eventually be a losing game. 'Between 1929 and 1933,' the Foundation for Economic Education continues, 'U.S. imports collapsed by 66 per cent. Exports plummeted by 61 per cent. Total global trade fell by a similar amount.' Some consider the global depression responsible for much of the drop; others blame tariffs. Many economists and analysts today say that history should serve as a warning against the measures being enacted by Trump. The critics have relied too much on that historical comparison. In addition, political animus has driven liberal pundits to take (and promote) the darkest view imaginable about Trump's program. So far, most have been wrong. For months they predicted that tariffs placed on imports would drive inflation higher; they haven't. They predicted that the duties placed on imports would crush growth and lead to a recession. With consumer spending steadily advancing, according to credit card data, those dark days have yet to appear. Democrats are positively hoping for disaster. Trump ran on a platform of wrestling down Joe Biden's inflation; his adversaries are hoping he will fail, and they see tariffs as the likely agent of his failure. Bloomberg, MSNBC et the others have enthusiastically promoted the direst of predictions month after month, anticipating each new release of inflation data with the eagerness of kids waiting for Santa Claus. While glumly reporting month after month of weaker than expected inflation, the merchants of gloom inevitably add a '… yet.' They are positive that any minute now the tariff damage will blossom. They may be right; tariffs will almost surely boost prices, but the impact should be modest (after all, imports are only about 11 percent of our economy). At some point the pontificators will have to reassess their assumptions about how businesses and consumers will adapt to the higher duties. Many companies are scrambling to change their sourcing to avoid tariffs, and Americans are navigating around the price increases where possible. The end game for Trump is bringing more manufacturing to the U.S., beefing up industries essential to our security — like steel — and earning significant revenues as a valuable byproduct. How this all plays out is uncertain, but that Trump is committed to all three goals is not.
